rss

Category: Media

0

The Onion presents the formula for bullshit stories

A few weeks ago, I posted on a terrific video on a tried-and-true formula, “A Standard News Report,” used by television “news” stations to package non-stories in order to present them to the public as “news.”

Now, The Onion has presented its own version of packaging used by television “news” stations for presenting non-stories as “news” stories. Quite funny, yet serious and well-concocted. The Onion’s video looks like a news story about non-news stories, yet it presents a topic that is certainly newsworthy.


Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere

Speaking of The Onion, check out a new written Onion story on bigotry. Here’s an excerpt:

A coalition of the nation’s most fervent bigots convened in Washington Monday to address growing concerns that the production of hateful new racial slurs has failed to keep pace with the rise in mixed-race births.

0
Welcome to Prom Night

Welcome to Prom Night

Constance McMillen wanted to go to her high school prom. Like most students in the United States, she doubtless saw the event as the capstone of four years of effort, a gala event for students that represents a reward for getting to the end of their senior year and, presumably, graduating not only from high school but into adulthood. One night of glamor and revelry, dressed at a level of style and affluence many might never indulge again, to celebrate the matriculation into the next level of independence. A party where students can show themselves—to their peers and to themselves—as adults.

It has become something more, probably, than it was ever intended to be. Patterned after high society “debuts” at which young ladies of good breeding (and potential wealth) are introduced to Society (with a capital “S”) in a manner that, when stripped of its finery and fashionable gloss, is really a very expensive dating service, with the idea of creating future matches between “suitable” couples, the high school prom is a showcase, a public demonstration of, presumably, the virtues of a graduating class. Over the last few decades, even the less well-off schools strive to shine in what a prom achieves. Instead of a local band in the high school gym, with bunting and streamers and colored lights to “hide” the fact that normally gym class and basketball are performed in this room, the prom has become elevated to a decent hotel with a ball room, a better-priced band (or a DJ), and all the attributes of a night on the town in Hollywood. Tuxedos and gowns are de rigueur and students’ families spare no expense to deck their children out in clothes they really often can’t afford. Limousines transport the budding fashionistas and their knights errant to the evening’s festivities and you know this cost a fortune.

Students may be forgiven for believing that it’s for them.

In its crudest terms, the prom is for the community, a self-congratulatory demonstration of how well the community believes it has done by its youth. It is a statement about what that community would like to see itself as.

0

The biggest failing of the American news media

At Huffpo, social scientist Steven Bryant points out what the media needs to do if it wants to become respectable. The key is that “journalism needs to become journalism again”:

The news media - and not the opinion side, but the reporting side - must start reporting which side’s argument is correct… and stop reporting only the argument between the two sides itself. The inability of the media to act as “the umpire” - the referee - between the two sides of our political “reality fight” is as astoundingly detrimental a development in our civic culture as the freedom corporations now have to spend as much as they want to influence policy development and election results . . .

Imagine a future America in which - no matter how artfully one side used language to lie about the other side’s position - our journalists didn’t just interview those making such fanciful claims but called them out for being liars! Imagine how you would feel if that was what you saw on the news!

To those journalists who say “I can’t call people liars when I report on them,” I say “It’s called fact-checking. Try it. You’ll like it.”

Imagine if the evening news didn’t just report the debates going on in Congress - (as if the debates were news just for being debates… news because “people not getting along” has become newsworthy in unto itself)- but reported that “In today’s debate on (fill in the subject of your choice), Senator XXX lied about what would happen if this bill was enacted.”

Of course, to do this, the media would need to hire experienced and intelligent (i.e., relatively expensive) reporters, providing them with fact-checking crews. And viewers would need to invest more energy watching, because the stories are going to often be longer and more contentious, at least at first. Perhaps reporters will be required to warn their guests to get honest or get back on topic. Perhaps some guests won’t, and reporters will need to give them the hook, perhaps right in the middle of broadcasts. But after awhile,wouldn’t there be a big payoff? Wouldn’t the talking heads and political con artists eventually know that they will be exposed, and therefore more often show up ready to discuss what to do about real problems facing the country?

I agree entirely with Bryant, but I suspect that the media know that there is currently no financial incentives for distilling and providing useful information rather than the infotainment and the “conflict pornography” that currently pass as news.

2

How the news cycle shreds careful science

Here’s how the news cycle shreds careful science.

