Archive for April, 2008

The Bilal Hussein aftermath

It has been two weeks since the US military announced it would release AP photographer Bilal Hussein, who was held by the military for two years without charges. The military had launched vague terrorism accusations at the journalist but provided no evidence for this — instead it released anonymous leaks to various right-wing partisan bloggers (led by Michelle Malkin). Unfortunately, these bloggers went to every extreme in amplifying these accusations with multiple posts saying the AP was associated with terrorists.

But after Hussein was ordered released (by an Iraqi judicial panel, with the US military saying, “he no longer presents an imperative threat to security”), many of those bloggers who had spent thousands of words smearing both him and the AP barely issued a peep. Those who gave brief statement refused to apologize and said that because Bilal was ordered released under an “amnesty law” (a law none of them read so could know nothing about its content) then it wasn’t proof of his innocence. But other than those few brief posts, only cricket chirping.

Eric Boehlert has a great article at Media Matters that gives a comprehensive background of the bloggers’ shameful reporting and their silence in the aftermath of his release. After reading it I couldn’t help but be depressed at the thought that these bloggers still have thousands of readers that are subjected to their writing. For some, there is no justice.

The anatomy of a Michelle Malkin post

Updated below

In a recent post criticizing blogger Michelle Malkin, I said that she “will stop at nothing to drag her opponents through the mud, often at the expense of actual facts.” And then, once she’s been caught in an error, “she spins her way into oblivion by backtracking on just about every incorrect claim she had made.”

To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at Malkin’s “lead story” for today, a post titled “Question of the Day: Where did the DNC get its IED footage?

It hit the web at 11:43 a.m., and highlights a recent advertisement made by the DNC that shows a very brief (less than half a second) clip of a bomb going off near American soldiers. Malkin takes the clip and asks where the footage came from. She then favorably block quotes a source that accuses the DNC of getting the footage from terrorist jihadis “who videotape IED explosions that kill American combat troops. The jihadists place the video on the internet to tout their ‘kill Americans’ campaign success.”

After the block quote, Malkin writes, “they’re certainly dumb enough and indifferent enough to our men and women in uniform to incorporate jihadi propaganda into their campaign ads.”

Next, she posts an “update” at 11:56 a.m. claiming that the DNC got the footage not from a terrorist website but from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. She then asks where Moore got the footage from (thereby passing the ball to him) while also accusing the DNC of plagiarizing Moore.

And then finally, she posts a second “update” at 12:12 p.m. pointing out that the footage actually came from a network news source from right after the invasion.

The post then ends with a long quote that accuses the DNC of exploiting the images of soldiers being blown up for political gain.

So just to recap for those playing along at home, here’s the narrative that takes place on a single post over a span of 29 minutes and 500 words:

1. The DNC is using terrorist propaganda videos in advertisements to attack John McCain. 2. Actually, Michael Moore is using terrorist propaganda videos in advertisements to attack John McCain. Also, the DNC is plagiarizing Michael Moore by using footage without permission. 3. Actually, neither Michael Moore nor the DNC is using terrorist propaganda videos to attack John McCain. They were both using footage from a US news network. But that’s not the REAL issue here. The REAL issue is that they’re using videos of soldiers being blown up for their own political gain.

According to Malkin’s sitemeter stats, around 16,000 unique visitors went to her site during the hour in which this was posted. The time lapsed between the initial posting and the final update was about a half hour. So that means about 8,000 people visited her site in between the posting and the update, not counting all the RSS feed readers. Depending on the number of people who checked back at the site to see the new update, that means that as many as 8,000 people went out into the world today thinking the DNC is using terrorist video footage for its advertisements. And who knows how many people they will repeat this lie to.

And Michelle Malkin has the gall to criticize other news networks? Imagine if a mainstream news source had committed such an act targeting a conservative; she wouldn’t have stopped attacking them for weeks.

UPDATE: Surprise surprise. It turns out the footage came from Getty Images. Various reports show that it was licensed legally. So no copyright infringement and no terrorist propaganda video.

Goodbye Technorati

Dear Technorati,

You absolutely worthless search engine. The only thing you’re good for these days is the fleeting ego boost one gets when he checks his blog ranking. In terms of actually delivering search results to your users, you’re pretty much useless and I’m done with you.

You have always been known for your constant error messages and website glitches, but most have been able to forgive you for this. But then semi-recently you started offering search results that didn’t actually take you to blog posts when you clicked on them. Instead, the click would bring you to a redundant Technorati page, a cheap ploy for increased pageviews that does nothing but alienate your users. I alerted you this problem awhile ago and I know you read it because your CEO showed up in my comment section. And yet you’ve done nothing to correct this basic usability problem. Could you imagine if Google made us click through redundant pages just to actually get to the website highlighted in its search results? It would be unthinkable, and yet one of the bozos working for you thought it would be a good idea.

You also offer tons of duplicate search results. If I do a simple keyword search there will be 5+ links to essentially the same exact blog post.

