Slashdot Mirror
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!"
from the if-only-it-had-been-live-instead dept.
No shit, that would've been fun. She (I assume it's a she) could've gotten on there and gone on and on about how the "penis enlargement pills" she bought "worked great for her" and how she "wishes she had a boyfriend so she could let him try them too". He heh heh. But then one day "it fell off" and so now she's turned to the side of the spam-fighters. And she has it in a box offstage, should she go get it?
Seriously, I consider *MSNBC* to be "newsertainment", so you can imagine my opinion of Mtv talk shows. *shiver*. I gave up on Mtv sometime in high school, a long time ago, once they stopped showing actual music.
Mtv is like a giant parabolic reflector, collecting idiocy from far and wide and focusing it into a small rectangular screen. (Yeah I know, RTFA, it was actually Comedy Central but it's all a big heaping serving from the same vegetard stew).
Didn't the Daily Show win a major news or reporting award for their coverage of the last presidental election?
What's disturbing is that, in the story, a Pew survey was cited stating that: Even worse, they asked a local sociology professor from UC Davis about the trend, and she said:
It's not just these "reality" or "newtainment" shows. I have had unfortunate experiences twice with local newsmedia stations. The most egregious was on a weekly topical debate program that took an issue and supposedly explored all sides. I even watched this show semi-regularly. I was asked on the show and had several "producers" talk about how they appreciated me being there to help people understand.
I was waiting in a room off-stage for my appearance a little bit into the show, when the host instructed the staff to cut the feed to the room as the show started (Should've realized then). When it came time for me to come on, the host had prepped the scene for me to be immediately attacked by all involved. He supervised this extremely well, making sure to interrupt me, discount me or flat-out cut me off whenever I had a reasonable and logical statement or tried to defend myself (since his show was about expousing his view and not exploring anything). Watching the show at home later I see that he set this up from the beginning (when my view was cut).
After seeing the tactics first hand, I could see how this show was a sham all along. Every episode had the same strategy, that now was transparent to me.
Be very suspicious of the media when they come looking for you, they quite simply will lie to get what they want out of you - and make no mistake they will set you up, sell you out or edit the whole thing into something unrecognizable without any qualms or remorse.
BTW- It was "Town Meeting" on KOMO4, Seattle, WA
But they have done and continue to do good journalism alongside their puff pieces
Baloney - ask Audi how good their "journalism" is. Do some research. CBS/60 minutes never even apologized for their fraud.
If that show had aired in Germany, you could have sued CBS for presenting obviously fradualent and misleading evidence. The first amendament doesn't say you have to speak the truth. 60 minutes has been taking advantage of that fact for 20 plus years.
For every 1 "good" piece, I woudl see 2 heavily slanted and obvioulsy biased pieces of bovine feces. Those odds lead me to give up paying attention to the miserable excuse for "hard journalism" a long time ago. In college I used to do research before almost every 60 minutes episode for a class in world history. We would get a small description of the segments before they aired.
After that semester I never watched the program again. I was that dissapointed in them. Previously I had thought that such hard biases and bad reporting were aberations. After watching for a full semster and doing my own research - I came to the conclusion that it was the rule.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Ali G did a similar show in the UK - I think it was broadcast on HBO. Who knows, maybe this is where MTV stole the idea. The Ali G shows were also taped and edited to show the 'guest' in the worst possible light. However, Ali G's interview with Tony Benn, the elder left-wing statesman of British politics, back fired. Benn threw everything back at Ali G with humourous contempt - and I think it was only at the very end of the segment that Benn (possibly) realised it was a set up.
Other interviewsee of note: CIA director Woolsey, a bigotted Orangeman and Naomi Wolf who didn't come out so well. Booyakasha!
I've often wondered how they would react if you asked for the same rights that they ask of you -
.sig
to tape, edit, and broadcast the performance.
-- not a
Your post reminded me of a segment I heard with a writer from The Onion. He said that every week that get email with the following basic setup:
"I read The Onion every week and I love it! However this week you joked about (BLANK). (BLANK) is just not funny. (BLANK) is a very serious matter and not something to joke about. So please in the future don't joke about it. Thank you."
Of coarse BLANK was different every week and about every topic The Onion would make fun of. Sigh.
What do you say to the man that has nothing? Cast it away!!
Ahh, I knew this type of stuff sounded very familiar.
I was going to be doing something on the Daily Show apparently being pitted against the one and only Snotty Scotty Richter, the spammer now being hunted by the NY AG's office.
Within 6 hours of saying yes, I'd go on the show that monday, I spoke with my other admins and several of my advisors who warned me against it, and promptly e-mailed the producer back and said I'm sorry, but something has come up.
I avoided a rather bad sitation, from what I can see. Needless to say, I've been very careful since then on who I allow to interview me for spam fighting stuff and similar.
Brielle
After a brief look at the Crossballs website, it sounds very much like it's a version of the UK's The Day Today (Chris Morris), and Brass Eye (again Chris Morris). These programmes take the concept of "current affairs", and then parody this.
The difference, however, (as far as I can see) is that Brass Eye etc tend to have a good stance as their founding, i.e. to target the media's mass-hysteria around particular subjects (especially drug use, paedophiles etc), and mock not only their shock-tactic approach to manipulating the public, but also mock the approach that "celebrity" take when trying to advocate their own standpoints (to the point where they'll make any given "scientific" statement to make them out to be a positive public influence on the matter).
This show, however, seems to make its comedy focus as simply a vehicle for the public humiliation of known experts in a given field. How they do this, I don't know (having never seen the show), so I cannot comment on its extremity, but it does seem somewhat cruel without a differing message to counteract it.
RTFA (from the Economist)
Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.
The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special "free-speech zone" that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.
Is the Economist article biased? Yes. Is there still valuable truth there? Yes. Is there truth behind your arguments? Yes. But I see a lot of rhetoric and misdirection in what you say.
The better example of this kind of thing has to be the genius that is "Brass Eye".
:)
None of this confrontational crap in the mould of Jerry Springer or Oprah (well, OK... Just one, involving a bloke with "Bad AIDS" because he caught it having unprotected gay sex, rather than "Good AIDS" (which would've been caught innocently in a blood transfusion).
Just duping celebrities into speaking for fake causes like GAFAFWISP, an organisation setup to warn people about heavy electricity, or Cake, a new drug from eastern europe... Bernard Manning saying with all sincerity "Remember kids, cake is a made up drug, but it's not made of plants, it's made of chemicals, by sick bastards"
Another one was "cannibliss". A fake japanese advert shown to celebrities asking for their comments. (Canibliss was a filtration system, dog smokes spliff, blood cycled through filter to a human sitting next to him)