Exercises in Inefficiency

Dear heavy-duty staple in two-page document: I hate you.

Cheap Ploy or Are People Just Fucking Nuts?

I know the media is making Hillary Clinton's campaign out to be explosive, but sheesh- I had hoped not literally.

I'm sure by now you've heard ad nauseam that some crazy fuck held Clinton's New Hampshire campaign office hostage, demanding to speak to the Fembot herself. My roommate questioned immediately if Hillary's campaign had planned this themselves to divert attention from the question planting controversy.

[Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that Bush frequently plants questions and, oh yeah, requires nothing short of a loyalty oath for people to even see him "speak." I use the term "speak" loosely, as what Bush does when he opens his mouth can hardly be considered speaking.]

This country is in a sad state if we think that every news event is a publicity stunt.

Certainly I think Hillary is taking advantage of the situation- who wouldn't? But I think the unsettling aspect of this story is not that politicians would do anything for a photo op, but that this country is full of Grade-A, All-American apple pie nutjobs.

Aside from obvious mental illness, obsession with celebrity and notoriety is dangerous one. Julia Roberts recently chased down paparazzi after they were harassing and endangering the lives of her children (and rightly so). Obsession with celebrity has provoked countless chemical dependencies, even ended lives.

Why do we care?

I'm certainly not feeling sorry for these poor celebrities - they live their lives in the public eye to a certain extent, and are well compensated for it. I'm just saying we take the obsession too far.

Let me back up here.

I think, actually, that the underlying point is a lack of respect for privacy. I recall discussing in at least two of my classes last week that younger generations brought up in the computer age have no problem with volunteering information about themselves online and in fact do not even expect a basic level of privacy. These are people just a few years younger than me.

Advertisers especially have jumped on this. They have even ruined Christmas for one man. If advertisers can do this in the name of "market research," what's to stop the government from compiling data about your every move? And what's to stop Wal-Mart or Google from running our country anyway?

I have no solutions.

And thus, on this bleak note, I close my blogging venture and leave it at the mercy of my professor.

You know I'm no optimist.

Book Review: The Wealth of Networks; Law vs. Culture

Yochai Benkler is one worrrrrrrrdy bastard.

By now the point has been belabored that the networked economy cannot and should not be treated like a proprietary economy. Though it is necessary to preserve some proprietary rights, it would be disastrous to do so in areas such as science and medicine. Obtuse policy makers and greedy Hollywood bigwigs alike don't seem to realize that even if proprietary restrictions are placed on information and end-products, people will find a way around them. I personally am quite thankful this is so; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to see my favorite drug-dealing suburban MILF on Weeds every week.

At the root of these attempts to force proprietary rights on the networked economy is fear. Fear that, mostly, money will not be made. It's the fear that most industries connected even marginally to the internet have. It's also entirely irrational. There will always be a way to make money, it just might not be in the traditional sense. Corporations will just have to adapt - the people already have.

Benkler offers a variety of explanations for attempts of policy makers to control the networked economy. His arguments fall short sometimes due to rapidly changing network industries - some of the companies he cites simply do not exist anymore. And this is precisely the reason why policy makers cannot continue to treat the networked economy like a traditional material economy. It simply outgrows its legal boundaries, and policy cannot keep up. I do believe, however, that Benkler agrees with me there.

Attempts of policy makers to curb the growth and free-for-all nature of the networked economy are, in some cases, ludicrous. The expansion of patents and copyright especially penalize nonproprietary items by disallowing use of intellectual property that could be considered by now common knowledge, or potentially life-saving. These restrictions can sometimes last several decades beyond their practical use.

It is a question, then, of whether law will prevail over culture and knowledge. It's clear that many other writers can imagine this dystopian drive, where service is highly regulated and restricted, where innovation stemming from the "commons" will be stunted entirely, where the government will be able to tell exactly what you do online.

We're really only a few clicks away from this anyway. Right now, through the use of cookies and other slyly invasive technologies, you are being profiled and sold to advertisers. If your interests can be tracked now by advertising firms, what's to stop the government from compiling information about you? They might be already.

But, aside from my digression, the main thing to take away from The Wealth of Networks is that the networked economy cannot be treated like a traditional, proprietary economy (he only repeats it about a million times). Forcing property-based restrictions on nonproprietary items is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's clear that the rights that need to be preserved (that is, rights for those who are truly innovative) should be preserved, but the method of preservation will just have to adapt.

Politicians and Celebrities and Politicians as Celebrities

Old maids, spinsters, and crazy cat ladies alike can now shed their stigma - they're the hottest new voting bloc this election, with the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals'" - at least until they're dumped after the election (they're used to it). Then, some other marginally marginal group will emerge, like the gays. Or something.

Courting unmarried women (ha ha. ha.), campaigns frequently use celebrity endorsements to influence voting habits. Oprah now endorses Obama; the Edwards campaign is "sending its own celebrities in search of female voters," as if they didn't already notice his million-watt smile.

Swoon.


Democrats, meet your biggest supporter. Pretend those cats are Republicans, and she's throwing them right back at those red states.

Will using celebrities to campaign for politicians by association make celebrities the new politicians? Is there even a line between politics and celebrity? Arnold governates, Fred Thompson bores the audience to tears both on and off Law and Order, Stephen Colbert tries to run on both tickets in South Carolina. The same was true decades ago: JFK and Bobby were both celebrities in their own right.

The use of celebrities begs the question - why are celebrities more trustworthy than our peers? We've never met these people, and more than likely we have nothing in common with them. Really, just how big is the $20,000-a-month coke habit constituency anyway? Why does what they say matter?

There is also a tendency to believe that women subscribe more to celebrity culture. Look in any beauty parlor and you will find stacks of Us Weekly or Star. Does this mean women are more susceptible to media messages or that somehow women are less intelligent?

I would like to think not. I would also like to urge people, regardless of gender, to listen not to The Clooney or Oprah but to their own opinions about a candidate's policy.

