Just as I posted my previous entry about Time and their self-absorbtion, one of their columnist criticizes FaceBook and Twitter users for "viral narcissim" (see 25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You):

But it's just so stupid. Most people aren't funny, they aren't insightful, and they share way too much. Facebook is a loose social network; a "friend" on Facebook might translate to someone you'd barely recognize in real life.

No, most people aren't funny. But I don't think most people on FaceBook think it's a magic comedy pill either. They are who they are. Some people are able to open up online and good for them.

I was reluctant to join FaceBook and Twitter for the reason that I am introverted. Really, I am. Writing a blog or posting on FaceBook is cathartic writing. So what? I really think it's okay. If you want to overshare online, go right ahead. You may not get a job the next time because you overshared those copyroom pictures from the Christmas party, but that's your choice. For others, if you don't like to read oversharing, skip over it or stay off of FaceBook. It is what it is.

Also, isn't FaceBook a great way to keep some people at the right length? You can't possibly talk on the phone or meet with your aquantances enough to justify asking them to keep an eye out for an open job when you need it. FaceBook keeps you in touch without sucking all of your time into managing networks old-school style.  And isn't it nice to read that your friend eats tacos with a fork rather than having to burn through a two-hour phone conversation for the same info?

To write an article that is about as witty and inciteful as the list of TMI it criticizes proves my earlier point about the decline in quality of the media in general. Would you pay for that article? And before Claire Suddath or somebody else defends Time by comparing their articles to something like, say, my blog, they would do well to keep in mind this blog is something I do less than part time and without any income. In fact, it costs me to have my little cathartic corner of the Internet. There was a time when the media employed writers and editors who demanded high standards of quality and originality. Those days are long gone and I can't tell the difference between a professionally published magazine's article and something from a little snarky blog.

The problem with micropayments is not technology. It's that consumers are fundamentally uninterested in paying per article. Isaacson dismisses the problem of "mental transaction costs," but it's quite real. It's almost impossible to determine the value of an article before you read it. And the amounts we're talking about – 3 cents? 5 cents? 10 cents? – aren't worth the time it takes to decide how much one is willing to pay.

The advocates of micropayments also forget the basic law of supply and demand. Editors today increasingly talk about "commodity news" – the numbingly same mass of articles written about the same news event, adding nothing to the reader's knowledge. Why would anyone pay for those? The snobs of print media also forget that they have long competed with free radio and television news broadcasts. The news will come out, one way or another. It's the classic vanity of writers to think that they have created the one perfect story that exceeds all others. The clear-minded statistics of Web usage quickly reveal this as a delusion.

The Time cover alone is proof of how self-absorbed the media truely is. I picture a room full of editors and somebody with a pencil behind his ear and his thumbs pulling on his suspenders says, "We have a brand-spanking new President, financialpocalypse, three tax-evading cabinet nominees, an impeachment of the Illinois governor, bankers with tax-funded bailouts acting like Hollywood divorces on Rodeo Drive, and the continuing freefall of congressional approval ratings. I got it! Let's make the cover about newspapers. That's what the people want; they want a cover story about papers, see!"

Owen Thomas gets how content works, which is why his quote above is so good. Unique content is worth paying for, but the entire news industry is failing, including Time. It has more to do with content than the media wants to admit. The media will probably continue to blame consumer tastes as they mindlessly publish more about themselves.

Fox News: Couple's Verdict on iPhone: It's a Split Decision

FOXNews.com reporter Courtney Friel and her husband, WWOR-TV reporter Carter Evans, picked up a pair of Apple iPhones the day they came out.

He loved his, but she hated hers — so much so that she took it back for a refund and is now happily pecking away again on her BlackBerry.

What's right and wrong with the iPhone? Ask no further

The Onion (classic from 2000): Web-Browser History A Chronicle Of Couple's Unspoken Desires

The web-browser history on Allen and Christine Pollard's home iMac computer provides a comprehensive chronicle of the couple's deepest frustrations and desires, sources reported Monday.

"By simply opening Allen and Christine's Internet Explorer history folder, we find their innermost longings laid bare," said Dr. Terrence Kimble, dean of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley. "From emotionally stunted, sexually frustrated Allen's frequent visits to porn and Camaro sites to childless Christine's frequent visits to baby-clothes sites, it's all right there."

According to Kimble, the Pollards' browser history, which logs the 200 most recent hits by users of the computer, "offers a glimpse into an entire universe of unvoiced pain and disappointment."

Similar but Different™

According to DefCon staff, Madigan had told someone she wanted to out an undercover federal agent at DefCon. That person in turn warned DefCon about Madigan's plans. Federal law enforcement agents from FBI, DoD, United States Postal Inspection Service and other agencies regularly attend DefCon to gather intelligence on the latest techniques of hackers. DefCon holds an annual contest called Spot the Fed, in which attendees out people in the audience they think are undercover federal agents. The contest is good-natured, but the feds who get caught are generally ones who don't mind getting caught.