And then recently you drove me over the edge. I don’t know what the hell your website is doing, but whatever it is it’s causing my browser to freeze whenever I visit you. I’m writing this after having to close out my browser with ctrl-alt-delete. Do you really want to be a ctrl-alt-delete website? That’s the sign of imminent death if I’ve ever seen one.

As my frustrations grew, I started using Google Blog Search more and more. Now it’s reached the point when I use it for just about any basic search. Its results load quickly, it doesn’t offer redundant duplicate results, and when I click on the results it actually takes me to a freaking blog post. Sure, it does have its problems — it’s indexing way too many splogs, for instance — but I’ll take that over having to ctrl-alt-delete my way out of a website any day. If it were to ever offer ego-boosting blog rankings, you’d be entirely obsolete.

So, as I said, I’m done with you. You’ve manage to alienate one of your loyal users so much that he publicly renounced you. Good job.

Sincerely,
Simon

Blogging 101

I am constantly astonished by how many bloggers out there do not provide basic contact info, i.e. a simple email address, on their blogs.

It’s absolutely silly. I mean, I would guess that most blogs are out there because they’re meant to be read, and I bet many bloggers dream of having huge audiences. Why then, are you hindering yourself by not providing an effective way for your readership to contact you?

For instance, I am an avid news tipper. If I’m reading something that I think will fit into your niche, I’ll actually take a few moments to drop you an email and point you to it. There have been dozens of times when I’ve wanted to provide a news tip to a blogger only to not be able to find his contact info.

One could say that this is one of my main blogging pet peeves.

Replacing the sit-com

Embedded below you’ll find a video of a speech made by Clay Shirky at the Web 2.0 Expo. It’s 16 minutes long but I sat through every bit of it. It seeks to answer that nagging question: “Where do people find the time?” In other words, how does a Web 2.0 company harness the time and energy of a crowd?

If you’re reading this in a feed reader, you might have to click through to to the site to watch the video, sometimes these embeds are tricky:

Is Facebook finally offering highly-targeted ads?

Many analysts agree that once social networking sites get their shit together that they’ll be prime real-estate for advertisers, primarily because they have so much personal info on their users, which in turn means highly-personalized ads. But other than the controversial Beacon program I haven’t seen much evidence for this until today.

When I logged into my account today I saw this ad in my news feed:

facebook ad

As most of you know, I’m a journalist. It wouldn’t be too hard to ascertain this from my Facebook profile — given that I’m listed as an English major grad and my place of employment is in my workplace info.

Is this just a coincidence or was Facebook able to scan my profile and deliver a targeted ad?

Either way, I did something I rarely do to advertisements on the internet: I clicked on it.

Mocking the mockers: The ambiguity of a Youtube video

“This is too clever to have been done by creationists.”

I thought this while watching a nearly four minute Youtube video called “Beware the Believers” depicting a rapping Richard Dawkins and headband-wearing Christopher Hitchens. After a brief prologue in which an animated Dawkins introduces an audience to a “glorious age, the age of the machine,” it launches into biting lyrics that tear into the “appeal to authority” arguments often employed during evolution-versus-intelligent design debates. The cast of this music video is comprised of prominent atheists and scientists ranging from Charles Darwin to anthropologist Eugenie Scott, and if there’s one thing this lyrical group wants to convey to you, it’s that Dawkins “is smarter than you, he has a science degree.”
expelled richard dawkins
At surface level, the video is targeting the atheists and scientists it depicts. Creationists and religious apologists have long complained of the supposed elitism of prominent atheists, and here is a two-dimensional rendition of the alleged snobbery. With non-believers constantly using the word “irrational” to describe religious belief, it’s not too far-fetched to think the religious would strike back at the very university degrees that give many of these scientists their stature.

But seen another way, the video is mocking those very believers. The characters appearing in the piece are literally cut-out, enlarged heads bobbling to-and-fro over dancing real bodies — they’re essentially caricatures. Viewed in this light, the video is riffing on the often-bizarre paranoia of creationists who think “Big Science” is actively trying to suppress scientists who don’t subscribe to some kind of mainstream scientific doctrine, e.g. evolutionary theory. Given that a new documentary touting this very thesis, Expelled, was soon to be released, the video seemed an appropriate way to address this play-the-victim assertion.

The fact that the video was of unknown origin (the username of the person who uploaded it didn’t give any clue) further enhanced the ambiguity of its message. Perhaps because of this almost-perfect balance, the piece was widely linked across the web, making its way onto a number of extremely popular sites. Rather than being offended by the video, much of the online atheist community embraced it. As one Digg user put it, “Whether you’re a person of science, a person of faith or a mix of the two I think we can all agree that this is one catchy song. Kudos to the guy who made this, it’s hilarious.”

