esrosedotblog

I loved his restlessly urgent voice.

David Carr, Times Critic and Champion of Media, Dies at 58

I watched his little video features at the NYT site interviewing difficult subjects and having none of their bullshit. He was a four letter word guy and the impact of his probing was totally effective in disarming the con artists and the villains.

For a long while he did a video program with A.O. Scott and I would not miss any of them. Outspoken and blunt, he always saw another side to things.

Here they are talking about last year's Oscaars.

Labels: media, obituary

One more viewing of the William Gibson documentary.

No Maps for These Territories (2000)

When he made this film he was looking out at ten years or so. It is now beyond that and, of course, some of the stuff has not happened. Yet.

But it is an illuminating talk with a fine thinker. The author of a few great books on our times and the person who coined the word "cyberspace". Meaning the life that is in the computer. Separate from the three dimensional world we inhabit outside it. Separate or not so separate and certainly equal.

I just figure that he is bang on period and it is a good think piece.

The film is an interview conducted as Gibson rides in the back seat of a car on the road to somewhere we don't arrive at. Nice metaphor.

This is one of our time's wise men and well worth a visit. Why I look at this DVD every year or two. It always hits the spot.

Labels: films, future, media

LOOKING FOR TROUBLE

The press is aboil with stuff about the IRS, Benghazi, AP and other "scandals" too numerous to mention.

This is a sign of it being a slow news period.

Today's Oklahoma twister may overshadow a lot of this nonsense but don't count on it.

Maybe I am not trying but I cannot follow it all.

It is micro-reporting at its worst.

In general, I have a few impressions.

The first is that rightly or wrongly, the IRS had an operation to smoke out those organizations that were using charity cover for what were actually campaign finance operations.

The fine print says that this involved liberal as well as the conservative types of groups but, in reality, there are many many more conservative ops than liberal simply because the right is so fractious. We are not reading this. We are reading about the victimization of the tea bag people. It ignites their rages about "freedom" and so on.

On Benghazi, long ago, I decided that it was a tragic loss. There should have been more security but there was not. A mistake. Parsing the words of the President or the UN Ambassador's characterization of the attacks seems to me to be simply stirring up shit.

There are terrorists. All kinds. What do we call them? How do we know when there are real terrorists and accidental terrorists? All bullshit noodling. You can lay a lot of this on McCain and the southern sissy who ought to know better. McCain is still a sore loser if not just a plain all around loser and Lindsay Graham is just a plain middle of the road senator (a good thing actually) burnishing his bonafides on the right so he doesn't get a primary challenge.

The rest of them? Standard GOP bloviators.

The AP thing? Standard government versus press tensions. There are leaks. They should be plugged.

He is in trouble with the left and the right on this but, oddly, more the left. Even Mitch McConnell gave him some support on this yesterday.

I am impressed with this result below.

Obama's Support Steady During Firestorm

In fact he has increased his approvals by as much as 4 points.

Shows that I am not the only one to see through all this trouble making. Mischief. Politics as usual.

GOP Scandal Mongering Making Obama More Popular GOP Much Less So

I liked this headline better. Article is about the same.

Labels: media, republican whack jobs

JUST THE FACTS

We heard a lot about the stampede for scoops last week. We also heard our President suggest that people wait for the facts.

Well, here they are. And they are a lot different, sometimes crucially from what we heard. The great thing about traditional newspapers is that they come behind the elephants and sweep up. Neatly and cleanly. When they are gone, what will we do?

Officer's Killing Spurred Pursuit in Boston Attack

This is a 'tick-tock", carefully compiled days after the events.

Some things that we did not know before.

They killed the MIT policeman to get his gun. They only had one gun, the older brother's. They did not succeed in getting the officer's. It had a triple lock holster and they couldn't figure it out.

This fruitless act called attention and started their run for escape.

The story about the Mercedes guy, still anonymous, is more hair raising than we thought. The guy in the Mobil store, obviously an Arab, saved the day. His story is here.

There was no robbery of a 7-11.

When cornered, they still only had one gun. Plus explosives, pipe bombs evidently.

The kid ran over his brother when he escaped and probably killed him although we don't know.

The kid did not have a gun so he did not try to shoot himself. His wounds are from the firing of (what I would think were gun happy) cops. Thereby almost losing the one witness who could tell anything about what happened.

The interrogators got 16 hours with the kid before the judge showed up and he got a lawyer. A long time, actually, although the law as people try to interpret would allow more, maybe 72 hours.

If you compare this with the "story" as put together by the press and networks, there is a considerable difference some of which is crucial.

