Sunday, May 27, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Pirates of The Caribbean... Meh
I could write a review of the summer blockbuster, but I think this one has it covered.
Highlights:
As I was reading through some of the reviews this morning (after seeing it last night), one thing is baffling me...
From Hollywood.com:
Anyone that's seen this movie knows they left us with more than a "whiff of possibility to a fourth one." Much like the end of the second, they practically used the conclusion to start the next film. For some reason, more than one critic missed the VERY heavy handed foretelling of another sequeal.
Highlights:
Despite its bum-numbing running time, Pirates 3 can barely keep up with the cast of characters we're supposedly rooting for - the upside of which is that Orlando Bloom is relegated to the bit-part status he deserves.
That just leaves Depp to stop the ship sinking. Only he doesn't. Within minutes it becomes horrifyingly apparent that two films was more than enough of Johnny's Cap'n Jack shtick. And, while he does provide a smattering of humorous lines, more often than not he's just plain irritating, especially when they have him chuntering away to his imaginary selves.
As I was reading through some of the reviews this morning (after seeing it last night), one thing is baffling me...
From Hollywood.com:
The movie’s long but definitely worth its weight in gold doubloons, giving just a whiff of possibility to a fourth one.
Anyone that's seen this movie knows they left us with more than a "whiff of possibility to a fourth one." Much like the end of the second, they practically used the conclusion to start the next film. For some reason, more than one critic missed the VERY heavy handed foretelling of another sequeal.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Texas Toast
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Charter starting to look REAL stupid
Joe Wessels and the Cincinnati Post have picked up on the ongoing saga of the Charter Committee and the Cincinnati Beacon.
For those who don't know, the Dean of Cincinnati was denied membership to the Charter Party (Cincinnati's third party) due to the fact he was a blogger. The Dean of Cincinnati, knowing this rule was bunk, cried fould– Charter of course has had a candidate (Nick Spencer) who was a blogger and another candidate who was a TV newscaster.
One comment in Wessels' column provoked some thought:
Cramerding's comment is silly off-the-cuff rationalization. News organizations set their own limits on their reporters' political lives. I've heard of some newspapers who won't let their political reporters vote. I've heard other journalism veterans say that reporters' personal lives are their own business.
Political life is obviously a part of a person's private life.
What I've never heard is a party (or a committee that acts as a party) set such restrictive rules on membership. Cramerding's comments are sweeping in such a way that show very little thought. Why you ask? Writers for publications like The New Republic or Mother Jones are journalists, right? But they're also obviously partisan. Does the Democratic Party kick them out?
I imagine that's something Cramerding knows, but didn't think of under the gun.
For those who don't know, the Dean of Cincinnati was denied membership to the Charter Party (Cincinnati's third party) due to the fact he was a blogger. The Dean of Cincinnati, knowing this rule was bunk, cried fould– Charter of course has had a candidate (Nick Spencer) who was a blogger and another candidate who was a TV newscaster.
One comment in Wessels' column provoked some thought:
Haap was rejected, according to Jeff Cramerding, Charter's executive director, because he is a journalist. Cramerding said that people can be a partisan or a journalist, but not both. "We thought we were doing him a favor," he said of Haap. "It would be a conflict of interest if he's a journalist."
Cramerding's comment is silly off-the-cuff rationalization. News organizations set their own limits on their reporters' political lives. I've heard of some newspapers who won't let their political reporters vote. I've heard other journalism veterans say that reporters' personal lives are their own business.
Political life is obviously a part of a person's private life.
What I've never heard is a party (or a committee that acts as a party) set such restrictive rules on membership. Cramerding's comments are sweeping in such a way that show very little thought. Why you ask? Writers for publications like The New Republic or Mother Jones are journalists, right? But they're also obviously partisan. Does the Democratic Party kick them out?
I imagine that's something Cramerding knows, but didn't think of under the gun.