0

Who is crazy?

The mainstream media is going after anyone who dares to stray from what they consider to be the proper boundaries of discourse. He dares to treat mainstream political discourse “as the political freak show that it is.” That’s why Alan Grayson, who is one of the few people in Congress who is really working hard to get to the bottom of serious problems, has a big target on his back–he is being labeled as crazy by a mainstream media that doesn’t know what to do when someone asks real questions about real issues.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com explores this problem at length, pointing out the other side of the coin, that in Media-World, those who are certifiably insane are being labeled as “sane” as long as they stay within predesignated boundaries. For example:

Just consider who is supported and embraced by those who slap the “crazy” label on the forehead of every perceived dissident. Hillary Clinton — the ultimate embodiment of Democratic Party Seriousness and Sanity — supported the invasion of Iraq by warning of scary weapons and Al Qaeda ties that did not exist . . . and she spent her campaign beating her chest and doing things like threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran. While in office, Barack Obama has endorsed putting people in cages with no charges, assassinating American citizens with no due process, eavesdropping on Americans en masse with little oversight, increasing military spending beyond its shockingly inflated levels while searching for ways to cut Medicaid and Social Security, and blocking judicial review of presidential felonies and war crimes on the ground that those criminal acts constitute vital “state secrets” and must be protected. Most Serious, Sane Democrats have supported all of that insanity.

What honest person can argue with Greenwald’s list? But he was just getting warmed up. There’s a lot more, including this:

Meanwhile, the GOP establishment from top to bottom spent a decade cheering on torture, disappearances, abductions, unprovoked wars, chronic presidential lawbreaking and truly sick McCarthyite witch hunts. Both of the Sane Parties conspired to transfer, with little accountability, massive amounts of public wealth to the very Wall Street firms which virtually destroyed the entire world economy, while standing by and doing very little about tragic levels of joblessness or the future risk of Wall-Street-caused financial crises; kept us waging war for a full decade in multiple countries (while threatening others) even as we near the precipice of bankruptcy, the hallmarks of under-developed nation status and the disappearance of the social safety net; and are so captive to the corporate interests which own the Government that they viciously compete with one another over who can be a more loyal servant to those interests.

Greenwald is not suggesting that those who step out of the mainstream are always correct about everything they say. But he does give credit to Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul for not buying into most of the rubbish that we are being fed by the media. We live in world painted upside-down by a media that is largely not about traditional Fourth Estate values. Rather than feed us information that will allow a democracy to thrive, the mainstream media, based on its constant miserable failures over the past ten years, is clearly more interested in destroying those who dare to ask questions that might threaten our corporate-military-prison-industrial-Complex.

0
How to fail the media

How to fail the media

Free Press has had another good idea. This one is called “MediaFail.” The project is just now launching. What is Media Fail?

MediaFAIL is a user-powered project of Free Press that exposes the worst in American media. Just find a link, post it, fail it, and share it with friends. The top-rated submissions will migrate to the site’s front page for all the world to see.

We don’t just want to give the media a failing grade — we want it to pass. That’s why we’re featuring links to actions on important Free Press campaigns, so that you can help build a better media system.

Here’s a sample post to the new site, regarding an article irresponsibly published by ComputerWorld:

Article on the Broadband Plan written entirely from the opinions of two professional telecom analysts-for-hire, declaring the broadband plan “impossibly broad” although no portions of the plan are yet publicly available for “analysts” to inspect.

This is a great opportunity for all of us to be media watchdogs, and to strike back at the the constant flow of trite garbage, the drummed up conflict and the dishonest and lazy announcements that all purport to be “news.”

0

News story pet peeve

Here’s an example of a type of news story that really bugs me, and it happens every so often. Someone gets fired for saying something, and the entire story revolves around the thing that was said. Should the guy who said it resign? Should he be suspended? Did he have a right to say it? Intense story, right?

But wait a minute! What, exactly did the guy say? In stories like this, you never learn what he said. Nope, viewers are little babies and the news media must protect our ears from such potentially vile/rude/inappropriate language.

Or should they? It all depends on what he said, and we’ll never know. But it was rude and he deserved what he got, or maybe not.