Of course, they have so much on the kid that a compromised confession is frosting on the cake but still.

This is nothing new of course.

People are shocked that the press gets things so wrong.

I am not.

I was in public life for about 6 years, local government but highly visible.

I was good press bait because I said things one wasn't supposed to say and answered questions no one else would. The reporters would come to me.

But it was just hell getting them to tell the story right. Eventually, I just wrote the stuff out for them, printed.

It is not too different today. Most reporters are likable souls in dead end jobs, often with several bosses, usually drug or alcohol dependent and always bone tired.

Some of the nicest, amusing and rambunctious unhealthy people I have ever known.

Labels: media, terrorism

MORE CHANGE

Look at this.

‘Coming Out’: Gay Teenagers, in Their Own Words

I can remember when the NYTimes ignored gay people entirely. Gay issues? Come on.

Then, after Stonewall, they had to cover us and they began to use the term "avowed homosexual". Redundant?

Then in a landmark decision they decided to use the word "gay".

Next was gay marriage announcements. Not even the "sanctified" kind but civil unions or just plain "marriage" parties.

Then openly gay reporters assigned to gay events. Then, openly gay reporters for any events.

Now this.

Very nice.

Labels: media, news

SAVE THE CHILDREN

Well, I was not the only one to worry about the kids.

The Schwarzenegger Kids: Coping with Parental Betrayal in the Public Eye

It also calls a spade a spade.

It took the media about 24 hours to find the woman and kid and find the kids's picture on FaceBook. The devil's handiwork.

I cannot imagine the impact on the family's four kids let alone this secret "love child".

It is terrible. What can I say. In some writeup they referred to the kid as "collateral damage".

Sick.

It is scandal porn. With kids.

Labels: child pornography, media

THE TIMES HAS COME

I knew it was coming. And it will arrive March 28. The New York times will cost money to use.

The Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan

We will be able to see 20 articles per month for free. Then, at least for my situation, there will be a charge of 15 dollars per month.

Shit. I could read or open up to scan 20 articles in a day.

I think that the freebies are really going to go to the people who use other site's links. You know, like here. I put that article up, you go to it, you get to see it free if you don't use more than 20 links in a month.

I think that, on the blog, it means that I will not be using NYT links anymore or, if I do, I will provide an alternative. You may not be a NYT subscriber.

That would mean totally Ebert reviews instead of the NYT.

As for my own use, the Times IS my newspaper. I am on it everyday and a lot during the day. I get the emailed summaries and the afternoon political and general postings. I get the general news Alerts. I get the Technology, Health, Money and Movie Newsletters.

I am a NYT tool.

Am I happy to pay 15bucks a month for the "paper"?

Hell, yes.

I would have gladly paid that long ago.

It is nothing compared to the value received. The Times saves money just by informing me. I can make better life and financial decisions. I can find out how to make best use of my time with books, movies and other pursuits.

Credit to the Times for the balls to go ahead with this. I wish them luck and good fortune.

The survival of the "paper" depends on it and a world without the New York Times is too bleak to contemplate.

UPDATE: I just found out that links from blogs will be free. So, if I link a NYT review or article it will not cost you anything. I have already paid for it.

This is similar to the deal at the Wall Street Journal which, incidentally, costs somewhat less at 13.00/month. But is not worth it. To me. I only miss Carl Bialik. Someday he will leave and write elsewhere.

Labels: internet, media

SAD BUT TRUE

Today in the NYTimes, a fair, non-gloating rundown of the problems at the LA Times.

Los Angeles Times Has Lost Its Standing at Home

For sure.

When we moved here, we became delighted subscribers to the LAT. It was much better than we were used to with the Boston Globe. It had depth, interest, personalties (star writers and columnists), a great weekly magazine and first class coverage.

Then, trouble came.

It got smaller, the magazine became a monthly, the writers we liked took off (Dan Neil to the Wall Street Journal with the same automotive column) and so on.

Finally, when it was so thin that I could get through it in ten minutes, we gave up.

Mournfully.

Economy, lost readers, a downward spiral of pissing its readers off, losing readers, having to cut more.

There is no California section, one of the best. Folded into the front fold.

Cut, cut, cut. It is all here in this article.

I usually brace myself for any NYTimes article about LA or Southern California because they are often snooty and superior acting. But, in this case, they are mournful too.

The quality of the paper is not in dispute. They have the bureaus and the writers but no muscle.

Then there is the on line version of the paper. It was terrible before the print version came down and so they were behind from the get go on their email summary and the web site. Now, it is improving but it is a shade of the other papers I look at on line.

