Entries Tagged as ''

Bush is pissed

President Bush and his right-wing homies are pissed about this NY Times/Treasury Dept./terrorist-money watching thing, and I love it.

Bear in mind, I think they’re holding a rather ridiculous position, as some are calling for an investigation into or charges against the NY Times for reporting this story. Retards. If tracking these terrorists is such damn hard work, then quit wasting time picking a fight with a well-respected (or at least incredibly prominent) newspaper. Dicking with the first amendment is tough to do well, boys. Good luck.

Plus, while it’s true that these bad guys now know the extent to which their money is being followed, I don’t quite understand why this is such a bad thing. If they change their ways, we’ve succeeded in F-in’ up their business. If they keep on keepin’ on, then we keep on espionage-in’.

On a positive note, though, I am sincerely thrilled by fact that Bush is pissed about this. I disagree with him, but I am quite pleased that he’s showing conviction in his bitching about the Times. I can’t remember that last time I saw Bush this truly passionate about something (Sept. 14, 2001, maybe?).

Follow up: The Morning Call and the gay pride parade

In an earlier post, I wrote about the Morning Call newspaper of Allentown, Pa., and its gay columnist. Recently, Editor & Publisher gave us an update.

In this article, the Morning Call’s editor says, “Frank is a valued employee. I fully expect him to come back. He is a very valuable person to us.”

However, she goes on to say, “He was informed that [his participation as grand marshal of the parade] was a conflict. The key thing here is that the parade was described by the group as a gay rights event.”

That’s nice and all, that the paper wants to maintain a level of neutrality and objectivity. But what if this was a more general topic, like human rights? Or “don’t beat children with golf clubs” rights? Same reaction, Editor Hilliard? I doubt it.

Thanks, USA Today, for ruining the world

A recent article from the Holmes Report discusses survey research and its role in PR. Actually, it’s not an article; it’s a damn…long thing. I don’t know what to call it, but buckle up - it’s 5,600 words.

The article talks about how survey research has become a nifty little way to get a reporter’s attention and, one step better, to get some media coverage. Think of the USA Today’s Snapshot on the front page, which many people cite as a big factor in the prominence of statistics in the news. Much of this research, though, is trash. I’ll spare you the dissertation but refer you to Joel Best’s “Damned Lies and Statistics.”

The Holmes Report article offers a pretty good example of damned stats:

In May of 2000, the Times of London reported, based on data provided by the British Medical Association, that “anorexia nervosa affects about 2 percent of all women and kills a fifth of sufferers.”

There are 3.5 million British women between the ages of 15 and 25. If 2 percent of them suffer from anorexia, that’s 70,000 sufferers. If a fifth die as a result, that’s 14,000 deaths. Obviously, anorexia is a serious problem. But perhaps not as serious as the BMA and the Times would have us believe, since in 1999 the total number of women between the ages of 15 and 25 who died—from all causes—was 855.

In reality, according to the National Statisics Office, the number of women who died as a result of aneroxia in 1999 was 13. The BMA and the Times had overstated the problem by a factor of more than 1,000. Jamie Whyte wrote the editor of the Times. Neither his letter nor a correction was published, and he received no explanation of the error.

People pitch, report and read - and often believe - this garbage. You know you do it, too, at least sometimes.

Another quick example: I’m watching the Colbert Report right now (it’s real news, right?) and Babe Buchanan (Babe? Is she serious?), who’s pushing for “the fence” along the U.S.-Mexico border, and she just threw out this stat:

9o percent of Americans demand that the border be secured.

Great, Babe. Good for you. Only a smartass would say, “Nah, fuck the border. Let ‘em go.” But she’s just throwing this stat out to make her look like she’s saving that god damn world - if only she could conquer that stubborn 8 percent!

Here’s the bottom line: Valid research can uncover fascinating, valid results. PR practitioners and journalists - and everybody, really - needs to put more value in validity and transparency. Quit yankin’ people’s chains with this lame research. If you have the patience to plow through Holmes’ 5,600 words, you’ll see why.

Is simply being gay a political “issue”?

Thanks to Romenesko for point out this story about gay journalists taking part in a gay-pride parade.

Apparently the Allentown Morning Call, the newspaper for which these men work, doesn’t like their participation in the parade. Granted, these guys were not just at the parade: They were the grand marshals. Still, the paper’s editor says, “[A]s journalists, they should not take public positions on such issues because public advocacy gives rise to questions about the newspaper’s independence and impartiality.”

Seriously? Is simply being gay an “issue”? Does taking part in the parade mean someone’s taking a public political stand?

If these journalists were the grand marshals of the local St. Patrick’s Day parade, would the editor have given them the same hard time? Even in light of the “26 + 6 = 1″ debate involving Ireland, I don’t think the same hoopla would have happened.

The newspaper’s president added: “We must … never give our readers reason to doubt our credibility.” That’s true. But are gays without credibilty?

