Archive for the 'television' Category

Some Tuesday links

Well, I got linked to today by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and never have I seen such vitriolic hateful email. I feel sorry for political bloggers who get linked by her regularly.

Here are some media-related links for your amusement:

1. A sports blogger who up until recently used a pseudonym outed himself as a Washington Post reporter. He was promptly fired.

2. Here’s a step by step list on how to make your own Judd Apatow movie. If this formula is correct, then he only has about five more movies left before he has run out of Freaks and Geeks cast members to star in his films.

3. While much of the news coverage of Craigslist has focused on the damage it has caused to the newspaper industry, another competitor has decided that it won’t take it sitting down — Ebay has filed a lawsuit against the free classifieds site.

4. Every time you think cable news couldn’t get any worse, you come across a news clip like this one and realize that there is no limit to its vapidity.

Some Thursday links

Seeing as how this is a blog that regularly covers the journalism industry, one would think that I’d provide some links to criticism of last night’s travesty of a presidential debate — particularly criticism launched at ABC. But since I don’t have cable or even basic network television right now I didn’t actually watch the debate and so I will instead be thankful that I wasn’t planted in front of my TV screen fighting the urge to throw a household appliance through it.

Here are some media-related links for your amusement:

1. Of course ABC can’t take all the flak for having no journalistic integrity. After all, NBC’s Today Show has decided to allow First Lady Laura Bush to co-host it.

2. A lot of bloggers complain about how spam blogs scrape their content and publish it without permission. I could honestly care less if they do this to me, unless it starts hurting my search engine rankings. But I still hate spam blogs because they clutter up blog search results. Whenever I conduct Bloggasm research I constantly use both Google Blog Search and Technorati, and nothing is more tedious and annoying than having to spend 25 seconds trying to figure out if the blog you’re reading is legitimate or just ripping off someone else. Luckily, Wired has posted a how-to wiki on how to fight back and battle spam blogs.

3. It was announced recently that a company called Buzznet would purchase two very popular music blogs. Today we find out that it bought those blogs using money from Universal Music Group, with possible plans for the blogs to be turned into the music company’s promotional vehicles. I’ve developed theories over the past year about the future of journalistic content and I think this kind of deal — though rife with conflicts-of-interest — might be the future of profitable journalism. Maybe one day I’ll get around to writing a post about this.

4. Not long ago I blogged about how Gawker bloggers were fortunate that they can use Gawker Media blogs to criticize their own company and actually get away with it. Well it turns out they can’t get away with it after all. A Valleywag blogger who had gone after his company got fired shortly after.

5. Speaking of Valleywag, they give us some insight on how much Youtube partners are making in revenue share. It looks like so far the video giant isn’t bringing in the cash.

6. So remember when comScore said that Google’s paid clicks were on the decline, which led to predictions about decreased revenue? I don’t know if I ever said this publicly, but though I believed comScore was probably right about the fewer clicks, this had very little to do with revenue. After all, Google works in mysterious ways and to me it was just a sign that they were making their advertising program more efficient. Well, as has been widely reported, it turns out I was right. And as a result of comScore’s jumping to conclusions, its stock took a noticeable dip recently after the Google earning news broke.

Daily Show documentary about Fox News

Daily Show correspondent John Oliver went to town the other night on Fox News, creating a mini-documentary that highlights the hypocrisy of many of its personalities.

The documentary is embedded in two videos below:

Part one:

and part two:

Is Chris Matthews a symbol of everything wrong with cable news?

chris matthews cable news

I have gone nearly six months now without cable. I keep myself fed with the occasional Netflix rental but otherwise I am now in a perpetual state of television fasting. This stems from my own cheapness rather than any objection to the medium — I moved to an apartment with more expensive rent and utilities and suddenly the idea of spending another $40 a month on cable seemed much less necessary.

But before this plunge I watched anywhere from a half hour to an hour of cable news a night, usually when exercising. Though in the past I was pretty eclectic about which network to watch, sometime early in 2007 I settled on watching MSNBC almost exclusively. What show I watched depended entirely on when I got around to exercising that night, but more often than not I would find myself following the ping-pong match that is Chris Mathews’s Hardball.

At first, I found the show entertaining. But then when we entered February and March of 2007, Matthews, unlike the rest of America, which was just starting to prepare itself for a presidential season, was ready to draw blood. He became obsessed, in every single episode, — every single god damn night — with who may or may not run. When he didn’t have a potential presidential candidate to pester with his annoying “areyagonnarun??” prattle, he and his guests would spend 15 to 20 minutes of every night repeating the same “analysis,” a mixture of the obvious and wildfire predictions not tied to any actual public opinion polls.