Like I said, sad.

Labels: media, SoCal

DICKHOOD

More is revealed about the petulant Keith. I am just including this because I took a bit of a stand about it. Now it is over for me. Until he comes back.

Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension

Labels: media

KEiTH

Everyone, well not everyone, but you know what I mean, is puzzled by the sudden extermination of Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show.

I have to say that despite my sympathy with his politics, sort of, his methods left me cold.

I, for one, will not miss him nor, do I suspect, will many other people.

Keith Olbermann abruptly leaves MSNBC: Was he fired for being a jag?

My thoughts exactly. That is "jag" as in "jag-off". An asshole, a jerk, a pain in the ass. A person who takes up your oxygen with his ire and drama. A douchebag!

So with Comcast denying their involvement, the question keeps coming back to why KO was fired? Was it because he’s such a dick? Seriously, I agree with many of KO’s political views, but not his methods and not his personal attacks and unyielding arrogance. That’s why I stopped watching his show - KO is an exhausting bastard. Could it be that KO just shot himself in the foot by being such a jag?

Of course it was amusing to see him take it to George Bush and the rest of them but, actually, I found most of his performances to be cringeworthy.

So, I suppose we will find out what happened someday. We may even care when the inside dope does spill out.

And I suppose that he will back in some other form.

I won't be there waiting for him to return.

Labels: media

GONE AND SOON FORGOTTEN

I no longer watch CNN in the morning in the gym.

I got so disgusted with the 'hosts" and their stupid banter and dealing with guests that I just bailed out. I read books and don't watch the teevee at all.

But I was still pleased to see that they have dumped John Roberts the male half of the couple.

To Fox.

As a local reporter in Atlanta.

A fucking demotion. Good.

It is perfect justice.

I had read that there was to be a huge shakeup at CNN and this is the first move.

Good luck John. You dimwit.

Labels: media

PERSPECTIVE

When we bemoan the fabrications of the hugely successful (by comparison) Fox Network, we forget some basics.

Here is a neat analysis that shows that Fox has some glaring holes in its numbers. It mostly good because CNN and MSNBC are so bad.

The Cable News Numbers are In

I sat on a gym bike for about six months watching CNN and the financial and conservative CNBC which is actually light hearted and funny. Balanced as well, most of the time. But financials. No one watches it.

CNN is a wasteland. Its morning news show with John Roberts and Kiran Chatry is a disaster of small talk and dumb reporting. Roberts seems mostly asleep at the wheel. Someone writes their questions for them and often they are at a loss to follow up or even get the fucking question right.

It is also horribly late with a lot of its news. I have seen stuff on the internet a day before they pick it up. Two days.

I moved from the bikes away from the teevee mostly for the recumbent bike exercise. And, I couldn't take it anymore from the formerly formidable CNN.

So one has to allow for the fact that Fox wins on the failure of CNN to attract anyone who is interested in news.

And so on.

The networks still rule on news. Yea!

Labels: media

MYTHOLOGY

I have been adding up the erroneous memes perpetrated by the MSM (main stream media, you know, the one that Palin keeps pissing about).

And how wrong they are. Here is a small recap fresh out of the oven.

Shocker: Media narrative about health reform is wrong again

It turns out that the GOoPers idea of flushing the Affordable Care Act is totally unpopular. The thing is that while a plurality of people are not satisfied with the Act, that is because a lot of them are Democrats, Independents and just plain folks who don't think it went far enough and are still pissed about it.

Asked if it should be eliminated, the answer was an emphatic "no"! People want it fixed and built into a more comprehensive plan.

This just adds to the misapprehensions promoted by a lazy media. There is the one about Obama's sinking popularity. No it is not. And the preference for Republicans in the generic ballot. No there is none.

See the charts.

I liked Obama's line today. The new Republican "Pledge" is nothing but an "echo of a disastrous decade".

The other day I saw one of the promoters of the pledge asked if he could name one thing he would cut from the budget. He couldn't name anything specifically. Or even generally. They are a bankrupt concern.

Labels: Administration Obama, media, republican whack jobs

DEPARTMENT OF I TOLD YOU SO

Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime

Duh!

But it is hard to convince people that this is so.

You only have to look at the benefits of meditation. Even a little. The results of down time, contemplation, letting go, idling, are well known.

Of course all my data is personal. When I am heavily into the blog, doing financial work, answering email, watching movies and the like, I begin to feel "behind". As though I am losing something.

I start to make mistakes.