As the video spread, its origin remained a mystery. Many of those who viewed it — including me — thought it was too well written to have been created by the people behind Expelled. After all, movie critics have already eviscerated the film for its lack of originality, boring use of stock footage and overall failed attempts at humor. Clearly something as sharp and well-written as this couldn’t come from a Ben Stein cohort.

Well, it turns out we were wrong — somewhat.

PZ Myers, a biology professor and vocal atheist who appears in “Beware the Believers,” received an email this week from a man named Michael Edmondson who outed himself as one of the creators. “The intent of the video has been questioned a lot,” he wrote. “…I suppose the answer is that I tried to make something that was funny to me and It’s not really meant to convince anyone of anything.”
pz myers christopher hitchens expelled
Edmondson is a 27-year-old film school graduate living in Vancouver. He previously worked creating marketing videos for Electronic Arts but left the company in 2004 to start Float On Films and do work on the side as a photographer providing artwork for the hospitality industry. From late last summer until the end of last week, he had done contractual work for Premise Media, the producers for Expelled. He has a visual effects credit in the documentary and was one of the main players behind the Youtube video.

I interviewed Edmondson this week and asked him how “Beware the Believers” came about. “Originally it was a six minute piece to be used within the film Expelled,” he told me. “It told the story of the ‘rise of the Machine’ (darwinism). When I had arrived the script was already written having passed through three sets of hands of writers directly or loosely connected to the film…In the editing room for Expelled the production team decided the film had taken a different direction in tone than expected and that the unfinished animation no longer fit the film.”

It was the producers who decided to shift the video online and make it a separate entity, with the hopes of it becoming a “viral piece,” as Edmondson put it. A person named Matt Chandler was brought in to write the lyrics. “Matt and I each wrote a version of the lyrics,” he said. “My version was the requested 90 seconds and well received. Matt’s was five minutes long but very layered and smart so we went with Matt’s and trimmed it to three minutes.”

To save time, he set up a blue screen in his kitchen and performed the dancing rather than animating the bodies of each character. It took him over seven months to complete, “worked on intermittently between other projects and tasks.”

Which brings me to the nagging question about the video’s origin: Was the creator — Edmondson — sympathetic to the Expelled thesis (that intelligent design is a legitimate theory and should be taught in the classroom), or was this a fly-by paid-for-hire production? To make matters even more confusing, at nearly the same time he outed himself Edmondson released a “sequel” to “Beware the Believers” in which Ben Stein is wearing a shirt that has the words “Poe’s Law” written on it. For those not familiar with it, Poe’s Law states that it is impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism without it being interchangeable with the real thing.

But which “fundamentalists” are being parodied here, the intelligent design proponents or the scientists?
expelled ben stein
I tried to get a reading on Edmondson’s leanings on this matter, asking him if he was sympathetic to Expelled’s cause. “The video wasn’t just meant to be funny. I think it has something to say,” he replied. “It was meant to spark debate and bring attention to the issue…What I meant was that the animation was not intended to convince people of anything. I hope no one over five years old learns really important things about the world through the song and dance of cartoon characters. In the second video there appears the text ‘In Vitro Vertas.’ It means ‘the truth is in the test tube.’ I think that is a true statement for this issue. If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science. I think the film has a viewpoint that has the right to be heard.”

I pressed further, asking if the “Poe’s Law” written on Stein’s shirt meant that he was intentionally mocking the intelligent design promoters. “No… but yes,” he said. “Like many things we included in the videos what you see has everything to do with what you bring to it and can be interpreted a few different ways. A person’s world view colours how they see the world and these animations. We knew some people would see it that way. The animations make fun of everyone.”

Myers, who’s featured in both “Beware the Believers” and Expelled, seemed to agree with this notion, calling the video “equal opportunity mockery.”

“It’s a video that used wit and humor and irreverence and knowledge of contemporary attitudes that earned the attention given to it, no matter what view point it might have been pushing,” he told me in an interview this week.

I asked the biology professor about the possibility that Edmondson had crossed enemy lines to help out the Expelled people (it should be noted that I asked this question before I had been able to interview Edmondson). After all, many of Myers’s blog commenters had accused Edmondson of being just as guilty as the Expelled creators because he had helped out in the marketing.

“Most people don’t see the ‘enemy lines as sharply as an educated scientist or an ignorant creationist would,” Myers said. “To most people, the lines are pretty blurry and uncertain (although a little more education in biology would certainly help open their eyes), and the battle isn’t as clearly laid out as the actual participants see it. It seems to me that Edmondson is an artist who is playing around right on that boundary, and not so much an active transgressor.”

Besides, he said, the video “was an absolutely horrible piece of marketing.”

“It wouldn’t be a draw to Expelled‘s target audience, nor would it persuade critics to go see the movie,” he explained. “The Expelled producers wasted their money on it, if they thought they were getting a marketing tool. I hope Edmondson got paid a LOT of the creationists’ money.”

Sadly, when I asked Edmondson how much he got paid to produce the video, it was the one question he neglected to answer.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin