Posts Tagged ‘journalism’
as if you need another reason… »
Friday, April 3rd, 2009
… to think Ann Coulter was an absolute moron. There are few people more intent on sounding chaotically stupid than this woman. Read her latest column at HumanEvents.com (two things: how terrible is that name? and since when do conservatives need an underground?).
No, seriously. Read it.
Okay… valid statements right? Sure. Until (and most of you know this) you realize the article she’s basing these bold assumptions on was clearly an April Fool’s joke. I wouldn’t expect you to, though, because even she, a hard-nosed, fact-hound, missed it.
This woman sells millions of books. People actually look to her as an intellectual guide. Her vitriolic words are held in high regard to parts of our nation. It (among a dozen other things) concerns me she failed to realize something so glaringly obvious.
Regardless of your education or ideology, anyone that thinks this woman credible should take a moment to clear their empty heads. Rush Limbaugh is obviously a blowhard idiot. Bill O’Reilly is an ignorant bully. And Ann should be among them, recognized as the baffoon she is.
How was your April Fools day? I’m sure if you agreed with the finer points (there aren’t any) of Coulter’s article, you’re likely amazed Google came up with CADIE without warning or are wondering when the eyeCamera 4.1 will hit Circuit City.
One can only hope her readers, Limbaugh’s listeners and O’Reilly’s viewers are a too-vocal minority. Because if their ilk are the real majority, we’re in more trouble than a lead car fishtailing into the final lap. (If you know what I mean.) (What do I mean?)
Thanks @ConvincingIndie for the tip.
manufacturing a source »
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009
It’s not surprising Fox News tweaks about something related to Barack Obama. It is slightly surprising to see them completely decompose their minuscule credibility so easily. Let me explain (sort of).
It all starts with a moron at World Net Daily (like that e-zine your dad subscribed to that told him Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA) named Aaron Klein. His article (Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility) claims Wikipedia is actively wiping references to Obama’s past.
Fox News ran with it and it’ll likely be a full-fledged controversy among the Rights before Limbaugh pops his first pill tomorrow. I’m all for after-the-fact barely-doubts coming to light. Unfortunately, they seem to miss certain issues (that Wired takes note of).
The statement that banned Jerusalem21 (casting “doubt” on Obama being born in America) is only fact if you have an affinity toward racism, haven’t found time for your GED and/or are Sean Hannity. Jerusalem21 has made contributions to exactly two pages: Obama’s and Klein’s, which s/he created (following me here?).
Probably what happened:
- Erroneous Klein goes crazy, adding his own Wikipedia page and keeping it up to date.
- He’s suspended for putting gossip onto Obama’s page.
- He writes about it on a fringe website.
- Fox News picks it up as fact and is outraged. (Much like a three-year-old that doesn’t understand why he has to leave the zoo at closing time.)
That, boys and girls, is journalism at its finest. (Seriously. This is probably the best Fox News can do.) In any case, Erroneous Klein makes Randall Stross look like Walter Cronkite.
The Telegraph has more, ignoring Jerus— err, Aaron Klein’s credibility issues.
why randall stross is an idiot »
Monday, March 9th, 2009
In a tweet last night (I caught this morning), @ConvincingIndie shared and article that has me thinking… If Randall Stross can be published in the New York Times, anyone with an eight-grade education and a MySpace account is ready for a byline. With one short article, he erodes intricate privacy concerns to caveman-speak.
…”disclosure becomes the norm and privacy becomes a quaint anachronism.”
Is he kidding? As more and more middle-agers add their boring to Facebook’s vast yawn network, we need more privacy, not less. This proves Randall can easily blather about a topic he misunderstands. (Journalism!)
[FB] offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and [FB] has 20.3 million to offer.
So, Randall, you’re saying a 5yr-old network, only open to non-college/-high school users since 2006, has more under-30s than over? Do the math, neuron-free, and you’ll realize 95% of users from before 2007 are still under your insignificant age choice. (Journalism!)
Considering FB claims it has 175mill users, you have to wonder why Randall didn’t do an arbitrary age comparison on the larger group of non-targets. (And maybe mention how FB defines this market?)
Asked how many members ever change a privacy setting, Mr. Kelly said 20 percent.
FB’s revenue (when they eventually start getting some) is based on active users and their connections. For that reason (and others), they make the settings hard to find. A tech-savvy, long-time FB using friend of mine just found friend lists. That 20 percent is miraculous.
Members can selectively restrict access to some items, such as photo albums and videos. But customizing permissions for this or that, via multiple clicks, is no one’s idea of a good time.
Seriously. This guy has a job?
Anyway… It’s not that people are too impatient to update their settings, they’re not aware they can. It’s understating to say the settings are tedious but to downplay them as useless is absurd. (Let’s see how that first inappropriate status/photo read/seen by your boss hits you and how motivated you are to create a “colleague” list.)
When the distinction blurs between one’s few close friends and the many who are not, it seems pointless to distinguish between private and public.
Psst… less than ten minutes devoted to creating a friend list with separate permissions would solve his “blur” problem. His understanding of the tool is overestimated, misguided and terribly short-sighted. (Journalism!)
FB’s a remarkably useful platform for networking, keeping up with family and sharing with friends. Take an hour today (I don’t advocate using FB during work because you already do) and make a list of friends, colleagues and family. Use the privacy settings to adjust who sees what and share freely from here on out.
Then email Randall (stross//at//nytimes//dot//com). Tell him how easy it was, why you find it useful and that I sent you. The NYT seems in need of some insight that I’m happy to provide. (At a reasonable price.)
Cross-posted at SD&IF.