1
Using Media-Friendly Images to Get Your Message Out

Using Media-Friendly Images to Get Your Message Out

At the recent True Spin Conference in Denver, I attended a session titled “How to Create Media-Friendly Imagery,” presented by Jason Salzman, who is the co-founder of Effect Communications, and the author of Making The News: a Guide for Activists and Nonprofits (1998). Salzman was also instrumental in putting together the True Spin Conference.

Salzman began his session with the idea that television is still the dominant news source for national and international news, according to a 2008 Pew survey. It is an undeniable fact that you need visual imagery to get your story onto the TV news. Visual imagery is also important for getting your story into local newspapers, another news source for many people.

Maybe you’re thinking that newspapers and television stations should simply be reporting on important stories, whether or not there is an accompanying clever visual image. That’s a nice idea that doesn’t happen in the real world. You absolutely need to decorate your stories with creative visuals, or else your stories will be invisible to local media. As Salzman says, “This is often ridiculous stuff, but it works.” He presented the conference gathering with a long list of types of visual imagery. He added, “When you see some of these things, you might think they are juvenile or stupid, but they really work. As long as your imagery is on message, it’s good.”

Now I know that some of you probably are still thinking that you’re not going to sell out– you would rather be dignified than be accused of being silly or desperate to get coverage for your important issue. Salzman encouraged the audience members to get over their inhibitions, however. “Stunts can be worthwhile. People forget the source, but they remember the message.”

What kinds of visual imagery seem to catch the attention of the local news media so that you can get your story some real attention? I will walk through Jason’s list of seventeen media-imagery techniques, one-by-one. He has graciously allowed me to reprint some of his slides to illustrate these ideas (using these images makes sense, of course, given the topic).

1. Costumes. Salzman stated that costumes are the “oldest and best” use of imagery available. By dressing up as a giant pea pod, he was successful in gaining considerable media attention while making the point that George W. Bush and John McCain were “two peas in a pod.” As you can see, he wore his pea pod costume at his session.

As another of many examples, Salzman described how mobs of cameras once gathered around real pigs that were part of a protest of pork barrel projects. A member of the audience asked whether it would be better to surprise the media by suddenly pulling out the costume, but Salzman strenuously disagreed. “Don’t surprise the media. Tell the media you’ll be there [dressed up in your costume].” Members of the media love stories with images. “Tell them you’ll be there and tell them how you’ll be dressed. This will dramatically increase your odds of showing up on the news.”

2. Dramatize a Phrase. Salzman pointed to an example of a huge “budget pie,” to illustrate a story that one-half of discretionary spending went to the military.

banners

3. Banners. If the timing is right, banners can work beautifully. Let the cameras pan those big banners! He gave the example of the New York garbage barge (at left).

[More . . . ]

5
The type of damage caused by media violence

The type of damage caused by media violence

Media Education Foundation has released a new video: The Mean World. This documentary studies the work of communications scholar George Gerbner, who carefully studied media violence for four decades.

What is the effect of media violence? It doesn’t seem to make most of those who watch it engage in violent acts. Rather, viewing repeated acts of violence is “likely to make us more scared of violence being done to us.”

Gerbner’s team repeatedly determined that “commercial media have eclipsed religion, art, oral traditions, and the family as the great story-telling engine of our time.” As Gerbner noted, a small handful of commercial conglomerates have global marketing formula that are imposed on the people in Hollywood [who are told] put in more action. Cut out complicated solutions. Apply this formula because it travels well in the global market. These are formulas that need no translation, that are image-driven, that speak action in any language . . . and the leading element of this formula is violence.”

This tidal wave of highly choreographed violence is unprecedented, and it is being pumped into every home. Most children now see 8,000 murders by the end of elementary school. Gerber holds that this violence is so dangerous because it has become routine.

4

A standard news report.

This video about sums it up. It’s a formula for keeping us occupied while we might be (or might not be) hearing real news:

5

Tricking news providers to report on serious issues.

It’s certainly not breaking news that the commercial news media tends to abhor careful detailed rational discussion. This reluctance of local media outlets to report meaningful news has been going on for many years.

But what is “news”? In my opinion, the most important news is information that sheds light on the way our community functions. High quality “news” informs us of the way our government is working. It warns us of collective dangers, including those dangers that we will face in the distant future. It gives us the information we need to take steps to protect ourselves, both as individuals and as a community. It is skeptical of outrageous claims, and honors the scientific method. It repeatedly reports on information that many viewers/readers might find inconvenient or disturbing, although it also balances this with information that makes us celebrate the state of our community and nation.

