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!"
For people that didn't read the article, it's actually a new show on Comedy Central called Crossballs. It's not MTV itself, or even a show on MTV.
Comedy Central also produces the great The Daily Show, which I'm sure a few guests are upset they appeared on after it airs. (Host Jon Stewart recently jokingly asked on the show why anyone is still willing to appear). It's more widely known, though, and they seem to be open about who they are.
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).
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Dave,
The L.A. Times article (avoid folding the long URL!):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-adfi-fr eston20j un20,1,5581013.story?
coll=la-home-headlines online for now (registration required) tells the story of
Tom Freston, chairman of Viacom's MTV Networks. The article suggests that Tom's
style for MTV et al. might be the saving grace for Paramount and perhaps the
rest of the entertainment industry.
If MTV's model is the solution, we're in for big trouble. Hear my saga and avoid
the fate that almost befell yours truly -- experts and spokespeople in the IP
readership, you could be next!
A few weeks ago, I got a call from a producer who identified herself as being
with MTV Networks' "The Debate Project" - -- who wanted to book me onto a new
debate format show in production, to be taped a few days hence. She described
the show (which she never actually specifically named) as oriented toward young
people about important topics, with guests who were experts in their respective
fields. 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.
While MTV Net producing a show like this seemed a bit odd, it's not unheard of
for them to do topical programming. She assured me the program would definitely
air on an MTV Network but wasn't sure which one yet. Odd, but I've gotten
stranger calls from more ordinary news-oriented programs.
They sealed the deal by promising to send a car so I wouldn't have to hassle
with driving in to Hollywood from The Valley through late Friday afternoon
traffic, and even said they'd throw in $200 (egads -- payment for a "news"
appearance -- unheard of in my experience!)
OK, I'll bite -- sounds more interesting than typical interviews anyway. Then
followed more phone calls from other staffers questioning me at length on the
topic of spam, an e-mailed message with similar questions, and finally all was
set to go. They were really excited about my joining them the next day they kept
saying, and would call me in the morning before sending the car.
That same Thursday night, with the show scheduled for Friday, I was increasingly
uncomfortable. There was a bad feeling I just couldn't shake, an almost animal
instinct of something amiss that I couldn't put my finger on.
When the show had originally called, I had done some cursory googling but
couldn't fine anything relevant. This didn't seem too unusual for a show in
production but not yet on air. Now I started googling in depth.
At first I found nothing again. But then I started working backwards from the
contact phone numbers I had for the show's production staff. This time I hit pay
dirt, and while the pages unscrolled on my screen a cold chill ran down my
spine.
As the recent, angry testimonials I had found recounted, with a matching of
modus operandi that left no chance for error, the show on which I was about to
appear was a fraud.
Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central
(yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called "Crossballs" -- and its sole purpose is the
embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting
a legitimate discussion program.
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.
As the alien commander said in "Plan 9 From Outer Space": "That was TOO close!"
In a few hours I was scheduled t
It's interesting that this one person was able to figure out that the debate was just a reality show. Honestly I could see how many people could fall for a seemingly legitimate request.
I managed to grab a mirror before the server was reduced to a smouldering pile of copper and silicon.
Enjoy.
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.
I would have loved an opportunity like this. I would have actually showed up and pretended once they started taping, that I was actually an anti-SPAM (the food from Hormel) advocate, or something equally goofy. At least you could have stood up in front of the studio audience and made a nice speech denouncing the quality of tv programming and how out of touch Viacom is with honest and decent programming.
Instead you just bowed out... hell you didn't even let them send the car. Think of the potential. You could have called up an enemy and sent him on the show, or found a homeless guy and told him he could get a free meal and a ride for participating. The possibilities were endless.
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.
It's hardly the only show on the air which does this - "Ali G" from the UK (and HBO) is a great example, he's interviewed the likes of Newt Gingrich, C Everett Koop, Ralph Nader, Buzz Aldrin and many others, most of whom never caught on. I'm sure the basic concept goes back as far as audiovisual reproduction technology.
The good satirical shows (like the Daily Show) merely allow genuine whackos and phonies to make fools of themselves; I'm sure there are also lowbrow shows which try to ambush and victimize unsuspecting guests as well. I dunno which sort this "Crossballs" will be (though there's one or two in the cast whom I know don't need to be doing crap to pay rent, so there's hope) but regardless, her reaction seems to be a bit over the top...