DefCon staff say that Madigan was asked four times — two times on the phone and two times at the conference — if she wanted to obtain press credentials, but she declined.

DefCon staff lured her to a large hall telling her that the Spot the Fed contest was in session and that she could get a picture of an undercover federal agent at the contest. When she sat down, Jeff Moss, DefCon's founder, announced that they were changing the game. Instead of Spot the Fed, they were going to play Spot the Undercover Reporter and then announced, "And there's one in here right now." Madigan, realizing she'd been had, jumped from her seat and bolted out the door with reporters carrying cameras chasing after her through the parking lot and to her car.

Heh: Someone asks her, "Do you have any comments?" I give her credit for remaining stone-faced and walking out as calmly as she could. I'm sure she wanted to run like hell.

Beijing Television apologized to the public during an evening news broadcast yesterday and said the creator of the apparently fake news report, identified only by his surname, Zi, had been detained by police, but it did not say when. A copy of the broadcast was obtained by AP Television News.

"He used deceptive means to get the footage on the air," said news anchor Wang Ye, without giving specifics. "The Beijing Public Security Bureau has taken the criminal suspect, Zi, into custody, and he will be severely dealt with according to law."

There is something not right about this. I'm sure journalists in China make up the news like their brethren in the U.S., but there the government runs the news and that's part of the job description. The Chinese government censors the Internet and utterly denies the massacre of protesters at Tiananmen Square. I wouldn't be surprised if Zi ends up the focus of the Chinese media, deflecting any mention of real food quality problems.

If the U.S. government arrested every journalist who made a false report or omitted facts, there would be an uproar from all kinds of journalist support groups. I doubt such groups will make a stink over Zi's arrest. Watch for a stronger journalism crack-down in China. The government is not happy with the product scandal and will continue to counter the truth with strong-arm public relations.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been exacerbated by the Bush administration's allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq. A U.S. aircraft carrier battle group led by the USS John C. Stennis arrived in the Persian Gulf region on Feb. 15 as part of a buildup of military forces. The nuclear-powered Stennis joins the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower as the second aircraft carrier battle group in the region.

Notice how that first sentence is put at the top of a paragraph with information about the U.S. military build up as if Bush is making excuses to attack Iran. Let me rewrite the first sentence to remove opinion: "Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been exacerbated by Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric that directly contradicts Iranian U.N. diplomats followed by proof of Iran's involvement in Iraq published by the U.S. government."

Also pull up any article today about the Iranian defiance of the U.N. resolutions and look for any mention of Iran's history of terrorism. Or look for an analysis of Ahmadinejad's vile speeches in the same context of their push for nuclear enrichment.

This is just another example of out-of-context reporting.

On the eve of what could potentially be another world war, Fox News, CNN, and the rest can't stop with the lazy news crap. Really, how hard is it to show clips of Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears and gleefully voice over their personal tragedies? Like the coverage of Lisa Nowak's apparent break-down, the news is full of little puns and titles that make light of these situations. It's not news, it's not funny, and it's getting old. I really don't have sympathy for whiny celebs as they live extravagantly wild lives that would cause most normal people to be shunned. However, these are personal tragedies for the above mentioned and the news is more than happy to exploit.

Continuing to ride the lazy news bandwagon, the political press is following the potential presidential candidates around and editing sound bites together and calling it a story. There is no substance and no context to any of it. In fact, it's only February 2007 and the coverage already dominates the headlines.

Meanwhile, bloggers and other online writers are actually doing investigations into Barak Obama's background as well as compiling previous Hillary Clinton quotes to show how she apparently lies and triangulates on the same level as her husband. This is in direct contrast with the major media outlets that report what these people say as fact.

Within the patent itself, there is a paragraph recognizing that the feature may anger television viewers. The writer of the patent warns that viewers may become confused by the freeze and blame the set-top box manufacturer employing the device instead of the authorizing broadcaster.

Well, duh. We can blame both the set-top box manufacturer and the broadcaster. This is more crazy talk from an industry becoming so out of touch with their market, they actually think this is a good idea. I can even picture TV executives in a board room smiling at a PowerPoint presentation with the number of "eyeballs" the device will ensure watch the commercials. This will inevitably lead to broadcast companies charging more for commercials because they can guarantee said number of eyeballs.

I'm not denying commercials pay for broadcast TV; the economics are obvious. But for some reason, entertainment companies seem to think that there is no such thing as too much of anything. There are too many bands with crappy music, too many cop shows, too many medical shows, waaaaaaaay too many reality shows, and certainly too many commercials. They just want to pile it on because they own the content and think everybody who watches the content must pay for it by watching commercials. If they could, they would put probably want some kind of surveillance system to completely pause the system while the viewers go to the bathroom during commercials.

Being out of touch is the pastime for those who run companies with old business models. They have no idea how consumers really live. For example, I have DirecTV so I'm paying monthly for TV, including otherwise free broadcast channels. On top of my subscription fee, I pay for my TiVo. So why shouldn't I have control over my content?

