There is nothing original about how opinionated news coverage is. It's tempting to say 'how opinionated the media has become' but it's an old story. Even in the best cases there's a subtle angle or two going on in a story; at worst: well you don't have to look far or read deeply. It used to be that only advertisements and special interest messages or full page buy-ins blended message and content into a delicious slurpee of fact and fantasy. Nowadays there is editorializing run amok. A story can't rest, a tragedy can't be digested, before it is processed into agenda and counter-agenda.
As if there were not enough conflict in the world, and as if easy conclusions were not bountiful [and cheap] enough already, there is the great fight in mass media. No wonder the narrative of the contemporary is blurry: it is being constantly retouched by a cabal as neurotic and sinister and widespread as 40's Stalinist revisionists. They are your friends and your enemies, and they have your neighbor's ear if not yours. You will hear what they say, one way or another, and it may occur to you that it can't matter anymore what you think.
Naturally there is still room to read between the lines. For the claustrophobic, it is not recommended to try: the story there is generally not encouraging either. Everything surrounding it is manic, fallacious, and consistently problematic. User Comment Rodeos are a good joke but really, what an exercise in futility – in the name of some laughs, hopefully. There has to be an 'at least', and that is that we can watch the corrosion of debate and solidification of mistruth, and at least laugh about it.
I am late to that party, but even I can tell it contains some excellent observations by noteworthy members. Stephen Colbert, for one: host of the Daily Show for the 21st century. Generally the news isn't jokeworthy, and turning it into something laughable takes direct confrontation of its most negative features. Held only in context, it's kind of macabre to laugh when 'people are dead/dying'... but if you follow that rabbit hole all the way down you will lose your mind. What matters about Colbert, for instance, is that his stance is based on perspective as well as overwhelming satire. Still, I admit I am no expert, so it could be something else with his show.
What does a politics/satire late night show have to do with news media, worldwide? Only very little: an example of the brighter side. Mostly the news media that exists is corporate in nature and consumerist in action. Generally, Western media is overwhelmingly capitalistic as well, but even to bring that up anecdotally is grounds for suspicion and/or derision, which only makes it truer. When the Rana Plaza Building collapsed in Bangladesh it didn't take long for the apologists and exceptionalists to hurl their agendas into the fray. 'It's a recession, so you know what? The solution is a growing global market, stupid hippies, and that requires affordable labor.' or 'Before you pontificate about these 500 dead garment workers, just remember that many were working women – an economic and feminist victory for that country.' or 'If you think you should feel guilty about that 29 dollar t-shirt made by a worker paid pennies an hour think about these even poorer places where subsistence farmers aren't even exploited by billion-dollar multi-national corporations!'
These are the kinds of things that develop from an overly opinionated media. The story itself was buried in the rubble of a society scrambling to indemnify itself against all charges of complicity. The careful thoughtfulness which can only come from an understanding of things is ever eclipsed by the need to feel strongly about things, to feel superior to or protected from problems, and [for 'a lucky few'] to exploit strong feelings for profit or power. This is nothing new, and is probably a fundamental limit on any possibility of a human solution to the problem. What plagued us as suspicious tribes slaughtering each other in the Neolithic will plague us with nuclear weapons, drone strikes, surveillance, social unrest, and terrorism in the present.
Yeah, I'm getting all of this from a handful of unqualified public user internet commentary, some TV shows, and the odd newspaper. I sometimes cover user comment posts - it seems like a frightening low, come to think of it. Still, all of these things say something about contemporary society. Even the agendas, approached critically, sometimes reveal a little about their motivations. Still, it is not the done thing to wonder about the world. All minds bog down with immediate concerns: on that account there is either no blame to spread or too much to imagine. However, it is and has always been important to open one's eyes now and again, to accept the surprise of being wrong, and there are [in the media alone] too many entrenched positions for that to be true.
As a lowly member of the public, I feel from the media world little other than indifferent contempt – with few exceptions. I don't understand how everyone doesn't feel that way. Companies/governments/media outlets talk down to me all day, in advertisements and productions in every form of media, their lackeys on the street, the social mores they've normalized, the behaviors they encourage, police, cause, and propagate. If I think differently than I ought to, things will seem grimmer than they have to, and maybe that's unhealthy. 'Being happy is being healthy, so even in inclement times, you should focus on you, and be happy!'