Perfectly Normal Industries
Serously, I will cheer that Assston tries to punk a real badass like Ray Lewis or Allen Iverson and it ends in a quadruple homicide, high speed car chase, dead innocent civilians and a billion dollar lawsuit against MTV.
I believe the accepted term is infotainment, and in some cases - docutainment.
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:
makes -1 flamebait look +5 insightful
According to President Bush, President Bush has never made a mistake. Also, should a mistake be made, President Bush will be unable to recall the mistake or any events that happened before and after said mistake. President Bush also would like you to know that any fact brought forth must meet with President Bush's approval. Failure of the fact to be approved makes the fact false. Only President Bush approved facts will be considered truthful.
Of course...I don't know if I want to be killed as an "enemy combatant"
I guess $200 is the market value for a person's dignity according to Viacom.
That must be a nice company to work for.
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.
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
I can speak for all the Daytime talk/interview shows but I know of at least 3 local/ny/nj market shows and one national (intials JJ) which were recruiting guests who implicitly knew what they were expected to deliver and had it made perfectly clear that reality didn't matter.
On a deeper level these shows are much like kingsnakes, in that they seek people that are looking for attention/notoriety/selfpromotion and they give it to them in spades. This one is however is apparently going over the line by a wide margin. Aside from the damage that could be done to the guests careers, divorces and murders have occured due to the ill considered actions of these shows (Jenny Jones outing a Homosexual unrequited love by example).
If there is any part of our society that needs to have its feat held to the fire its the news media. Wheather it be the financial press that serves as a megaphone for pump and dumpers (Forbes the capitolists tool) the political newsmedia ( you pick) or any other form of "reporting". Lack of malice isn't enough there has to be due dilligence when the results can and do prove devastating.
My general position is that I'll always talk to the working press, but I blow off "lifestyle" reporters. Running a DARPA Grand Challenge team, I get a fair amount of press interest. Some of it is wierd. Playboy and Men's Life contacted me for interviews. There were documentary producers, including one guy with an Alcatraz fixation. (He'd done five TV documentaries on Alcatraz.)
One can't help but feel sorry for the legit news folks over at CBS' "60 Minutes" and other excellent news programs....
r int.html] The same news program that lines up it's guests to co-incide with their book releases (See Bill Clinton)? The same network (CBS) that uses pyrotechnics (20/20) to "demonstrate" what happens when a full sized pickup was hit - because it wouldn't catch on fire otherwise? [http://www.car-forums.com/s10/t2240.html]
You are kidding right? The news program that almost drove Audi out of business with it's false inaccurate reporting?[ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1115/6412145a_p
I thought the author was a bright guy, up until that comment. 60 minutes may have at one time been a respectable news magazine. That has not been the case for almost 2 decades IMHO. If 60 minutes knocks on your door and they have decided your "guilty", you have a better chance at getting your side of the story heard on cross balls.
In the end - isn't that whats the most sad?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It looks like it is gonna suck. Ass.
Most likely it'll flop after 3 episodes. And good, it looks rediculusly annoying.
It'll go in the pile of CC shows I hate, along with Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd. Which I'm amazed hasn't been canceled yet. Futurama would be so much nicer there!
Am I the only one who cringes at a Spam expert letting his/her e-mail address be posted unprotected on a site?
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/12.html
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
There was also a time they had a "live" segment from Washington and Stewart started laughing because it was light out at 11pm. Steven Colbert came up with a good retort for that one, but I forget what it was.
Then there're the occasional time they continually change the background. Like the other night when Colbert was covering the G-8 summit and got moved from Savannah, GA to St. Louis, MO in about 3 seconds during a cut to Stewart. Or the time Steve Correll (sp?) left Bagdad because he didn't realize the scope of our impending invasion, and successive cuts showed him packing up his stuff in a hotel room, in an aiport, on a plane, etc. They have a lot of fun with that thing...
The BEST scene they did was when Colbert was live 'from Mars.' He'd wait 20 seconds before responding to Stewart "because of the transmission delay." I was literally on the floor laughing my ass off.
Ahh, good times...
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
The only difference between the daily show and fox news is, the daily show lets you know its fake up front.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Your troll sucked. Attention to detail would help make it more persuasive. For instance, Lauren isn't a woman.