That is, of course, if they have time to think after they're done in the kitchen.

Question: Why Did I Leave Again?

They say you can never go home again.

Well, you can. I did.

Oh San Francisco, the moment I stepped out of the 16th & Mission BART station and took in your lovely bouquet of piss and cheap alcohol and three weeks' worth of homeless body stench, I knew I was home. I missed you, crazy fuck in the garbage bag, sprawled out across the bus stop. And you- you transvestite that repeatedly harassed me for cigarettes every morning waiting for the train even though you had two lit in your hand (and despite the fact that I don't smoke)- there really is no one else quite like you. I love you.

I forgot what a real burrito tasted like; I forgot what dirty bars feel like; I forgot how great it feels to be around people who are absolutely and completely nuts.

DC: you're too closeted. Go ahead and admit that coke habit, run free with your cracky, skanky gay hooker habit. Dare to go out in public without popping that pastel pink collar.

Be fucking weird.

Or at least import some good crazies for my daily bus ride. Good, proper Christian South Carolinians are fucking boring to watch on my way to school. An idea? North vs. South Carolina throwdown- 1,2,3, go! If I can't have a nice bum fight, I'd settle for Southern belle fight in pearls (you know those girls are dirty).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat some sourdough, drink some Peet's, and watch the birds drown in the oily bay.

No mention of actual schoolwork here, no sir.

Dear Cloon, I'm Sorry.

I know I'm heightist. I know. I dated a guy who was an inch shorter than me but in the end I just couldn't do it. I dumped him.

It might have had more to do with the fact that he disappeared on me for a month while trying to get back together with his ex-girlfriend who had just come back from Namibia than it did with him being an elf.

You might recall that earlier I semi-ranted on George Clooney being short. I stand by my word - he is a shorty. But that does not make him any less attractive or intelligent. Notice, for example, this fact I so blithely left out: the father of all my crushes, Jon Stewart, is a fucking munchkin. And I loooooooves it.

[Side note: I'm slightly disturbed by the fact that the three men I've mentioned having a crush on in my blog are all grey-haired and twenty years my senior, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]

In a Rolling Stone interview- perfect bathroom reading, I might add- The Clooney had this to say:

"The Information Age? It's great, it's readily available, and it's also dangerous. The bloggers think they're the Murrows of the future, and that anchormen and news organizations are archaic. Here's the problem: If you're a blogger, who's your ombudsman? Who do I go to when you're wrong? Who can I hold responsible?"

Okay, first: some people who read this quote, and the interview as a whole, are going to think The Clooney is drunk with self-importance. He's just an actor; what the hell does he know about improving the world?

Second: given that our politicians are the most corrupt this country has ever seen, I'm pretty sure anyone could do a better job, even actors.



Look what a He-Man he is.

Third: he's right. Blogging is not subject to the same accuracy standards that broadcast news is. This is not to say broadcast news is better; in fact, I don't think you can even call it news today. But blogging can be irresponsible and dangerous. There are a bunch of nutjobs out there who believe in genocide or just live in their Mommy's basement with their erectile dysfunction and their middle age and spend their days trolling around the internet leaving incoherent ideologies and insulting everyone. Just ask Tyler - we both have experience with the crazies.

[Side note again, more of a rhetorical question, really: why does insurance cover medication for erectile dysfunction but not birth control? Why is it more important for a man to achieve an erection than to provide women with control over their own bodies? If it's a matter of money, wouldn't it be cheaper not to have the cost of a child? Why is this country so ass-backward when it comes to sex? Oh yes, it's because men like this, who repeatedly anally rape their wives while preaching to evangelicals about the sanctity of marriage, are part of the FDA.]

If people are to take blogging more seriously, there needs to be an avenue to ensure accuracy and fairness, as The Clooney laments. But the expense of that would be astronomical, and near impossible on a strategic level. Perhaps the future is collective action - that is, policing each other on social norms. It already works for Wikipedia, why not for blogs?

Book Review, Part II: Tom Tancredo For President of Glassy Eyes

I don't know which 24-hour news channel I was watching yesterday, but Tom Tancredo's new campaign spot was highlighted for its fear mongering and a desperate attempt to say, "hey, look at me, I'm running for president- no really, I am- my name's Tom, and I have serial killer eyes."*

Well, maybe journalists would be hesitant to call them serial killer eyes- that's rank speculation, something they know nothing about- but they did identify the desperate grab for attention for what it was, since most people have no idea who Tom Tancredo is. Not exactly a novel revelation, since most campaign ads are grabs for attention. But this one really does stick out, see for yourself:



Why is this disturbing?

Americans already confuse Iraq with Iran with Afghanistan with North Korea with Pakistan; hell, they can't even locate their own country on a map (unless, of course, they think the whole world is America). In talking about our "open borders," Tancredo is implying that Mexicans are Islamic terrorists.

You know what, I'm just going to go ahead and say it: Mexico was responsible for 9/11.

Shit, did I say Mexico? I meant Canada.

Shit, did I say Canada? I meant France.

Shit, did I say France? I meant...France.**

What else is disturbing about Tancredo's irresponsible ad? Well, it is "illegal to censor a candidate's political ad," and must be aired "even if a station...[knows it to be] unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive" (Interplay of Influence 288-290). This is not to say that Tancredo is the only political candidate ever to air an offensive or inaccurate ad- plenty have, can you say Swift Boat? But what the hell?! This requires Americans to investigate on their own the allegations of campaign ads, but, given that most Americans don't know where their country is on a map, this is highly doubtful.

If candidates are sold like products, as Interplay of Influence claims, then their advertisements should be held to the same standards as consumer products. Wild allegations must be proven. In fact, there should be some product labeling. Instead of calories and trans fats, maybe we should measure bullshit and hypocrisy, creepiness. Then maybe we'd know what we were getting ourselves into.

For example:

George W. Bush
Age: 61
Ingredients: horse shit, crude oil, born-again Christian hypocrisy (hypoChristian?), puppy dog tails, that pretzel he choked on in 2002, nepotism, marbles.