Of course, feeling uncomfortable about this situation is absurd, abnormal, or paranoid. The cues are everywhere and they tell me to continue to consume the media, maintain or improve my standing in society, and that things are getting better every day. 'The future is coming, along with the following exciting products and services...'
There will always be 'incidents' and your betters and heroes in politics, business, and the media will cover those. You will know what to think the minute you hear any story, without hesitation or reflection. You might have overblown fights with complete strangers about something trifling you disagree on, but you'll never question why. The irrelevance of opinion [and opinions' sources] is the only thing in doubt. There might be opinions published in and around the news that are unacceptable because they are one-sided and/or myopic, but at least they're only kinda presented as truth, in the sense that they are argued convincingly but never based on facts.
Oh well. Agree to disagree. The headlines will confirm what you were thinking anyway. Whatever you do: don't search for cures - your old friends are waiting for you.
5/24/13
5/18/13
The Character Assassination of Robert B. Ford
It was, all in all, a great week for Toronto. The possibility of a downtown casino had been quashed by the premier, another condo development had been announced (this one will replace the aging, unsightly, and low-density Fort York), and the numbers proved what citizens had known for ten years: public transit was highly popular, perhaps too popular. All the city needed was another news story or an influx of tourists, and the golden summer of 2013 could begin.
Nobody could have expected that the greatest news story of all time would descend, causing a vortex of mad news that would spread across the world. A truly world-class story would emerge from the general rubbish of Toronto news (three parts middle-class entitlement to one part crime/poverty stories) and take the world by storm – even better: it would lead to worldwide news coverage.
Noteworthy Rob Ford hater and inveterate populist newspaper The Toronto Star had been at the forefront of research into the newest Rob Ford Media Fiasco. However, when the story became too hot for the Canada/US border it was broken by a New York based internet company, Gawker. One gets the impression of a sweating editorial meeting at the Star, shirtsleeves and pantsuits, the editor in chief wearily smoking a cigarette and shaking her head - 'They scooped us, Jesus Christ, that was our story! One more fuck up like this and we're done!' Never mind, of course, that if the Toronto Star had reported on the story first it would never have become a world-class piece of news.
It was the hottest piece of Canadian hearsay since that fuddle-duddle about Laureen Harper, which many still do not know and got to be so hot it involved the RCMP. Even the Laureen Harper rumors failed to capture the world's attention – most likely since they only existed in Ottawa, where they were firmly proved, before the media was scared with warnings about tangling with the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP. Well, move along, old story. Here's a golden one: Rob Ford smokes crack. Allegedly, because the drug dealers who have the video aren't letting it go for less than $100,000 at least, and double that for U.S. media outlets. Nobody's bought it yet, but those young entrepreneurs are proving that you don't need education or ethical high ground to make the news! Truly they are sending a good message in the Recession Era for self starters everywhere.
What do you think of that? That's absolutely world class, and the media is acting like it's shameful. In a country where senators are getting away with fraudulent misuse of taxpayer money, and the government generally looks down on the populace, the private enjoyment of privately-funded crack cocaine by a family man and Mayor of Toronto seems to be the Goliath of news. In reality it isn't even that newsworthy at all: Canada is a real country and things happen outside of Toronto. However, there is an element of schadenfreude in all this: Canada hates Toronto and the most vocal parts of Toronto hate Rob Ford. Everyone wins with a story like this.
Toronto should embrace this man, but establish firm limits on his ability to gut downtown or mass transit. Rob Ford is a brilliant statesman in the new mode: what matters is politics as a game. Promise the people what they want and then go forth, and do what you want. Words to live by. In America he would be a millionaire CEO, a Senator, or a Governor. Since it's America, he probably wouldn't have strayed far from powder cocaine. In Canada he is a Michael Bloomberg - a Canadian Billionaire and a Mayor, and possibly a Man Who Smoked Crack. This is truly world class, and Toronto owes him for his services, for the media exposure, and for the good times.
Most importantly, Rob Ford is a tenacious fighter and a winner. He has faced incredible backlash since before he was Mayor. He was the dissolute son of a rich man, they said, and just another byproduct of the broken North American Democracy. They thought he wasn't built of the right stuff, but as it turns out, Rob Ford is. Every failure of optics has been overcome, from the anger management issues, to the balance issues, to the aggressive cameraman issues. Nobody in Canadian politics is man enough to deal with Ford, and that fear is what contributes to the largely biased and negative coverage.
In a daring show of solidarity with the poor addicts of the world, Rob Ford smoked crack. He is rich enough to enjoy powder cocaine, but he wanted to let the world know that rich people can get down with rocks too, we're all generally the same - some of us are just rich enough to govern the rest. Isn't that the American Dream come to life in Center-Right Socialist Canada? Rob Ford is truly a contender in politics, unlike generally all other politicians, he isn't afraid of crime, drugs, or poor people. If his people are smart enough to spin this story the right way, he will be Prime Minister in ten years, and then the fun can really begin!
Nobody could have expected that the greatest news story of all time would descend, causing a vortex of mad news that would spread across the world. A truly world-class story would emerge from the general rubbish of Toronto news (three parts middle-class entitlement to one part crime/poverty stories) and take the world by storm – even better: it would lead to worldwide news coverage.
Noteworthy Rob Ford hater and inveterate populist newspaper The Toronto Star had been at the forefront of research into the newest Rob Ford Media Fiasco. However, when the story became too hot for the Canada/US border it was broken by a New York based internet company, Gawker. One gets the impression of a sweating editorial meeting at the Star, shirtsleeves and pantsuits, the editor in chief wearily smoking a cigarette and shaking her head - 'They scooped us, Jesus Christ, that was our story! One more fuck up like this and we're done!' Never mind, of course, that if the Toronto Star had reported on the story first it would never have become a world-class piece of news.
It was the hottest piece of Canadian hearsay since that fuddle-duddle about Laureen Harper, which many still do not know and got to be so hot it involved the RCMP. Even the Laureen Harper rumors failed to capture the world's attention – most likely since they only existed in Ottawa, where they were firmly proved, before the media was scared with warnings about tangling with the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP. Well, move along, old story. Here's a golden one: Rob Ford smokes crack. Allegedly, because the drug dealers who have the video aren't letting it go for less than $100,000 at least, and double that for U.S. media outlets. Nobody's bought it yet, but those young entrepreneurs are proving that you don't need education or ethical high ground to make the news! Truly they are sending a good message in the Recession Era for self starters everywhere.
What do you think of that? That's absolutely world class, and the media is acting like it's shameful. In a country where senators are getting away with fraudulent misuse of taxpayer money, and the government generally looks down on the populace, the private enjoyment of privately-funded crack cocaine by a family man and Mayor of Toronto seems to be the Goliath of news. In reality it isn't even that newsworthy at all: Canada is a real country and things happen outside of Toronto. However, there is an element of schadenfreude in all this: Canada hates Toronto and the most vocal parts of Toronto hate Rob Ford. Everyone wins with a story like this.
Toronto should embrace this man, but establish firm limits on his ability to gut downtown or mass transit. Rob Ford is a brilliant statesman in the new mode: what matters is politics as a game. Promise the people what they want and then go forth, and do what you want. Words to live by. In America he would be a millionaire CEO, a Senator, or a Governor. Since it's America, he probably wouldn't have strayed far from powder cocaine. In Canada he is a Michael Bloomberg - a Canadian Billionaire and a Mayor, and possibly a Man Who Smoked Crack. This is truly world class, and Toronto owes him for his services, for the media exposure, and for the good times.
Most importantly, Rob Ford is a tenacious fighter and a winner. He has faced incredible backlash since before he was Mayor. He was the dissolute son of a rich man, they said, and just another byproduct of the broken North American Democracy. They thought he wasn't built of the right stuff, but as it turns out, Rob Ford is. Every failure of optics has been overcome, from the anger management issues, to the balance issues, to the aggressive cameraman issues. Nobody in Canadian politics is man enough to deal with Ford, and that fear is what contributes to the largely biased and negative coverage.
In a daring show of solidarity with the poor addicts of the world, Rob Ford smoked crack. He is rich enough to enjoy powder cocaine, but he wanted to let the world know that rich people can get down with rocks too, we're all generally the same - some of us are just rich enough to govern the rest. Isn't that the American Dream come to life in Center-Right Socialist Canada? Rob Ford is truly a contender in politics, unlike generally all other politicians, he isn't afraid of crime, drugs, or poor people. If his people are smart enough to spin this story the right way, he will be Prime Minister in ten years, and then the fun can really begin!
5/9/13
Has the Golden Era of Adblockers Passed?