Labels: Cincinnati, media
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tom Green's Triumphant Return
I may be the last person to hear about this (as it started last year), but Tom Green is broadcasting a live show through the internet.
The reason I just heard about it is because MySpace is pushing his show big time.
This caught my interest for two reasons. First, I was a big Tom Green fan back in his hay day and it's good to see him back. Second, it's one of the first big name celebrities that have gone to the internet as an alternative (and not just a supplement) to other media.
If Tom Green's success continues to grow, then the formula will certainly be emulated. It's something to pay attention to.
Check out the show and the sweet set-up at TomGreen.com.
The reason I just heard about it is because MySpace is pushing his show big time.
This caught my interest for two reasons. First, I was a big Tom Green fan back in his hay day and it's good to see him back. Second, it's one of the first big name celebrities that have gone to the internet as an alternative (and not just a supplement) to other media.
If Tom Green's success continues to grow, then the formula will certainly be emulated. It's something to pay attention to.
Check out the show and the sweet set-up at TomGreen.com.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The heat is on Time Warner Cable
Time Warner (Cincinnati) will dick you around without hesitation.
That's why I dropped my service and am now living with 4 or so channels and a Blockbuster movie pass.
TW simply doesn't care about their customers and they have no competition to force their hand. I've been crying foul for quite some time now – I'm happy to see I'm not alone.
We Want Choice Ohio is a campaign that is up, running and pushing for competition in the cable television business. After all, without competition Time Warner is free to have outrageous prices and negligent customer service. Unless you're like me and willing to give up the beautiful convenience of cable TV.
Get on board with this campaign. It'll do a lot of good for the entire state and improve the flow of information and entertainment to the masses. Cable television and high-speed internet should be very affordable, if not provided by the government.
Encouraging competition in one of our country’s worst monopolies is a good place to start.
That's why I dropped my service and am now living with 4 or so channels and a Blockbuster movie pass.
TW simply doesn't care about their customers and they have no competition to force their hand. I've been crying foul for quite some time now – I'm happy to see I'm not alone.
We Want Choice Ohio is a campaign that is up, running and pushing for competition in the cable television business. After all, without competition Time Warner is free to have outrageous prices and negligent customer service. Unless you're like me and willing to give up the beautiful convenience of cable TV.
Get on board with this campaign. It'll do a lot of good for the entire state and improve the flow of information and entertainment to the masses. Cable television and high-speed internet should be very affordable, if not provided by the government.
Encouraging competition in one of our country’s worst monopolies is a good place to start.
Labels: media, Ohio politics
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Speaking of which...
If you didn't know, The New York Times, a bastion of media principles and journalistic integrity, is fighting its stockholders to keep the paper trustworthy and dependable. The stockholders are envious of papers like The Cincinnati Enquirer.
I guess they won't know what they've got 'till it's gone.
Read about it here.
I guess they won't know what they've got 'till it's gone.
Read about it here.
Labels: media
Maybe the Enquirer's not the problem
I know... It's a preposterous thought.
It's easy to get mad at The Enquirer. I usually do. When you check out some of the complaints, it's easy to put the blame on the Gannett paper.
But maybe it's not the right thing to do.
I just got back from the new ultra-violent film, the Condemned, and I took away a valuable moral lesson from the movie. The consumer is ultimately responsible for the crap rising to the top.
And yes, The Enquirer is rising to the top. It's one of the few papers in the country that is actually gaining circulation. Off the top of my head I believe it was second nationwide in circulation gains.
No. I'm not advocating the style of journalism that turns newspapers into profit machines driven by money and not principle. I'm just saying that media critics need to take into consideration that the ultimate blame is on the shoulders of the every day reader. After all, The Enquirer, and most successful corporations, are built to find out what the customer wants and then give it to them. News customers just happen to want crappy, short news stories.
It's a shame I know. Luckily, I have the most sophisticated, intelligent readers in the world.