It would make everything a whole lot easier.

-----------------------

*I once worked with this guy whom we called Serial Killer, SK for short. He had this incredibly creepy lurking problem. Like, you'd look up and he's staring at you silently. You look away for a split second and then he's gone.
**I don't mean it, Julie!

Should It Bother Me He Shares His First Name With My Father?

I may be a little behind here, but this pretty much confirms what I've been suspecting for a while- that Keith Olbermann has more balls than Stephen Colbert does, and that I have a huge crush on Keith Olbermann.



On the chance that you're afflicted with the same intellectual infatuation I am, check out more videos like this- hell, just type in his name on YouTube, you should get nearly 3,000 videos. Sure, some call him belligerent and over the top, but I call him best example of the freedom America affords to all of us until Bush decides to revoke the Constitution completely.

And he's not so bad to look at, either. Eh?

Eh?

BREAKING NEWS: I Gave Supermodel Too Much Credit

Apparently one shouldn't trust a column called "The Daily Dish." Turns out gossip is just gossip. Who knew?

Gisele Bundchen does not require payment in Euros only. She did not make a sound financial decision, after all.

I apologize to those who have found their worlds turned upside-down from my previous revelation that a supermodel has done something intelligent. Have no fear: the world has been righted again.

Does God Know Giuliani Is a Drag Queen?

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani. I think perhaps his assistants may have mixed up a few words much like a frat boy would - such as "no" meaning "yes." Apparently someone told this evangelical nutjob that Giuliani is NOT pro-choice, NOT for gay rights, has NOT been married three times.

NOT meaning "yes, of course he is, you right-wing zealous apefuck."

I'm not exactly sure why Robertson did this, unless he's an evil genius intent on killing any support Giuliani would have with normal people.

Actually, you know what? Go ahead, Pat.

BREAKING NEWS: Supermodel Does Something Intelligent

Also, say goodbye to the real value of your savings.

Sorry to break it to you kids, but the US is not the best, richest, smartest, most powerful country in the world.

Why’s that? The value of the dollar has steadily been decreasing in comparison to the Euro (and any currency for that matter). Anyone who’s gone abroad know this, some of us curse the Germans for making spätzle so damn expensive in Munich. No? Just me? Well, whatever, curse the Germans anyway.

Renowned supermodel Giselle Bundchen now accepts payment in Euros only, citing the American dollar as “too weak.” She’s right. She deserves every million she’s paid for shaking her ass down the runway for 30.2 seconds. No one is going to con her out of the money she so diligently works for.

Will the dollar rebound? My hunch says it will, approximately on or around January 20, 2009. But don’t take my word for it, I’m no financial expert (I’m already tens of thousands in debt, thanks Georgetown University!).

Also, Prince, or the artist formerly known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, is threatening legal action to fansites that use his image. Ummm, what? Does this violate First Amendment rights or is it better not to have to look at his rat face that never seems to age? You decide!

This also just in: when you’re sick you spend too much time reading gossip online.

Book Review, Condensed Version

The “Interplay of Influence,” is a textbook written by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, who shares my name, albeit spelled differently. The work is divided into essentially three themes: news media, advertising, and politics. Jamieson and Campbell list the ways in which all three are persuasive and can be persuaded, and debunk many theories and myths about each. I intend to focus on television advertising here, because it was the section that provoked the most thought for me, since I grew up in a television-saturated society and can remember jingles better than I can sometimes remember salient news events. This does not mean, however, that only young people are afflicted with the jingles burned to their brains. Ask anyone, nearly anywhere, and they'll remember this:



Why is it that we don't know anything about world events, yet we can sing the Oscar Meyer song half-asleep? This is precisely what Jamieson and Campbell examine. In identifying various (cheap) ploys advertisers utilize, we can see advertisements for what they really are: emotional manipulations for the purpose of profit.

We would all probably like to think others are more affected by advertisements. This phenomenon is well-documented; the “third person effect” has its roots in psychology, where we think we are superior to others in intellect and moral character. If we accept the fact that we are all affected by advertising, we can begin to examine how advertisements work, which tactics they employ, and how to counteract the focus group-tested messages companies spend millions to communicate.

Advertising preys on the ignorant, the unsure, the lonely, and the guilty, among others. Advertising strategies employed bank on deliberate vagueness and tricky grammar to mislead consumers into thinking that the advertised product favorably compares with other products, is touted by “experts,” or is backed by (unintelligible) research. Advertisers also employ the emotional and primal needs of consumers- if Mom didn’t make you a Skippy Peanut Butter sandwich, she doesn’t love you. At all. Advertisements also create associations that do not exist. Exactly what nutritional role does your sugar-coated corn-flaked cereal play in a balanced breakfast? Advertising makes false claims, especially when it comes to sex appeal. I’m pretty sure Axe Body Spray smells like a pubescent boy at a middle-school dance, yet commercials for the product show grown women making up their own porn soundtracks and literally throwing themselves at men who wear Axe. Gro-oss.



I’ve noticed especially, even without Jamieson and Campbell’s identification, the trend of companies reverting to old ads to evoke fond memories of the good ol’ days. Orville Redenbacher Popcorn has been re-airing what seem to be original 1970s ads with new graphics. I also noticed recently at my bus stop a poster which featured old-school popcorn poppers comparing the time-tested lightness and fluffiness of Redenbacher to the “ordinary” brands. In fact, Redenbacher has employed this evocative strategy for quite some time now, and there is a wealth of material on YouTube.



Which brings me to my next point: advertisements are so pervasive in our society that we devote entire television broadcasts to the “funniest” and the “sexiest.” Granted, it’s on TBS, but still. The line is blurring between entertainment programs and advertisements, to the point where we are making advertising our entertainment. What does this say about us? It seems to confirm our reliance consumer-based society. It’s driving us to “brand” everything about our lives. Even the Golden Gate Bridge was up for sponsorship. Pretty soon the University of Washington will be renamed Starbucks U.