Reporting the “news” accurately means holding up a big mirror to viewers/readers, and those who report accurately will work hard not to be community cheerleaders who filter out “bad news,” no matter how much they want to please, distract or entertain the audience. Couple this definition with the fact that the most serious issues of the day are unwieldy. They are either legally or factually complicated, or they have been so corrupted with political spin, that reporting on the issues meaningfully will require long hours of one or more aggressive veteran reporters who are constantly being supported by his/her editor and employer.

I recently attended a conference sponsored by True Spin. My take-away is that that the majority of what passes for local “news” is starkly at odds with the above definition of “news.” Mason Tyvert summarized the types of things that are now required to pass as “news”:

2
Google, China, and hypocrisy

Google, China, and hypocrisy

You’ve probably heard the stories in the news. A superpower has been shamed, a totalitarian state has been outed. A tyrannical government has been spying on the private communications of its citizens, including that of activists and journalists. What they plan to do with the fruits of their techno-espionage is not well understood, but given their history they can hardly be up to any good. What is clear is that this government is fanatical about crushing any challenge to their perceived supremacy, whether those challenges are internal or external. They even demand that private companies aid them in censoring unfavorable news (with a stunning degree of success), and these private companies (mostly based in the United States) may even have helped them spy on their citizenry.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this was just another blog posting about Google and China. It’s actually a post about hypocrisy.

First, if you haven’t heard, Google is re-evaluating their decision to do business in China, ostensibly as a result of some cyber-attacks directed at the Gmail accounts of some human-rights activists. The U.S. State Department is planning to lodge a formal protest on the alleged attacks. Plenty of others have already analyzed this story. As usual, the real story is behind the headlines.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week:

The Google-China flap has already reignited the debate over global censorship, reinvigorating human rights groups drawing attention to abuses in the country and prompting U.S. politicians to take a hard look at trade relations. The Obama administration issued statements of support for Google, and members of Congress are pushing to revive a bill banning U.S. tech companies from working with governments that digitally spy on their citizens.

To prevent United States businesses from cooperating with repressive governments in transforming the Internet into a tool of censorship and surveillance, to fulfill the responsibility of the United States Government to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to restore public confidence in the integrity of United States businesses…

So far, so good. Restoring public confidence in the integrity of U.S. businesses might be a tall order for any bill, but whatever. The rest are all noble goals: preventing repressive governments from using the internet as a tool of censorship and surveillance, promoting freedom of expression, and so on. Just one problem: none of these provisions apply to the U.S. Government.

You see, the U.S. Government is the tyrannical superpower from the first paragraph of this blog post. You might have asked yourself why it is that the Chinese people put up with having their private communications read by their government. The real question is this: Why do you put up with it?

[More . . . ]

8

Avatar

Okay, so I contributed to the James Cameron Self Love Fund and saw AVATAR. Yesterday we went to the 3-D showing (no way I would spend money on the normal view, I can wait for the DVD the way I do with 99% of the movies I see anymore). I’ve had a day to think about it now and I’ve come to some conclusions, which are hardly profound, but I think worth saying.

Let me say up front that I wasn’t bored. Visually, this is a stunning achievement. But that’s what everyone is saying. It is, in fact, the best 3-D I’ve ever seen. Often in the past the effect is minimal and the cost in headache high. This was neither. And it fully supported the visuals rather than masking mundane or poor image elements. Pandora, the planet involved, is magnificently realized. Cool stuff. Real gosh wow.

The biology is problematic. You have a wide mix of lifeforms analogous to Earth. Some big lumbering critters like hippos or rhinoceri that also have features of a dinosaur, and some small things that are clearly wolves, and one big nasty cat-like thing that’s like a sabertooth tiger. It’s unclear if any of these creatures are mammalian, but it doesn’t matter much. Dinosaur analogs. Most of them apparently four-legged. But the “horses” the natives ride are six-legged, reminiscent of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ thoats. How does that play out in evolutionary terms? Well, maybe that’s a quibble.

How then do you evolve humanoids out of this? Well, maybe that’s a quibble, too. This film is not about science on any level, regardless of the few bits of dialogue suggesting there are, you know, scientists, and that there is a studyable cause to any of this.

Because the story, basically, is hackneyed, cynical, and cliched.

[more . . . ]