You guys are the best.
It's easy to get mad at The Enquirer. I usually do. When you check out some of the complaints, it's easy to put the blame on the Gannett paper.
But maybe it's not the right thing to do.
I just got back from the new ultra-violent film, the Condemned, and I took away a valuable moral lesson from the movie. The consumer is ultimately responsible for the crap rising to the top.
And yes, The Enquirer is rising to the top. It's one of the few papers in the country that is actually gaining circulation. Off the top of my head I believe it was second nationwide in circulation gains.
No. I'm not advocating the style of journalism that turns newspapers into profit machines driven by money and not principle. I'm just saying that media critics need to take into consideration that the ultimate blame is on the shoulders of the every day reader. After all, The Enquirer, and most successful corporations, are built to find out what the customer wants and then give it to them. News customers just happen to want crappy, short news stories.
It's a shame I know. Luckily, I have the most sophisticated, intelligent readers in the world.
You guys are the best.
Labels: Cincinnati, media
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Will Ferrell vs his landlord
Friday, April 06, 2007
Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly makes you love Geraldo Rivera
I never thought I'd see the day Geraldo Rivera looked like an American hero. Thanks to Papa Bear, that day has come.
The fact that this guy is one of the most popular figures in the media makes me sick. It just doesn't seem fair.
But in the words of Papa Bear: FAIRNESS BULL!
(hat tip to Daily Kos)
The fact that this guy is one of the most popular figures in the media makes me sick. It just doesn't seem fair.
But in the words of Papa Bear: FAIRNESS BULL!
(hat tip to Daily Kos)
Labels: media, National Politics
Thursday, April 05, 2007
How to live "green" coming to your TV
Discovery Communications (as in the Discover Channel) is capitalizing on the trendy environmental fervor and releasing a 24-hour channel with a focus on environmentally-conscious living.
The only group not capitalizing on all the momentum of the green movement is the Green Party. Hopefully they'll get on board soon. After all, it was kind of their baby.
The only group not capitalizing on all the momentum of the green movement is the Green Party. Hopefully they'll get on board soon. After all, it was kind of their baby.
Labels: environment, media
Monday, March 26, 2007
Apparently someone misses abstinence education
As The Enquirer continues to push the abstinence debate forward, I start to appreciate the fact that we have blogs – it's the only way the truth can come out some times.
I wasn't a teen all that long ago (I'm now 23) and I guess that makes it easy for me to see why abstinence education is silly. Had my school not had the common sense to teach me about condoms, STDs and the emotional reactions teens experience with sex, I wouldn't have been armed to make smart decisions. Thanks to a simple health class that taught the facts, I'm not a baby's daddy and I've never had Chlamydia.
Yes abstinence is an option. But it's hardly "part of a curriculum." It's a couple sentences that should be dropped in amongst valid, useful information – like how to avoid the clap.
More importantly, the state doesn't need to provide funding to teach abstinence. What does the money go towards? Mandatory artificial pregnant bellies for horny teens to wear around school as a reminder of consequences?
What I haven't seen in The Enquirer's coverage of the abstinence education debate is, well, the other side. They continue to cite numbers of decreased pregnancy:
These are compelling stats, but there's no iron-clad proof that abstinence education is the responsible party. The Dean of Cincinnati points out with the Cincinnati marijuana issue, numbers games are easy to play.
What questions aren't answered by the MSM here? For starters, what percentage of female teenagers are on birth control? Has this number increased? Has Planned Parenthood (or other similar groups) been forced to order more condoms because more kids are coming in to get them?
Citing the stats is helpful, but crediting them to something that may or may not be responsible is intellectually dishonest.
At least Governor Strickland is more realistic than the editorial board at The Enquirer. Once the board starts telling the whole story, I'll start listening to them. Until then, it's just an opinion.