I only hope they give out free coffee.

Mmmm, coffee.

Identity Crisis

Boiling candidates’ personalities down to one defining trait has its benefits. Voters tend to recall recent or salient events; this priming effect accounts for judgments on the character of political candidates.

Because of the fractured identity of each political party, candidates are scrambling to position themselves- even one full year before the election- on an ideologically coherent platform. This usually translates into for or against Bush, for or against the “war,” for or against gay rights, for or against the right to choose. But it also translates into displaying a prominent personality or, increasingly, a physical trait, and the media and society at large have run with it.

Mit Romney? Cyborg.
John Edwards? Teeth.
Ron Paul? Crazy Texan. This distinction he shares with Ross Perot. In fact, he looks suspiciously like ol’ big ear and has the same initials, which is why he is destined to lose.


Conjoined twins successfully separated at the ears?

I invite you to boil down each candidate to one word – I’ll post it soon.

Candidates have long understood that dumbing down their positions, their personas even, aids the memory of dumbed-down Americans on election day- that is, if Americans were inclined to vote. Nearly every candidate in the race now does this; those who don’t stand out as more honest and morally upright. I’m not naming names.

But it’s similar to Brahma, who, coincidentally, is the Hindu god of knowledge and protector of the world.

Innnnnnteresting.

In ComedyCentralLand, Talking Heads Make Sense

I doubt he really wanted to, anyway.

Stephen Colbert cannot run for “president of South Carolina.” It’s a very real loss because we need someone to make a mockery of our fatally flawed electoral system, and:

primaries
campaign donations/shitty nuclear-orange tortilla chips
Republicans/Democrats, indiscriminately
South Carolina
“favorite sons”
pandering
immobile hair

We cannot afford to break our political system more than it is already broken. It is already dangling by a last anorexic thread of dignity; to allow a talk show host to run for president would only demonstrate the degree to which our political system is a big freaking joke. I have to wonder what those abroad would have thought. Let’s face it, people: we cannot allow ourselves to look worse than we already are.

Also, last night, Jon Stewart quite implicitly supported the writers’ strike and maligned corporate denial of the importance of “new media.” Old school media corporations have been sluggish to jump on the “new media” bandwagon- “new media” being, of course, the internet, which has been around my entire life, in one form or another- and are trying to outright deny screen writers monetary rights for their work sold or streamed on the internet.

Don’t worry, kids. While we might feel the loss of such great shows as the Colbert Report for a while, your viewing of such ridiculous shows as Desperate Housewives will not be affected. You can exhale now.

The broader significance of this strike, and Jon Stewart’s support of it, is that corporations continuing to ignore the salience of emerging new markets for entertainment consumption creates more opportunity for those of us who see the significance of the internet to get around them.

That being said, all episodes of the Daily Show since Jon Stewart's arrival are available online. Is this Jon Stewart’s doing? Or is Viacom letting me embed videos to my heart’s content to bypass YouTube? Either way, I'm not getting dressed today. Enjoy young Jon and outdated topical humor:

Media Misrepresentation Breeds Ignorance

Nothing is more dangerous than fostering misconceptions of important issues- it leads to prejudice, ignorance, even violence.

That being said, George Clooney is short. Fucking short. I saw him today running up the street, filming an obviously important scene where he has to look at a speeding black car and sweat. Oscar-worthy, I'm telling you. But after the scene was shot, he was escorted to a small SUV where the top of his head barely hit the top of the window. His escort couldn't have been much taller than me, and he dwarfed Clooney.


That microphone is actually only 18 inches off the ground.

The media has lied to us about just how big these Hollywood "heartthrobs" are.

Did you know Mark Wahlberg is a midget? Tom Cruise is actually some sort of insect.

What are the consequences of this misrepresentation? Dire. For example, say I was going to meet the Clooney for dinner and I wore heels. I would tower over him, and that upsets the entire gender balance. Who would pay for dinner? Should I open the door for him? Should he put out?

I mean, sheesh, these are important questions that need answers. The media should just tell us the truth, show us what these stars really are (they're making headway with the realistic portrayal of Britney Spears as redneck meth addict). If we start with truthful depictions of stars' height, just think what we can do about realistic portrayals of this little war we're fighting in Iraq.

It blows the mind.

Only California Matters

Any Californian would agree with that statement, myself included. But turn on your TV. Today, as yesterday, and the day before, the only thing that has happened in the entire world is that Southern California is burning to hell, as if it wasn't going there already.

I'm not belittling the very real loss of thousands upon thousands of people, and I'm not just acting on my Northern California distaste for SoCal (and, for that matter, acronyms). No, no. I'm highlighting two facts:

1. Wildfires are normal, people. Southern California needs to burn every so often; otherwise, the soil would be so arid that we wouldn't have oranges or whatever the hell they grow in San Diego. Seriously. Don't you like oranges?

2. CNN can suck my...oranges.

CNN and similar parties would have you believe that the only thing that is newsworthy is a cyclical and natural phenomenon that affects only a fraction of the United States, and a negligent, minute portion of the world. It's no surprise that American media has an American bias. See my post on News That Matters and you will plainly see that people, at least enlightened people, have identified this problem.

The broader implication is that as susceptible television viewers, American citizens will learn that nothing else matters more than the USofA. Reliance on fluff does not breed thoughtful, intelligent citizenry. Nor does rampant use of acronyms. What it does breed is the "biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history." Well, maybe it's not exactly the news media that is rotting the brains of the tweens.

But it's relatable.

And I'm pretty sure other stuff has happened in the world since the fire broke out, but quite frankly, I don't care. But I do like my citrus.

Unleashing Your Own Ideavirus

Get it free.

“The idea is to create an environment where consumers will market to each other.” If, as the cluetrain manifesto claims, markets are conversations, this idea should work. An ideavirus (an ambitious word with awful connotation) is basically an idea or product or service that takes hold in a major way of a specific population. Ideaviruses can be intentional or unintentional, but clearly author Seth Godin believes intentional ideaviruses are superior. Unleashing The Ideavirus serves as a how-to guide to make your idea figuratively explode.

