Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.
My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.
I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.
Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:
First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.
And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.
People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).
This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.
It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.
I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).
See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!
Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.
My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.
I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.
Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:
First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.
And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.
People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).
This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.
It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.
I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).
See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!
"Web journalism" and "accuracy" are still far, far apart.
Sure, from a bona fide "journalistic" source like CNN or MSNBC we can -- for the most part -- expect accuracy. But these sites are trustworthy precisely because they exist outside of the web. Somehow -- and I'm not sure exactly why -- existence outside of the web -- and probably in another form such as print or television -- provides the litmus test for consumers when they go looking someone -- or some site -- to trust.
But to equate the Slashdot model with "investigative accuracy" is, IMHO, a fundamental misunderstanding of how sites like Slashdot (and others like it) work.
Don't get me wrong. I love Slashdot. But "accuracy" here is non-existant. I mean, even someone like JonKatz -- the so-called "senior media critic" -- can't get his facts straight on any number of stories.
His opinions are interesting -- but more often than not they are made into a mishmosh due to his inability to check facts. (And he does seem to say the same thing over and over again, so much so, in fact, you gotta wonder why he keeps cranking out his opinions when, for the most part, they can be summed up thusly: "Freedom is good. Corporations are bad.")
Katz is just one example, but it's a good one because, you gotta figure: if Katz is the "senior gas-bag" who, presumably, has some sense of scope and context (and accuracy?), then, well, god help us all.
I'm fairly certain Katz sees himself as a "facilitator." He could care less what the Slashdot community thinks; what matters is that he's offering his wisdom up for us to contemplate -- but, as far as he's concerned, that's all that matters.
The last thing he wants to do is to get bogged down in details: he's short on time, so he can't respond to each comment. Likewise, I'm sure he'll say publicly that he reads all the responses to his articles but that -- and, of course, we understand -- he can't possibly respond to each posting.
Katz is really no better than Berst or Dvorak. They assume that they're plugged into current trends because they're good observers. But what all three of them fail to realize is that you need to respond to the trends and not just observe them.
It's odd that Katz refuses to respond on this forum. It's disconcerting, too: he obviously can submit a story whenever he wishes. He doesn't go through the same "editorial board" that the rest of do. So he posts his stories and in nearly every single piece that he posts, he gets something wrong: he misunderstands the fundamentals or, worse yet, doesn't take the time to check his facts.
The end result is that Katz is using Slashdot to further his own "project" at the expense of all Slashdot's readership. If he considers himself a critic -- and thinks he's "in tune" with the pulse of his readership -- then he oughta get off his high horse and start doing the hard work of defending his views.
Slashdot is an interesting community: but by taking advantage of Slashdot's readership (and apparently circumventing the editorial constraints that keep this readership in "check") Katz is merely using the community as a sounding board for his own agenda.
It's goes against the sprit of the community and should be examined (and discussed) further.
Can someone explain to me why all of Katz's so-called "media critques" sound as though they've been authored by a college freshman?
In *every single essay* Katz has a sentence that reads remarkably similar to this:
"For hundreds of years, censorship has been the primary tool by which government, monarchies, educational and religious institutions and, lately, powerful corporations, have asserted political, cultural and economic dominance. "
Or, how about this:
"Institutions both governmental and corporate that feel threatened by the Net and the Web, are developing a pattern. Rather than embrace innovative and empowering new technologies to offer consumers and citizens choice and freedom, they seek out a handful of targets to use as warnings, examples of the nasty fate that will befall transgressors."
Does anyone edit Katz's writings? These lines are the typical "throwaway lines" used to link paragraphs in five-paragraph essays. They don't say anything specific and are always rooted in nifty generalizations that have no basis in fact. "For hundreds of years..." For chrissake, Katz: do some fucking research and get us a number. Use a fucking incident -- an actual event to make your writing more persusaive.
I read all of Katz's essays, and I'm amazed: he's a remarkably lightweight critique who never offers any specfic "insights." What Katz offers is generalized FUD: he picks up on an issue, decides to fit it in with his "project", and, damn the facts or specifics, writes around the issue until he drills home a point that could have been "drilled home" in the first sentence.
Does Katz just write these things willy-nilly and send them off to Slashdot to be "published?" Does anyone actually offer Katz some constructive criticism about his pieces?