I wasn't a teen all that long ago (I'm now 23) and I guess that makes it easy for me to see why abstinence education is silly. Had my school not had the common sense to teach me about condoms, STDs and the emotional reactions teens experience with sex, I wouldn't have been armed to make smart decisions. Thanks to a simple health class that taught the facts, I'm not a baby's daddy and I've never had Chlamydia.
Yes abstinence is an option. But it's hardly "part of a curriculum." It's a couple sentences that should be dropped in amongst valid, useful information – like how to avoid the clap.
More importantly, the state doesn't need to provide funding to teach abstinence. What does the money go towards? Mandatory artificial pregnant bellies for horny teens to wear around school as a reminder of consequences?
What I haven't seen in The Enquirer's coverage of the abstinence education debate is, well, the other side. They continue to cite numbers of decreased pregnancy:
Ohio's program has been considered a national model, and supporters point to the reduction in teenage pregnancies in recent years. In Ohio, teen pregnancy rates have decreased from 42.3 pregnancies for every 1,000 females between the ages of 10-19 in 1997 to 33.1 in 2005.
These are compelling stats, but there's no iron-clad proof that abstinence education is the responsible party. The Dean of Cincinnati points out with the Cincinnati marijuana issue, numbers games are easy to play.
What questions aren't answered by the MSM here? For starters, what percentage of female teenagers are on birth control? Has this number increased? Has Planned Parenthood (or other similar groups) been forced to order more condoms because more kids are coming in to get them?
Citing the stats is helpful, but crediting them to something that may or may not be responsible is intellectually dishonest.
At least Governor Strickland is more realistic than the editorial board at The Enquirer. Once the board starts telling the whole story, I'll start listening to them. Until then, it's just an opinion.
Labels: Cincinnati, media, Ohio politics
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Enquirer reverses protest story
Yesterday marked the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War and, appropriately, war critics gathered to protest at Fountain Square.
The Enquirer, as expected, was there to cover the event. At least that's what you'd expect from a major newspaper like the Enquirer. But some how, Quan Truong and Howard Wilkinson ended up writing a story about Iraq War supporters instead of simply covering the event that they should have been assigned to cover.
Interesting.
Truong and Wilkinson should be familiar with the industry-standard "inverted pyramid" style of writing. For those who don't know, the "inverted pyramid" is a style of writing based on the assumption that people are only going to read the first couple of paragraphs (if not only the first paragraph) of a news story. Therefore, editors and teachers make you cram all of the key information into the lead and the next couple of paragraphs.
So why does the beginning of a local war protest story look like this?
As you can see, the writers chose to skirt the actual event and dive right into parents who have sacrificed and want that sacrifice to mean something.
Might work for a companion feature (where you're supposed to buck the pyramid a little), but makes no sense as event coverage.
Eventually the writers did start talking about the actual protest, but long after most readers have flipped the page or clicked a new link.
Sloppy writing at best, clear bias at worst.
The Enquirer, as expected, was there to cover the event. At least that's what you'd expect from a major newspaper like the Enquirer. But some how, Quan Truong and Howard Wilkinson ended up writing a story about Iraq War supporters instead of simply covering the event that they should have been assigned to cover.
Interesting.
Truong and Wilkinson should be familiar with the industry-standard "inverted pyramid" style of writing. For those who don't know, the "inverted pyramid" is a style of writing based on the assumption that people are only going to read the first couple of paragraphs (if not only the first paragraph) of a news story. Therefore, editors and teachers make you cram all of the key information into the lead and the next couple of paragraphs.
So why does the beginning of a local war protest story look like this?
The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq was marked Monday with protest and prayer, and thoughts for local families of soldiers killed.
John Prazynski of Hamilton is one. In May, it will have been two years since his 20-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Taylor Prazynski, died.
As painful as that loss was, he supports the war that took the young Marine he was proud to call his son.
