19 Screenshots that Reveal the Hollowness of Business Insider and Modern Culture in General

Dilbert IS business, basically. Laugh and care about it to advance your career!

In an era of clickbait nonsense aggregation bullshit, online content in general is in danger of becoming a lobotomized, numbers-driven, shortform mess. When I state with confidence that using the internet can make a person extremely dumb, paranoid, hateful, angry, etc... I am speaking mostly about the content aggregator sites, although mainstream media websites and the 'respected' online only publications are also wracked with issues like poor editorial standards and their habit of mixing serious stories with internet culture fluff. The end result is an uncritical and uninformed mass of people with simplistic world-views and ideas who are around you, and vote and have jobs and discuss whatever malformed ideas they have with like-minded people and shout at those who disagree with them.

I started reading Business Insider earlier this year. I don't know why, I suppose I wanted a wider selection of sites and I'd never really frequented an aggregator before. I figured it would be helpful in determining what wider news trends were... but I was wrong, because Business Insider isn't a news site. It's an aggregator with a 'business' lifestyle slant, which means it will present you with the idols of the cult of success, the accouterments of the cult of success, and Forbes-like fawning and panic about wealth with a subset of stories about actual business some of which may have been bought and paid for by the businesses prominent in that story. Looking at you Shake Shack, Soul Cycle, whatever the newest 'Chipotle-killer' is, etc...

What kept me reading was that I wanted to see how low they'd go. Some of their clickbait articles are so obvious that the site functions as a sort of case study in the decline of news caused by the massive expansion into the void of the internet. The fact that the site was successful enough to be sold for millions (more millions than I'm comfortable with) is a sign that this kind of operation appeals to someone – even if that someone is just advertising and/or PR agencies or some guy with a cargo-cult mentality who thinks reading the imaginatively titled Business Insider will get him a corner office or board seat.

That's the thing, it's not insider information, it's widely available information with a few home-brewed stories... on the one hand they put money in the hands of the people who write useless internet articles, and as much as I do pity them, they are my kind and it's better that there are still jobs where people who write get jobs (even if they go through six or more years of post-secondary education just to write for Buzzfeed or BI). To me, it doesn't matter if that person cannot spell or use words properly,and doesn't know how to use contractions, doesn't have any real passion for language or writing... they could be the biggest, least ink-stained hack of all time but if they're getting six cents a word while a video producer or hype man is out of work, I'm happy. On the other, less expansive hand, they don't produce any 'good' stuff. They provide a service that generally repeats information for a layman crowd. Longform is dead, et cetera...

It's a website that's good at being a brand, and one of those new kinds of brands launched and owned by people slightly more web-savvy than the people who run newspapers, which even as I type it seems crazy, because everyone uses the internet now. The fact remains that traditional media have not adapted super well, I guess, because there are voids where a shrewd person can set up shop and in a few years be valued at millions of dollars.

But what kind of content... that's the important question, right? What's the kind of content they got? Well, it's an eyeful, and I've been filing away some of the more mordant, absurd, and frivolous examples:

The headlines are a schizoid mix of important news and 'content', which may affect the minds of long term readers.

Interested in the insider 'hack' about hotels that you probably never knew about?

["Oh, word?" -Ed.]

Morning Show Blues

Yeah, one of those situations where there is at least one radio going on at all times, with the attendant morning radio personalities... I have been thinking and I must say it is even worse than I remember it. Morning radio is like the ugly older sibling of late night television. Radio - not only do they play the same song at least five times a day until you hate it with a more intense passion than you ever loved it (and gain the power of recognizing it immediately even faintly heard from a distance), but they've got the terrible idea of hiring sycophantic dickweeds to blabber excitedly and laugh (at me, the underemployed schlub? Go on talking about your coffee and cream, your wife's ass, why you hate winter) for a 6 - 9 or whatever morning show.