Here's an idea. Instead of trying to force commercials down my eyes, how about coming up with new innovative technologies to deliver content in ways I would actually be willing to purchase? The entertainment industry cannot think creatively and is seemingly so married to the old business model they continually choose to insult consumers. All the while they wonder why their consumers continue to download music and movies. This patent application from Philips is more evidence at the industry's clueless business mindset.

I feel like I identify with Jeff Baily from Out of the Past more than Bob Barnes from Syriana. I enjoy seeing characters who, while flawed, are actually heroic.

One word I heard repeatedly was "maverick" to describe the nominees for Best Picture this year. None of the so-called maverick films were nothing new. Racism, homosexuality, and politics are recurring themes in Hollywood and even appear on prime-time television. I would say that once something is part of a TV series, it's no longer cutting-edge.

I do believe that Crash (not to be confused with Crash [1996], based on the J. G. Ballard book of the same name) was the best choice of what was nominated, but I would hardly call it a "maverick" film. One of my favorite movies about racism was the 1950 Sidney Poitier classic, No Way Out. That movie gives me chills and it's 56 years old.

Maverick: One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter (Dictionary.com).

Okay, so if the themes of these movies don't really dissent from the norms of Hollywood, then why keep calling themselves mavericks or cutting-edge? The simple answer is Hollywood people want to believe their liberalism is dissenting in Hollywood. To quote Daffy Duck: "It is to laugh."

My favorite picks for maverick films of 2005:

• Hostel: For the concept and unapologetic brutality
• Sin City: For Robert Rodriguez's vision, work, and his willingness to quit the Directors' Guild of America to share billing with Frank Miller
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Just for producing such a quality representation of a C. S. Lewis book
• Wolf Creek: For the superb acting and intense fear and unconventional script
• The Devil's Rejects: For just being one of the best criminal-on-the-run movies I've ever seen
• Serenity: For great sci-fi without sci-fi cliches
• Kung Fu Hustle: For knocking the Hong Kong Kung Fu genre on its ear (Stephen Chow had me during the first gangster dance number)

To name only a few.

To me, when I want to see movies that are "maverick", I want them to take any preconceived expectations I have and shake them like a snow globe. Scripts with real twists and characters that do what you least expect are a good start.

As for topics, how about movies that expose the hypocrisy of Islam? Or how about a dramatic movie about the UN Oil for Food scandal? Nah, that would just piss off the establishment. I would hate to think that the only movies that can push the Hollywood establishment envelope are horror movies, but that trend seems likely. The new Hills Have Eyes will probably do as much to horror film-making as classics like The Exorcist and The Omen once did.

In spite of Hollywood, I love movies and always will. I may have dig deeper for movies that really break the rules, but they'll always be there.

PS: If you really want to see maverick, rent the 1996 Crash, or better yet, read the book. Talk about going against the established rules.

10Falsified Stem Cell Research

When it was announced that Seoul National University's Hwang Woo Suk published falsified research in last May in the journal Science, the story stayed focused on Hwang. Most of the press talked about how this would affect the scientific community. While this story's impact within the scientific community cannot be denied, I've have seen little written about the affect on our own national debate regarding stem cell research. I think this is because most reporters really don't want this story to be true. Stem cell research is a political topic and even became a 2004 election issue. Because George Bush was cautious regarding federal funds and stem cell research, it instantly became a liberal/conservative issue. It turns out Bush may have been right with his caution and many of the arguments for stem cell research may be based on flawed studies. Honestly, who knows at this point? It's obvious that Hwang wanted to report certain results and that's just what he ensured happened.

The other part of this story that is totally ignored is how much faith we put into studies. Science is slow and and repetitive. However, special interest groups consistently want us to pursue the latest research when lobbying congress. The current link between scientific research and lobbying is paved with money. People want instant results when good, methodical science has rarely been fast with anything and certainly shouldn't be rushed to prove an ideological point.

9Hurricanes

There is a lot that can be said about how hurricanes–especially Katrina–were misreported in 2005. The Katrina disaster reporting was an incredible series of rumors reported as facts and omissions when the truth didn't fit the initial story set up. For example, very little was said on television about how the state of Louisiana turned away Red Cross relief and then blamed it on the federal government. When Mayor Nagin projected over 10,000 would be dead after the storm, it was reported as an official projection and there was never a retraction of that when the reality is closer to 1300. The press was so reactionary to Katrina in New Orleans and the pictures of the suffering of black Americans was so heart-wrenching, they had a nearly impossible time with follow-up reporting as real facts became public.

Since Katrina, there have been two major hurricanes: Rita and Wilma. Both also caused a lot of damage and cost some lives. Yet the pictures didn't seem as compelling and dramatic. I kept trying to figure out how the other Katrina victims and then the victims of Rita and Wilma went somewhat ignored, and then it struck me. The media looked in New Orleans and saw depressing poverty exacerbated by natural disaster and did everything they could to capture it on video. The end result was the ultimate in black exploitation. In a color-blind world, all hurricane victims would have been shown as well as the countless people who collected, packed, and shipped supplies to New Orleans. There is no shame in today's news reporting.