"When somebody comes up to me and wants to give me all the reasons why we shouldn't be there and why we should get out now, the first question I ask them is if they are getting all their information from the newspapers and the TV," said Prazynski. "If they say yes, I tell them to go talk to somebody who has been there, in uniform. They'll tell you why they believe in the cause."
On April 9, Keith and Carolyn Maupin of Union Township will mark the third anniversary of the capture of their son, Sgt. Matt Maupin, near Baghdad airport. Maupin remains the only U.S. soldier listed by the Pentagon as captured.
As you can see, the writers chose to skirt the actual event and dive right into parents who have sacrificed and want that sacrifice to mean something.
Might work for a companion feature (where you're supposed to buck the pyramid a little), but makes no sense as event coverage.
Eventually the writers did start talking about the actual protest, but long after most readers have flipped the page or clicked a new link.
Sloppy writing at best, clear bias at worst.
Labels: Cincinnati, Downtown, Fountain Square, Iraq, media
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Enquirer takes a minute for introspection
In a recent blog entry, Editorial Page Editor David Wells takes a moment to question the content that fills the pages of newspapers:
It's important to note that Wells provides three links to the type of news people should be reading: Iran, Dick Cheney having to testify, and a misplaced $12 billion – all stories from the New York Times.
Conspicuous in its absence is the example of good journalism we should be reading from the Cincinnati Enquirer (currently their top story is about a high school basketball game).
Either irony is completely lost on Wells, or he is growing tired of the editorial choices made by the Enquirer.
The Enquirer has been participating in fast-food journalism for some time now, so if Wells' confusion is genuine, color me baffled. You can't feed people Big Macs every day and then wonder why they turn up their nose when you try to feed them broccoli.
Iran is threatening to go nuclear, the vice president may have to testify in a Washington criminal trial and Congress is investigating what happened to $12 billion in cash that was sent into Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and might have ended up in the hands of insurgents now shooting at our soldiers.
So what stories have enthralled the public in print, broadcasts, blogs and comment boards for the past three days?
Anna Nicole Smith and the off-course astronaut...
How, when and why have stories that used to be fit only for supermarket tabloids been elevated to the mainstream?
It's important to note that Wells provides three links to the type of news people should be reading: Iran, Dick Cheney having to testify, and a misplaced $12 billion – all stories from the New York Times.
Conspicuous in its absence is the example of good journalism we should be reading from the Cincinnati Enquirer (currently their top story is about a high school basketball game).
Either irony is completely lost on Wells, or he is growing tired of the editorial choices made by the Enquirer.
The Enquirer has been participating in fast-food journalism for some time now, so if Wells' confusion is genuine, color me baffled. You can't feed people Big Macs every day and then wonder why they turn up their nose when you try to feed them broccoli.
Labels: Cincinnati, media, National Politics
Friday, February 09, 2007
Anna Nicole, the media and the dark side
Anna Nicole Smith was toxic to herself, but great for media outlets.
Watching Smith at the end of her rope on national TV was amusing. It was easy to call her a lush and a media whore while she was cracking under the pressure of celebrity. But we never thought the made up world of reality TV would ever be this, well, realistic.
Watching one of the "beautiful people" crash and burn is painful – something about those who have the world in the palm of their hand not finding happiness is off-putting. Knowing the warning signs were all on a TV show (a profitable one, too) and having no one step in to solve the problem mixes guilt in with the heavy dose of shock.
Media critic Tom Maurstad says everything I wanted to say in the Dallas Morning News (read the whole thing):
I don't mean to put too much emphasis on one celebrity while there is obviously so much wrong with the world. But this one should make us take a deep breath and ask us how far we are willing to push people for a laugh.
Watching Smith at the end of her rope on national TV was amusing. It was easy to call her a lush and a media whore while she was cracking under the pressure of celebrity. But we never thought the made up world of reality TV would ever be this, well, realistic.