Soon, I found myself reaching some kind of internal crescendo and having to change the channel in the same way that I had to switch off the radio after listening to Dr. Laura Schlessinger tell yet another pregnant mom that she better quit her job and abandon the feminist notion of a career. You reach a point sometimes when bottlenecking no longer gives you pleasure; just as some movies are so bad that they sink lower than the realm of camp, Matthews had managed to frustrate me to the point of driving me away.

But then came the six months without cable and I didn’t give him much thought other than reading the occasional blog post or media article panning him. Today, though, I revisited Matthews at length when I read a profile of him in the New York Times Magazine Suddenly I was barraged with flashbacks of his contrived “Ha!” and duck-like speech, his sportscaster play-by-play shallowness, his horse race coverage. I realized then that he is the epitome of what’s wrong with cable news.

Matthews is the antithesis of wonkery. He and his guests almost never provide insight to policies; there is no depth given to the issues themselves, other than the occasional argument over whether a specific platform can get pushed through into law. Candidates like to repeat the cliche that they’re not running for themselves, they’re running for the country. But Matthews shows no pretense over his coverage; it is about the candidate. His show is a character study of the presidential hopeful, a back-and-forth sportscaster analysis.

What’s worse is that he is the definition of the mainstream media’s bizarre concept of a “centrist.” To them, fair and balanced isn’t about truth, it’s about making sure the scales are equally weighted with both liberals and conservatives. All opinions are created equal in this cable news world, regardless of which opinion is held up by facts. Nothing three dimensional is ever revealed in this world because, to pundits like Matthews, politics is a continuous game of “gotcha.”

To illustrate my point, take a look at this quote from Matthews’s profile:

On the morning of the Cleveland debate, Matthews was standing in the lobby of the Ritz when Russert walked through, straight from a workout, wearing a sweat-drenched Buffalo Bills sweatshirt, long shorts and black rubber-soled shoes with tube socks. “Here he is; here he is, the man,” Matthews said to Russert, who smiled and chatted for a few minutes before returning to his room. (An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, tried, after the fact, to declare Russert’s outfit “off the record.”)

If MSNBC is so afraid of being candid about something as simple as Russert’s exercise outfit, then why should we expect anything more from the politicians they’re supposed to cover? MSNBC — and other cable news channels — have become the two-faced political machines they’re supposed to counteract. They’re nothing but noise.

Some Tuesday links

I actually got a chance today to comb through my RSS feeds at length, so for once you might find some of these links to not be a week out of date. Either way, here are some media-related links for your amusement.

1. I’ve long said that the reporting on the demise of the newspaper industry rarely contains any real context because it tends to ignore the journalism industry as a whole. Though newspapers are laying off reporters, we’re seeing an increase in the number of journalists who either blog full-time or write for other online venues for a living. Gawker has published a chart of newspaper revenue over the last few decades and as you’ll see it adds even more context to the equation. Chris Anderson explains the chart at length.

2. Here is a brilliant account of the tension and parasitic relationship that website owners have with Google. Considering I’m experiencing my own falling out period with Google right now, the piece rang especially true for me. I’ll probably have a longer post on this later.

3. I’ve noticed that hard-core Digg users have formed odd, cyclical alliances with certain political figures or themes. At first, you couldn’t visit the social bookmarking site without coming across a pro- Ron Paul story. Then it was nonstop pro- Obama articles. Now, on a slightly related and perhaps more bizarre note, we’re seeing intense anti-Clinton articles making it to the front page. Here is a good example. How do these trends begin, and why do they suddenly end for a new tide of political stories?

4. I don’t find Maureen Dowd funny at all, but this post explaining her writing sure made me laugh.

5. It’s kind of neat when every now and then we get to see a Gawker Media blogger go and bite the hand that feeds him by attacking his own boss on the blog. You don’t see things like that in traditional media outlets. Look here to see a Valleywag contributor complain and viciously attack his boss for a new round of pay cuts.

6. There have been a number of news stories showing that CNN has been winning the ratings game against Fox News, something that would have been unthinkable two years ago. I have a love/hate relationship with cable news, but when I do tune in I usually stick with MSNBC.

7. A South Carolina senator is proposing a tax surcharge on purchased pornography, saying that the money should go toward managing sex offenders. Because we all know the completely made up connections between looking at porn and going on to become a sex offender.

Eddie Izzard’s transition to “serious acting”

I’ve been an Eddie Izzard fan since my sophomore year of college. I’m arguably part of his cult following since I watched every stand-up DVD he put out. The New York Times has an interesting article today about how he has shed his dress for regular male clothing (he’s a transvestite) and is trying to enter the serious world of drama.

Some Thursday links

It’s a light list today, but here are some media-related links for your amusement:

1. After months of rumors that it was going to happen, Tucker Carlson gets the ax.

2. How internet alt porn turned into a big business.

3. Clinton’s campaign sends out a negative press release attacking Obama. Then Obama’s campaign uses a clever way to respond to it.

4. Black reporter and cameraman show up and report the news and racist rednecks attack them while shouting racial slurs.