I'm sure there have been radio morning shows that are not completely oppressive and distressing for non-morning people. You know the kind of person I mean: coffee or not they are unlikely to smile, form a coherent sentence, or laugh for the first hour they're awake and working. To some varieties of them (for instance myself) the sounds of morning show hosts going on and on between ads and eerily upbeat music is worse than static, or any aggressively unremarkable or annoying song.

My brain, even when it is still half in the realm of sleep, does not approve of a bunch of modestly personable DJs doing their annoying and useless job while I add value to the region by trading my labour power for a ridiculous and mildly depressing pittance. Cognizant of the fact they earn more than me (and get to laugh out loud all the time, come up with groovy insider jokes, great phone interactions, crazy stunts, far-out contests, and yawn level jokes), I do feel a mild bit of resentment as well as annoyance. Change the station? Why risk it? You'd be surprised at the intensity with which some folk despise public radio, the music of the great canon of composers, and silence (my personal top choice for morning vibes). So what is left to me?

Answer: The annoying squawking of overpaid manchildren, combined with a hellish interplay of blaring advertisements and generally non-morning music. I don't do a line of coke or a bunch of trucker pills when I wake up, so their braying hijinks and high-energy excitedness is completely jarring to me. It is even mildly painful to the very core of my soul. I don't get pumped up by their dreary and doctrinaire choice of songs either. I don't enjoy these audio clowns, and even if they were funny, had material worth listening to, I would be hard-pressed to listen to them. Plainly put, I've only ever heard one or two radio morning shows I didn't hate, and even those were most often kind of boring.

Most stations advertise their appreciable web presence. So I wondered, who in the hell would go to the website of a radio station and check up on the blogs, latest news, and pictures from the morning DJs? I can only come up with a few major sources of traffic: intensely lonely, credible, or bored people, and the mentally ill. Otherwise incomprehensible. Plainly put, it always astounds me how much effort is put into the background of the world, where we while away our mortal hours generally enduring things we don't like. I mean, hell, I write a pretty non-important blog generally about non-topics... I add white noise to the internet. There's at least some difference between me and the morning DJ with laughter in his voice and more energy than anyone needs at that hour.

Generally I turn the radio down to reasonable limits and grit my teeth and do my work quickly so I can move elsewhere and do something else somewhere there is nobody pretending that the morning is a great or funny time (unless you stayed up all night, or are waking up to do something other than be underemployed in a mostly stagnant economy). Even the mildly funny shit, which is scarce, is run into the ground faster and deeper than a solid gold locomotive dropped from orbit. I don't know how people can stand it... you can get used to it, sure, but it is specifically just an unpleasant feature of life to me.

I've been listening to radio for years, when I was really uncritical none of this mattered to me as long as a good song came on, like the one by Aaliyah or that other one by L.E.N., or that later RHCP song about taxis or something. The era-defining hits of yesteryear were also generally overplayed and eventually annoying, and I ought to remember that, but they stuck with me, and some of your old favorites and mine are still being overplayed. I used to spend a lot of time in the company of radio, but have lived without it for many years now in the future, so coming from silence or chosen tracks to the hilarious cacophony of jokes and marketing and grut rock just adds a small element of objection to my day. Gotta blog about those awkward things, unavoidable things, and heartwarming things.

Now, if you're a morning show DJ and you're reading this and you are saying to yourself things like, "This fussy little internet geekblogger doesn't understand my dedication and verve, or the pain which I know as a morning show host, or that my slightly exaggerated manner is meant to help others deal with the pain of morning workaday life. A venerable and hallowed tradition. The skill of talking too much for minutes at a time was one I inherited from my father, who was himself a morning show DJ." Nah, man, this isn't personal and I'm not a geek... I acknowledge it's my problem I find you annoying. That you dessicate my environment with your wireless sonic depredations is just my perception of it, and I am the wrong kind of judge in this instance. In the end, I keep listening out of apathy, a perverse and ironic joy of laughing at your base shitness, and obviously for a chance to hear myself on the airwaves and win that hundred dollar wacky trivia question. Play those canned sounds again – you know the ones – and teach me how to lose my self-awareness... does your laughter taste like ashes to you?