Watching one of the "beautiful people" crash and burn is painful – something about those who have the world in the palm of their hand not finding happiness is off-putting. Knowing the warning signs were all on a TV show (a profitable one, too) and having no one step in to solve the problem mixes guilt in with the heavy dose of shock.
Media critic Tom Maurstad says everything I wanted to say in the Dallas Morning News (read the whole thing):
Were you one of viewers watching The Anna Nicole Show on E! who turned the show into one of 2002's cult favorites? If so, then you watched as a semiconscious and frequently incoherent Anna Nicole stumbled and slurred her way through a sad and silly life filled with creeps and hangers-on. She was great stand-up fodder for late-night comedians and provided endless threads of discussion for water-cooler and Internet chat groups. But this conclusion to her life is just the latest reminder that at a time when everything is grist for the reality entertainment mill, under all that entertaining fizz is cold, hard reality.
If Anna Nicole Smith had suddenly whirled to face all those cameras that were always clicking at her and set herself on fire, she couldn't have been any more obviously a person in terminal distress. As our ongoing immersion in rehab entertainment has taught us, what Ms. Smith needed was a core group of friends and family, along with the help of trained counselors (not to mention a camera crew to capture it all) to stage an intervention and get the help she so desperately needed. But judging from the parts of her private life that she broadcast to the world, she didn't have that core group, or she didn't listen to their warnings.
And so her life spun from one tragedy-scandal-crisis to the next, from the lawsuits over the inheritance from her oil tycoon and octogenarian husband to the birth of her daughter and the mysterious death of her son. But there's an oh-yeah moment that freezes all the flash and noise around this story: remembering that somewhere there's an infant girl who has lost her mother and hasn't yet had determined for her, in what will no doubt be a highly publicized court case, who her father is.
I don't mean to put too much emphasis on one celebrity while there is obviously so much wrong with the world. But this one should make us take a deep breath and ask us how far we are willing to push people for a laugh.
Atheists under attack
Paula Zahn hosted a panel to discuss discrimination against atheists and this is what it looked like:
An angry black woman telling atheists to shut up, a blonde woman (who I swear I thought was that chick from Saturday Night Live) who parroted the first angry woman, and ESPN's Stephen A. Smith who was at least trying to make sense.
What they discussed was how atheists attack Christianity, America is a Christian nation, and that prayer should be in school (for no other reason than "it is what I believe"),
What the debate lacked was an atheist or any coherent thought. Surprisingly, the SNL-looking woman blamed atheist parents for forcing their beliefs on to children again – didn't we cover this with Jesus Camp?
I can't even do the idiocy justice. Just watch it yourself:
An angry black woman telling atheists to shut up, a blonde woman (who I swear I thought was that chick from Saturday Night Live) who parroted the first angry woman, and ESPN's Stephen A. Smith who was at least trying to make sense.
What they discussed was how atheists attack Christianity, America is a Christian nation, and that prayer should be in school (for no other reason than "it is what I believe"),
What the debate lacked was an atheist or any coherent thought. Surprisingly, the SNL-looking woman blamed atheist parents for forcing their beliefs on to children again – didn't we cover this with Jesus Camp?
I can't even do the idiocy justice. Just watch it yourself:
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Borat!
Sacha Baron Cohen has signed on to play Borat in Borat 2.
Awesome.
The only worry I have is that he'll be recognized too often to have the same impact. We'll see.
Awesome.
The only worry I have is that he'll be recognized too often to have the same impact. We'll see.
Partisan blogs are for hacks
Blogging, as a new form of media, is dead.
A concept that once had the potential to challenge mainstream media, has been bought, sold, and replicated to the point that it's not even interesting any more. Outside of a few independent thinkers (Andrew Sullivan off the top of my head), readers know what they're going to read before they even punch in www.dailykos.com.
Need proof?
Here it is.
Josh Nelson, a loyal Kossack (so much so that he went to Vegas for their convention), went out of his way to provide media coverage for a significant political event (a Ralph Nader book signing). He decided to take his alternative coverage to the popular Daily Kos and he was, essentially, given the hook.