New domain

Brotha just bought www.unjournalism.com to make everyone’s life easier. The old-school http://unjournalism.blogspot.com still works, but why do all that extra typing?

By the way, here’s a funny one for this morning: Charlie Gibson of ABC hates ratings. Of course he does. When ABC’s own news release about hiring Charlie can only claim “Hey, we beat CBS!” of course you’re going to hate the rating system.

I don’t like the Miss America competition, Charlie, because I don’t stand a chance of winning it. (I’m not from Texas, and men - even me - don’t look good in bikinis.)

Quit pickin’ on Wikipedia

The New York Times is joining the relatively reserved but nonetheless bothersome herd of Wikipedia-haters. Apparently these haters don’t understand that no one gives a damn if Wikipedia isn’t 100 percent accurate.

In addition to (repetitively) noting that anyone can edit a large majority of Wikipedia’s content [sarcastic gasp!], the Times also notes that:

Wikipedia is now the Web’s third-most-popular news and information source, beating the sites of CNN and Yahoo News, according to Nielsen NetRatings.

Surely the writer is hinting at some sort of “Can you believe these whippersnappers get their news from the Daily Show?!” phenomenon, which is garbage. Yes, the Times stat says “news and information source,” but those are two completely different leagues. News is one type of…well, information, I guess, and “information” is another. You know what I mean. CNN and an encyclopedia - or a Wikipedia - serve two dramatically different purposes.

Here’s what really matters: I know that Wikipedia might not always be right, but I also know that Wikipedia will (damn near) always have an answer to what I’m looking for. What’s the deal with that prog-rock album “Frances the Mute” by The Mars Volta? No damn news site will tell you that, but Wikipedia told me what was up in about 10 seconds.

Was every fact verified by the band or its label? Shit no. But I don’t care. It’s a story about a band, not a Supreme Court opinion.

Here’s a good one: The Times (and/or those quoted in the article) takes Wikipedia to task for modifying it’s “anyone can edit” policy. (The article says that a couple of hundred articles are tagged as uneditable or require a four-day waiting period before registered Wikipedians can edit them.) Who gives a shit? Did anyone dislike Gandhi because he wore glasses? Ridiculous, right? Because it’s an obscenely small “imperfection” on an otherwise incredibly valuable resource (to use a crude, vague word to describe the old man).

P.S. - Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think, that I link to several Wikipedia articles in a post in defense of Wikipedia? You know why? Because Wikipedia had the information I wanted in the top my search results. Stick it, NY Times.

RIAA gunning for YouTube

I could cuss all day long about this, but I’m (unbelievably) going to try to class things up. Plus, if I started cussing like I want to right now, I’d never get to the news.

It appears as though the RIAA (Really Ignorant Association of Assholes / Recording Industry Association of America) is putting the heavy on video-sharing sites like YouTube. Why? Because people are enjoying the RIAA’s product (music) by signing along and posting the goofy videos to these Web sites.

Seriously? Are you even serious, RIAA? I know you people are all worked up about declining album sales. Here’s a plan, though: Rather than beat up on people who like music enough to embarass the hell out themselves like the Numa Numa guy, try making less-shity music.

Seriously? Paris Hilton has a damn album now? You all should die. Twice.

Interview with Ari

InterviewWithAri.com - HBO’s little marketing gimmick that’s part of huge push prior to the new season of “Entourage” - has all the characteristics of a great creative promotional piece. It’s quite similiar to Burger King’s Subservient Chicken site, which was - and still is - truly brilliant. It’s pushing an already popular show, which stars the man-bitch Ari Gold, who has made the phrase “Let’s hug it out, bitch” my favorite new line. It’s technically well-made and looks great on my wicked new laptop. But there’s a catch.

It blows.

For all the theoretical bits of “It should be good,” this little stunt couldn’t have been more boring. I don’t watch “Entourage” regularly, but I couldn’t wait to play this little game. Now, after trying it for a few minutes, I might never watch the show again.

The “interview” is predictable, repetitive and slow-moving, and not even Jeremy Piven’s usually funny smart-ass routine can save it.

Porn stars and politics

Nothing like kickin’ off the blog (again - this is my second stab at ‘er) with a post about porn stars. It’s good for the search engines. On to the goods…

Would it kill you, you “journalists,” to stop treating every porn star who runs for public office as some sort of legitimate news story? I do indeed like me a little Tucker Carlson - a good ol’ libertarian-leaning, bowtie-wearing young man - but he’s the most recent one to hop on the porn-star-candidate-as-news-item bandwagon.

You might remember Mary Carey, the “actress” (read: porn star) who ran for governor in California’s 2003 recall election that put “actor” (read: talentless) Arnold Schwarzenegger into office. Recently, Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto - also, not a bad newsman, overall - tried to defend this practice. Nice try, Neil.