Pay Before You Pump

About a week ago there was a fairly big story about a malicious death (essentially a murder, technically a hit-and-run) in Toronto, caused by $112 worth of gas. The victim was the clerk, fearful about having a day's wages garnished because of theft. The manager of the location, and the industry itself, which likely institutes and enforces pay-for-theft measures (like many service industries – remember, if you don't want to tip, at least pay), criticized the entire incident but itself did little. I am no customer-service scientist, but I have a feeling that franchise owners and employers weren't ever truly warned against garnishing wages for fees.

Just ask a bartender or, especially, a waiter at your next time out. They'll tell you that for dine-and-dashers, or drink-and-stumblers, they are held responsible for the lost money. They buy it. They pay for theft. It's a stupid, malicious business, but it is rational in that it makes sense. That's business – if an employee can't keep profits then the employee is punished for that. Fine.

However, the scene of this crime is far more complex even than a simple theft of food and service at a restaurant or bar. Gas prices are rising like thermometers around the globe. Record summer heat means more cars on the roads, burning gas to maintain their spots in traffic jams, and operate A/C for the frustrated, overheated drives. Let's face it: when you're a privileged North American in a car, in dense traffic, it gets slow and it gets lonely. Carpooling doesn't figure at all in the story of gas theft and murder, but I figured I'd give it a moment, since passengers can be made to pay for their passage – and they should, with gas prices as they are.

The worst part of the story was a story about a teenage pump attendant (I forget where or if he was even a teen) who was dragged to his death for something like fourteen dollars and change. It's pretty damn despicable, but potentially the worst part is how many times it took before some politician realized there was exposure in acting on it.  It only took a loose bunch of lives before the righteous opportunists of the political sphere even took notice of a looming problem. Gas won't get cheaper. People won't suddenly begin to treat low-paid service staff as legitimate humans deserving of life, as worthy and valuable others – as they won't in any of dozens of arenas around the world. Anyone who's worked retail will tell you about it, if you were wondering.

Meanwhile, angst continues to pile up in Canada. Gas costs $1.25 a litre (that's like three something a gallon) and we have something like the third-largest oil reserves proven in the dirty, shitty oilsands. Meanwhile we sell it away, part and parcel, to foreign interests and continue to pay unreasonable prices at the pump when we buy it back from those foreign interests. Instead of refineries, profits are used in a pathetic attempt to greenwash the original extraction operations. Somewhere in this nest of wasteful fallacies lies a sensible route to well-priced gas or an achievable alternative. Politics, though. You gotta have politics. Opposition to oil sands development must be the exclusive domain of malicious idiots and borderline eco-terrorists – you know: 99 percenters, Occupiers, and other idealist trash who don't know anything about business, the economy, or why the status quo is set as it is.

So it's only a matter of time until Nexen is sold to Chinese investors. I'm not even of the opinion it's a mistake. The oilsands are a mistake, what is done with them now – and if it gains certain people in this country billions of dollars, and improves trade relations with China: so much the better – hardly matters. Sovereignty has not been anything more than a byword by which the Harper administration rustles up support among the smug and hopeless of Canada. Under such circumstances, the sale of Nexen Inc is a no-brainer, and any turn-around likely to harm Canadian prospects in international trade, making it seem as reactionary and uncompetitive, as well as uncooperative and dishonest.

Looking at what Canadians will do for gas, down to the cowardly killings of attendants, some good publicity will be a windfall. So long as the oil and money continue to flow, little else matters. The big companies (NHL and NFL are currently great examples of this, as well) don't care about the lives of their most-ubiquitous employees, or pollution, or who owns what bit of oilsands. Politicians will only act if it fits in with their specific brand, and if their mandarins have seen fit for action, or if the public applause will overpower the private censure. Nobody cares, and, seemingly, neither do the people – and who can blame them? They've got to get to work, and the highways are full of inept, asshole drivers in practically empty cars, just gumming up the works.