Can someone explain to me what the journalistic raison d’etre is for this story, currently splashed across the front of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail web pages? I don’t have a long post planned, because the ridiculousness of it all speaks for itself; just a few thoughts…
First, what does a reader learn from it? That radiation is bad… already knew that. That certain devices which 99.99% of readers don’t know or have never seen/used could be used for a dirty bomb? Again, I’ve always assumed that radioactive devices could be used to build radiation bombs. That fallout is dangerous and expensive to cleanup? No revelation there… That governments are planning for the worst? That’s what governments do. Now, I suppose if I were to ask a journalist what the point is of making this front page news, they would go on about “the people have the right to know,” yadda yadda yadda. This logic has always irked me. The public has the right to know; but that does not translate into “we have an obligation to regularly vomit out-of-context information.”
I guess the “insight” here is supposed to be that dirty bombs could cause panic… but I’ve got a trick knee that gets sore whenever I encounter irony, and it is aching severely at the moment.
I’ve always regarded the “Letters to the Editor” section of the newspaper (any newspaper) in much the same way that people look at car wrecks. Beyond the fact that the sub-human blithering frequently bolsters me when I begin to doubt my own meagre insights of the human condition, it is extremely enjoyable to watch the delicate high-wire act that people engage in to demonstrate their own rationalism, artfully rendering a given story in an entirely unrealistic manner so as to provide the foundation for what seems like a sensible argument. In fact, I can think of no better example than the letters I’m seeing in response to the “Native Day of Protest” issue which is making the rounds. (more…)
I had another one of my frequent, unplanned and uncontrollable free-association daydreams this morning, while I was shaving. Ignoring the fact that this is not a good time to shave, my thoughts led me somewhere interesting. For some reason Blossom came to mind, which led me to porn, and then to a show I remember watching several months ago where a woman said she couldn’t wait to turn 18 to she could get into pornography itself.
If you came here looking for boobs I’m sorry; this is not a post about porn. Being a nice guy I’ve tossed a picture at the bottom of the post though.
Ok, so when I remembered that dialogue I thought, “Man, our subculture is weird.” Now, every generation of youth is different than the preceding one, but I honestly think that something different is happening here. Subculture, or the distinctive culture of a certain group has always existed a bit on the margins. Kids have always hung out where their parents ain’t, geeks have always avoided jocks by hanging out in the library or stage-crew room, artists have always lived in colonies, etc. What’s striking about all of these examples (at least to me) is that these spaces were always at least partially shared; sub-culture existed on the fringes of the mainstream, but there was always an overlap of physical space. Now the internet (and in theory WWW2) allow for unlimited space. It is possible for someone to seek out inclusion and expression in a space that never only that particular group will see. (more…)
Warren Kinsella picked up on this last week and I meant to post on it, but it kept on slipping my mind. Now before anyone thinks I’m just dropping Kinsella’s name to draw attention, let me explain why it is I hate Jan Wong…
Back in 1997 (I believe) Jan Wong decided to do a piece on teenage smoking. She was determined to get to the bottom of this newfound crisis, so she dug down deep and came up with one of the most thorough and even-handed plans in the history of investigative journalism. She visited my high school during class and interviewed a half-dozen grade 9 students who were outside smoking. From this exhaustive and balanced study she was cunningly able to extrapolate and generalize about the behaviour of the entire student body at the school.
That’s right; Jan Wong interviewed a handful of grade nine losers and used that as a preface to call pretty much every student at the school a juvenile delinquent who was more concerned with getting high and drinking during labour shortages than anything else.
Needless to say, at Northern her work was not well received; and yet for ten years she continued to publish her bombastic and unfounded drivel. I take endless pleasure in seeing her being exposed for the hack she is.
What has one eye, six legs, about ten feathers, and foams tirelessly at the mouth?
Yep, you guessed it: the American media! This is not a critique of that media mind you… what it is is a rejection of the sort of mass “sadness” that seems to follow whenever strikes. Now, what is the difference between a and a “tragedy”? The answer I’m sorry to say is that the latter is a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair; whereas a is a lamentable affair which afflicts a large group that reminds people of themselves.
I know I’m being insensitive, and perhaps even a prick, but I am being myself. When I see an outpouring of grief or a virtual font of sappy treacles like I’ve seen in the last thirty-six hours I don’t think of the victims (at least, the press and sentiment doesn’t cause me to think of them, the events however do,) and I don’t think of the killer; I think of the millions of people who don’t give a rat’s ass about the homeless person who freezes to death in the bus shelter down the street (a sign of my continuing decline… I originally typed streat) or the starving children in Mexico City, which is a giant slum punctuated by intermittent wealth. (more…)
Anyone who has read my blog with any regularity will know that I have certain misgivings about the entire “blogging” enterprise. What is it that bloggers hope to accomplish, either collectively or as individual agents? Some people are in it for the money, others for recognition and fame, some have a genuine beef that they want to share, and others want to be part of a program for change… and I think it is in this range of behaviours that we find the cause of all of our ills as a community, not in one or another.
Lets consider “traditional” journalism for a second. Journalism is generally dictated by a loosely defined code of ethics and standards. While there are numerous and sundry quantifications of this code, it can basically be summarized into three sets of principles: serve the public, tell the truth and minimize harm. Naturally, given the general fracturing of the news industry, these guidelines are constantly being bent and broken, but the most respected (and effective) journalists are always the ones who adhere to these canons. There is an understanding that role of the media is to serve the public in speaking the truth. Unfortunately, for us (and pretty much everyone who has ever been called a pundit) these canons read more like a multiple-choice questionnaire. Some people try to serve the public, others try to speak the truth (or their own truth), and to others a scoop is just an opportunity to make a their bones. What has sent me off on this rant? This extremely disturbing story in this morning’s Toronto Star. (more…)
Today I came across yet another Warren Kinsella - Anonymous blogger spat (Mah nish ta’na…) and something amusing struck me regarding the following comment (emphasis mine):
Warren, I’m not mocking Uncle Donald’s demise. Poor Uncle Donald, may the saints preserve him. I might have liked to know more about the guy, but your blog wasn’t about Uncle Donald. The hero was, as usual, you. Poor departed Uncle Donald is barely mentioned in passing. We are left knowing two things about him: (1) He wore a fedora and (2) He’s dead. The rest of the post is all about your heroics. You are not proud of him. He is just a spectator. You are the show. That is typical Warren Kinsella.
So I’m mocking you. You are so mockworthy.
I’m mocking narcissists who use anything to hype themselves, including the deaths of relatives.
Now I’m not going to take a “side” here, but does anyone else find this last sentence ridiculous? What qualifies as “hyping themselves” I wonder? Every blogger who has a tangible connection to their intertube alias “hypes themselves” when they make any reference to their own thoughts, actions or experiences. Just yesterday I talked about my grandmother’s 89th birthday. If I had related a personal anecdote about my interactions with her, would that qualify as self-promotion? (more…)
Ontario’s federal transfers will skyrocketed by $1.1 billion, from $11.65 billion in 2006-07 to $12.76 billion in 2007-08. The news is even better for McGuinty – and Harper - next fiscal year, when transfers from Ottawa will increase by another $1.23 billion to $13.97 billion.
Link.
This reads more like a passage from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy than a genuine newspaper article: Had you will have been looking forward to it?
Such is the state of journalism nowadays.