I bet you won’t be seeing this one any time soon…
Archive for August 2004
juiceenewsdaily© > alabama news. jasper news. juicee news.” href=”http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/0804/news/spin.html”>This is foul. The Kerry girls got booed at the MTV Video awards. It was crass — I wouldn’t support booing anyone’s kids unless they take a very active part in the campaign or commit some malfeasance personally. I didn’t support mocking Chelsea Clinton, and I don’t support mocking the Bush or Kerry girls. This, however, is more than crass; it is dishonest.
After seeing the show broadcast live, then watching the re-broadcast of the show, many are cryin gfoul as it seems that MTV has dubbed over, or edited out many of the boos the daughters recieved.
No NO NO. Someone whack MTV with a rolled up newspaper. If your viewers boo, they are telling you something important. They are saying that they aren’t happy with your product. When you cover that booing up, you are telling them that you don’t give a shit what they think and that they should shut up and take what you give them. It is not only arrogant and reminiscent of 1984 and Stalin’s airbrushing, it is insulting to your audience.
Not only that, but now CNN is trying to report that the boos were meant for both the Kerry AND Bush daughters. While the Bush daughters may have received boos, viewers could not hear them due to the fact that their appearance was made via satellite.
CNN said that some audience members gave a “standing ovation”… which is odd considering the fact that most of the individuals were standing throughout the entire program… they had to… they were standing room only seats…
This is the most unkindest cut. CNN has dropped all pretense of trying to appear unbiased. If someone gets booed, report it or don’t. But don’t try to “interpret” what the boos mean. Just report the boos. And don’t feed us a line of shit that is entirely irrelevant like the “standing ovation” line. It is bad enough when you misreport something, but it is inexcusable when you make shit up.
I’m done with CNN. Toss them on the heap with CBS.
Wired has an article up about a new Service called Blogversations. In short, this company pays bloggers to post about certain companies.
Blogversations, however, gets it backward. It wants marketers to actively tell a blogger what to discuss and then they will sponsor that discussion. Oh, I’m sure they’ll say they won’t tell the blogger what to say, only the topic. But in my judgment, this goes over the line: It calls into question the blogger’s credibility (would she be talking about this if she weren’t paid to talk about this?). And it is contrary to the essence and appeal of blogs: I talk about what I want to talk about. Love it or leave it, read it or not, sponsor it or not, that’s what we bloggers do.
I think that I am going to try this (barring objections from you, my faithful readers). I will give you a couple of caveats. First, I won’t “sneak” any of these in on you. They will all be labeled at the top and bottom, “Content Sponsored by So and So and Blogervasions: (the topic)”. If I can’t clearly mark these things, I won’t do them. I won’t accept any controlled content. You will know exactly what topic I agreed to, because I will tell you exactly what I was hired to write about.
I think this can work, and I think it can be good for the blogosphere. Part of why the blogosphere has little credibility is that there is no money in it. (This is one of the arguments of Mike Wormy Fumento.) If this takes off and is effective as viral marketing, then it will give more credibility to the blogosphere.
Most importantly, I think it will help us consumers, because I don’t think that the blogosphere is going to let money cause them to start pulling punches. Even if I softball a sponsor, someone is going to call me on it. This means that the effective advertisers in the blogosphere will be the ones with the best products, not the ones that spends the most money. Companies will have an incentive to make better products that withstand the tempering of the blogosphere, and the blogosphere will help these superior products rise to the top.
One of the fundamental differences I see between Republican and Democratic voters is how they interpret lying and honesty. I think that there are some genuine differences, and I think that a lot of it is sophistry on the side of the Democrats, but I am not certain that it is intentional.
There are elements to a “lie”. I am aided in having a good working knowledge of what fraud is in the legal world, and the legal world is superb at defining elements for common sense things. For a long time, I thought that the definition of a lie was a common sense thing, but the last decade or so has taught me otherwise. The elements of a lie are (based heavily on my layperson’s analysis of fraud, but true on its own):
- A wrong statement: saying something that is not factually true
- Forethought: A knowledge that what you said was not true at the time that you said it
- Reliance: A reasonable expectation from the person that you are saying it to that you are telling the truth, and some action taken by the person you are saying it to based on your assertion
Kerry’s false after-action report, prepared to justify his Purple Heart and Bronze Star, reports “5,000 meters” of heavy fire — about 2½ miles, the same distance as a large Civil War battlefield. Not a shot of this fire was heard by Chenoweth, Thurlow, Odell or Pease.
Kerry’s after-action report ignores Chenoweth’s heroic action in rescuing PCF 3 survivors and Thurlow’s action in saving PCF 3, while highlighting his own routine pickup of Rassmann and PCF 94’s minor role in saving PCF 3.
When Chenoweth’s boat left a second time to deliver the wounded PCF 3 crewmen to a Coast Guard cutter offshore, Kerry jumped into the boat, leaving the remaining officers and men the job of saving PCF 3. It was in terrible condition, sinking just outside the river.
Kerry’s eagerness to secure his third and final Purple Heart evidently outweighed any feelings of loyalty, duty or honor with regard to his fellow sailors. Thurlow and the other brave sailors who saved PCF 3 and towed it out did not seek Purple Hearts for their “minor contusions.” Indeed, several PCF 3 sailors did not seek or receive Purple Hearts.
So much for that theory.