Jon, really: you need an editor. You shouldn't fire these pieces off for public consumption until you do some real research. They're not persuasive texts: they're ramblings.
It's the typical sort of Slashdot mentality: well, if I can't think of a comparison, well, I'll use Hitler -- or, better yet, I'll use the typical "communism bad, capitalism good" sort of comparison -- or, wait! -- how about "open source good, non open source bad" -- yeah! that's it.
Katz, go ahead and respond to this. I never see any responses to your so-called "pieces". Why do you write like a college freshman? Why don't you do better research? Why don't you use an editor?
But with certain films -- and Malick's films are good examples -- the critical response of the reviewer to the film usually says more about the reviewer than it does the film. (In the case of 'The Thin Red Line' the comparisons are usually between it and Saving Private Ryan -- and those one like one despise the other.)
I hold Ebert in high regard, but I'm mystified by some of his "great films." Likewise, I can't figure out why he thinks a film like 'A Taste of Cherry' is such a long, boring film. [It's long but fascinating: made even more so because of its context]
But of course: everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Sure, I'm curious about why people don't like something, but I'm more curious about why people who don't like something aren't at all curious why people *do* like something -- especially when the original critic holds something in such high esteem.
Having taught English for years, I've become numb to the "I think it sucks" comments. They mean nothing, and, as I say, usually -- but not always -- say more about the critic than about the text.
(Just as, in the same way, I'm suspicious when people say 'Citizen Kane' is *the* great American film. It's a good -- most certainly a great film -- but if you think it's the greatest, then you surely don't know American film -- or, worse yet, think it so for the wrong reasons. And, yes, I said "wrong reasons".)
It always astonishes me why people say stuff like that -- "Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen" -- and then just sorta leave it at that.
Aren't you at all curious (I'm sure you're not, but I'm curious why you express no curiosity) about why some people consider it one of the best films of the 1990's?
Ah well. Nevermind. It's a complex film. It's not for everyone.
Of course, I remember in 1992/3 when the University of Michigan tried to ban Bolo-playing on all the Macs in the fishbowl (the big-ass, glassed-in computer center).
The way this *should* work is with free DVDs -- like teasers. Get a freebie teaser in the mail -- you could watch it for 24 hours -- but if you want to own it, you gotta buy it.
I mean, imagine freebie Criterion DVDs. You get 10 hours to watch the movie once it's opened. But, hey, if you *buy* the disk, you can watch the film all you want.
The freebie route is the only route that makes sense -- not the "rental" route.
Actually this is interesting. Several weeks ago, I had Ameritech Americast cable installed. I chose it because it had one of those on-screen guides -- scroll through the list, then click to select a channel to view -- and because the picture was a helluva better than the competing cable carrier in town. Americast comes with a pretty nice looking remote control that allows you to switch between the TV and the on-screen guide. Anyway, the rep was in the process of running the cable when I tried the on-screen guide. It popped right up, but instead of popping on the screen with the correct time, the guide was two hours into the future. I said, "What's with this?" Rep explained that Ameritech had been sued by StarSight for infrining on their patented-onscreen menu idea. But instead of Ameritech ditching the menu altogether, they merely rigged it so that when you clicked the on-screen guide it popped up two hours ahead of the current time -- and then you had to hit the 'Rewind' button to get it to pop up with programs for the current time. He agreed with me that it was amazingly annoying but that it was the only way Ameritech could use the on-screen guide and not infringe on the patent. Pretty bizarre -- and pathetic.
The value of one's vision has absolutely *no relation*, absolutely *no correspondence* to the intellectual "validity" of the vision.
True, Bob Young has millions, but on all scales *except for dollars* those millions have absolutely nothing to do with the intellectual weight of that vision.
Einstein's vision was one that pretty compelling -- but I don't see (or didn't see) millions upon millions of dollars showered on Einstein. Nor did I see millions showered upon Joyce, Proust, Hemingway, or Faulkner -- or Adorno, Horkheimer, et al. -- or whomever else can fill in the blank of the 'Important Intellectual'.
Your position is so laughably stupid (yes, that's right: I said "stupid") that it tells me a couple things about your thought processes: that you are an uncritical, uncreative zealot who follows around the latest fad and is more than happy to join in with the other voices in your cabal of lemmings, so long as your voice conforms to theirs. If it doesn't, then you promptly adopt their cause du jour, imagine yourself on the "bleeding edge," and sneer down at those outside your pack who have different (and most likely better -- yes, that's right, I said "better") ideas than your own.
It's typuical Slashdot mentality: if the pack says bark at Purina, you bark at Purina. If the pack says, hey, don't bark at Gaines Burgers, then, hey, you don't bark at Gaines Burgers. But because you're not the alpha and are instead caught in the back of the pack, staring hard at the dirty assholes of the other scrappy mutts, the best you can is bark at whatever else the pack is barking at.
No I think the value-added stuff he's referring to (on audio CDs) isn't multimedia crap (which is always -- literally -- *crap*) but stuff like the CD cover art and the inserts.
Hey, where's JonKatz when we really need his careful media analysis?
"Not since biblical times has such an important and critical media announcment come down the pike. We are martians. Yes, that's right. We. Are. Martians.
Now, we all know that the American constitution establishes free speech as an essential human freedom. But if we are martians what does this mean? Does it mean we are humans? Does it means we are martians? Does it, in fact, invalidate the American constitution?
I fielded several media calls about this major, earth shattering announcment: first from the New York Times, then from Chicago Tribune, and then from Vinny Bega in Trenton, a free-lancer who frequently consults with me in matters of national and global importance.
Vinny's first question naturally was this: "John, you're a media analyst and film critic. What's your take on the possibility that parts of our genetic make-up could be derived from martian genes?"
"Well, Vinny," I answered, "you know I shouldn't talk about this because I'm expecting a call from the president (who, by the way, felt that my review of 'Man In the Moon' was quite informative, and..."
"Wait, you mean Man on the Moon?"
"Man In The Moon, Vinny. Please. Listen to what I'm saying and don't correct me. Now, the announcment that --"
"Jon, is it true you're a college freshman?"
"Huh?"
"On Slashdot. I read that."
"A freshman?"
"Someone said what's a college freshman doing making movie reviews and fielding calls from major news agencies?"
"No, I'm older than that--"
"It's just a lie?"
"Vinny, you asked me a question."
"Yeah--"
"Then let me analyze."
"Biblical proportions," Vinny said, checking his notes. "Something about not since Moses parted the Red Sea did such --"
"Yes. Well, the question is this: free speech. I know the EFF is working on this one. But it's brings up the question of open source."
"Open source?"
"Yeah."
"What about the red sea?"
"Well not since then did a matter of this crucial, critical urgency arise."
"What about the AOL/Time Warner merger?"
"What about it?"
"You said the same about that."
"Yeah?"
"So not since the AOL/TimeWarner merger did such a critical, crucial event happen?"
Pause. "Wait, that was three days ago."
"Yeah..."
"Yeah, not since the AOL/Time Warner merger."
"You want me to write that, Jon?"
"That not since the merger? Or not since the red sea?"
"I dunno Jon, you tell me."
"Yeah."
"The Red Sea..."
"No..."
"The Time Warner..."
"Yeah."
"Okay, not since --"
"No skip it."
"What?"
"The merger. Don't write that."
"Don't write the Red Sea?"
"Or the Time Warner."
Pause. "Don't write any of it."
"Yeah."
"Okay."
Pause. "So that's it then? You got what you need Vinny?"
"Uh..."
"Remember this."
"This... what...?"
"The martian story. Remember this. Write that."
"That we should remember this?"
"Yeah. Because it's big, Vinny. It's real big!"
"Big."
"Bigger than anything. It changes everything: free speech, open source, everything."
Yeah, right, and here's 10 reasons to buy a DVD player:
1) The Passion of Joan of Arc (w/Richard Einhorn's score -- the best film of all time -- better than Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, you name it. And it's from 1928!) 2) The Last Temptation of Christ (w/Scorsese commentary, 16:9, etc.) 3) The Nights of Cabiria (remastered by Criterion -- it's superb) 4) Seven Samuarai (with excellent commentary by Michael Jeck) 5) Fellini's And the Ship Sails On 6) Criterion's soon-to-be-released Cocteau box-set 7) Truffaut's films on Fox/Lorber (and the oop Criterion 400 blows) 8) Peeping Tom (a guilty pleasure -- includes the documentary "A Very British Psycho") 9) Chaplin's Mutuals (great transfer) 10) Pink Floyd's The Wall (fantastic disc)
Works both ways. The Phantom Menace sucked, hands down. Yeah, I'd love to see Star Wars and Empire (Jedi sucked because of the fucking Ewoks) but Lucas is gonna do what Lucas is gonna do.
And frankly: who cares? There are better films available on DVD than the big blockbusters that we've all come to think of as "great films". (After all, Spielberg's E.T. was an odd remake [or so it seems] of Satyajit Ray's 'The Alien'. How many people here have seen Ray's films? Hmmm? I thought so. Try "Pater Panchali" for a real visual and dramatic treat. Only on VHS, unfortunately -- but much better than any of the crappy film "blockbusters"! Although, I'll admit, yeah, "Close Encounters" is a bloody brilliant film. My question is: how did a film like that ever get made? It's fucking odd -- but brilliant.)
Oh yeah, I'm just watching Fritz Lang's "M" now. Wow, that's a cool film. I might have to think about it a while and add it as #11 to the list above.
Slashdot Mirror
Inherent bias doesn't render something inaccurate.
Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.
My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.
I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.
Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:
First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.
And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.
People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).
This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.
It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.
I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).
See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!
Dude, inherent bias doesn't render something inaccurate.
Besides, my point is not about bias. There is no such thing as 'unbiased' writing. The good (or evil, depending on how you look at it) post-structuralist on your shoulder can attest to that.
My point has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with accuracy insofar as it's (technically and philosophically) possible to report accurately. I can be biased against the death penalty, but that doesn't automatically mean I can't accurately report on it. It might might that I *may* not report it accurately -- because of my anti-death-penalty bias -- but the same could be said for a pro-death-penalty person. Likewise, a "neutral" activist is biased, as well.
I'll agree with you that media in all forms -- web, TV, radio -- oftentimes reports inaccurate stories. The web is no different. But my point is that our culture has litmus tests for "trust". And one of those litmus tests -- whether you like it or not (I don't like it) -- is that ABC, NBC, CBS (to take three examples) *attempt* to report stories in an accurate fashion. That's not to say that they're not biased in their reporting -- bias, as I say, is fine (and whether it's fine or not makes no difference, since there is no reporting without bias, but, again, I digress...) -- nor is that to say that they do not report inaccuracies -- they do, and although I'm unfamiliar with the incident you point out, it sounds like a fairly representative incident.
Web journalism -- or at least the web journalistic model proposed above -- will automatically fail this "accuracy" litmus test for a number of reasons:
First, because it's the web and people don't trust the web. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't trust the web, but it does mean this: that because it is -- the Slashdot model, I mean -- electronic first and foremost (as opposed to, in the case of CNN, TV first, web second) and people (not all, not even most, but a good portion) automatically distrust anything electronic, period. Now, I'm not passing any judgments on this, but I do think that it's a good reason. It doesn't make sense, it isn't rational, but when it comes to the web, there's little "rational thinking" anywhere to be found. That's exactly the problem.
And second (to keep things short) modern media functions best (Katz should be aware of this, so I'd appreciate a response, although I know he doesn't read or respond to Slashdot) when it -- a form of media -- has two or more media types which work to legitimize and complement each other. The reason why, say, CNN or MSNBC are so influential (or will gradually become more influential in "journalism") is that they have (for example) their web units and television units working in concert (although not simultaneously) to feed each other stories and provide a sort of instantaneous series of checks and balances. Same goes for AOL and Time/Warner.
People trust what they know and remember; they don't trust the "new". Again, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there you go: the way it is, ex cathedra. (And hey, I'm not even JonKatz).
This is why (in the case of Slashdot) we'll always remain a fringe element. We don't have redundant media so that the one legitimizes the other. Plus, Slashdot hasn't yet earned its place in the collective consciousness. CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. etc. has.
It might yet earn that place. It would be nice. But the democratization of voices (as evidenced by the flurry of posting to Slashdot on any given day) is precisely what keeps this (Slashdot, in this case) media "element" on the fringe. Voices are dangerous -- and they're especially dangerous when you're a corporation with millions of dollars that has the ability to manipulate media. This is why, some might argue, the MPAA and the RIAA are fundamentally fascist: they want control at all costs, and are happy to tromple the voices that call out for change. But, ironically enough, it's these same fascist corporations that -- because of our collective consciousness and our resistance to the "new" -- are the ones have established themselves as the "legitimizers". What they decide is good is what, by and large, the public accepts as good -- and what, moreover, the public accepts as accurate, bias or no bias. RIAA is a good example: they have the money to make sure that the overall public perception of MP3s are "tools of pirates." Until they decide to "bless" a thing, that thing is sacrosanct.
I'll agree that it's repugnant and not at all, as I say, rational: but this is why the Slashdot model will never work to provide "accurate" media coverage. Until the fringe is legitimized it will always carry a stigma. And legitimization -- at least in our lifetime, I'm afraid -- will always land at the feet of the moneyed and the powered (corporations).
See, look at that: freedom good, corporations bad. My god, I'm turning into JonKatz!!!!!!!
It's a great idea -- but it would never work.
"Web journalism" and "accuracy" are still far, far apart.
Sure, from a bona fide "journalistic" source like CNN or MSNBC we can -- for the most part -- expect accuracy. But these sites are trustworthy precisely because they exist outside of the web. Somehow -- and I'm not sure exactly why -- existence outside of the web -- and probably in another form such as print or television -- provides the litmus test for consumers when they go looking someone -- or some site -- to trust.
But to equate the Slashdot model with "investigative accuracy" is, IMHO, a fundamental misunderstanding of how sites like Slashdot (and others like it) work.
Don't get me wrong. I love Slashdot. But "accuracy" here is non-existant. I mean, even someone like JonKatz -- the so-called "senior media critic" -- can't get his facts straight on any number of stories.
His opinions are interesting -- but more often than not they are made into a mishmosh due to his inability to check facts. (And he does seem to say the same thing over and over again, so much so, in fact, you gotta wonder why he keeps cranking out his opinions when, for the most part, they can be summed up thusly: "Freedom is good. Corporations are bad.")
Katz is just one example, but it's a good one because, you gotta figure: if Katz is the "senior gas-bag" who, presumably, has some sense of scope and context (and accuracy?), then, well, god help us all.
No, you idiot. It's from Wargames.
I know, because I remember the scene vividly because the movie (at the time) was one of my favorites.
I still remember the Saturday afternoon my buddy and I biked to the mall, plunked down our bucks, and saw Wargames.
Ally Sheedy was in Wargames, not Ferris Bueller.
So, please, let's keep the 80's films straight.
I'm fairly certain Katz sees himself as a "facilitator." He could care less what the Slashdot community thinks; what matters is that he's offering his wisdom up for us to contemplate -- but, as far as he's concerned, that's all that matters.
The last thing he wants to do is to get bogged down in details: he's short on time, so he can't respond to each comment. Likewise, I'm sure he'll say publicly that he reads all the responses to his articles but that -- and, of course, we understand -- he can't possibly respond to each posting.
Katz is really no better than Berst or Dvorak. They assume that they're plugged into current trends because they're good observers. But what all three of them fail to realize is that you need to respond to the trends and not just observe them.
It's odd that Katz refuses to respond on this forum. It's disconcerting, too: he obviously can submit a story whenever he wishes. He doesn't go through the same "editorial board" that the rest of do. So he posts his stories and in nearly every single piece that he posts, he gets something wrong: he misunderstands the fundamentals or, worse yet, doesn't take the time to check his facts.
The end result is that Katz is using Slashdot to further his own "project" at the expense of all Slashdot's readership. If he considers himself a critic -- and thinks he's "in tune" with the pulse of his readership -- then he oughta get off his high horse and start doing the hard work of defending his views.
Slashdot is an interesting community: but by taking advantage of Slashdot's readership (and apparently circumventing the editorial constraints that keep this readership in "check") Katz is merely using the community as a sounding board for his own agenda.
It's goes against the sprit of the community and should be examined (and discussed) further.
And for fuck's sake, Katz: it's "Motion Picture Association of America."
Are you really this fucking moronic?
Really -- all anger aside -- is anyone proof-reading your work? Or are you just posting these things as "first drafts?"
I can't believe the mistakes you make. You can't get names of corporations right, names of movies -- you name it, and you'll get it wrong.
Does it dawn on you that perhaps your texts might actually become more persuasive documents if you check your facts?
Are you really this lazy -- or are you just in a hurry to get these things posted?
Can someone explain to me why all of Katz's so-called "media critques" sound as though they've been authored by a college freshman?
In *every single essay* Katz has a sentence that reads remarkably similar to this:
"For hundreds of years, censorship has been the primary tool by which government, monarchies, educational and religious institutions and, lately, powerful corporations, have asserted political, cultural and economic dominance. "
Or, how about this:
"Institutions both governmental and corporate that feel threatened by the Net and the Web, are developing a pattern. Rather than embrace innovative and empowering new technologies to offer consumers and citizens choice and freedom, they seek out a handful of targets to use as warnings, examples of the nasty fate that will befall transgressors."
Does anyone edit Katz's writings? These lines are the typical "throwaway lines" used to link paragraphs in five-paragraph essays. They don't say anything specific and are always rooted in nifty generalizations that have no basis in fact. "For hundreds of years..." For chrissake, Katz: do some fucking research and get us a number. Use a fucking incident -- an actual event to make your writing more persusaive.
I read all of Katz's essays, and I'm amazed: he's a remarkably lightweight critique who never offers any specfic "insights." What Katz offers is generalized FUD: he picks up on an issue, decides to fit it in with his "project", and, damn the facts or specifics, writes around the issue until he drills home a point that could have been "drilled home" in the first sentence.
Does Katz just write these things willy-nilly and send them off to Slashdot to be "published?" Does anyone actually offer Katz some constructive criticism about his pieces?
Jon, really: you need an editor. You shouldn't fire these pieces off for public consumption until you do some real research. They're not persuasive texts: they're ramblings.
It's the typical sort of Slashdot mentality: well, if I can't think of a comparison, well, I'll use Hitler -- or, better yet, I'll use the typical "communism bad, capitalism good" sort of comparison -- or, wait! -- how about "open source good, non open source bad" -- yeah! that's it.
Katz, go ahead and respond to this. I never see any responses to your so-called "pieces". Why do you write like a college freshman? Why don't you do better research? Why don't you use an editor?
You fucking racist idiot.
Once again, some stupid Slashdotter equating Nazi Germany to DVDs.
Why does this happen with every single Slashdot post?
Very clever. Touche'.
But with certain films -- and Malick's films are good examples -- the critical response of the reviewer to the film usually says more about the reviewer than it does the film. (In the case of 'The Thin Red Line' the comparisons are usually between it and Saving Private Ryan -- and those one like one despise the other.)
I hold Ebert in high regard, but I'm mystified by some of his "great films." Likewise, I can't figure out why he thinks a film like 'A Taste of Cherry' is such a long, boring film. [It's long but fascinating: made even more so because of its context]
But of course: everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Sure, I'm curious about why people don't like something, but I'm more curious about why people who don't like something aren't at all curious why people *do* like something -- especially when the original critic holds something in such high esteem.
Having taught English for years, I've become numb to the "I think it sucks" comments. They mean nothing, and, as I say, usually -- but not always -- say more about the critic than about the text.
(Just as, in the same way, I'm suspicious when people say 'Citizen Kane' is *the* great American film. It's a good -- most certainly a great film -- but if you think it's the greatest, then you surely don't know American film -- or, worse yet, think it so for the wrong reasons. And, yes, I said "wrong reasons".)
*chuckle*
It always astonishes me why people say stuff like that -- "Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen" -- and then just sorta leave it at that.
Aren't you at all curious (I'm sure you're not, but I'm curious why you express no curiosity) about why some people consider it one of the best films of the 1990's?
Ah well. Nevermind. It's a complex film. It's not for everyone.
"Number of films directed" or "years between films" means absolutely nothing.
The obvious (American) example is Terrance Malick: he's directed 3 films in, oh, 30 years or so (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line).
All three are great American films (although Days of Heaven is one of the greatest).
I could also point to, say, Welles or Von Stoheim to make a similar point.
Next...
Then don't read them.
And the only karma you should be worrying about is your own.
Damn sad, banning Napster.
Of course, I remember in 1992/3 when the University of Michigan tried to ban Bolo-playing on all the Macs in the fishbowl (the big-ass, glassed-in computer center).
What a drag.
The way this *should* work is with free DVDs -- like teasers. Get a freebie teaser in the mail -- you could watch it for 24 hours -- but if you want to own it, you gotta buy it.
I mean, imagine freebie Criterion DVDs. You get 10 hours to watch the movie once it's opened. But, hey, if you *buy* the disk, you can watch the film all you want.
The freebie route is the only route that makes sense -- not the "rental" route.
Actually this is interesting. Several weeks ago, I had Ameritech Americast cable installed. I chose it because it had one of those on-screen guides -- scroll through the list, then click to select a channel to view -- and because the picture was a helluva better than the competing cable carrier in town. Americast comes with a pretty nice looking remote control that allows you to switch between the TV and the on-screen guide. Anyway, the rep was in the process of running the cable when I tried the on-screen guide. It popped right up, but instead of popping on the screen with the correct time, the guide was two hours into the future. I said, "What's with this?" Rep explained that Ameritech had been sued by StarSight for infrining on their patented-onscreen menu idea. But instead of Ameritech ditching the menu altogether, they merely rigged it so that when you clicked the on-screen guide it popped up two hours ahead of the current time -- and then you had to hit the 'Rewind' button to get it to pop up with programs for the current time. He agreed with me that it was amazingly annoying but that it was the only way Ameritech could use the on-screen guide and not infringe on the patent. Pretty bizarre -- and pathetic.
Come you idiots. This is just proof of my Slashdot "zealot lemmings" theory.
There *was no 1 AD*. What, you think everyone was saying: "Hey, it's 2 AD. Happy New Year!"
There was no 3 AD, there was no 4 AD, there was no 5 AD, etc. etc.
Please. Stop a minute and think.
Please.
The value of one's vision has absolutely *no relation*, absolutely *no correspondence* to the intellectual "validity" of the vision.
True, Bob Young has millions, but on all scales *except for dollars* those millions have absolutely nothing to do with the intellectual weight of that vision.
Einstein's vision was one that pretty compelling -- but I don't see (or didn't see) millions upon millions of dollars showered on Einstein. Nor did I see millions showered upon Joyce, Proust, Hemingway, or Faulkner -- or Adorno, Horkheimer, et al. -- or whomever else can fill in the blank of the 'Important Intellectual'.
Your position is so laughably stupid (yes, that's right: I said "stupid") that it tells me a couple things about your thought processes: that you are an uncritical, uncreative zealot who follows around the latest fad and is more than happy to join in with the other voices in your cabal of lemmings, so long as your voice conforms to theirs. If it doesn't, then you promptly adopt their cause du jour, imagine yourself on the "bleeding edge," and sneer down at those outside your pack who have different (and most likely better -- yes, that's right, I said "better") ideas than your own.
It's typuical Slashdot mentality: if the pack says bark at Purina, you bark at Purina. If the pack says, hey, don't bark at Gaines Burgers, then, hey, you don't bark at Gaines Burgers. But because you're not the alpha and are instead caught in the back of the pack, staring hard at the dirty assholes of the other scrappy mutts, the best you can is bark at whatever else the pack is barking at.
If only it were possible to be this naive again ... *sigh*
No I think the value-added stuff he's referring to (on audio CDs) isn't multimedia crap (which is always -- literally -- *crap*) but stuff like the CD cover art and the inserts.
Hey, where's JonKatz when we really need his careful media analysis?
..."
...?"
"Not since biblical times has such an important and critical media announcment come down the pike. We are martians. Yes, that's right. We. Are. Martians.
Now, we all know that the American constitution establishes free speech as an essential human freedom. But if we are martians what does this mean? Does it mean we are humans? Does it means we are martians? Does it, in fact, invalidate the American constitution?
I fielded several media calls about this major, earth shattering announcment: first from the New York Times, then from Chicago Tribune, and then from Vinny Bega in Trenton, a free-lancer who frequently consults with me in matters of national and global importance.
