Have things gotten to the point where this is possible? It seems funny to me, like a bit Charlie Chaplin would have done in a silent film send-up of the Internet. It's probably not possible yet, I have to say... yet when that PR lady tweeted about AIDS her job ended and she faced the scorn of both the twittersphere and the blogoverse, not to mention the brutal comment board nebulae. Could the death of her relations with the cyber-public been caused by a simple misclick? Is it safe to laugh at her now that the dust has settled? What was her favorite album of 2011?
Here's my wild idea: she was typing out the post as some sort of perverse joke, and instead of properly screenshotting it for transmission to a few friends, she brushed the screen with her manicured pinky, inadvertently tweeting it. I know, it's so outrageous to think that someone wouldn't tweet ridiculous or hateful things that this particular example has no real value at all. Maybe it was part of a rebellious act after years of PR repression had tangled the psyche, and something offensive and sharp was needed to express frustration. A cry for help.
Well in any case it is easily possible a misclick can cost someone their job, since there are actual employers who are hysterical enough about indiscretion and deviance to fire or discipline you for shit they dig up about you on facebook, let alone the things you actually mean to showcase. This is why in real life there is the unspoken code of workplace civility, or workplace confidentiality (common in livelier, uninhibited workplaces): why people usually only express ignorant or fucked up ideas in speech, a safe distance away from recording devices, the offendable, and awkward or unexpected silences. You lose your job, next thing you know your credit is dead because you were too depressed about burning your own digital effigy to find a new job (plus the internet ruined your social credit and made you borderline unemployable, and you didn't capitalize on your pariah status), then your social life is dead because you have no money and are either couch surfing or on the street, or maybe at your parents' house. Next thing you know you're dead.
Death by misclick, but then you awaken from death as an online-only ghost, or get reincarnated as a future Social Media Expert. Really, I bet misclicks have cost a lot of people something over the years, and I'm not just talking about rounds of near-professional-level Starcraft. Of course nobody should use a misclick as an excuse, because it's a poor one, but outside of crazy hypothetical situations I am certain there is plenty of danger in them Worse on some level than a social misstep or faux pas or gauche seizure. And it's kind of crazy to think that something as small as the twitch of a finger could ruin your life, without even killing you or getting you pregnant. Or I guess that's crazy and says something about the internet era. I don't even know. I don't misclick. Not even when I post this article, or when I go most of a month without posting one. I've got to keep the reader hungry for new Publicato 'shzzt' and never admit that I am drying out, failing the exercise of writing and maybe worst of all... my faith in blogging shaken to the core.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
5/7/14
7/29/11
The Jon Stewart / Juan Williams Interview
Apparently on the 27th of June at some point there was a discussion between two individuals about certain things regarding, vis a vis, et cetera... partisanship in the media. Jon Stewart being a media person, and Juan Williams as well, it was kind of interesting. I'd recommend it for anyone looking for hope, really. Were that discussion to be multiplied a millionfold, or at least the questions involved, things might look a bit better for everyone.
And that's kind of why America is still a sort of beacon, though distorted and melted, because at various times and places certain important questions still manage to bubble to the surface. This happens everywhere and has always been happening alongside its counterpoints. Because, who knows, maybe there's some evolutionary advantage to willful ignorance. The Darwin Awards beg to differ, but how trustworthy are those who would mock serious clusterfucks?
It was simply interesting to hear the issue addressed, because perhaps the time for mocking dysfunction is actually past and we are in more serious times. Or most likely of anything, dysfunction needs to be analyzed and only then mocked, once it has been brought out of the dim caverns where it assembles its myopic empire.
The interview asked one question that so imposed itself on my imagination that I couldn't shake it, and consequently missed part of the interview. I'll paraphrase for the gentle reader's convenience, but the bit deserves to be watched by a wide audience and some of it filed away. "What would a non-partisan news agency look like?" Would it be CNN, with its gaping loss of viewership in the last decade? According to Stewart/Williams the liberal paragon is NPR and the conservative paragon is Fox News.
I admit, their delineation does not shake my weak conception of US politics. It's kind of a no-brainer and since they are de-facto Kings of North America... all I know is Canadian Prime Minister Harper is planning to built condominium jails in Toronto. Back on topic: what would such a network look like? Are there global examples? Does Canada have that sort of reportage? Yes Canada is also a theme.