Getting your idea to explode involves many variables, but the most important are as follows:

CREATE AN IDEA THAT FACILITATES COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CONSUMERS. Hotmail is one of the most successful and literal examples of this, embedding an advertisement for free e-mail at the footer of every message you send someone. Polaroid is another example, as is anything that you can say, “hey- look at this, this is cool” to someone else, and they’ll want to try it.

TARGET SPECIFIC AUDIENCES. You’d think companies would have jumped on this a long time ago, but advertising continues to be a massive waste of money because the message is incoherent. Specific “hives” like specific things. Don’t market tech products to the technologically-impaired, for example. Market to the nerds.

WORK FAST. In today’s go!go!go! society, products quickly die (especially those in the technological realm). Money is to be made at the launch of an idea, because nerds who have money to spend tend to want the newest thing. You also want to be the innovator,

EMPLOY INFLUENTIAL MERCENARIES. Known as “sneezers,” and purloined from Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, these people have the power to move products simply by suggestion. Perhaps we can call them “guerilla advertisers.”

MILK YOUR IDEA WHILE YOU CAN; LET IT DIE WHEN IT GETS SICK. Don’t “jump the shark.”

MAKE IT EASY TO SPREAD THE VIRUS. Put a little “e-mail to a friend” button somewhere. Similarly, MAKE IT CHEAP (OR FREE), at least at first. Building a buzz now can lead to profits later.

Simple, eh?

Two Theses, Closely Related

According to the Cluetrain Manifesto:

26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.

64. We want access to your corporate information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, you genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance.


Consumers aren't stupid. They'll find a way to counteract corporate bullshit.

First of all, what kind of phrase is "chock-a-block?"

Second, I'm sure we're all aware here that corporate sites make it damn near impossible to find out the information you really need- that is, customer service contact information. One would think that since the advent of corporate sites about a million years ago, corporations would catch on that the single most searched-for item on a site is human contact information. They have not.

In 2001, a New York Times article identified the lack of public relations contact information. How exactly is the public to get information on a company or product when they can't contact the representative?

A similar trend was identified in a correlated industry standard- the automated operator system (and, coincidentally, the topic of my 505 Writing Diagnostic, deemed a "very nice paper"- thanks, Professor Garcia). Tired of run-around bullshit when checking account balances or trying to tell Comcast the internet is out but being put on hold for about 45 minutes, someone painstakingly compiled a list of shortcuts to human beings when calling ridiculous customer service "your call is important to us" robot lines.

The point here is that as we become more connected we become less connected. The point my class is forcing me to make is that these people that wrote my least favorite book I've read this semester were right. Corporations make useful information hard to find because they're afraid of consumers.

"Bringing Down Business as Usual"

“Real authority is based on respect for knowledge.”
Go tell that to my high-school history professor from Texas. Named Kirby. Who hated Californians.




Written as a dialogue between web advocates and oblivious corporations, the cluetrain manfesto (no capitalization necessary) posits that the marketplace is a series of conversations, turning the notion of technological determinism on its head. With tired, redundant analogies, the manifesto lent itself to the view that people just want to talk to each other, and through these interactions can shake up the order of businesses or fix a software glitch or point a loyal Saturn customer to a cheaper oil change. Corporations that can utilize web conversation skills are much more likely to succeed in the new (technological) conversation market.

The internet is awe-inspiring. The web is us, but even we don’t know exactly what it is or what it’s for. We just know it’s cool. And we know it’s highly insubordinate.

It can’t be controlled by businesses, and it cannot become a mass market. “Because the Net connects people to each other, and impassions and empowers through those connections, the media dream of the Web as another acquiescent mass-consumer market is a figment and a fantasy…The Internet is inherently seditious.”

The internet subverts the hierarchy of corporations as it advances. The “panopticon” view of the internet is reversed, where many can see in but no one is in the center, in control.

If marketing is a one-way conversation, the internet changes the nature of marketing. Scratch that, it destroys marketing and paves the way for new advertisement: the corporation cares. And the corporation can show it cares through customer interaction.

Metcalfe’s Law, an overused but nonetheless vital axiom of CCT studies, states that “the value of a network increases as the square of the number of users connected to it—connections multiply value exponentially.” It paves the way for mass market’s revenge: as more users become connected and start talking (and further, start thinking), they realize that the internet has the power to turn corporations into “replaceable merchants” after being “replaceable consumers” or “replaceable workers” for so long.

Here’s where I have a problem with the manifesto. Though I know manifestos are not, by definition, supposed to be rational or coherent in any way, cluetrain begins to contradict itself and widely known facts.

The authors claim that as markets become larger (markets of scale), choice increases. Well, not in this corporate climate. What about telecommunications companies increasingly monopolizing? What about Microsoft?

The authors also claim businesses are based on individuals, after spending pages upon pages trying to convince us otherwise. If that were the case, then why do companies need to humanize and talk to people in order to succeed? Wouldn’t they already be doing that?

The authors assume we talk to each other. If we’re headed to an “economy of voice,” then why do we feel even less connected to the people at the top or the people sitting next to us on the bus?

I suppose this is what you get when multiple people compose a “revolutionary” book.

I [Don't] Heart Huckabee

This video begs two questions:

1) Can a musical instrument playin' governor from Arkansas become president?*

2) What ever happened to Pop Up Video? That show was awesome.



* Has he committed any form of sexual misconduct in addition to his instrument playin' skills? Not yet? Then it'll never work. But extra points if he's inhaled.

Oh Jason Bateman, You've Been Knocked Down a Peg

The thing I love about studying Communication is that everything is research.