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
These pranks reminded me of who probably inspired them, the Canadian show "This Hour has 22 minutes" in their feature "Talking to Americans".
In 2000, Rick Mercer posed as a reporter and asked Bush for comments on Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine's" endorsement of his candidacy for President. Canadians start a trend again.
Quite simply, avoid talking to the media whenever possible. You can definitely expect them to put some kind of spin on whatever you say -- whether it's meant to add excitement, satisfy their existing bias, or for whatever other reason (lack of skill / stupidity). A close friend of mine was severely embarassed in our community due an idiot reporter who entirely misrepresented/misquoted what my friend said. The lesson for me was, reporters are not smart people and even if they mean well they can screw up big time, hurting you in the process, and nobody cares to read retractions. When the media comes knocking, keep your mouth shut.
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.
As highlighted by slashdot.org, according to a mailing list posting (mirror):
The nature of Crossballs is confirmed by a couple of other sources. According to a gopusa.com commentary:
And according to a June 15, 2004 story from digitalspy.co.uk, an entertainment newsblog:
In similar display of mockery, according to a Jun 5, 2004 dc.indymedia.org story:
*First become an expert on something besides porn-surfing and masturbating... and then maybe you have the right to fantasize about MTV calling you up and giving you $200.*
wtf I'd need 200 bucks then for? I could like, get a proper job!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The first rule of /. club is do not post a link to anything hosted on your own server. /. is club is... do not talk about /. club!
The second rule is
That said, does anyone have a mirror?
The point of the both Crossballs and the mock-interviews on The Daily Show is (usually) to be funny. One very effective way to be funny is to ridicule people who take themselves too seriously.
I mean, the guy wrote this to introduce us to his story:
asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam).
Unsolicited advertising is an important topic for the world's youth? A scourge?
The AIDS epidemic is a scourge. Genocide is a scourge. A brash president that disregards diplomacy might be a scourge.
But getting some extra emails? That's not a scourge, and if you believe it is, you deserve to be ridiculed. Mr. Weinstein was so eager to spread his anti-spam gospel to the tortured masses that he only needed $200 and a cab for compensation. You know what? That's funny!
Comedy lets us point out the things that are out of place. People who think spam is a scourge are out of place. People who want 14 year old to have a 1/4 are out of place. Administrations that are accumulating scandals faster than people can grasp them are out of place. And so we laugh at them.
I saw the segment with Scott Richter, it was funny, and the only person made out to be a fool was Richter himself. The person who replaced you was teased a little ("What about the people who want spam? Aren't you hurting them?"), but has absolutely no reason to be sorry about the final result.
I might worry if the Daily Show wanted to interview me about a controversial subject, but for something as clearly one-sided as spam, I wouldn't hestitate to talk to them.
http://www.equalccw.com/thedebateshowfiasco.html.
Not pretty.
The US needs a news channel funded directly by subscribers, not through advertising. Watching coverage of perscription drug coverage laws, followed by the latest ad for Lipitor, or watching people debate military spending followed by an ad for GE should be a giant wakeup call to people that they are being lied to. I can't stand any of the US's cable news stations, makes me glad I at least can get BBC News on the web.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
Up here in Canada, we have a show called This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
This is a saterical news show. And every politician who shows up on it knows it. I'm a big fan of satire myself, and if you ask me, this is the way to do it. If you're willing to make fun of yourself, all the better. If not, I won't miss you.
Personally, I don't know how you can take someone seriously if they can't make fun of themselves. But I also think that they should be given the opportunity to poke fun at themselves, not be humiliated without notice, like this guy was.
While we are allowed to talk about such things (and indeed are doing so now), I do think the OP has a point. 'Support our troops' is a non sequitir in a debate about whether we should be at war at all. Of course everyone wishes to support the troops who are risking their lives. The question is whether our leaders are justified those lives at risk.
Below is an example of the 'suppor our troops' meme as propaganda, from the Nuremburg trials. Apologies for the slight bending of Godwin's law.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
My only experiences with reporters have been with them trying to put words into my mouth.