If there is too much of it, my sleep gets disrupted.

And I don't even text or try to keep up with the Jones's on Facebook. I definitely do not Twitter.

I don't wear an iPod and I don't run the radio all day. We tried this when we moved in. Classical music. It lasted a week. And then we craved silence.

Of course I am an older guy now. I can hear the arguments. A feeb. Too old to take it.

Yes.

And from this perspective, I am aware that enough is enough and no more. There have to be naps and quiet and down time. Reading maybe. Or nothing. Meditation.

To be plugged in all the time. Whew. I couldn't do it.

Labels: computer, internet, life, media

MORE FROM CNN

I watch this kind of bullshit every morning at the gym. You would be amazed at how accurate this is.

No you wouldn't.

Sorry about the Michael Moore ad. Maybe you will be lucky. Sometimes it is there, sometimes not. More bullshit.

Labels: media

SAD BUT TRUE updated--last para and art

Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text

If we wait for CNN to cover it in two days, perhaps we will find out what this is all about. That is about their normal lag time on a breaking story.

Perhaps there will be an opinion piece in the NYTimes.

But that will be all words too.

I am not sure how this is going to be resolved.

You may notice that this blog has lots of pictures.

I check it from time to time to make sure that its "readability" is at the 8th grade level. (I am not kidding about this, actually--I would take 10th grade but that is rather airy).

So I am in the flow.

No big chunks of pure type for me.

Labels: media

HOLD THAT TIGER

I watched Tiger Woods' mea culpa today.

I thought he did a pretty good job according to the standards the media and others hold about such things. Mostly hypocritical. Let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone kind of thing.

It is all PR bullshit and everyone knows it. Kabuki.

I watched CNN this morning. The reporter assigned to be on site (not in the same room with Woods, only an invited list got in there) was giddy with excitement and full of speculation. Would the wife be there? All that. It was really disgusting. And the anchor's smarmy kind of moral superiority.

When I say he did a good job I mean that he hit all the marks. I liked that he stuck to his Buddhist rules and didn't kiss Brit Hume's ass by "going christian".

I suspect that he was as well coached in this as you can be. Anywhere. The PGA is desperate to get over this. He is their draw. Nike has a fortune tied up in his brand.

You can bet that all of his backers have been in on this and a top flight PR firm prepared a lot of the script and rehearsed him.

What a crock!

I personally like the approach of The Onion.

Tiger Woods Announces Return To Sex.

We demand impossible standards of our celebrities. Woods tried his damnedest not to be a celebrity but just to play the game. They got him for that too.

Oh and let's not pass without mentioning the differential standards around race. White women. Blonds. It is in there.

Some jerk-off at CPAC got up today and managed to analogize between Tiger and Barack. Strained. Inept. Horribly racist and sexist. But he did it anyway. And they all laughed and cheered. There is no end to this kind of crap.

Labels: hypocrites, media, republican whack jobs, sports

HIATUS

For those who have sequestered themselves from the news after the awful mauling or inconsequential blip on the curve in Massachusetts (choose your poison here), I have a recommendation.

Today is not the day to return to your reading or hearing news.

There is more foolishness per tree in our LATimes than you could shake an axe at.

The New York Times is, as often the case, thinking too much.

Fortunately the rain had knocked CNN off the gym teevee this morning and I didn't see it.

CNBC which is sort of conservative, actually mixed, mocked the whole thing and pointed to Obama's new plans for the banks. Easy to take. Forward looking. Straight news with some wisecracks.

I can take that.

It is the dead earnestness of the media, left, right and center, that I can't abide. Start with that ponderous asshole Ed Henry on CNN.

Labels: media, politics

DESPINNING THE BULLSHIT

Once more, the wonderful Gale Collins give us some perspective. And laughs. The idiots.

Hark! The Voters Speak!

Labels: election, media

BOTH SIDES OR NONE

I see this on CNN every morning.

Paul Krugman says:

Long ago I said that if liberals said the Earth was round, while conservatives said it was flat, the news headlines would read “Shape of the planet: both sides have a point.” But I encountered a new wrinkle today.

I was tentatively scheduled to be on a broadcast dealing with — well, I won’t embarrass them. But first they had to find someone to take the opposite view. And it turned out that they couldn’t — which led to canceling the whole segment.

In a way this goes beyond my original point, which was the unwillingness of the news media to referee a controversy by actually reporting the facts. Now it seems that a fact isn’t worth reporting unless someone is prepared to deny it.

Laziness? Fear? Stupidity?

All three, I think.

Labels: media