I saw “The Kingdom” yesterday with a couple of friends. Despite attempting to ignore Jennifer Garner’s oddly-chiseled face or Jamie Foxx’s annoying bravado or trying desperately not to vomit from the shaky-cam or the fact that my beloved Michael Bluth took part in such gung-ho Big Hollywood patriotic garbage--

Oh wait, he was in The Ex, nevermind--

Anyway, despite trying to ignore all these things, I can see the entertainment value in the film. I can see that Hollywood was really making an effort, trying to humanize Arabs (at least the ones who cooperate) by saying, hey! They’re just like us! They have families! They think their countries are a mess! Perhaps this is a step in the right direction. But there was still no objectivity. Brown people are still bad guys, blood-thirsty, ruthless, and dumb. And it's easier to kill them than it is us.

(And it's okay to kill them)

Nevermind that the whole reason terrorists are trying to kill us is because we have a looooooooooong history of interfering with their shit. I’m not unpatriotic here, I’m really not. I just think we need to get some perspective.


The [figurative] death of a smartass.

Also worth noting:

Movie-goers in Maryland typify the American response to patriotic violence: laugh and cheer when the bad guy is stabbed repeatedly, and graphically. That they are not disturbed and sickened by this portrayal has massive psychosocial implications. That they and their bratty little American spawn condone this violence, and may even be incited to commit other acts of violence, makes me physically ill.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to find the guy who invented the shaky cam and, not stab him repeatedly and graphically, in the groin, but think really mean thoughts about him. While simultaneously trying not to vomit.

Fox News is the #1 Cable News Channel in America

College juniors and seniors! Enter the Fox News College Challenge! Submit a WELL-RESEARCHED, OBJECTIVE news report and you have a chance to win $10,000* and a CHANCE to interview for a thankless entry-level job.

Holy Christ on a Fox News logo! A chance to staple shit and fetch coffee for grumpy old men who refuse to memorize your name! Oh boy! And for $5.85 an hour!

(You’re lucky you didn’t win last year, when minimum wage was $5.15, a pittance compared to the generosity now offered by the United States Department of Labor)

Notice the edgy contest logo; see how in touch with today's youth Fox News is? Isn't it rad that they're letting viewers participate in the news-making process? Look at the list of super-awesome topics! What a freedom of choice, not at all leading:

- Illegal Aliens: Let them stay or move them out?
- Separation of Church & State: Still needed or outdated?
- Reinstate the draft during this War on Terror era?
- United Nations: Irrelevant or worth our money?
- Religion and Education: together or separated?
- Health care: Socialize or privatize?
- Racial Profiling: necessity or abuse?
- School Voucher Programs: freedom of choice or disaster in disguise?

Also, take a gander at the list of universities that are allowed to enter. It’s a good thing Harvard or Yale or UCLA students aren’t eligible; they’re a bunch of pricks anyway.

*Subject to fees for invasion of Iran and Satan.

"And I'm Proud To Be An American..."

Pristine areas? Has anyone told Michael Chertoff how ugly Texas is?

In a blatantly racist and ridiculously dense fashion, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today that building a border fence across the southern United States is better for the environment than Mexicans who discard beer bottles and defecate outside.

He actually said this. He actually said, "Illegal migrants really degrade the environment. I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas…And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment.” Ummmmm, what the deuce?!

Might I remind our congenial Homeland Security Secretary that the process of building 370 miles of border fence and 200 miles of vehicle barriers doesn’t run on fairy dust and angel wings and all that lovely nonsense? Cars and building thingamajigs pour tons of, you know, polluting stuff into the air. Global warming is a fact, people. Stephen Colbert knows this; the “market has spoken.”

Might I also remind Mr. Chertoff that poop is an excellent fertilizer? Maybe the reason the Southwest is so dry and lifeless is that not enough people are shitting outside.

Oh yes, and something about how Chertoff saying illegal immigrants are bad for the environment only perpetuates the stereotype that Mexicans are dirty and this has immense social repercussions and those crazy bastards who patrol the border on their own, without government sanction, are going to have a freakin’ field day.

Meh.

MTV + John Edwards = Little Music, Lots of Teeth

John Edwards, in a media stunt reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s 1992 run, participated recently in the MTV and MySpace “A Presidential Dialogue,” in which he answered pressing questions from young voters. While Edwards had some good ideas, discussed in depth, on salient issues such as education and race (the direction the current administration is heading, black men will “end up in prison or dead”), this entry is not about Edwards and his blinding, JFK-esque grin.

No, no. This is a beef with MTV.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad MTV is finally picking back up where “Rock the Vote” and “Choose or Lose” left off- it’s nice to see the network taking its viewers seriously, treating them like thinking, breathing, political adults. But what does it say to the viewers when in between spots for “A Presidential Dialogue,” there are advertisements for PG movies and GameBoys? What does it say when the network allows Axe deodorant to sponsor Gamekillers, a show so horrible I can’t even describe it to you? What does MTV think of its viewers, then? Are they thirteen year-old boys? Are they too dumb to notice that the ‘M’ in MTV stands for music, when in fact they play little to no music and run The Hills seven times a day?

Either the network sees its viewers as children (and in many cases, they are), or they treat them like thoughtful, responsible adults by sponsoring more presidential debates and actually delivering music as alluded to by the network’s very name.

I'm not sure you can reconcile the two.

News That Matters, News That Isn't Really News

Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder found, not surprisingly, that agenda-setting exists in television news. Though the book was published in 1987, their findings hold true today. Through manipulations of newscasts in highly controlled experiments, Iyengar and Kinder found that:

Agenda-setting is successful in telling what people to think about, and reinforces beliefs already widely held. Agenda-setting can last for a time after consumption of the information, but also depends on the topic highlighted for staying power. Sometimes so-called “vivid cases” (that is, visual, personal, emotional) are ineffective due to some peoples’ perception of melodrama, but again, is highly dependent on topic and personal experience. Obviously, those with less education and little political inclination are the most effected by agenda-setting.

Priming refers to what comes first to mind when making a judgment about something or someone. Television news affects priming by highlighting specific qualities about, say, a presidential candidate, and because of the mere emphasis on the quality and its recency, it comes to mind first.