Recently I tried to watch some online video on a television channel's website. The video applet failed to load completely and it didn't take long for me to develop the correct suspicion. I disabled my adblocker and reloaded the page. No fucking video. So I open the page in a vanilla browser and it loads, a wild contrast from what I had, up till that point, been used to. On the vanilla browser there is a banner and large square add. Then the video starts and I am subjected to extra-loud advertising, TV style, with a vengeance. In addition to the other adds. Another advertisement plays, and a third, before my content is loaded.
Adblockers, with the advent of hijacked banner ads and unscrupulous marketing, to say nothing of the paranoid or political users of the internet, are not simply a tool entitled users employ to rid themselves of annoyances. Ad-blockers are legitimately a way of keeping your computer clean, of preventing your oft-used technological distractions from compromise. The fact you don't have to watch commercials (which are basically always: manipulative, insulting, indoctrinating or some shameful combination of all three) is an added bonus to not having your internet-accessing-device fucked with.
I am not a poweruser but I've been adblocking for years - since I discovered it was possible. I understand that advertising revenue drives some smaller sites, and, yes, I'd agree they deserve their due - assuming they police their advertisements for some level of quality. Fine, whatever, have your .005 cents per impression. You deserve it, plucky little website. However, the worst offenders are often large media sites – sometimes even those which already use paywalls. Let me present a brief overview of the galloping trend of online advertising.
In the early 90's during the second wave of the internet, when things became graphical enough that advertisement in the classic sense became possible, it was largely internet entities that advertised for themselves, and certain forward looking companies often related to the tech-sector. It was a simpler time. By late 1999 basically everyone who wasn't under a rock or a dinosaur was getting into online advertisement. 'Hey, check out our website at http://www.geocities.SonnysPizza/index.htm for some coupons' and other types of hilarity abounded. Whatever, wherever you got advertised to, it took a slice of your pitiful bandwidth and generally wasted time and resources, but you had to face it. Eventually MSN Messenger (R.I.P) becomes huge, and eventually it begins to advertise to you.
Side banner; top banner; .gif flames - all of these things were familiar. Between then and now the internet has grown up and come of age to the point where a huge section of people use it. All the troglodytes, termites, attractive well-adjusted people, and infants came out of the woodwork and the internet is full of everyone now. Whatever, other people will tell you about it, and some gigantic nerd could probably make a convincingly venomous deal about it... all I'll say is it drove a wave of advertising intensity that eventually rivaled the notorious realm of television adverts.
Fucking pop-ups were one thing, but there came layers of advertising that would jump into existence around key-words. Video sidebars that glitched out your browser and had to fling their audio payloads into your ears. 'Interactive' commercials made by committees of dullards and shills. YouTube videos became clogged with side, top, and skippable pre-video advertisements for every user account considered important enough to waste your time for their profit. What was once dumb, became even dumber, amen. So it goes, right? Absolutely. Yet there were additions to your browsers that would kill all advertising.
True to form, adblockers were free. They worked, and nobody who adopted them ever looked back. Surfing without them was like going back in time. It sucked, you were exposed to all the reprehensible shit that barely existed in your ideal internet experience. Going back to ads is like hitting yourself in the face with a shoe. Beautiful adblocking programs, released by benevolent and right-minded developers, worked on classic print ads, video ads, and even ads played in video content. It is like a magic balm that drives mosquitoes far, far away. For those who use adblockers, the internet just is that much less shitty. It's less claustrophobic and it can seem like the terminal cash-in state of the world has been opposed.
So of course, it comes to an end, by hosted content ('hosting ain't free, yo') which a profitable broadcaster puts online. Until very recently I had never been blocked for anything but geographical reasons (though nationalization of the internet is another ugly recent phenomenon) but a week or two ago I was denied a show I had been following online. I imagine in a year it will be impossible to skip video-advertisements everywhere, and only the smug power users will know what to do about it. Hopefully the same people who did the good work of blocking online advertising will keep up and their programs will not lapse into irrelevance due to some frightening and monstrous online advertising epidemic.
Because what the hell? You're running a profitable business already, and why not add some more revenue? Why not even more? Why not three advertisements every five-and-a-half minutes on video content? Why not have it be 30% louder than actual content, like on TV? Who cares is the commercial is ideologically loaded or bankrupt of all value? Who cares if it's annoying? 'I like money, gentlemen, and nobody gets a free lunch!'