Vinny's first question naturally was this: "John, you're a media analyst and film critic. What's your take on the possibility that parts of our genetic make-up could be derived from martian genes?"
"Well, Vinny," I answered, "you know I shouldn't talk about this because I'm expecting a call from the president (who, by the way, felt that my review of 'Man In the Moon' was quite informative, and
"Wait, you mean Man on the Moon?"
"Man In The Moon, Vinny. Please. Listen to what I'm saying and don't correct me. Now, the announcment that --"
"Jon, is it true you're a college freshman?"
"Huh?"
"On Slashdot. I read that."
"A freshman?"
"Someone said what's a college freshman doing making movie reviews and fielding calls from major news agencies?"
"No, I'm older than that--"
"It's just a lie?"
"Vinny, you asked me a question."
"Yeah--"
"Then let me analyze."
"Biblical proportions," Vinny said, checking his notes. "Something about not since Moses parted the Red Sea did such --"
"Yes. Well, the question is this: free speech. I know the EFF is working on this one. But it's brings up the question of open source."
"Open source?"
"Yeah."
"What about the red sea?"
"Well not since then did a matter of this crucial, critical urgency arise."
"What about the AOL/Time Warner merger?"
"What about it?"
"You said the same about that."
"Yeah?"
"So not since the AOL/TimeWarner merger did such a critical, crucial event happen?"
Pause. "Wait, that was three days ago."
"Yeah..."
"Yeah, not since the AOL/Time Warner merger."
"You want me to write that, Jon?"
"That not since the merger? Or not since the red sea?"
"I dunno Jon, you tell me."
"Yeah."
"The Red Sea..."
"No..."
"The Time Warner..."
"Yeah."
"Okay, not since --"
"No skip it."
"What?"
"The merger. Don't write that."
"Don't write the Red Sea?"
"Or the Time Warner."
Pause. "Don't write any of it."
"Yeah."
"Okay."
Pause. "So that's it then? You got what you need Vinny?"
"Uh..."
"Remember this."
"This... what
"The martian story. Remember this. Write that."
"That we should remember this?"
"Yeah. Because it's big, Vinny. It's real big!"
"Big."
"Bigger than anything. It changes everything: free speech, open source, everything."
Vinny writing: "Changes everything."
"It's big."
"I got that."
"Real big, Vinny."
"This big?"
"No, bigger than that."
"Thiiiis big?"
"Yeah, about that."
"Wow."
"Wow is right."
"Okay thanks Jon."
"Anytime, Vinny."
Yeah, right, and here's 10 reasons to buy a DVD player:
1) The Passion of Joan of Arc (w/Richard Einhorn's score -- the best film of all time -- better than Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, you name it. And it's from 1928!)
2) The Last Temptation of Christ (w/Scorsese commentary, 16:9, etc.)
3) The Nights of Cabiria (remastered by Criterion -- it's superb)
4) Seven Samuarai (with excellent commentary by Michael Jeck)
5) Fellini's And the Ship Sails On
6) Criterion's soon-to-be-released Cocteau box-set
7) Truffaut's films on Fox/Lorber (and the oop Criterion 400 blows)
8) Peeping Tom (a guilty pleasure -- includes the documentary "A Very British Psycho")
9) Chaplin's Mutuals (great transfer)
10) Pink Floyd's The Wall (fantastic disc)
Works both ways. The Phantom Menace sucked, hands down. Yeah, I'd love to see Star Wars and Empire (Jedi sucked because of the fucking Ewoks) but Lucas is gonna do what Lucas is gonna do.
And frankly: who cares? There are better films available on DVD than the big blockbusters that we've all come to think of as "great films". (After all, Spielberg's E.T. was an odd remake [or so it seems] of Satyajit Ray's 'The Alien'. How many people here have seen Ray's films? Hmmm? I thought so. Try "Pater Panchali" for a real visual and dramatic treat. Only on VHS, unfortunately -- but much better than any of the crappy film "blockbusters"! Although, I'll admit, yeah, "Close Encounters" is a bloody brilliant film. My question is: how did a film like that ever get made? It's fucking odd -- but brilliant.)
Oh yeah, I'm just watching Fritz Lang's "M" now. Wow, that's a cool film. I might have to think about it a while and add it as #11 to the list above.