Apparently, if something isn't singing the praises of "alternative" Democrats like Howard Dean or John Edwards, it's not worth of the pages of the mighty Kos.
I can't help but wonder, what's the entertainment value of reading a Web site that only showers praises on one party and treats anything else as evil? What's the intellectual value of only reading people who agree with you? More importantly for these activists turned media, what's the political value of only discussing the issues with people who already are on your side?
If you want to listen to people that think the same way you do, why not just sit in the bathroom and listen to your own echo?
A concept that once had the potential to challenge mainstream media, has been bought, sold, and replicated to the point that it's not even interesting any more. Outside of a few independent thinkers (Andrew Sullivan off the top of my head), readers know what they're going to read before they even punch in www.dailykos.com.
Need proof?
Here it is.
Josh Nelson, a loyal Kossack (so much so that he went to Vegas for their convention), went out of his way to provide media coverage for a significant political event (a Ralph Nader book signing). He decided to take his alternative coverage to the popular Daily Kos and he was, essentially, given the hook.
Apparently, if something isn't singing the praises of "alternative" Democrats like Howard Dean or John Edwards, it's not worth of the pages of the mighty Kos.
I can't help but wonder, what's the entertainment value of reading a Web site that only showers praises on one party and treats anything else as evil? What's the intellectual value of only reading people who agree with you? More importantly for these activists turned media, what's the political value of only discussing the issues with people who already are on your side?
If you want to listen to people that think the same way you do, why not just sit in the bathroom and listen to your own echo?
Labels: media, National Politics
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Dateline: To catch some bad journalism
Ever watch that show on Dateline where adults are lured to the houses of minors for some sex?
The appeal is obvious. You get to watch shady dudes squirm while Chris Hansen uses his best "gravitas" voice to put them on the spot. You get to watch the cops make a reality-tv style bust – you know, SWAT teams, yelling, and lots of guns being used against small, unarmed, and scared shitless men. Maybe parents get to feel a little safer knowing that Chris Hansen and the Dateline team are putting the bad guys away and keeping their daughter from coaxing old men into bed.
As entertaining as it may be, it's an embarrassment to journalism. More importantly, it's an embarrassment to our legal process.
Cops letting Dateline put a suspect on television before they make the arrest? Continued public interrogation after an arrest? Not to mention, the old rule against entrapment.
I don't justify the actions of men who have sex with children, but the way these attractive women (posing as teenagers) beg and plead with these men to make them come have sex is just crazy. Men never make sound decisions when they're thinking with their little head.
A surprisingly somewhat balanced report from Fox News:
To Catch a Predator is a perfect example of what we get when views, clicks, and ratings are the forces driving the news. Sure it's entertaining, but is it useful?
The news used to be information that we needed to know. Now it's just entertainment – check that. Infotainment.
The appeal is obvious. You get to watch shady dudes squirm while Chris Hansen uses his best "gravitas" voice to put them on the spot. You get to watch the cops make a reality-tv style bust – you know, SWAT teams, yelling, and lots of guns being used against small, unarmed, and scared shitless men. Maybe parents get to feel a little safer knowing that Chris Hansen and the Dateline team are putting the bad guys away and keeping their daughter from coaxing old men into bed.
As entertaining as it may be, it's an embarrassment to journalism. More importantly, it's an embarrassment to our legal process.
Cops letting Dateline put a suspect on television before they make the arrest? Continued public interrogation after an arrest? Not to mention, the old rule against entrapment.
I don't justify the actions of men who have sex with children, but the way these attractive women (posing as teenagers) beg and plead with these men to make them come have sex is just crazy. Men never make sound decisions when they're thinking with their little head.