8The Improved Economy

Unless you know where to read, you just can't find out how well our economy is doing. In 2003 and early 2004, the economy was George Bush's weakest political issue. As things got better, the silence regarding the economy was obvious. If it's not bad, then it's not news. It wasn't until I was in a meeting a few weeks ago with a prominent investor who said he's seeing so much cash for investments out there it reminds him of the 90s. The economy is better and it's no longer headline news.

7Oklahoma University Bombing

I've searched and cannot find an incident of an American college student committing suicide with explosives before October 1, 2005. Just being unprecedented alone is enough to report on Joel Hinrichs blowing himself up at Oklahoma University. However, there is so much more to this story. In November, when the FBI report was released, there was nothing about it in the news. Only Michelle Malkin brought it to everyone's attention. And here we are with no more answers from the FBI than the day after it happened. As Michelle points out:

Beyond this, unfortunately, there's not much more of interest in the documents. None of the hundreds of e-mails in Hinrichs' Yahoo.com account accessed by the FBI/JTTF are included in the release. Nor are the names or URLs of any of the websites he visited from his home computer or any of the nine campus computers searched by the FBI/JTTF. The last line of Hinrichs' suicide message is reported, but not the rest of the text document. So, was he simply a troubled soul, a freelance Islamist bent on mass murder at the OU football stadium, or something else? The unsealed papers neither prove nor disprove any of these theories.

If this would have been a report related to Bush's National Guard service, you bet the media would be pressing for more information.

6Intellectual Property

More and more cases related to intellectual property are decided each month. Yet the cases seem to go largely ignored by the main stream media if they don't involve Microsoft. This may be because it's difficult to distill down the complexities of intellectual property legalities into a few hit and run paragraphs. Unfortunately, complacency is going to hurt us all. Judges and lawyers, not elected representatives, are actually paving the way for the future of intellectual property. The end result will be messy, inconvenient, and harmful to consumers. I'd like to see more reporting and analysis on this important topic, especially as it relates to court cases around the country.

5Oil Beneath Colorado

In June, oil industry executives testified to a House subcommittee how Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah have very promising oil shale deposits that would make Saudi Arabia's oil look like a puddle. If you remove my personal opinion of "what are we waiting for", you still have a significant story. Our oil dependency has been a relentless headline since the 70s. Yet when we actually have a real alternative presented, it's mostly ignored. I think he reason is because nobody wants to report that our best alternative for energy independence it is another petroleum product. This story was downplayed because it doesn't fit the assumption that the only good alternative to what we do today is an alternative like solar power or hydrogen. Fortunately, I have faith that energy industry executives will push ahead because they have a lot to gain from using the oil shale. You can bet any reports about their efforts will be negative in tone and will be written to stoke the environmentalist anger.

4Human Trafficking

Modern-day slavery is now called "human trafficking" and it's far worse than the average American realizes. According to the Office for Victims of Crime Web site:

Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders (some international and non-governmental organizations place the number far higher), and the trade is growing. (U.S. Department of State. 2004. Trafficking in Persons Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State.)

Of the 600,000-800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year, 70 percent are female and 50 percent are children. The majority of these victims are forced into the commercial sex trade. (Ibid.)

Here is the rub with this story: it's far easier to get a front page headline when you talk about slave reparations for decedents of American slaves than it is to report on the present day slave trade. This bothers me because you can't free the slaves of 200 years ago, but you can do something about what is going on today. However, in a world where the news is nothing but a collection of sound bites and angry people spewing their own agenda, what journalist wants to report on something that might actually require work and research?

However, the human trafficking story is beyond huge. There are so many angles to it. For example, Saudi Arabia likes to import between 1000 and 15,000 children annually during the Haj season. 5000 to 7000 women are brought to the United states every year just for sex trafficking. Following gun and drug running, human trafficking is the third most profitable organized crime activity. Nations like Bangladesh have cage brothels where children are kept in cages. There is also an increase in organ trafficking as black market surgeries become more successful for the recipients.

You would think this story would be more important than the screeching of Cindy Sheehan or the daily incoherent ramblings of press-conference-happy senators.

3Culture Clash in Europe

When the riots in France first started, I was instant messaging with a friend of mine and mentioned the riots. She had no idea what was going on and she watches the news regularly. It wasn't until the third week of the riots that the international press moved in and really started reporting. Then the spin was that the rioting youth were poor and angry and people can't live like that for long. Very little was mentioned about the fact that these youth were Muslim and they were targeting non-Muslim French cars. After the nightly car burning went down from hundreds to dozens, the media went back to sleep.

In the blogosphere, there has been a lot written about the cultural clashes in France and Italy. Violence against Jews in France is so bad that Jews have been warned not to visit. Cops in France had already designated many of the Muslim neighborhoods as "no-go" areas. If you followed the blogs closely, you were not surprised at the rioting in France. If your only source for news was television, you wondered where did this come from?