I don’t find any of this original; perhaps the idea of agenda-setting was more radical in the 1980s, or perhaps I’ve been overly-exposed to the concept in academia. I did find, however, a few poignant assertions I’d like to share with you.

The FCC defined broadcasting in 1949 as “the development of an informed public opinion through the dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day” (122). On this, television news has utterly failed. Any educated, or at least analytical, person can tell you that television news is biased, in poor taste, and is not actually news. What is portrayed on the evening news or one of the 24-hour news networks is entertainment-based, and designed to scare. Honestly, who the hell cares if some people are injuring themselves on escalators because they’re wearing Crocs (they’re hideous and a crime against humanity anyway). There are better things to report on, like the thousands upon thousands who are dying in the civil war we’ve involved ourselves in in Iraq.

But obviously we can’t report on what’s actually happening around the world, because American “television news conveys representations of American society and politics that: (1) are unusually nation-centered in general and president-centered in particular; (2) are posed so authoritatively so as to discourage the citizen’s engagement in national life; (3) trivialize and demean elections; and (4) undermine the authority of political institutions” (124). Without accurate portrayals of what’s going on in the world, or real news in general, we have much to worry about for our national security.


“The quack, the charlatan, the jingo, and the terrorist [emphasis added] can flourish only where the audience is deprived of independent access to information” (3).

Uht-ohs!

Iran is Responsible for 9/11 (So is Iraq).

Obviously this is not true, but for many analytically-challenged Americans, denying Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, access to Ground Zero is an implication that Iran had something to do with September 11. This implication comes on the heel of the Bush's implication that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 through association.

What is frightening is many Americans do not know the difference between implication and truth, or even Iraq and Iran (and Afghanistan and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon).


Ahmadinejad requested permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center, but was denied for "security issues" surrounding the construction at the site. If we claim America is a great democracy, why are we denying a man a chance to grieve for the victims and their families (even if he did deny the Holocaust existed)? I'm sure there's something else here at play that we don't know about, but denying him access is just going to strengthen the rest of the world's resolve against the US.

And make our citizens, well, dumber-er.

Dan Rather Believes in "Real Integrity" (Oh Yeah, and Sues CBS)

Dan Rather is suing CBS, which shocks no one. He’s accusing the network of scapegoating him for the Killian document scandal. Aside from the issue of journalistic integrity- that is, not only believing what you are reporting is true, but personally confirming its accuracy – I am not interested in the suit in the slightest, at least not for the purpose of this post.

Originally I had scoured YouTube for footage of the Rather’s CBS report. Not surprisingly, it is nowhere to be found. What I did find in its stead is, I think, much more interesting:



Not only does Rather defend the very process of blogging that helped to end his career, he professes his hope for the future of even more hands-on investigative blogging. Rather blasts television for “entertainment posing as news,” but has found through his career that each advancing technology can not only supplement but improve the news reporting process. He urges, though, that internet journalism is “not a replacement” for traditional news media. In fact, even in their dissimilarity, internet journalism and traditional news media share the same fundamental values, those being “independence…[and] real integrity.” Internet journalism, Rather feels, will just enhance our understanding of the news in a more efficient way. But who’s to say something superior won't come along?

Brain implants, computer chips embedded in the eye?

I can see the irony in everything Rather says, especially when he talks about “real integrity,” but I think this clip really shows that even iconic figures of traditional media are really recognizing the power of “new media.” I suppose it’s just nice to see some people/mediums/corporations NOT resistant to change.

"We The Media" Includes Me Too, Right?

Quite honestly, I get my CCT readings mixed up. When reading Dan Gillmor’s “We The Media” I think I’m reading Lawrence Lessig’s “Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.” There are several reasons for this, most notably that everything is interrelated/interdependent (and Gillmor actually mentions Lessig throughout the text, so I’m not completely insane).

Grassroots journalism and traditional media are interdependent. Without the inadequacies of traditional media, grassroots journalism would not have flourished; without grassroots journalism, major news outlets would not be replicating “new media” techniques (see my previous post). Because traditional media are taking hold of these new ways to involve readers, one has to see citizen journalism- or grassroots journalism or new media or whatever you want to call it- as a viable source of information now, and for the future.

Something I think Gillmor would want you to come away with from his book is that YOU have the ability to hold news makers and sources accountable. The internet truly is about democratizing the media, turning traditional media’s “top-down hierarchy” on its head. It is very exciting, indeed, but also problematic.

The two most salient issues I identified over the course of reading Gillmor follow below:

HOW CAN WE TRUST THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVE ONLINE?
The internet is a veritable source of information, but how can we confirm its accuracy? Not surprisingly, Gillmor devotes an entire section to Wiki sites, the largest being Wikipedia. Though by and large helpful, Wiki sites are prone to inaccuracies and web vandalism, demonstrated by Stephen Colbert’s urging his viewers- the Colbert Nation- to literally change history. Wikiscanner has grown out of this concern of authenticity, but Gillmor clearly believes in the online community’s ability to self-govern, highlighting especially the Technorati site, which helps one authenticate information and identities through authority ratings.



HOW LONG WILL THE INTERNET TRULY BE FREE?
Honestly, who knows? Gillmor stands for participation and free access, demonstrated most graciously by his posting his book online for free. A growing trend of (attempted) regulation may make free access like this a relic of the past. Issues such as jurisdiction, libel, and copyright especially are being discussed in courtrooms right now. The culprit is not the government but American corporations that pressure the government into enacting legislation, and most mind-bogglingly, bully their own customers to make their businesses a little more profitable. Personally, I believe the internet will eventually be regulated. The infrastructure is in place already- login IDs, passwords, Cookies. Perhaps Gillmor is a little more optimistic than I am. Lessig is more realistic: “liberty depends on…regulation remaining expensive” (Code, 56). Unfortunately, technology cheapens and advances so quickly that regulation may be nearer than we think.

