What will be the great hysterical fears of the coming decade? By definition, such worries need to be simultaneously undocumentable and just plausible enough to convince politicians, celebrities, civic do-gooders, captains of industry and media types that our very society hangs in the balance.
For a classic example, think back to the 1980s, when Tipper Gore, the wife of then-Sen. Al Gore, helped form the Parents Music Resource Center and addressed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation regarding the pressing topic of sexual, violent and occult imagery in pop music. As Mrs. Gore wrote in her best-selling (and now hard-to-find) 1987 book “Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society,” “By using satanic symbols on the concert stage, and album covers, such as those used by Ozzy Osbourne…certain heavy metal bands lure teenagers into what one expert has called ‘the cult of the eighties.’ Many kids experiment with the deadly satanic game, and get hooked.”
It is probably only thanks to the intervention of the Gores that we managed as a country to wrestle free both of Beelzebub’s and Ronnie James Dio’s bony grasp. Which, it’s worth adding, might have been preferable to that of Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner.
Nick Gillespie, “Don’t Fear The 2010s! Embrace the coming decade’s new distractions and overblown worries”, Reason, 2010-01-05
January 5, 2010
QotD: What will be the big inane fears of the Twenty-teens?
December 17, 2009
The Tiger Woods affair: the failure of the paparazzi
Kerry Howley says that the biggest disappointment of the whole convoluted Tiger Woods situation has been the embarassing performance of the paparazzi:
It’s not clear to me that the enduring interest in Tiger even needs explanation. For a while there, every time we looked away, a new woman emerged with an even better set of semi-sordid details. The story propelled itself forward. The gift kept on giving.
Since the above should make it clear that any cultural analysis of Tiger tends toward projection of one’s personal anxieties, I’ll refrain from using the universal “we.” I feel let down not by Woods, but by the paparazzi on whom we all depend to keep us abreast of these things. The man was with 11 women over how many years and not so much as a snapshot surfaces? Where were you, X17? Where were your swarming, flashing hordes, your ravenous stalkerazzi instincts? Does any photographer show up anywhere without a knowing tip-off from the entourage? My faith is broken.
November 26, 2009
QotD: How AGW became the majority view
What the CRU’s hacked emails convincingly demonstrate is that climate scientists in the AGW camp have corrupted the peer-review process. In true Gramscian style they marched on the institutions — capturing the magazines (Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc), the seats of learning (Climate Research Institute; Hadley Centre), the NGO’s (Greenpeace, WWF, etc), the political bases (especially the EU), the newspapers (pretty much the whole of the MSM I’m ashamed, as a print journalist, to say) — and made sure that the only point of view deemed academically and intellectually acceptable was their one.
Neutral observers in this war sometimes ask how it can be that the vast majority of the world’s scientists seem to be in favour of AGW theory. “Peer-review” is why. Only a handful of scientists — 53 to be precise, not the much-touted 2,500 — were actually responsible for the doom-laden global-warming sections of the IPCC’s reports. They were all part of this cosy, self-selecting, peer-review cabal — and many of them, of course, are implicated in the Climategate emails.
Now peer-review is dead, so should be the IPCC, and Al Gore’s future as a carbon-trading billionaire. Will it happen? I shouldn’t hold your breath.
James Delingpole, “Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process”, Telegraph.co.uk, 2009-11-26
November 11, 2009
Murdoch’s brilliant, evil master plan
Lore Sjoberg has cracked the secret plan that Rupert Murdoch appears to be following:
The audiences for traditional newspapers are getting older, more crotchety and increasingly dead. Most people don’t want their news to come with such hassles as a cover price, ads or dissenting opinions. How to bring in a younger, hipper audience that’s willing to spend money just to prove that they have money?
Murdoch, that crazy mad genius, realizes that the only way to attract this lucrative demographic is to establish street cred. He’s going underground, reinventing news as an exclusive club that you can’t find just by entering a search term.
Presumably, Murdoch’s New York Post, for example, will be renamed to something hip and enigmatic, like Velocity or Unk. The new URL won’t be publicized. To get it, you’ll have to know somebody, or know somebody who knows somebody, or know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody, or show a lot of cleavage. There will be a long line outside the website, just like an exclusive club or World of Warcraft right after an expansion release. A moderator will check out your online presence and won’t let you in unless you’re a mover, a shaker, a player, a spender or showing a lot of cleavage.
Once inside, the website will be dark, noisy and disorienting, just like an exclusive club or a MySpace page. There will be a two-drink minimum. I’m not sure how that will work, actually, but if anyone can force people to buy $10 beers while browsing the web, it’s my man Rupert. People will pretend to be reading stories about police standoffs and Knicks games, but they’ll actually be looking around to see who else made it in. And all that affectation and posing is like unto money in Murdoch’s pocket.
November 3, 2009
Obscure band discovers controversy is cheapest advertising
The Guardian reports on the umpteen-thousandth demonstration that controversial material gets more column inches than good music:
San Francisco band Girls have made sure their music video won’t be played on MTV — by filling it with “gay porn”. That’s how they describe the “Hardcore XXX Edit” of their Lust for Life video, which features phallus-flaunting footage that is itself a toned-down version of the original idea they sent to their label.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the group’s new video is not safe for work, children or anybody with a delicate disposition. Over the song’s joyous shuffle, there are nude girls in bathtubs, men putting on lipstick and, er, singing into penises. Certainly it won’t be showing on MTV any time soon, but according to guitarist Chet “JR” White, the Hardcore XXX Edit is “not even the [real] hardcore XXX version”. “It got cut,” he told Pedestrian.tv. “I’m kind of upset [the original] didn’t get put out, actually.”
