Lauren Weinstein: If MTV Calls, Hang Up

Lauren Weinstein writes "Usually when one gets a call to participate in a news-oriented television program, subterfuge isn't a worry. But in the brave new world of 'newsertainment' -- a blurring of news and entertainment -- you really need to watch your back. Herein is the sordid tale (posted last night to Dave Farber's "IP" list) of what recently happened to me -- and my narrow escape -- when Viacom/MTV Networks came calling, asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam). Be warned. It could happen to you!"

Comments

Punk'd?

[mfh]

After Punk'd, I would never speak with anyone remotely appearing to give me a hard time over anything whatsoever. I'd just walk away. Who would speak to MTV anyway? Aren't they just a bunch of asshats with lots of money but no direction whatsoever? I mean, I'd love to party with those guys because it'd be a blast... but to work seriously (or try to) with MTV would be like a game of career-Russian-roulette.

Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the world of Daily Shows, Ali G., etc.-- as well as smartass miniDV documentaries I can't see why anyone, celebrity or not, talks to a camera crew anymore. You're just asking to have your quotes taken out of context and to be laughed at by the world.

Re:How did he know?

[mutewinter]

"Reality" shows? You mean shows that have absolutely no connection with reality but have low production budgets?

Re:coward

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if the whole thing was a fraud, it should have been an experience to participate. Having known it was a setup, this would have been a great opportunity to spin things back on the hosts and have some fun."

It was NOT LIVE.

If you did something clever back at them, they would edit it to make you look like a retard.

Re:For those that just read the summary

[siriuskase]

I read the article, it's about an "embarass the guest" kind of show and since it's taped, Comedy Central holds all the cards. Definitely something you would never want to be on.

If you are ever asked to guest on a show you aren't familiar with, it is imperative that you get familiar with it. Any information you get from the producers should be in writing. If they insist on using only telephone or editable email (a red flag, BTW), print it out as a contract and ask that it be signed.

Viacom

[mabu]

I guess $200 is the market value for a person's dignity according to Viacom.

That must be a nice company to work for.

Humiliating experts?

[Radon Knight]

One sad thing about this is the very premise of the show. Experts in any field, by definition, possess information and knowledge which typically requires either (a) great scholastic ability, or (b) great native intelligence and/or intuition. IMHO, it seems that people possessing expert knowledge - which is really knowledge (think justified true belief, although this definition of knowledge is not up to date, it works as a starting point) - are the kinds of people who we, as a society, ought to respect, admire, and seek to emulate! Why should we take those individuals who represent the very pinnacle of human intellectual achievement and attempt to humiliate them in front of an audience under false pretenses?

The answer, of course, is obvious: most people aren't experts. Most people aren't geniuses. Most people are within one standard deviation of the mean and are pretty satisfied with their abilities. Hobbes was right when he wrote that the surest proof that humans are approximately equal in intelligence is that most people are satisfied with their level of ability, and their is no better indicator of a fair distribution than when each person is satisfied with their share.

Now, I could see supporting a show that took bogus experts as the target - i.e., those people who pretend to be able to talk to their dog, or to share karma with plants, use crystals to heal, etc. (but note that, under the abovementioned definition of knowledge that these people aren't really experts since they lack knowledge). That might be fun to watch. At the very least, it would serve the greater good of society by providing an intellectual function.

But humilating smart people just so that some moron with barely enough intelligence to operate the remote can get his kicks? Bah. Give me the philosopher-kings of Plato anyday.

Re:Humiliating experts?

[Sycraft-fu]

I think most people, including experts, need to stop taking themselves so damn seriously and learn to laugh at themsevles. We are all the butt of a joke from time to time. Rather than get all pissey about it, laugh. It's not just other people and viewpoints that are funny you and yours are as well.

I don't see any problem with this, or with shows like the Daily Show. They are fun, and they people they pick on even can have fun too, if they just will roll with it and take a joke.

John McCain is a great example. Back in 2000, they decided to pick on him and his wife. They got on his bus, asked him BS questions, and so on. He was nice and had fun the whole time. This, of course, invited more jokes on him in the future. It also lead to them rather liking him, and making him a fairly frequent guest where he does get to speak his mind to a latge number of young voters.

Really, the problem with many experts is that they are so focused on their issue, their area of expertise, that nothing about it is funny. They act like they are on a divine mission or something and if you poke fun at it, you are benieth contempt.

Well guess what? The world is FULL of "most important issues" and "things nobody can laugh at" and most of them are funny to somebody else. People need to lighten up a bit and learn that yes, you are funny too and no, you don't hold the One True Way and the moral righteousness that is untouchable.

Re:Humiliating experts?

[adamruck]

You have a point. Everyone needs to have fun. Everyone needs to live a balanced life.

The situation this article is talking about is not about having fun(Why wouldn't they tell her the actuall premise of the show outright?). This is about creating a culture that demeans intellectual people. I think that mainstream culture today glorifies joe sixpack/beergut. That in my opinion is wrong.

Re:Humiliating experts?

[Have Blue]

Possibly because the intellectuals come up with terms like "Joe Sixpack/Beergut" for everyone else?

Re:how silly.

[retro128]

Actually it's a "he". Poor guy, what were his parents thinking? :)

Since his server's been nuked, you can read a little about him here.

