Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

Monday, December 20, 2010

You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you

Saturday, March 13, 2010

The State Of The Media

It's hard to explain the state of media reporting these days. It's just so...so...bad. I mean it's just bad. You know what I mean. You've seen it. You've heard it. It's bad. And the folks over at The Onion have summarized the state of the media quite well with the video below.




Saturday, December 22, 2007

Taser Humor + Steroids 'R Us + One Laptop Per Child

Watching TV today as a way of diverting my attention from this cough that is drilling straight up through my throat, I had to turn off CNN, after watching correspondent Fredricka Whitfield giggling like a teenager on whippets over a video clip of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer screaming out the phrase "Don't Tase me, Bro!" just before out of control security guards Tasered him this past September 17. His transgression, you may remember, was pressing that hapless boob Senator John Kerry at a university forum. Anchor T. J. Holmes had initially responded to the Meyer cry clip, which he announced had been named the year's most memorable quote by the Yale Book of Quotations, by pitying the rambling, incoherent reply Miss Teen South Carolina, Caitlin Upton, gave at this past year's Miss Teen America competition. But he quickly joined in the giggling as well. Last night, I saw WPIX anchors Lolita Lopez and Jim Watkins chuckling heartily over the same clip. Assuming these people are not all psychopaths, is watching someone being violently assaulted by cops wielding a potentially lethal electrical device that funny? Are these people that jaded and desensitized, is Tasering people that passé? Yes, I know that we're living in a time in which not only police brutality, but state-sanctioned brutality and torture, have become so normalized they barely merit public comment, let alone outrage, but still, the drollery disturbed the hell out of me. Which makes me wonder: am I being too sensitive, serious? Or is it that the detached, zombified, overpaid media bobbleheads emblematic of so much that's wrong with our media and our society?

UPDATE: Digby notes another appalling CNN moment, this time involving anchor Kyra Phillips, who indifferently described and downplayed the fact that police were attacking the people protesting the Department of Housing and Urban Development's plans to demolish several longstanding housing projects in New Orleans. She then slanted her on-air riff to openly defend the police, using tortured and disengaged language to describe the assaults on the protesters. (I should add that my great uncle has worked for HUD for many years, and is none too fond of the clown now running it, the scandal-plagued Alphonso Jackson, the other Black person in W's Cabinet of Horrors.) One of the commenters in the Digby thread points out that the New York Times's architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff recently penned an excellent piece criticizing HUD's terrible plans. Ourousoff argues that HUD is failing not only to recognize the value of the architecture it seeks to destroy and replace with shoddier, less hurricane-worthy housing in a misguided fantasy of suburbanizing the city, but also to acknowledge the symbolic and social violence of the plans as well. He writes:

The agency refuses to make distinctions between the worst of the housing projects and those, like Lafitte, that could be at least partly salvaged. Nor will it acknowledge the trauma it causes by boarding up and then eradicating entire communities in a reeling city.

In an eerie echo of the slum clearance projects of the 1960s, government officials are once again denying that these projects and communities can be salvaged through a human, incremental approach to planning. For them, only demolition will do.

The difference between then and now is what will exist once the land is cleared. If the urban renewal projects of the 1960s replaced decaying historic neighborhoods with vast warehouses for the poor, HUD’s vision would yield saccharine, suburban-style houses. And the situation is likely to get worse. The government has identified some other historically important public buildings for demolition as part of its push for privatization. Charity Hospital, an Art Deco structure built downtown in the late 1930s, was abandoned after Hurricane Katrina, and its fate is uncertain.

I cannot say it enough, but the crimes against the city and people of New Orleans embody everything that is wrong with this administration and this country we're living in.

{{{

Sammy Sosa and sonsI've passed on commenting on Major League Baseball's very flawed Mitchell Report, which despite its flawed methodology has revealed that a far wider array of major league baseball players than previously assumed were using various kinds of performance enhancement drugs, while the owners, the players union and other players, and the MLB hierarchy looked the other way. One immediate effect of this news, and subsequent reports, should be that fanatical sportswriters need to issue a collective, stentorian apology to Barry Bonds, who has been crucified in the media for denying being a roider, and then to Sammy Sosa (at right, from the Monaga Blog) who until the most recent news about pitcher Jason Grimsley's affidavit, had not been tied conclusively to any performance enhancement drug use.

