Tag Archives: news

October 15: What’s Not Being Talked About In The News

For the most part, I try to keep my politics toned down here at CWR, but every once in a while, something comes along that straddles the line between ideology and culture that’d be wrong not to talk about.

I’m guessing you may have heard of Malala Yousafazi.

Young Pakastani girl known for being a women’s education and peace activist, shot by a reported Taliban assassin just short of a week ago and just today being flown to England to continue her recovery.

You may have seen this picture of her:

But the picture you may not have seen is this one here:

That’s young Malala wearing a hijab, a head-covering worn by many Muslim women as part of their understanding of modesty. Yep, Malala’s a Muslim– but that’s something you’re not gonna hear on the news or read in your paper.If Islam is mentioned at all, chances are, it’s in reference to Malala’s would be assassin- not her (or her friends who were with her). Why is that? How come the same frenzied media attention that is devoted to listing off every attack or offense on the part of “Radical Islam” utterly fails to note the Islamic element when it’s related to something positive. I can understand- maybe even overlook- the fact that the news doesn’t offer any attention to the millions of Muslims (the ones I grew up with) who just go about their day without doing anything to anyone. But the moment  a Muslim man or woman stands up for what he or she believes, even going so far as be nearly murdered for those beliefs and actions, religion disappears from the picture.

And while we’re at it, there’s another thing that’s been bothering me.

You remember Pussy Riot? Feminist Punk Band who got into trouble for playing anti-Putin songs in a historic Russian cathedral?

Why is it that when they got convicted of “hooliganism” and were sentenced to two years in prison (a term waaay disproportionate to the crime) the world united in outrage, and when Leah-Lynne Plante was arrested-

Oh.

Who’s “Leah-Lynne Plante”?

She’s an activist up in Washington State whose apartment was raided by FBI and SWAT Teams. See, back on May 1st, there was some vandalism that occurred in Seattle and Leah-Lynne was a suspect.

How many people who have vandalized walls or billboards actually have the police investigate them, let alone the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force? Of those people, how many have black clothes and books confiscated as “evidence”?

Obviously this has about as much to do with vandalism as Pussy Riot’s sentencing had to do with disturbing the peace. See, Leah-Lynne Plante is a self-proclaimed anarchist, and after refusing for a third time to answer questions before a grand jury. Considering the Grand Jury that’s investigating these and other alleged anarchist criminals was first created in March (two months prior to when she allegedly committed these crimes) doesn’t exactly reflect well on the whole “liberty and justice for all” element of the legal system.

But that’s all beside the point.

The point is, you probably don’t know about it. Your news has almost certainly never reported it, and considering the similarities between the two cases, doesn’t Leah-Lynne Plante’s case deserve your attention just as much as anti-government rockers off in Moscow?

Your media doesn’t think so.

And I think we’re being asked too much. I think we’ve had enough.

See, you can’t pick and choose- if the media want to take the violent or oppressive actions of Muslims as being representative of their faith, they have to apply the same logic to Muslim heroism as well. The same goes for equal air-time. The news can’t report on a bunch of women in brightly colored balaclavas for being broadsided by the state and then whistle Dixie while one in a black shirt has her home raided by men in kevlar.

Consistency- I’m not expecting that the news be factual (and considering it’s the news, that’s a pretty big thing to let slide) but they have got to be fair
or stop calling themselves reporters. If they wanted to pick and choose their battles, they should’ve become bloggers instead.

Does The Onion Even Have Lines? #CongressHostage

So The Onion tweeted [#CongressHostage] about Congress holding schoolchildren hostage last Thursday. The Internet, as expected, exploded for a bit in a few places and then returned to normalcy.

A rather convincing photograph of what appears to be Speaker of the House John Boehner holding a little girl hostage

The tweets were fake live-action reports of an Onion headline that day that reported that Congress had taken hostage 12 schoolchildren and were demanding, for their release, 12 trillion dollars “in cash”. A less tasteful part of the story involved John Boehner threatening to kill “one child every hour” until the money was given, with a rather amusing photoshopped picture of Boehner holding a gun to a girl’s head.

The US Capitol police responded with a release affirming that there was no situation of any kind at the Capitol, which created a scad of angry tweets ridiculing at anyone who could “be so stupid to believe” the story – and by scad I mean like hundreds, which seems to be many more than the small amount of people who took the story to be actual news. Time asked if The Onion went to far with #CongressHostage, and lots of followers said that they did, which created another scad of angry tweets ridiculing anyone who would be offended by The Onion story and lamented over the lack of education about satire, etc. etc. Basically summarizing the whole debate, @GS_Design responded to Time’s question: “Does the Onion *have* lines?”