Well we have recent Fox News rat finks Sun Media, aka Part One of the Royal Plan to Put Conrad Black in 22 Sussex. Furthermore, the CBC is kind of our NPR. And of course I jest frivolously, but I learned something important from the Stewart/Williams interview – inflate and deform everything to hideous dimensions. That's how demons were made in the olden days and that's how honesty can be beaten. And the whole partisanship media shenanigan is proven by the past, and that is why it can be correctly attributed as a strategy of both progressive and regressive social elements anywhere. Like any currently known tool it is ultimately directed by some person, and like any old trick it is a pedigreed thing.
And is there any uncolored information? Along with the general increase in raw volume of information, our ignorance and pettiness seem to increase as well. Our famed high-density areas are largely full of indifference and spite, and that microcosm is played out on the screen and even in governance, apparently. Which begs the question: which is the true show and which is the farce? Or is it simply that they're both fucked?
The Moment of Zen was an uncanny failure, perhaps only because July 26 2011's episode had one of, if not the best Moment of Zens I've ever seen.
 |
| American Heroes in Action, or 'Everyday Joes'? |
It was simply interesting to hear the issue addressed, because perhaps the time for mocking dysfunction is actually past and we are in more serious times. Or most likely of anything, dysfunction needs to be analyzed and only then mocked, once it has been brought out of the dim caverns where it assembles its myopic empire.
The interview asked one question that so imposed itself on my imagination that I couldn't shake it, and consequently missed part of the interview. I'll paraphrase for the gentle reader's convenience, but the bit deserves to be watched by a wide audience and some of it filed away. "What would a non-partisan news agency look like?" Would it be CNN, with its gaping loss of viewership in the last decade? According to Stewart/Williams the liberal paragon is NPR and the conservative paragon is Fox News.
I admit, their delineation does not shake my weak conception of US politics. It's kind of a no-brainer and since they are de-facto Kings of North America... all I know is Canadian Prime Minister Harper is planning to built condominium jails in Toronto. Back on topic: what would such a network look like? Are there global examples? Does Canada have that sort of reportage? Yes Canada is also a theme.
Well we have recent Fox News rat finks Sun Media, aka Part One of the Royal Plan to Put Conrad Black in 22 Sussex. Furthermore, the CBC is kind of our NPR. And of course I jest frivolously, but I learned something important from the Stewart/Williams interview – inflate and deform everything to hideous dimensions. That's how demons were made in the olden days and that's how honesty can be beaten. And the whole partisanship media shenanigan is proven by the past, and that is why it can be correctly attributed as a strategy of both progressive and regressive social elements anywhere. Like any currently known tool it is ultimately directed by some person, and like any old trick it is a pedigreed thing.
And is there any uncolored information? Along with the general increase in raw volume of information, our ignorance and pettiness seem to increase as well. Our famed high-density areas are largely full of indifference and spite, and that microcosm is played out on the screen and even in governance, apparently. Which begs the question: which is the true show and which is the farce? Or is it simply that they're both fucked?
The Moment of Zen was an uncanny failure, perhaps only because July 26 2011's episode had one of, if not the best Moment of Zens I've ever seen.
3/18/11
You really should watch the show this image comes from
Just promise me one thing, entertainment system:
Say you won't typecast the hell out of him when this is all over.
3/7/11
User Comment Rodeo
User comment boards are now-ubiquitous elements of the internet (or 'web 2.0' if you're an I.T. hipster) which allow spectators to wax sycophantic, display their ignorance, or attack their enemies. The historical precedent for the user comment board is graffiti, and how this obvious connection escaped the people who created and encouraged user comment sections is anyone's guess.
User comments are not entirely negative, nor entirely positive. Nor are they entirely like graffiti, because some people use these sections to engage in reasonable discussion. However, the percentage of society mature enough to post positive or non-offensive comments is often less than 25% – when anonymity is provided. User comment boards are repositories of hatred, anger, stupidity, and ignorance that display the opulence and redundancy of the world's internet. User comment boards are an overt concession to populism that often endorse only the forced sterilization and elimination of humanity, which makes them explicitly anti-populist, since they do not form an encouraging picture of the masses.
If you take the internet seriously, the existence and content of user commentary can bother you to a serious extent. It doesn't have to be this way: you don't have to be angry. I have been known to skim user comment sections and find useful information amid the proud declarations of idiocy, self-marketers, and trolls. For my part, I rarely post user comments, but I welcome them on this blog, and I don't mind their existence anywhere (including the famous, fractious YouTube boards). We all have to accept how they work, and that their problems are unlimited and difficult to solve.
For my example, I went to CBC.ca and read a story about the ONE and ONLY case of BSE in all of Canada this year. Considering the number of cattle raised in Alberta, let alone the country, the existence of one cow with a misfolded protein disorder is not very surprising. Considering the way livestock are farmed, it is even something to be expected, which means that the public safety organization is prepared to take necessary preventative steps and then publicize the case.
The story reads like you might expect: very basic, with plenty of nuance between the lines. It puts you at ease, but reminds you of the various threats of entropy, and the frightening class of afflictions that ravage the brain. That's it.
Then you look at the user comment section, just for the hell of it, already knowing what you will find:
There is the usual, know-it-all power user who is highly literate and knowledgeable but even more eager to display that knowledge and wisdom. Typical semi-activist user, between ages 15 and 30 (sometimes older), who will point a finger and throw as many affective terms into one sentence in order to let you know that things are scary, and that the powers that be do not care about crucial earth-shattering issues. Prions kill, but politics kill much more quickly.
Next:
There is another user, the anti-alarmist, who knows almost nothing beyond general information and disinformation and who likes to misuse logical arguments to try and force hideously biased or ignorant conclusions into your brain. In this case I will disagree with the post and write it out so you can see how user comments divide people: BSE does not exist in chickens, there are almost never bugs in cereal boxes because this is not the early 1900's, and we cannot simply trust inspectors, because inspectors are fallible and governments are fallible. Note the very high rating compared to the former poster: these are the populist types, who do not flog their own knowledge for the show, and who advocate obedience, power-worship and calm. These are people who, in all likelihood, work for an inspection agency or the government, or are lobotomized versions of the first poster, now used to placate the masses.
Next:
Ah, the common troll. The most distinctive, invariable, and prolific type of poster – the smoking gun of the internet. Trolls have loud, unashamed agendas that they flog at any opportunity, even if (as in this case) not a single opponent (animal rights activist - 'petafile' ) has posted in the user comment section. From hackneyed and rudimentary fact-arguments that are quickly abandoned for straw-man tactics to outrageous statements, the crippled mind of a common troll displays all the sorts of argumentative prowess that are not unknown to children, and therefore universally understandable: "Look at me: I'm right! Hey! Listen to me, I'm going to shout at these losers! Look how foolish they are: the facts speak for themselves. Let's lynch these losers!"
For trolls, context and timing never have to be right; only the feeling of perverse, stubborn righteousness.
Next:
This final post (from YouTube) is merely to place two types of posters in proximity. The upper poster is the 'average user' who posts earnestly to learn or sometimes merely to state an unoffensive personal opinion. These users do exist and sometimes form a majority. Often they post simple truths and maxims by which other users can avoid pain and suffering. They are friendly, responsive, and not particularly noteworthy.
The lower poster is a classic self-promoter. The classic self-promoter is often buoyed by his ability to confuse and dupe the unspoken 'idiot majority' who believe that ghosts, reversals of the law of conservation of mass, and free unofficial internet giveaways exist. Self-promoters are worth knowing if you have a million 'perpetual motion machines' to sell, or a warehouse full of decorative tacky china, or are yourself a Chinese businessperson looking to rip off westerners.
This is just the tip of the user content iceberg. These are just a few examples of the archetypal users you can find on the internet, and I hope it helps you stay cool when confronted with the multitude of unenlightened discourse available on the internet.
User comments are not entirely negative, nor entirely positive. Nor are they entirely like graffiti, because some people use these sections to engage in reasonable discussion. However, the percentage of society mature enough to post positive or non-offensive comments is often less than 25% – when anonymity is provided. User comment boards are repositories of hatred, anger, stupidity, and ignorance that display the opulence and redundancy of the world's internet. User comment boards are an overt concession to populism that often endorse only the forced sterilization and elimination of humanity, which makes them explicitly anti-populist, since they do not form an encouraging picture of the masses.
If you take the internet seriously, the existence and content of user commentary can bother you to a serious extent. It doesn't have to be this way: you don't have to be angry. I have been known to skim user comment sections and find useful information amid the proud declarations of idiocy, self-marketers, and trolls. For my part, I rarely post user comments, but I welcome them on this blog, and I don't mind their existence anywhere (including the famous, fractious YouTube boards). We all have to accept how they work, and that their problems are unlimited and difficult to solve.
For my example, I went to CBC.ca and read a story about the ONE and ONLY case of BSE in all of Canada this year. Considering the number of cattle raised in Alberta, let alone the country, the existence of one cow with a misfolded protein disorder is not very surprising. Considering the way livestock are farmed, it is even something to be expected, which means that the public safety organization is prepared to take necessary preventative steps and then publicize the case.
The story reads like you might expect: very basic, with plenty of nuance between the lines. It puts you at ease, but reminds you of the various threats of entropy, and the frightening class of afflictions that ravage the brain. That's it.