The false shock and piety, which is to say, sanctimony, from people in the baseball world, including former baseball owner and public welfare maven George W., was totally predictable. What I'm still waiting for some of these folks to admit is how much baseball benefitted from the bulked up stats, and the fact that players began earning outsized salaries compared to other professions in the early 1980s if they made the major leagues and could sustain even a modest career, so there was every incentive to juice up. There still is. For hitting a ball around a field or getting it over the plate, baseball players earn more than most CEOs, who are grossly overpaid as it is. The truth is, an entire era, up through now, will have to be viewed with "enhancements" as the norm, rather than the exceptions. This new realization must be taken into account with all of the stats and records set or none of them. Before steroids there were amphetamines, which still exist, and who knows what someone is cooking up in a laboratory even as I type these words. "Clear" was out there for a while before track and field's authorities discovered it, and only they did so as quickly as they did only with the help of whistleblowers. So long as the financial incentives exist to cheat, people will do so. My question is, who really believes that baseball is the only sport where this is a serious problem? What about the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and every other sport where chemical enhancement gives athletes an edge? Could the Beijing Olympics possibly be clean? I doubt it.

Which leads me to this link, from the Dallas Morning News: "More professionals, students using brain performance enhancing drugs." Business people, musicians, professional gamers, students...it's definitely not just pro athletes, but our society in general that needs to undergo more thorough self-analysis and critique....

}}}

Yesterday brought a pleasant surprise: an XO computer arrived in the mail, though I'd hardly expected to see it anytime soon. The computer is the result of my participation in the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program, the brainchild of visionary MIT professor and Media Laboratory founder and former head Nicholas Negroponte, who decided to develop affordable, networkable computers to empower children in the developing world. The original prototype, which I blogged about here two years ago, has been modified to some extent, but the model I received is a robust, fully loaded little portable machine containing an easy-to-figure, Graphical User Interface (GUI) atop a Linux platform. The software includes a browser, a writing program, several layers of music-making software (which I sampled right away), a recording studio with a camera (for photos, videos and audio--that's me, at left, on screen, photographing myself photographing myself), lots of games, a basic programming tutorial, and the means for children to network with others very easily, either in class or outside it. In fact, I could see children getting started on these machines swiftly and learning not only to write, but to create group projects, make music and visual art projects, create mathematical and statistical programs, write software programs, and even learn to repair their computers and troubleshoot hardware problems.

The XO has great Wifi capability (in fact, its literature say it's a fulltime wireless router), and after C added its MAC address to the base stations here, I was on the Net...in less than 5 minutes. It also easily links to local networks and fosters their creation. It has ports for a microphone (in), headphones (out), and USB-connective devices, a slot for memory upgrades, no harddrive, and only two internal cables--and it saves all projects unless you delete them. The computer's CPU suspends its CPU operation selective, allowing it amazing power savings, or about 1/10th of what a standard laptop consumes. This aspect of the computer mirrors its battery, which lasts between 6-8 hours with average use and can be recharged using a variable energy powercord, as well as via a crank or a solar or wind-powered source, to facilitate use in the many countries where electricity is a premium. The screen rotates so that it can function as an e-book, and the overall machine is compact enough that it can fit in a backpack and appears to be fairly robust, though real world use will probably assist its manufacturers in making it even more so. The only drawback I can see so far is the tiny keyboard, which is perfect for children but a challenge for anyone with larger fingers--but that's the point, this is a computer for children, though I can foresee someone down the road creating something along these lines, affordable and very robust, for adults as well. I certainly hope someone does, because the XO is a sweet little machine.

All in all I think Negroponte's idea was a remarkable one, and I'm very interested to see how the OLPC program unfolds. So far, from what I can tell, it has worked out pretty well where it's been implemented. The computers have been piloted in Nigeria, Brazil, Thailand, Peru, Uruguay, and India, and I sincerely hope that they can be offered to children in many more countries. Here's a quote from one child in Nigeria:

“I use my computer very carefully so that it will not spoil. I use it to type, I use it to write, I use it to draw, I use it to play games... I'm using my computer at home to type assignments.” — T. (Primary 4), Galadima School, Abuja, Nigeria

If you'd like to learn more, you can click on the link above, and if you think you'd like to contribute to the program, donate a computer or volunteer your time and services, click here. If you know of people who write open source, educationally-oriented software that might children can use, please urge them to contact OPLC as well.×