A browser without an adblocker is a sign of a pitiable person trapped in the commercial arena, a hopeless square, a submissive lackadaisical fuck, a worthless shit hyperbole rapist. This is one fight the internet should not lose.
Adblockers, with the advent of hijacked banner ads and unscrupulous marketing, to say nothing of the paranoid or political users of the internet, are not simply a tool entitled users employ to rid themselves of annoyances. Ad-blockers are legitimately a way of keeping your computer clean, of preventing your oft-used technological distractions from compromise. The fact you don't have to watch commercials (which are basically always: manipulative, insulting, indoctrinating or some shameful combination of all three) is an added bonus to not having your internet-accessing-device fucked with.
I am not a poweruser but I've been adblocking for years - since I discovered it was possible. I understand that advertising revenue drives some smaller sites, and, yes, I'd agree they deserve their due - assuming they police their advertisements for some level of quality. Fine, whatever, have your .005 cents per impression. You deserve it, plucky little website. However, the worst offenders are often large media sites – sometimes even those which already use paywalls. Let me present a brief overview of the galloping trend of online advertising.
In the early 90's during the second wave of the internet, when things became graphical enough that advertisement in the classic sense became possible, it was largely internet entities that advertised for themselves, and certain forward looking companies often related to the tech-sector. It was a simpler time. By late 1999 basically everyone who wasn't under a rock or a dinosaur was getting into online advertisement. 'Hey, check out our website at http://www.geocities.SonnysPizza/index.htm for some coupons' and other types of hilarity abounded. Whatever, wherever you got advertised to, it took a slice of your pitiful bandwidth and generally wasted time and resources, but you had to face it. Eventually MSN Messenger (R.I.P) becomes huge, and eventually it begins to advertise to you.
Side banner; top banner; .gif flames - all of these things were familiar. Between then and now the internet has grown up and come of age to the point where a huge section of people use it. All the troglodytes, termites, attractive well-adjusted people, and infants came out of the woodwork and the internet is full of everyone now. Whatever, other people will tell you about it, and some gigantic nerd could probably make a convincingly venomous deal about it... all I'll say is it drove a wave of advertising intensity that eventually rivaled the notorious realm of television adverts.
Fucking pop-ups were one thing, but there came layers of advertising that would jump into existence around key-words. Video sidebars that glitched out your browser and had to fling their audio payloads into your ears. 'Interactive' commercials made by committees of dullards and shills. YouTube videos became clogged with side, top, and skippable pre-video advertisements for every user account considered important enough to waste your time for their profit. What was once dumb, became even dumber, amen. So it goes, right? Absolutely. Yet there were additions to your browsers that would kill all advertising.
True to form, adblockers were free. They worked, and nobody who adopted them ever looked back. Surfing without them was like going back in time. It sucked, you were exposed to all the reprehensible shit that barely existed in your ideal internet experience. Going back to ads is like hitting yourself in the face with a shoe. Beautiful adblocking programs, released by benevolent and right-minded developers, worked on classic print ads, video ads, and even ads played in video content. It is like a magic balm that drives mosquitoes far, far away. For those who use adblockers, the internet just is that much less shitty. It's less claustrophobic and it can seem like the terminal cash-in state of the world has been opposed.
So of course, it comes to an end, by hosted content ('hosting ain't free, yo') which a profitable broadcaster puts online. Until very recently I had never been blocked for anything but geographical reasons (though nationalization of the internet is another ugly recent phenomenon) but a week or two ago I was denied a show I had been following online. I imagine in a year it will be impossible to skip video-advertisements everywhere, and only the smug power users will know what to do about it. Hopefully the same people who did the good work of blocking online advertising will keep up and their programs will not lapse into irrelevance due to some frightening and monstrous online advertising epidemic.
Because what the hell? You're running a profitable business already, and why not add some more revenue? Why not even more? Why not three advertisements every five-and-a-half minutes on video content? Why not have it be 30% louder than actual content, like on TV? Who cares is the commercial is ideologically loaded or bankrupt of all value? Who cares if it's annoying? 'I like money, gentlemen, and nobody gets a free lunch!'
A browser without an adblocker is a sign of a pitiable person trapped in the commercial arena, a hopeless square, a submissive lackadaisical fuck, a worthless shit hyperbole rapist. This is one fight the internet should not lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)