Re:For those that just read the summary

[siriuskase]

The Daily show does try to be reasonably accurate, in that their targets are people who are already in the straight news and presumably an intelligent viewer can sort things out It is almost a real news show for those who know to take it all with a grain of salt

Re:I Loooooove the Daily Show

[Monkelectric]

The only difference between the daily show and fox news is, the daily show lets you know its fake up front.

Re:Beware of any News Reporters

[Pfhor]

Most news shows do this, I have seen this happen on both sides.

What gets me is when someone on the Right claims that a Left group does this, but denies O'Reilly of doing the same tactics.

Or the new "Michael Moore Hates America" movie, which from all appearances does an exposé on how manipulative and lying a documentary can be. Of course, the director misses the point that by doing a video documentary, which of course is a selective medium, the director is doing the same "tactics" that Moore does. You know, taking people out of context, rushing them on issues, manipulating their words, etc. (of course, the overall idea of Moore's Bowling for Columbine documentary which I saw was the use of Fear to manipulate and control the populace, the media's partake in it, and the government's use of it. As is F. 9/11 looks to be going more into).

Also as someone who has made a documentary, the medium is very maleable. I'd never be in someone elses video actually, and I understand why moore wouldn't be in the "anti moore" documentary.

Anyway, I am sorry you got manipulated by that circumstance, thought I would throw in my two cents.

Re:coward

[Tokerat]

Because you misbehaved on a comedy show, that you KNEW was setting you up?

God forbid any working professionals have a sense of humor, the f*cking world might collapse.

It's that kind of mentality that makes this world a sick, sick, sick place. Yes, really.

Pity

[slonkak]

I feel sorry for those folks who work in the phone center making these calls who are only there because they need a job in order to support their families. I feel expecially sorry for those people who know exactly what they're getting people like Lauren into when they make the phone call or send the e-mail.

Some of my friends thrive on such programs. Punk'd is one of their favorites. I can't stand it. For those of you who have never heard of it, it airs on MTV. The premise of this show is the same as the debate show, except they take more extreme measures. Instead of arguing with you, they'll have your house repossessed and make you think you just lost your home, until the end of the show when they inform you it was only a joke. I've seen people start to cry on this show. Somehow, I'm not finding this funny!

Some people think of this as genius, I see it as a striving reach for attention. These people need help, I can't provide it, but someone has to.

Democracy in U.S.: Ridicule and bullying

[michaelmalak]

This story inspired me to write my blog entry Democracy in U.S.: Ridicule and bullying:

As highlighted by slashdot.org, according to a mailing list posting (mirror):

From: Lauren Weinstein

[...] Subject: Warning to IP Readers: When "The Debate Show" Calls -- Hang Up!

[...] They wanted me to debate a known spammer (who they wouldn't identify at the time) regarding the scourge of spam. It would be fun she implied, since the audience would of course be on my side.

[...] Crossballs is a rigged "reality" show, where real guests, who have been kept in the dark about the show's real format, are paired off against actors (playing the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude, sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual "apparatus") and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows aired.

The nature of Crossballs is confirmed by a couple of other sources. According to a gopusa.com commentary:

This show is not "The Debate Show," as advertised and the name they use to procure panelists, but "Crossballs" a newly produced show for Comedy Central, owned by Viacom and MTV networks, and is a spoof of political debate shows that seeks to mock conservatives with actors posing as some of the panelists.

One such real panelist, who thought the show was going to be a serious debate show, was a conservative activist from California who prepared to appear on the show to talk about the 2nd amendment. Jim March, whose account we have attached, is a 2nd amendment activist and was mocked and ridiculed by a "psychologist" who said he had sexual issues and offered him a two month supply of penis enlargement pills if he gave up his guns.

Nowhere in the material for "The Debate Show" and the press releases for the upcoming "Crossballs" do they make the connection, or let you in on the joke that the "actor panelists" debate the real panelists, complete with props and "live feed" video designed to mock and make fun of the real panelists and their conservative views.

And according to a June 15, 2004 story from digitalspy.co.uk, an entertainment newsblog:

Debate shows on US cable news channels such as CNN's Crossfire and MSNBC's Hardball are to be "skewered" by a new Comedy Central show, Crossballs.

The new show will feature comedians posing as experts debating real people who don't realise that the show is a sham.

"Shot in front of a live audience, Crossballs is a smart, comedic spoof of programs such as Crossfire, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and the entire Fox News Network," explains Comedy Central.

The show premieres on Tuesday, July 6 at 7:30pm ET and will air for eight consecutive weeks.

In similar display of mockery, according to a Jun 5, 2004 dc.indymedia.org story:

A small but determined group of about 60 demonstrators displayed their anger and disgust in front of the offices of Arlington defense contractor, CACI last week.

CACI is the firm recently implicated in the report by U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba. CACI employees "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," according to the report. Taguba strongly reco

Re:I want to join the fun

[mandalayx]

Reminds me of this quote perhaps applicable:

"The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."

source: wikiquote

Re:I want to join the fun

[87C751]

"Support the troops" is vitally important because not everybody does, and we need to be mindful of that fact.

Ahem. The point is that "Support the troops" does not equate to "Support the administration that committed those troops to an ill-advised course of action for personal and political gain". The "support the troops" slogan is meant to deflect attention from the reasons the troops are there in the first place. Looks like you fell for it.