By and large, “We The Media” is the most reliable compendium of “new media” and its issues in existence. It also serves as a great how-to guide on everything from starting your own blog to subscribing to RSS feeds. More than anything, though, Gillmor urges you to question everything you read, do your research, and be responsible.

That goes for what you read here, too. You have no idea how much of this I just made up.

Wink.

News Corporations Let You Contribute (After You Tell Them Your Life Story)

*DISCLAIMER*
I am an idiot with HTML, but as with many things, with practice comes, um, minimum competence? My posts will be prettier in the future, I promise.

That being said...

News corporations are jumping on the “new media” bandwagon. On their websites, these news sources now allow the average viewer to determine what is news, to communicate with reporters, and engage in their own discussions about a topic. The only problem is these corporations need to know exactly who you are. Oh yes, and they reserve the right to do with your work what they will.



MSNBC has adopted FirstPerson, a riff on CNN’s iReport. What’s exciting about this is you determine what is news by sending in your own words, sounds, or videos. What’s not so exciting is they reserve the right to edit your work, broadcast it in whole or in part (or out of context), and there is no guarantee your work will be posted. In order to be eligible for submission, you must provide your contact info (including phone number) and sign a Terms of Agreement. You need all contact information (including street address) to even comment on a message board or blog, and even then, MSNBC has to approve it before it’s posted.



CNN operates along the same line as MSNBC. Using iReport, you can submit your own news, but again you need to sign a Terms of Use Agreement, fill out all your contact information, and allow CNN the authority to edit your work as well as give them full discretion as to whether or not your topic is important enough in the first place. The same is true for all comments and message boards. Finding the blog link is difficult (it’s at the veeeeeeeeery bottom).



Being from San Francisco, I read the Chronicle (sfgate.com, actually, which is an amalgamation of local sources) a lot. Compared to CNN and MSNBC, the Chronicle is a little more lenient with its user requirements. To comment on blogs or messages or any news article, you only need your name, e-mail, zip code, year of birth, and gender. They don’t ask for phone numbers or street addresses, and they don’t need to review your comment before posting. However, because the Chronicle is small in comparison to national media outlets, there is no iReport or anything of that nature, but I’m willing to bet, because it is San Francisco, that’s not far behind.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for audience participation. It’s a step toward true democratization of the media. But why does CNN need my phone number? And why should I allow someone to butcher my work?

I get all my CCT readings jumbled up, but I’m fairly certain that one of my readings addressed the issue of online identity and privacy and security, yadda yadda. Once I think of it, I’ll post again, along with a review of Dan Gilmor’s We The Media, which ties nicely with my rhetorical questions above.

---

11:39 PM Edit
Stephen Colbert just called MSNBC the "filet-o-fish" of TV news, since it rebroadcast original 9/11 footage yesterday. I'm too tired to be disgusted, so anyone else have any comments?


If You Know Someone Who Knows Someone

According to a recent New York Times article, telecommunications companies supplied FBI phone records investigations with community-of-interest information until 2005. This means that if you were associated in nearly any way with a terror suspect, your name could be included on an investigation list. The article states that the investigations were limited to “once-removed” contacts, though in many instances names and records would appear on national security letters but were “not necessarily the actual subject of a terrorism investigation and may not [have been] suspected at all.”

This is scary for several reasons.

Telecommunications companies have a history cooperating with the government and have been rewarded for it (think deregulation of monopolies). It is not surprising that they have supplied the FBI with community-of-interest information. However, telecommunication companies have been gathering this information for years. Why do these companies need to keep track of our personal social networks?

If the FBI investigates once-removed contacts now, what’s to stop them from investigating twice-removed contacts? Given that everyone can generally be linked socially in six degrees or less (especially Kevin Bacon), wouldn’t that mean that nearly everyone belongs to a terrorist’s community-of-interest?

Once your name is associated with a national security threat, it is nearly impossible to rid yourself of the stigma. This has many repercussions, not limited to professional, financial, and travel complications.

No bueno.

A First Attempt.

I’m hoping for some scandal to break so that writing this blog will be easier. Why is it easier to write about the negative, but more importantly, why does an event have to be negative to be considered newsworthy?

Also, why do four years of formal university education teach you only to memorize your social security number and ask rhetorical questions?

Lately, so-called loyal “Bushies” have been dropping like flies. This is no doubt a sudden emergence of conscience after seven years in the administration. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the desire to avoid litigious scrutiny or…[cough]…payoffs. No, it must be for the greater good of American society.

Much speculation has risen on how the Bush administration will be portrayed in the annals of history. Worst president ever?

Oh yes, before I go on any further, did I mention I was, um, a wee bit left-leaning?

Anyway, much speculation has risen. I get a sense that most people think this to be the dirtiest, most corrupt, most out of touch, craziest, even gayest administration in the history of administrations. Every new Bushie resignation lends credence to this perception. My best friend (who hopefully decides to comment on this blog so my grade goes up) believes that as soon as the administration leaves office, dirty secrets, BIG and little, will be exposed. Perhaps this exposure will lead prosecution (or pardon, dunh dunh dunh). Maybe the world will be a better place (prosecution!) or maybe we’re all, well, screwed. But somehow all this dirt and relentless law-breaking and utter disregard for basic human rights gives way to- dare I say it?- hope. And faith. Faith that no matter the outcome of the next presidential election, any administration is better than the Bush administration.

Recently I noticed an attempt to soften the president’s image. I don’t think he has an especially tough image. Quite to the contrary- he’s portrayed as a bumbling idiot. However, this article preceding a Bush book release shows us the pensive, sensitive side of the president. The motive behind this is to pave the way for the public to forgive the president, because, after all, you can’t hate a man who masks his self-pity and presidential isolation for the good of the American people. (This is the part where you sigh and think to yourself, what a brave man.)

I wish I had more profound things to say about media and politics today, but a) The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have been on hiatus, and b) after a couple of years out of college and in an excrutiatingly dull/evil job, your brain forgets how to function.

More later, as my brain re-solidifies from corporate mush (coffee helps).