Then you look at the user comment section, just for the hell of it, already knowing what you will find:
Next:
There is another user, the anti-alarmist, who knows almost nothing beyond general information and disinformation and who likes to misuse logical arguments to try and force hideously biased or ignorant conclusions into your brain. In this case I will disagree with the post and write it out so you can see how user comments divide people: BSE does not exist in chickens, there are almost never bugs in cereal boxes because this is not the early 1900's, and we cannot simply trust inspectors, because inspectors are fallible and governments are fallible. Note the very high rating compared to the former poster: these are the populist types, who do not flog their own knowledge for the show, and who advocate obedience, power-worship and calm. These are people who, in all likelihood, work for an inspection agency or the government, or are lobotomized versions of the first poster, now used to placate the masses.
Next:
Ah, the common troll. The most distinctive, invariable, and prolific type of poster – the smoking gun of the internet. Trolls have loud, unashamed agendas that they flog at any opportunity, even if (as in this case) not a single opponent (animal rights activist - 'petafile' ) has posted in the user comment section. From hackneyed and rudimentary fact-arguments that are quickly abandoned for straw-man tactics to outrageous statements, the crippled mind of a common troll displays all the sorts of argumentative prowess that are not unknown to children, and therefore universally understandable: "Look at me: I'm right! Hey! Listen to me, I'm going to shout at these losers! Look how foolish they are: the facts speak for themselves. Let's lynch these losers!"
For trolls, context and timing never have to be right; only the feeling of perverse, stubborn righteousness.
Next:
The lower poster is a classic self-promoter. The classic self-promoter is often buoyed by his ability to confuse and dupe the unspoken 'idiot majority' who believe that ghosts, reversals of the law of conservation of mass, and free unofficial internet giveaways exist. Self-promoters are worth knowing if you have a million 'perpetual motion machines' to sell, or a warehouse full of decorative tacky china, or are yourself a Chinese businessperson looking to rip off westerners.
This is just the tip of the user content iceberg. These are just a few examples of the archetypal users you can find on the internet, and I hope it helps you stay cool when confronted with the multitude of unenlightened discourse available on the internet.
2/23/11
Notes on 'The Facebook Revolution'
Momentous undertakings continue to occur all around the Mediterranean coast and beyond, and for once it is the morally bankrupt, not the fiscally bankrupt (though the two are often simultaneously at fault - especially among autocratic regimes) that are being protested. Sure, Greece is still serious, but the real action is on the north coast of Africa.
There's lots of perspectives, and the media, as usual, is ignoring all of them in favor of 'reporting' and 'geopolitical daydreaming' and other nonsense. The fact that the Egyptian revolution was singled out and named the 'Facebook Revolution' is a particularly distasteful piece of sloganeering. Let us, this once, be honest: autocracies were toppled before Facebook. Facebook did not produce this revolution, Egyptians did. We do not need to make a mountain out of the fact that these people employed Facebook for the first few days of protests and we have to admit that they would have organized themselves without it, as they did after their internet was killed. Mark Zuckerberg has paid for enough product placements, and his property is neither particularly novel nor all-powerful - the media and every other out-of-touch organization are just romancing social media because it is the new, somewhat powerful, young, hot, and above all confused apparatchik on Journalism Blvd. Plus, Facebook is a western thing that western viewers are comfortable with, so that helps make this uprising half a world away more personable.
Oh you've no doubt seen my fallacy by now: the media sloganeers more than it reports these days. On some levels this is true, but attacking the media for sensationalism is an old approach that never really made an impact. However, that said, the media failed to report the Egyptian revolution properly, and continues to fail with other revolutions. From erroneous remarks that Egypt is part of the Middle East (it is part of North Africa, and people are displaying less geographical consciousness now that Libya is taking off) or even the Fox News map which swapped Egypt into its own geographical narrative, to lazy statements that these uprisings are an Arab thing (ever done ethnographic research into north Africa, or the history of Araby?).
Amid all this exciting happenstance, I am in North America and every day there is just news that uprisings are happening, that regimes are in danger, and what this might mean for America or the rest of the world. These kinds of stories do not help me understand what is happening, why it is happening, or who it is happening to. I already knew about Mohammar Ghaddafi and the million ways his name can be spelled. I have heard enough of Hosni Mubarak, and I realize from his constant about-face maneuvering that he is reluctant to give up the throne. What about the relatives of a dead protester? What are they saying? Why the panicky and slightly hostile talk about the Muslim Brotherhood?
