Friday, August 01, 2003
SEARCHING FOR A NEW COMMENTS LOG
Live and learn.
After waiting weeks and weeks for an actual honest to god comment from someone out there in cyberspace who wanted to weigh in on all my biased rhetoric, I logged on and found an overwhelming six for one stinking piece. It proved to be an illusion. There was only one comment, and it was repeated over and over again, and I found that it was much like a virus, infecting all the other comments sections from present all the way to the beginning. Why this is, I have no idea. I don't understand anything about these programs. I selected the one I was using by finding another blog and seeing what they use, in this case something called Enetation. Of course, hardly anyone reads My Completely Random Life, and I'm not used to comments, and maybe that was the problem, the software just got tired of waiting for something to happen, but whatever it was I suppose I have to change it, just in case my web log gets picked up by MSNBC and I start getting overwhelmed. Hah!
Or maybe it was just the commenter that screwed everything up. Hah!
Any suggestions on an alternative source of comment logs, pass it along.
Live and learn.
After waiting weeks and weeks for an actual honest to god comment from someone out there in cyberspace who wanted to weigh in on all my biased rhetoric, I logged on and found an overwhelming six for one stinking piece. It proved to be an illusion. There was only one comment, and it was repeated over and over again, and I found that it was much like a virus, infecting all the other comments sections from present all the way to the beginning. Why this is, I have no idea. I don't understand anything about these programs. I selected the one I was using by finding another blog and seeing what they use, in this case something called Enetation. Of course, hardly anyone reads My Completely Random Life, and I'm not used to comments, and maybe that was the problem, the software just got tired of waiting for something to happen, but whatever it was I suppose I have to change it, just in case my web log gets picked up by MSNBC and I start getting overwhelmed. Hah!
Or maybe it was just the commenter that screwed everything up. Hah!
Any suggestions on an alternative source of comment logs, pass it along.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
MR. P AT LARGE
There has been far far too much going on in the news for me to stay silent about. One of the problems, however, is that it seems like everybody has to weigh in on current topics, and almost 100% of it winds up being as enlightening as a Dr. Gene Scott marathon. Why should anyone give a rats ass about my opinion? That said, here goes:
Kobe Bryant
I tried very hard, for days and days and days, to not have any opinion about this and I don't, from a personal standpoint, no more than I have opinions about Martha Stewart or Robert Blake or any other celebrity that is in trouble with the law. However, from a media studies viewpoint (and that's where my supposed field of expertise lies), this is a huge story. Here is why:
The journalistic courtesy of not revealing rape victim's identities is just that, a courtesy. Nothing in journalism is etched in stone. In a low profile case victims identities, even the identity of the accused, is rarely newsworthy. But in a high profile case, where the accused is thrown to the media wolves, there is much debate among academics and pundits alike about whether this courtesy needs to be waived. Though not a case on the Bryant level, a case involving a graduate student at UC Berkeley and former law school dean John Dwyer, which precipicated the recent decision to ban all faculty/student romantic liasons at UC schools, caused much the same uproar, though on a significantly smaller scale. Still, some internet bloggers, led by Erin O'Connor, investigated the case and indentified the accuser and published some information about her. O'Connor claims that not doing this is unethical. No one paid much attention to that case and it quickly disappeared into the media void, but they Bryant case, obviously, brings the issue back into the foreground, and instead of obscure academic bloggers bent on changing the rules, we now have almost full disclosure on Bryant's accusers on our fingertips, courtesy of search engines like Yahoo. As an LA Times article asserted the other day, it is becoming increasingly tough for traditional news sources like newspapers and television to ignore the tidal wave of facts, rumors and flat out misinformation that is accessed daily on the internet or talk radio. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that much on the web or the radio is not verified by independent sources, another journalistic credo. These types of changes are at the heart of media studies.
I still don't have an opinion, but I am watching the case more closely.
THOSE 16 WORDS BY THE PRESIDENT
My interest here is not the words per se. What did you expect? I mean, it's my personal belief that the Bush administration has been blowing smoke up our asses since approximately 9/12, if you know what I mean. Every time I hear Bush speak he is talking about "freedom" and "liberty" and saying a whole lot of nothing while pushing all the right code word buttons. What is at issue here, and I haven't read anything along these lines, is that he made his Iraq/Niger comment in the State of the Union, and for that reason he is being manipulative and deceitful.
I'm not so sure about that.