A surprisingly somewhat balanced report from Fox News:
"Sexual predators running around, picking up children off the 'Net are not an epidemic … ["To Catch a Predator"] focuses on the equivalent of a sexual straw man, turning the stranger-predator into the 'epidemic,'" said Pierre Tristam, a columnist at the Daytona Beach News-Journal in Florida, who recently wrote a controversial article on the popular "Dateline" series and says the shows epitomize "tabloid pulp."
"[NBC's predator series] should quit borrowing from the shabby techniques of reality TV and return to the ethics and demands of journalism," Tristam said.
To Catch a Predator is a perfect example of what we get when views, clicks, and ratings are the forces driving the news. Sure it's entertaining, but is it useful?
The news used to be information that we needed to know. Now it's just entertainment – check that. Infotainment.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Candidates everywhere
Rudy Giuliani filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and we're supposed to be surprised.
As if it's news that someone who has been jockeying his way to the front of the polls since 2001 has suddenly considered making his decision "official." We all know he's running, yet the media hangs on to every word and every press release as if the public is waiting anxiously on the edge of our seats.
He's in. We all know it. He's just waiting for the best time (as decided by some very expensive strategic consultants) to enthrall us with the big announcement.
Why the media picks a few, high-profile candidates and zeroes in on them (2 years early) is beyond me. I can't make much sense of anything the media does these days, though.
A day doesn't pass without us getting a front-page story on Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, or McCain's bathroom schedule, but candidates like Kucinich, or even Joe Biden can't buy a cover story. Qualifications don't seem to matter when there's Obama's dazzling charisma getting in the way.
As if it's news that someone who has been jockeying his way to the front of the polls since 2001 has suddenly considered making his decision "official." We all know he's running, yet the media hangs on to every word and every press release as if the public is waiting anxiously on the edge of our seats.
He's in. We all know it. He's just waiting for the best time (as decided by some very expensive strategic consultants) to enthrall us with the big announcement.
Why the media picks a few, high-profile candidates and zeroes in on them (2 years early) is beyond me. I can't make much sense of anything the media does these days, though.
A day doesn't pass without us getting a front-page story on Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, or McCain's bathroom schedule, but candidates like Kucinich, or even Joe Biden can't buy a cover story. Qualifications don't seem to matter when there's Obama's dazzling charisma getting in the way.
Labels: media, National Politics
Sunday, February 04, 2007
My favorite Super Bowl commercial
It wasn't designed specifically for the Super Bowl. At least I assume it wasn't since I've seen it in the movie theaters for a few weeks now.
Regardless, marketing wise, Coca-Cola has achieved greatness again. The new commercial, which is modeled after the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto, takes something violent and brutal and turns it into something uplifting. Nice touch for a dreary February.
Here it is:
E-mail me your favorites. I'm sure it won't be hard to find them on You Tube.
P.S. The Bears are struggling right now, but I hope they find a way to put to put down these Colts.
Update: The K-Fed Nationwide spot gives it a run for its money.
Regardless, marketing wise, Coca-Cola has achieved greatness again. The new commercial, which is modeled after the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto, takes something violent and brutal and turns it into something uplifting. Nice touch for a dreary February.
Here it is:
E-mail me your favorites. I'm sure it won't be hard to find them on You Tube.
P.S. The Bears are struggling right now, but I hope they find a way to put to put down these Colts.
Update: The K-Fed Nationwide spot gives it a run for its money.
About Me
- Andrew Warner
- Cincinnati, Ohio
- E-mail Andrew Warner
- Andrew Warner's Profile
Support the underground
- You love the media underground. Click below and support it:
Search
Last posts
- Cindy Sheehan sticks it to the Democratic Party
- I hope Ben Affleck's wrong
- A real "Law and Order" candidate
- Oh Kobe...
- Ill Poetic live from the Taste of Cincinnati
- Interview with a new council candidate
- Best food at Taste of Cincinnati
- Naked Cowboy plugs the mothership
- Tom Green memories
- You might be a redneck... if you're an 11 year old...