But the death knell of informative, non-sensationalistic reporting came when Anderson Cooper got assaulted. I don't even know the details of this story, but he got attacked or beat up. Not to be outdone, another story surfaced about Lara Logan being sexually harrassed and beaten, and then the circus opened its dumb mouth and the focus shifted from 50/50 (uprising reporting/western news) to all the way western perspective. In a country where women and girls are harrassed, beaten and probably raped at a rate of at least one a month in every town, an invasive species of news reporter is groped, pushed, pulled, slapped into the spotlight. That's not exceptionalism, is it? Now, wait, I have to be outraged? About sexism? Again? In Egypt? Egypt? Aren't there other Egyptian things to learn about? to be outraged about?
People are dying, revolting, and rising up – in the same country, one individual faces the sort of sexism/oppression that happens in elevators and street corners in New York City (aka The Capitol of the West) every other day, and suddenly there is no other story but to shame a repressed society that is trying to undo at least one kind of repression. Bloated reactionary media response – and you can compare the 'mid-east reporting' with reports about, say, the New Zealand earthquake. There are some notable differences.
Thanks a million for the lack of information... I guess I'll have to see what RussiaToday or Al-Jezeera English have to say on the matter, while the media circus strokes its perspective, for all to see, on the television. For all I know, these uprisings are about the price of halal beef.
There's lots of perspectives, and the media, as usual, is ignoring all of them in favor of 'reporting' and 'geopolitical daydreaming' and other nonsense. The fact that the Egyptian revolution was singled out and named the 'Facebook Revolution' is a particularly distasteful piece of sloganeering. Let us, this once, be honest: autocracies were toppled before Facebook. Facebook did not produce this revolution, Egyptians did. We do not need to make a mountain out of the fact that these people employed Facebook for the first few days of protests and we have to admit that they would have organized themselves without it, as they did after their internet was killed. Mark Zuckerberg has paid for enough product placements, and his property is neither particularly novel nor all-powerful - the media and every other out-of-touch organization are just romancing social media because it is the new, somewhat powerful, young, hot, and above all confused apparatchik on Journalism Blvd. Plus, Facebook is a western thing that western viewers are comfortable with, so that helps make this uprising half a world away more personable.
Oh you've no doubt seen my fallacy by now: the media sloganeers more than it reports these days. On some levels this is true, but attacking the media for sensationalism is an old approach that never really made an impact. However, that said, the media failed to report the Egyptian revolution properly, and continues to fail with other revolutions. From erroneous remarks that Egypt is part of the Middle East (it is part of North Africa, and people are displaying less geographical consciousness now that Libya is taking off) or even the Fox News map which swapped Egypt into its own geographical narrative, to lazy statements that these uprisings are an Arab thing (ever done ethnographic research into north Africa, or the history of Araby?).
Amid all this exciting happenstance, I am in North America and every day there is just news that uprisings are happening, that regimes are in danger, and what this might mean for America or the rest of the world. These kinds of stories do not help me understand what is happening, why it is happening, or who it is happening to. I already knew about Mohammar Ghaddafi and the million ways his name can be spelled. I have heard enough of Hosni Mubarak, and I realize from his constant about-face maneuvering that he is reluctant to give up the throne. What about the relatives of a dead protester? What are they saying? Why the panicky and slightly hostile talk about the Muslim Brotherhood?
But the death knell of informative, non-sensationalistic reporting came when Anderson Cooper got assaulted. I don't even know the details of this story, but he got attacked or beat up. Not to be outdone, another story surfaced about Lara Logan being sexually harrassed and beaten, and then the circus opened its dumb mouth and the focus shifted from 50/50 (uprising reporting/western news) to all the way western perspective. In a country where women and girls are harrassed, beaten and probably raped at a rate of at least one a month in every town, an invasive species of news reporter is groped, pushed, pulled, slapped into the spotlight. That's not exceptionalism, is it? Now, wait, I have to be outraged? About sexism? Again? In Egypt? Egypt? Aren't there other Egyptian things to learn about? to be outraged about?
People are dying, revolting, and rising up – in the same country, one individual faces the sort of sexism/oppression that happens in elevators and street corners in New York City (aka The Capitol of the West) every other day, and suddenly there is no other story but to shame a repressed society that is trying to undo at least one kind of repression. Bloated reactionary media response – and you can compare the 'mid-east reporting' with reports about, say, the New Zealand earthquake. There are some notable differences.
Thanks a million for the lack of information... I guess I'll have to see what RussiaToday or Al-Jezeera English have to say on the matter, while the media circus strokes its perspective, for all to see, on the television. For all I know, these uprisings are about the price of halal beef.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)