Arab immigration to Europe has been an issue for a long time. The question of assimilation and adaptation has been asked by some intellectuals in Europe, but the issue gets beaten down by threats of violence from the Muslim community when newspapers get attacked for printing cartoon pictures of Mohammed, banks in England stop giving away piggy banks because pigs offend Muslims, and filmmakers get murdered because they make movies critical of Islam itself. Stories like that were not reported by the American main stream media so the French riots were out of context and certainly underreported.

2The War on Terror

Sure the War on Terror makes headlines every day, but it is also the most misreported story. Part of the blame belongs to the Bush Administration, who haven't clearly communicated long-term War objectives. Iraq has overshadowed the overall War on Terror and the media relentlessly talks about death and destruction in Iraq as if there are no other angles to the story. I'm not just writing about the successes we have seen in Iraq, but also the problems we are facing with Iran, Syria, and the collection of African countries sponsoring terrorism.

On Fox News Watch this past weekend, Neal Gabler said the "War on Terror" was a meaningless term. At first I didn't like what he said, but to a degree he's correct. The media never bought into the fact that we are at war and they still don't. The media has made the term meaningless. The events in Iraq are reported in the same manner that single domestic crimes are reported. There is no big picture or context of war for those events. It's as if the media sees everything in Iraq as a hopeless cause that will magically end when Bush leaves office. Then when 9/11 is discussed during a press conference about Iraq, reporters question the validity of the connection. If they can't understand going after all terrorists after the 9/11 events, they will never understand the War on Terror.

1Trouble in the United Nations

What a year for the United Nations. Had it been 50 years ago, it would not exist right now. But instead, every scandal that oozes out of its facade is dismissed or downplayed. It all started with the Oil for Food scandal. What should have been enough of a story to completely change the leadership within the UN was ignored. I saw some reports about it on Fox News and a few mentions on CNN, but the the story never got "traction". The League of Nations didn't have this kind of scandal and corruption, yet it disbanded because it was ineffective in preventing World War II.

For many people, the United Nations has been the ultimate in how humanity should behave. Reasonable people should meet and discuss issues and solve problems, right? Well, not all nations are equal. Many participating nations practice human trafficking, terrorism, and even genocide. While the United States is constantly criticized for its War on Terror, hundreds of thousands of Africans are slaughtered by their own government. Even the UN Peacekeepers cause problems themselves. Yet, the United Nations weathers the storm because the media is not pushing. If a United States corporation behaved like the UN, you can bet that the media would be all over it. What makes the United Nations different? I think it's because reporters want to believe in the UN as the end-all and be-all of world community.

To me, the story of the United Nations is the biggest under-reported and misreported story of the year. The Oil for Food scandal should have shut the doors or at least forced a change in leadership. The UN has become above criticism and arrogant. They selectively criticize countries like Israel while refusing to denounce Arab-sponsored terrorism. The UN would be a joke if so many people didn't look to it as serious organization.

Quote of ignorance #1:

In a potentially worrying development for Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's beleaguered government, police said more cars were set alight outside the greater Paris area than in the capital's suburbs, the epicenter of riots for more than a week.

This is the second paragraph in the story and it has a whopper of an understatement. I think calling anything related to 9 days of car torching and building smashing "potentially worrying" is like referring to Hurricane Katrina as a "cloudy day". If I'm not mistaken, this is the same media that insists that Abu Graib was the most horrific of all war crimes. Just to compare and contrast for fun, I don't think the U.S. military had thousands of soldiers torching cars and destroying property uncontrollably. In fact, I think I remember the military investigating and prosecuting its own.

Quote of ignorance #2:

Rioting by youths, many of whom are Muslims of North African or black African origin, has partly been stoked by their frustration at high unemployment and the perception they lack economic opportunities.

From some reports I've seen, the majority of these rioters are Muslim and the riots are directly related to the fact they are Muslim and they are not going to take it anymore! They could only avoid disclosing the Muslim part of this for so long and now, with begrudging admission, "many of whom" was used to qualify Muslim. It's no wonder cultural problems never get solved since the media is so reluctant to point out the ugly truth and dig deeper than what is presented in overview pieces like this one.

Quote of ignorance #3:

However, the opposition remained critical, with the Socialists attacking the government's response.

"Your government bears part of the responsibility for these events. It is now up to you to take full stock of the crisis," Socialist leaders said in letter to Villepin on Thursday.

In usual fluff-piece style, the last two paragraphs wrapped everything up in a nice little blame package. Disgusting. The reporter here wanted an out and used a single quote from the leadership's opposition party to make a point. Surely, it's okay to riot if there is unemployment or the some nasty man in the government says a mean thing to the helpless little Muslims. I don't buy that for a minute and most normal people don't. Human beings are perfectly capable of behaving and accomplishing great things and until we demand civilized behavior from everybody and quit making excuses for certain groups, this stuff will happen over and over.