“There’s a gay porn version we were really pushing for that was incredible, like nothing else. But at the same time, it’s really beautiful — about two people who love each other. We’re from San Francisco, so it’s not a surprise to us.”
The only difference with this manufactured “controversy” is that they’re not even trying to pretend that it’s anything other than a publicity grab. In a way, that’s kind of refreshing.
October 21, 2009
Canadian press freedoms slip a few notches
Reporters Without Borders (known by their French initials, RSF) show Canada’s press is less free this year, compared to other countries:
Canada fell to 19th place this year from 13th last year on Reporters Without Borders’ index of freedom of the press. The analysis covers print, broadcast and online journalism in 175 countries.
The Paris-based group, also known by its French acronym RSF, says court challenges to journalists’ rights to protect their sources precipitated Canada’s drop six spots from last year’s ranking.
Lawsuits intended to silence critics under the weight of the hefty cost of a legal defence — known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits — also factored into the drop, said Dennis Trudeau, a spokesman for Reporters Without Borders’ Canadian chapter.
“There are issues like real protection of sources,” he said.
“Where a reporter could theoretically face jail or a fine for not revealing his sources is in our view, especially when we’re dealing with public issues, a unreasonable restriction on freedom of the press.”
September 22, 2009
Over-broad laws can be useful to silence critics
Richard Dawkins contrasts the scientific way of resolving disputes with the British libel laws:
It is a lamentable observation that because of the way our laws are skewed toward the plaintiff, London has become the libel capital of the world. Litigants are coming to England from another country to sue people who live in a third country over a book that was published in a fourth country – the excuse being that a handful of books were sold here too. A nice little round-the-world jaunt for lawyers it may be, but sensible or liberal it is not. Nor is it just.
Of course there must be redress if you are maliciously attacked in a way that damages you. But if such a law is cast too wide it has disastrous consequences on the public interest, not least in the area of science and medicine where the stakes are high, profits and reputations are guarded jealously, and the vulnerable need to be protected from unproven or fraudulent claims for cures, whether by “alternative” therapists or big pharmaceuticals.
H/T to Chris Taylor Chris Myrick for the link.
September 4, 2009
How many blog checkmarks would you need?
Jacob Sullum looks at the quaint, old-fashioned notion of internal fact-checking:
When I was a “reporter-researcher” at Fortune during college, the Time Inc. policy was that one verification by book was worth two verifications by newspaper. If I’m remembering the color scheme correctly, the former was a “red check,” which was good enough on its own, whereas the latter was a “black check,” acceptable only in pairs. I may have the colors reversed, but the point is that we all assumed books were more reliable than newspapers (or other periodicals). That was a mistake, I think. While some books categorized as nonfiction, such as reference works and peer-reviewed releases from academic presses, go through some sort of fact checking, the vast majority do not. (They are generally reviewed by lawyers with an eye toward possible libel issues, but you can get lots of things wrong without risking a lawsuit.) In fact, judging from the finished products, I’d say most books are barely edited, let alone checked for accuracy. By contrast, newspaper stories typically are reviewed by two or three editors before they see print. It’s true that books take longer to produce, which gives a conscientious author more time to catch mistakes. Then again, they are a lot longer than newspaper stories, so there is more room for error.
So, how many checkmarks (of a murky shade of orange) would be required for blog references? Can any blogger count that high?
August 28, 2009
Chilling the news, Toronto style
Matt Gurney risks being sued by taking a stand against Toronto city government’s latest brain fart:
Setting aside the oddity of Toronto’s politicians suing their cheerleaders at the Star, there are serious issues at play here. Despite having recently voted down a proposal that would have let city councillors sue citizens on the taxpayers’ dime, it is still permissible for the city to fund lawsuits approved by various officials at city hall. What could be more chilling to free speech than a thin-skinned politician or bureaucrat with a taxpayer-financed legal team? Remember, folks — even asking reasonable, fair, and completely valid questions might bankrupt you, if you can’t afford to pay for your defence.
Beyond that issue is a more philosophical one. When does criticism of a government program become an attack on those running it? Depending on how broad an interpretation the courts choose to settle upon, opinion journalism and political reporting in this country could grind to a halt. Is a criticism of Ottawa’s handling of the isotope shortage an attack on the bureaucrats involved? Imagine a reporter discovering that a department was blowing millions or billions of dollars on a program with almost no practical benefit (Think long-gun registry). Would that reporter dare report it, and risk a ruinous lawsuit filed by the people running the program? Where does political commentary end and defamation begin? I don’t know, but the Toronto city government seems determined to find out.
These worrisome legal and philosophical issues might pale in comparison to the sheer logistics of such a regime. If the Toronto government, or any other, can go after anyone who criticizes it, how long until there is an entire cadre of bureaucrats whose job it is to seek out and bankrupt critics? It might sound paranoid, but remember this is government we’re talking about.
H/T to Elizabeth for the link.
August 26, 2009
Print media’s problems
Colby Cosh has concerns about the direction in which the newspapers have been moving:
Some days I think print media should die even if I would too
Our business would have a lot more credibility if we spent less time giving each other awards and concentrated on handing out boobie prizes for uncritical, gormless stuff like the St. Albert Gazette‘s breathlessly excited coverage of a new local math curriculum for primary schools that “covers far fewer concepts.” As I get older I grow more cowardly about making enemies in a rapidly contracting business, plus I’m taking the piss from a somewhat higher summit than I used to; but seriously, how do some people sleep at night?