Some people compared the event to the War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938; @kevinhamel55 asked, “@TheOnion today, War of The Worlds in 1938; is there any difference?” (the answer is yes, yes there is, because this time nobody thought the world was actually ending and hundreds of people weren’t calling studios panicked, afraid for their lives; whether this makes the Onion more or less successful than the 1938 broadcast is another matter altogether).

Admittedly, in perhaps poor taste The Onion’s #CongressHostage thing started with this tweet: “BREAKING: Witnesses reporting screams and gunfire heard inside Capitol building.“, which wasn’t really funny or entirely unbelievable in any way. Further tweets were more appropriately hilarious: “Reports from those who know Congress say the legislative body had seemed desperate as of late“. Another tweet that isn’t really funny enough to justify its offensiveness was: “Two chaperones are also being held, one of whom is said to be pregnant “. It’s sort of amusing just because it’s so intensely typical of a hostage situation report, but it had nothing to do with the story’s strongest point, the nature of Congress in real life – as exemplified by the tweet: ‘Obama on bullhorn: “John, I know you can hear me in there. Please, you don’t need to do this.”

The article was a pretty accurate metaphor about Congress’ sense of desperation, as well as the public and presidential opinion of Congress this year, and the #CongressHostage stunt did a good job of drawing attention to it, at least. @TheOnion’s twitter account gained something like 7,000 followers, and the article received a ridiculous amount of news and blog coverage. The whole event was just another example of The Onion doing what The Onion does – drawing public attention to the nature of veracity and sensationalism in news sources, which is almost always good. The best summary of the situation in the current cultural context, in my opinion, came from @FultonMatt, who tweeted: “@TheOnion’s #CongressHostage has gone too far. Why can’t they just hack dead kid’s phones like a real news org?

News written by computers will make opinions matter more

For the first time, automatically generated articles are becoming practical for news sources to use – this carries interesting implications for journalism and internet writing. A variety of news sites, including The Big Ten Network, have published articles generated by a computer program written by Narrative Science, a company that uses computer algorithms to generate news articles. It saves money on writers and the public can’t really tell the difference. Here’s an excerpt from an article generated by Narrative Science [from MediaBistro]:

“Wisconsin jumped out to an early lead and never looked back in a 51-17 win over UNLV on Thursday at Camp Randall Stadium. The Badgers scored 20 points in the first quarter on a Russell Wilson touchdown pass, a Montee Ball touchdown run and a James White touchdown run. Wisconsin’s offense dominated the Rebels’ defense. The Badgers racked up 499 total yards in the game including 258 yards passing and 251 yards on the ground.”

The program, for sports articles, will even determine the MVP of the game and select a photograph to use for the article.

This is an interesting development in the “What the frick is going to happen to journalism?” question that is frequently discussed. And yeah, the fact that articles can be generated like the above, saving publishers time and money, does seem to be another pretty strong indicator of the slow and hard-to-watch decay of journalism. But I don’t think that the demand for a professional, reliable, and enjoyable source of important information is going to go away – not enough to eliminate the need for good news sources completely. I think that a story like the one above points to the fact that journalism is going to change, possibly drastically, to fill a slightly new niche in contemporary society.

One thing that might happen is the inflation of value in organic things – things clearly human, like more creative sentence structure, original metaphor, and distinct voice. I think there is a strong possibility of a reaction against cheaply written, algorithmic writing – whether computer-generated (as in the sports article quoted in the mediabistro article) or written by a sad and poorly paid writer (as in the 98% of sports articles that sound exactly like the computer generated one that are basically written by the thesaurus entries for “won” and “lost”. Not that such writing would cease to exist, but that it would fade into the background, especially amongst higher quality internet publications, the way low-quality websites do now: they contain information, but if we can tell nobody put any time into designing or laying out the website, nobody’s going to read it. I think that with the advent of more commonly computer-generated writing, readers are going to become more sensitive to what was written by a person and what is simply stark information.

As previously hard-to-get interviews and inside data (stuff stops being hard-to-get once it goes on the web) become more ubiquitous, the thing that is going to make a publication stand out in the market will be wit, voice, narrative skill, and opinion. IE, a good opinion article that you find yourself reading the whole way through will be distinctly more important to publishers and editors than an article that simply relays information that you can get from a variety of headlines.

News sources will also need to provide more background information that explains news stories. Again, the news about the latest events in Libya could be found throughout the internet, but the NYT offers topics pages on Libya (Wikipedia-esque), interactive maps of the conflicts as they unfold day-by-day, copious links to news analysis, and debates and predictions about what will happen next.

This, not cold journalism, is what is going to make or break internet news sources. Readers will be affected by how much they can interact with the information, how much they can learn in one place, and the level of trust they place in not the veracity of the information being relayed (that can be checked against any other news source instantaneously available to him/her) but the arrangement and explanation of that information.