My prediction is when this is all over, it will be completely blamed on the government in spite of the fact I have yet to see Dominique de Villepin running around with Molotov cocktails himself. The government will bend over backwards to accommodate any request from the Muslim community and France will have given in to a new form of domestic terrorism. This is only getting worse. Brace yourself.

I have formulated a principle for modern journalism I call the Effort to Report Principle. Basically, the Effort to Report Principle states that the amount of effort any journalist must put into a story to ensure the story is accurate and newsworthy is easily trumped by: video images, sound bites, competition with other news organizations, ratings, being first to broadcast, and cost of production. In other words, if the reporters have to make an effort, the story may not be worth it to the news organization.

I've been thinking about this whole newsworthiness stuff lately and after yesterday's Senate hearing behind closed doors, I've given up on expecting anything from any news organization. One of the criterion for newsworthiness is if the story is unusual. What is unusual about Senators having a news conference? Honestly, they do it every day and you can predict what the Republicans and what the Democrats will say nearly verbatim. Blah, blah, blah. It's just not news anymore. Even though the closed door session was unusual, hours and hours of CNN with a split screen between pundits on the left side and note on the right side that reads "Senate in Closed Session" hardly follows the unusual or interesting criteria for newsworthiness. Other things actually happened yesterday, too. But if you go back to the Effort to Report Principle, you'll see it was so easy and cheap to have hours of broadcast time devoted to, well, nothing.

The "bold steps" called for Wal-Mart to institute "consumer-driven health plans" with Health Savings Accounts that would go toward paying higher deductibles; restructuring the retirement program to put more money into health care and less into retirement; redesigning employment at Wal-Mart "to attract a healthier, more productive workforce"; making strategic investments to counter criticism; and improving communications about the company's benefits offering.

This whole memo leakage to CNN is eerily like a government cover-up–but it's not. I'm afraid the business press is behaving more and more like the main stream media, looking for the negative angle in absolutely everything. Granted, this memo wasn't Wal-Mart's finest hour, but the larger story is we are seeing more and more companies struggle with benefits. A professional business writer should take this story into the larger context of business benefits. Instead, the article contains comments on the memo and then compares Wal-Mart to Costco.

Meanwhile, the issue of benefits versus profitability are at odds with the concept of just recruiting good people and reducing turnover. Any company cutting benefits is not doing it lightly and the business media is simply glossing over that side of it. Business owners, especially in small business, know how hard it is to offer benefits and still keep the lights on. The national debate over the future of our healthcare is just beginning and the memo from Wal-Mart is part of the initial discourse. That's the big picture and the business media will not start writing about that because it's political, requires research, can't be tied up in a nice little package, and will continue for years. You couple this with the day-to-day focus of business analysts that can't see more than one quarter into the future, and you have short-sighted business reporting.

Ironically, Wal-Mart's stocks were up today in spite of the news.

Dvorak's latest column for PC Magazine is an excellent example as to why the self-proclaimed watchdogs for the American people need their own watch-dogging.

The newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias. Besides, they use Macs too. There are entire newsrooms, such as the one at Forbes, that consist entirely of Macintoshes. Apparently nobody but me finds this weird.

Even Jack Shafer, who recently wrote about Apple's skewed coverage in Slate fails to point out the connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs.

Thank you, John. I'm not privy to the newsrooms, but I always suspected this was the reason Apple is such a media darling. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple's products and they are a company to study in terms of how to market and release products. They know the press likes them and they use it to their advantage as they should. But the anti-Microsoft bias is obvious in the technical press.

This bias also bleeds over into Linux reporting. My theory is the press always likes underdog stories. But if you step outside the IT industry, you'll find that mainstream business couldn't tell you exactly what Linux is. So when I read about how Linux is threatening Microsoft's desktop market or how "everybody wants Linux", I have to do a double-take since I actually work in the business world and see people using Windows every day. I've never heard anybody openly express a desire to replace their Windows desktop with anything other than a Macintosh. But even then, that is followed up with something about how the applications they use the most are only available on Windows.

Microsoft is to the technical press what Wal-Mart is to the business press. It's an easy target because it is so big and it's cool to bash Microsoft. I've written before about Microsoft's cultural problems and their old, outdated business model. But changes are afoot at Microsoft to address them. These are largely positive changes, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't frequent blogs written by actual Microsoft employees.

As WorldNetDaily reported, investigators say they also found "Islamic jihad" material in Hinrichs' apartment when they searched it. Hinrichs, it turns out, attended a mosque near his university-owned apartment – the same one attended by Zacharias Moussaoui, the only person charged in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

I'm still trying to figure out why this isn't a lead story on every news channel. The only thing I can think is that it isn't consistent with what these news channels want to present as the media-defined War on Terror. This guy was a white American who apparently converted to Islam and then wanted to kill with a bomb. Like the D.C. sniper, John Mohammed, no reports in the mainstream media have come out about his connection to Islam. The media is pathetic.

CNN has been reporting all day on the threat level in New York City and now on the bomb scare at the Washington Monument. I haven't seen one national report from a location in Norman, Oklahoma and a bomb actually went off there. Unbelievable.

"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," Boren said in a statement. There was no information about the person who was killed, and no reports of any other injuries.

A police bomb squad detonated explosives found at the site of the blast. The area near the stadium was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs.

Okay, let me get this straight. First, somebody blows himself up near a major sporting event with an explosion loud enough to be heard miles away. Next, more explosives are found and detonated. Still it's not a major headline the next day.

With much sensitivity and compassion to Natalie Holloway's family, I'm critical of the media who had reporters on a plane to Aruba immediately upon her disappearance but can't even publish anything more than a rehashed press release for a domestic suicide bomb.

This is the kind of incident that should be the story of the day and it's not. I'm relying on blogs (see here for example). The lack of information is disturbing.

As of this morning (10/3/2005), Michelle Malkin has links to some more information regarding the suicide. This is still not a lead story on Monday, which is disappointing. Even if this is not terrorism, it's still an important story.

The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

Note to reporters: There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources' secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don't have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is "Hooray, now I can tell the world" — not "Sorry, that's not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate." And if you're going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. Miller's disgraceful reporting is totally overshadowed by her martyrdom. The point is that her source released her of any obligation. Basically, this proves that reporters want to create their own reality. Miller is doing just that rather than reporting the truth. She is not reporting the news–she is the news. It's unfortunate that since she made herself the headline, her poor record of accuracy falls away and her career gets a second wind.

In a quick example of things I have personally seen, my church has taken in four families. One family consists of a single mother and her three children. The mother already has gotten a job and an apartment provided directly by the church. The church also owns some land with older homes on the land that are used for various church activities. Those homes have been converted back to residences as the other sponsored families moved in this week. With all of the race-baiting and political warring taking place, I find it horrible the national media is ignoring the positive sides to this story. Yes, there were some major governmental screw ups. Images of looting and destruction were transmitted all over the globe. I would also like the world to see the humanity demonstrated by the volunteers who are too busy to get in front of the camera and complain.

We consumers don't like to know what we're buying. Wrap it up in a pretty package and we're there. We don't really want to know how many trans fats there are, but since you told us, well, we don't want it anymore, no matter how good it tastes.

The same thing goes for our favorite artists. Too much information about an artist is never a good thing.

I'm going to have to disagree. I do agree that I personally don't care much about celebrities' personal baggage. I had to purposefully decide I wasn't going to hold Sean Penn's obvious ignorance of politics, history, and reality against him–especially after watching his most excellent performance in Mystic River, which came out after his trip to Iraq. I initially found it very hard to not hold personal crap against celebrities because it's virtually impossible to get away from.

To Mike Straka, one word: tabloids.

Western culture has a crazy fascination with celebrity that goes beyond an appreciation of talent and hard work. It ranges from people who like certain actors or singers to a sick, stalking obsession. I think Brad Pitt is talented, but now I can't think of him without thinking of how he dumped Jennifer Aniston. I don't even like this stuff but it's part of the evening news right after the War on Terror updates. There is obviously a market or paparazzi wouldn't be the profession it is. This hunger for a glimpse into the world of celebrity is the very reason Rock Star: INXS actually has the Sunday night reality show. I spent some time reading comments in the blogs of the contestants to confirm what I assumed. Many of the viewers base their voting, not just on the performances, but also on how they are perceived in the reality show. Not only is that not fair for the contestants, but it really demonstrates where the viewers are. For all we know, the producers have ensured the show is edited to make JD look like the bad guy. Who knows?

Politics has become this way too. John Roberts will not be confirmed just based on his record. He has already been attacked for being Catholic. I'm still trying to figure out why I should even know he's Catholic. I think I know way too much about George Bush's daughters–especially considering I'd like to completely forget my own college years.

The point is that there is an obsession with the personal lives of public people. I think it's past being healthy since those people we choose to elevate as role models are more dysfunctional than the average American.

By the way, Mike is right, Marty will win. I also think Jordis will be a close second and will go on with a record deal of her own.

This is partially how language evolves. Both terms are getting negative connotations from popular misuse. It's disturbing in the sense that most of the English-speaking world is well-educated but generally accept the twisting of words. Words do have meaning and in public discourse, those who manipulate language need to be held accountable. We live in an environment saturated with debate thanks to cable news. When politicians, pundits, and reporters get a pass for manipulating and misusing words because nobody likes semantic arguments, resulting in the debate being pointless. Personally, the talking heads on TV are tiresome. But I started thinking that I'm not growing weary of debate itself; I'm annoyed with the quality of debate. Name calling is considered debate these days. When there are blabbering heads in squares in a Brady Bunch-esque TV display all talking over each other, it's enough to suck the very life out of any viewer. It's all about quantity and formulas for the news channels. Each show has to have pundits as part of the formula and there must be 24 hours of programming. Blah, blah, blah.