Really, what is the State of the Union anyway? Does anybody outside of Congress and the media ever really listen to what's being said during the speech? The State of the Union, while not full of outright lies, is a speech that contains more empty promises than any president has ever uttered on a campaign stop, that's for sure. There are always references to the elderly, the homeless, our children, education, etc. But a year later, how much of what is promised actually acted upon? My guess is, not much. Has anyone ever taken the president, any of them, to task for this? Not while I've been alive. In fact, the State of the Union has a very curious history which I don't have time to explain now, but I will later. There is nothing about it that is binding in any way. The reason we've paid nominal attention the last two years is because of the World Trade attacks. Otherwise, the speech is almost exclusively concentrated on domestic issues.
The bigger problem for me is that the arrogance and agressiveness of the administration, especially now that they a bit on the defensive, makes you wonder (well, not me, I never believe anything they say) if everything that comes out of their mouths is not an out and out deception. If you are anti-Bush, you say yes, if you are pro-Bush, you say no. It is called speculatory bias - you seek out opinions of people who are saying what you want to hear. This is nothing new, it has been going on since at least television arrived.
More on this later as well.
There has been far far too much going on in the news for me to stay silent about. One of the problems, however, is that it seems like everybody has to weigh in on current topics, and almost 100% of it winds up being as enlightening as a Dr. Gene Scott marathon. Why should anyone give a rats ass about my opinion? That said, here goes:
Kobe Bryant
I tried very hard, for days and days and days, to not have any opinion about this and I don't, from a personal standpoint, no more than I have opinions about Martha Stewart or Robert Blake or any other celebrity that is in trouble with the law. However, from a media studies viewpoint (and that's where my supposed field of expertise lies), this is a huge story. Here is why:
The journalistic courtesy of not revealing rape victim's identities is just that, a courtesy. Nothing in journalism is etched in stone. In a low profile case victims identities, even the identity of the accused, is rarely newsworthy. But in a high profile case, where the accused is thrown to the media wolves, there is much debate among academics and pundits alike about whether this courtesy needs to be waived. Though not a case on the Bryant level, a case involving a graduate student at UC Berkeley and former law school dean John Dwyer, which precipicated the recent decision to ban all faculty/student romantic liasons at UC schools, caused much the same uproar, though on a significantly smaller scale. Still, some internet bloggers, led by Erin O'Connor, investigated the case and indentified the accuser and published some information about her. O'Connor claims that not doing this is unethical. No one paid much attention to that case and it quickly disappeared into the media void, but they Bryant case, obviously, brings the issue back into the foreground, and instead of obscure academic bloggers bent on changing the rules, we now have almost full disclosure on Bryant's accusers on our fingertips, courtesy of search engines like Yahoo. As an LA Times article asserted the other day, it is becoming increasingly tough for traditional news sources like newspapers and television to ignore the tidal wave of facts, rumors and flat out misinformation that is accessed daily on the internet or talk radio. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that much on the web or the radio is not verified by independent sources, another journalistic credo. These types of changes are at the heart of media studies.
I still don't have an opinion, but I am watching the case more closely.
THOSE 16 WORDS BY THE PRESIDENT
My interest here is not the words per se. What did you expect? I mean, it's my personal belief that the Bush administration has been blowing smoke up our asses since approximately 9/12, if you know what I mean. Every time I hear Bush speak he is talking about "freedom" and "liberty" and saying a whole lot of nothing while pushing all the right code word buttons. What is at issue here, and I haven't read anything along these lines, is that he made his Iraq/Niger comment in the State of the Union, and for that reason he is being manipulative and deceitful.
I'm not so sure about that.
Really, what is the State of the Union anyway? Does anybody outside of Congress and the media ever really listen to what's being said during the speech? The State of the Union, while not full of outright lies, is a speech that contains more empty promises than any president has ever uttered on a campaign stop, that's for sure. There are always references to the elderly, the homeless, our children, education, etc. But a year later, how much of what is promised actually acted upon? My guess is, not much. Has anyone ever taken the president, any of them, to task for this? Not while I've been alive. In fact, the State of the Union has a very curious history which I don't have time to explain now, but I will later. There is nothing about it that is binding in any way. The reason we've paid nominal attention the last two years is because of the World Trade attacks. Otherwise, the speech is almost exclusively concentrated on domestic issues.
The bigger problem for me is that the arrogance and agressiveness of the administration, especially now that they a bit on the defensive, makes you wonder (well, not me, I never believe anything they say) if everything that comes out of their mouths is not an out and out deception. If you are anti-Bush, you say yes, if you are pro-Bush, you say no. It is called speculatory bias - you seek out opinions of people who are saying what you want to hear. This is nothing new, it has been going on since at least television arrived.
More on this later as well.
Archives