Back in the early '90s, I was involved in the pro-life movement (don't want to get into a debate about that now, what matters is the way reporters handled the story), and one of the things I did, being a good First Amendment type, was to test an injunction that said that certain name people or organizations, or anyone acting in concert with those individuals or groups, could not come within 30 feet of a particular abortion clinic. Anyway, I wasn't named on the injunction, so some other teenagers and I, none of whom were named, decided to test the injunction, and since it happened to be a very hot day (it being Florida and all), it became apparent that the media wanted to paint the story as "bad parents forcing their children to protest." I had a reporter interview me and try every which way to say how hot it was and how hot I was and to try to get me to say that it was my parents' idea that I be there, because that was the story they wanted to tell.
In another story of reporters trying to get the quote they wanted, a few weeks ago I went up to Tampa for the Stanley Cup Finals, and was sitting outside the building looking bored because I had gone up early to get standing room tickets and there was nothing to do, when a reporter came along and wanted to interview me for the human interest fan story. It was pretty obvious that the quote he wanted was that the reason I spent $200 a pop on tickets to game 1 was because it was a "once in a lifetime experience." I didn't want to say it was a once in a lifetime thing because I certainly hope the Lightning will be back to the finals before I die, and since I didn't say what he wanted, I didn't get quoted but he found someone else to say it was a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
So yeah, I don't trust reporters, because whether it was a serious issue or not, they've tried to put words in my mouth.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
It's called PBS.
There are quite a variety of PBS shows out there that are pretty authoratative.
Yes, at times their vaguely socialist emotional bias pops up pretty heavily, but they actually do indepth exploration of issues and interview many people ignored by the mainstream press.
And, even though the P stands for "Public" the government funding they get is miniscule to non-existent. Their customers are not advertisors, not some mega-conglomerate owner, but their audience. If people don't value their coverage, they don't pay for it, and thus their quality is relatively high.
http://technomom.com/writing/press.html
Tag lost or not installed.
'... he will aggressively exercise his legal remedies to the fullest extent to the law, and you and your applicable agents will rue the day that your agents practised fraud against him..'
If more lawyers wrote like this, it might even make people read EULA/software licences.
"If you refuse to comply with this licence, you will rue the day you were born, for lo, our vengeance will be swift and mighty"
Pity there isn't a -1 "humorless" mod.
So yes, you DO have to be careful about these things, and always make sure you know what you're getting into!
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.
Dilbert? You can not be serious?
Scott Adams takes suggestions from people. I would be willing to bet cold hard cash he has not had to come up with an original joke in years.
I have even gotten a couple of my 'suggestions' into the strip.
He is more of a reflection of the real corruption, missmanagment, and apathy in the corporate world.
Also if Dilberts company was to 'liquidate' the cast of characters he wouldnt have a strip anymore would he? That is about the only subject he hasn't really lampooned.
Also my theory is *MOST* of these 'news' orginizations do not do any real work. They get their 'news' from AP or Reuters. I noticed it one day driving across the country. All the stories were exactly the same word for word. Yet they were all presented as if from the local reporter. Maybe sometimes the local org would change it a little. But very rarely. Don't belive me? Tape the news at morning news and the evening news and the late night news from abc/cbs/nbc/fox/cnn/msnbc/pbs/npr. You will find the SAME bit of news parroted word for word. Its clear to me that the fix is in with news. Its bought by bulk I think.
So I started doing some research into the original articals themselves. They are usually bad news. Full of usless facts and worthless to get anything from. Usually about 80% of the artical is real news. The rest is trying to manipulate you somehow either by an outright lie, or an omision of some truth. You can usually use them to see 'something happened'. But as to why something happens give them a skip.
Feh. A Fox News vice president was on air recently with some of their talking heads, saying how the whole Abu Ghraib uproar was just a scheme to embarrass Bush.
That was my last attempt to see if Fox actually could be anything like unbiased...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Oh yes I did, and I think it qualifies as a best thing ever. Click here, and then the bottom left-hand corner link ("Prince Charles Scandal"). You'll need a RealPlayer plugin, but it's worth it.
There was a massive fuss in the UK three years ago over a spoof documentary called Brass Eye, which was a one-off special on the media's treatment of paedophilia. There were numerous celebrities and government ministers who were duped into appearing, and the tabloids branded it the "sickest TV show ever".
The strange thing about the reaction to the show was that it appeared to justify the screening of the programme, including the minister who launched an attack despite not having actually seeing it.
Lots of info from the BBC, and a transcript here.
Your written correspondence is currently broadcasting a postal address. With this, someone can begin attacking your house!