Debate is about making intelligent points based on opinion that is supported by fact. I specially point out "politics" and "culture" because those two words hold the key to real progress. Whether it's in business or in the Beltway, politics change culture and culture influences politics.

In our world of instant communication and information overload, I wish the level of debate could be raised to the point where politics and culture are positively affected. This won't happen until we hold people accountable for their words and even more importantly, what those words mean. So maybe instead of trying to speak in strings of sound bites, people who have the opportunity to speak publicly will do so thoughtfully.

Hey, I can dream can't I?

MR. McCLELLAN: — because of this report. I think Newsweek is going to be in the best position to determine how to achieve that. And there are ways that I pointed out that they can help repair the damage. One way is to point out what the policies and practices of our United States military are. Our United States military personnel go out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care –

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military –

Q You've already said what you're — I know what — how it ends.

They took this issue about the Koran so seriously. It was their job to get to the bottom of this story. Blah, blah, blah. These are the same news organizations that saw it fit, last week, to interrupt breaking news about terrorists arrested in California to let us know that nothing was going on at the Michael Jackson trial. I almost threw the remote at the TV when that happened.

I was going to let all of this go, but I was working this morning while listening to KLIF and the most self aggrandizing promo I've ever heard aired during the commercials. Here, listen to this:

Not only is the promo dripping with melodrama, but it tells you they are most proud of their Michael Jackson coverage. To me, it's much more significant that Kofi Annan has been caught lying about his involvement in the Oil for Food scandal. It's certainly more important that there are terrorists being arrested within our own borders. So much time and energy was devoted to the Michael Jackson case when the reality was all that was reported for the week before the verdict was the jury was in deliberation and nothing was known. So much air time was wasted on pundits telling us he was going to be convicted and they were wrong the whole time.

I still can't believe they had the nerve to have a gospel choir singing "Not Guilty" in the background. What the hell?

Here's a good example of journalistic talent wasted: Greta Van Susteren was flown by Fox News out to California to sit around with a gazillion journalists blabbing about how much they don't know. Greta is a very talented legal analyst. A better use of her show would have been analyzing each of the President's judicial nominees. She could have devoted an entire show to each individual. She could have analyzed their rulings and provided viewers with a context to the sound bites that senators kept flinging at the cameras. It's disheartening to see this going on. It's like watching once-wild animals at a bad zoo with too-small cages. Talented analysts are misused, blow-hard pundits are overused, and real news is buried beneath sensationalism.

I'm not even going to go into the annoying back-patting the media did about Deep Throat. You'd think they saved the universe or something. It's sad that journalists try to aspire to something only two of them did thirty years ago.

If the media doesn't pay attention, somebody might just notice their irrelevance.

Just a friendly reminder that today you can acquire Sealab 2021 Season 2 on DVD.

Now for the not so friendly reminder:

You. Must. Buy. DVD.

Also visit:

Sealab 2021 on Adult Swim

Pod Six

Good stuff.

Take a look at this CBS News article: Wal-Mart casts pall over holiday sales.

Anecdotal evidence of crowded stores at the start of the holiday shopping season wasn't backed up with promising retail numbers, as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cut its November sales forecast by more than half.

Shares of the world's largest retailer are likely to come under pressure later Monday, after the company threw a shadow over preliminary holiday retail data when it cut its estimates on Saturday.

Both the headline and lead paragraphs are misleading; this past weekend wasn't bad. In fact, the same article just a few paragraphs down has this:

MasterCard International said it saw an increase in transaction volume, as transactions processed over its Banknet global telecommunications network increased 9.29 percent on year for the weekend through Saturday night.

MasterCard processed 64.2 million credit authorizations over its Banknet telecommunications network this year, as compared to 58.7 million for the same period in 2003.

CBS News took the data, which presents very positive news in some areas and turned it into a "Wal-Mart is getting theirs" story. CBS wasn't the only organization to do so. A quick look at Google News provided a plethora of anti-Wal-Mart headlines. The fairest headline and story belonged to the Dallas Morning News with Stores report mixed results over holiday weekend. While the most biased headlines belonged to CBS News, mentioned above, and the Financial Times with a story titled "Fears over recovery as Wal-Mart sales stall, as if Wal-Mart controls the world's retail recovery.

Here are some points these stories that should be taken into consideration:

• November isn't over
• U.S. retailers haven't reported their same-store sales figures for the month of November, which is due this Thursday
• There are other retailers besides Wal-Mart
• December numbers may override any slow-down from November

This is another case of the glass being half-empty or half-full, depending on how it's reported. Just breeze through the list of headlines (opens in new window and is big) and see that some stories are positive and some are clearly Wal-Mart bashing.

The graphic in this article links to a screenshot of Google News headlines. If you have IE or Firefox set to auto-size graphics, you will have to click the Expand button after opening–it's a huge graphic. Notice the contradictory headlines. Was Black Thursday a good day or a bad day? I guess it depends on if you want to bash Wal-Mart or not.