Anyone who knows me knows that few things will get me onto my mighty soapbox, spewing forth vicious tangents until my throat is sore, like the words "Did you ever see that Phantom Menace?" or "How 'bout them Clone Wars?"
I shake uncontrollably anytime anyone mentions anything having to do with ASWAD3 (After Star Wars A D 3...Return of the Jedi came out in '83). I am convinced that the vast caverns of Hell threw wide their hideous gates and released "The Prequils" on our unsuspecting world in the hopes of destroying all the goodness left in humanity. ...If there was but one more movie, I could easily make the case that somehow these wretched films were in fact the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on a trial run.
Now I know George Lucas isn't the Anti-Christ, although he does have the world-wide popularity and crazy "Zen-Meets-Jesus-Meets-Mr.Midichlorian-Meets-Crap" religion needed to unite mankind and usher in the End Times. ...But honestly, the Anti-Christ would have been able to come up with a far better name for a villain than "Count Dooku." ...It almost looks funnier than it sounds. Regardless, I haven't exactly been George's biggest fan since Menace came out, and while I wish no ill to befall him as a person, I desperately pray every day for the erradication of those accurs'd movies. I ask only for every last bit of film stock, hard drive, DVD and BluRay Disc that contains said movies to be banished to the abyss from whence they came.
But I am not sitting at my computer at 8:30pm to rant. I'm actually writing this because earlier today I was struck with a thought that forced me to feel empathetic towards George Lucas (henceforth referred to as "GL")...maybe even sorry for him.
We all assume that he is surrounded by yes-men who tell him that everything he does is great because they are afraid of incurring his wrath. I mean the guy has a ton of Hollywood power (which is odd considering he only really made 3 good movies--only one of which did he even direct) and moves in many circles.
But what if that's not the case? I'm sure he has to have some friends that don't work for him. Him and Speilburg are buddies...you think The Berg is afraid of GL? I have to believe that there are some guys out there who questioned, if not opposed GL as he pursued his butchary of the Star Wars name. The problem is, how could he listen to them?
My facts may be a bit off, but lets look at Star Wars before it hit the theaters in 1977. I love the trilogy as a whole, but the first movie just didn't do much for me. It's a story about a space princess who gets abducted by a guy with a gynormous ventilator strapped to his face who because he wants the plans to a "Death Star". A futuristic farmboy teams up with a huge, dog-based alien and his cocky space-pirate buddy to rescue said princess. And there is a washed-up old guy who lives in the desert who has mastery over "The Force" which is an invisble something-or-other that controls everything. There are laser swords, laser guns, and big orb-like battlestations that shoot out even bigger lasers.
Come on people--this has "B" movie written all over it. Not even that. Heck, Spaceballs was able to keep almost the exact same elements and plot points and it was a spoof!
Think I'm crazy? Lucas took his script to at least three different studios who thought the exact same thing. These studios were run by high-rolling executives. They were the kind of guys who would say things like, "I've been in the business 30 years. I've seen everything, I've tried everything. I know what works and what doesn't. I know what people like and what they'll pay to see. ...This ain't it."
The guys that turned down GL were some of the top dogs in the industry with all the power and influence money could buy. And they couldn't have been more wrong or made a worse mistake then passing on that script.
Even while he was making the movie, I'm sure GL had people doubt him. Maybe his darling wife laughed at one of the scenes and asked if he really planned to shoot it the next day. Maybe everyone who wasn't involved with the project took him to lunches and told him he should rethink the whole thing and try to get another story out there. I'm sure there were naysayers who said that no one wanted to see a fairytale set in space.
But GL stuck to his guns and look what happened.
My point in all this is that as a director, all you've got is your vision. If you look at the industry, it's FAR from perfect. There are mediocre mishaps and travesties aplenty. Half the time I find myself wondering how the heck anyone was able to pitch the premise to a studio without getting laughed out of the building, never mind actually getting financed! A movie's success is hit or miss depending on a huge variety of factors, some of them are completely out the filmmaker's control. It's never certain how an audience will receive a movie or what the side-effects of it will be. The "experts", the critics can bash a film to death and people love it.
In the world of film, there are no absolutes. A few days ago I heard an idiot talking about the Dallas Cowboys and how the owner made a huge mistake. This idiot went on to say that if the owner had looked at history he wouldn't have made the decision he did because history shows that his decision never works. NEVER.
Except three times. ...And the latest exception resulted in a coach that won three Superbowls in four years. Yet this idiot raved on how the decision was so bad, yadda yadda yadda.
The connection? There are no guarantees in the creative business either. There can be six films made a certain way and they all tank, but the seventh one, because it came out at the right time with the right atmosphere, is a huge success. The professionals will try to tell you that your idea is too long, too short, or too overdone. They'll tell you that history shows your idea to be out of touch and irrelevent. No one else made a successful movie about that topic so you can't either.
The pros, the experts, they know nothing. They have their opinions just like everyone else, but they can't possibly see your vision or accurately predict how it will be received. Friends too can doubt or support you and be dead wrong in either case.
As a director, all you can do is stay true to your vision and walk it out the best way you can. If you compromise or back-step, you've lost the only constant thing in your life and in your work and then all bets are off.
Lets say that your gut is right 60 percent of the time...even 51 percent. Your gut is right more than it's wrong. So if you go with your gut every time, you'll always come out on top over time. But if you start second guessing yourself and trying to figure out if your gut is right on every call, you run the risk of losing your winning record. If you screw with the odds you will probably wind up changing more rights to wrongs than the other way around. Besides, if you don't have your instincts to go off of, what are you making your decisions on? History? Other people's gut instincts?
Other than the basics, like crossing the axis, proper editing techniques, continuity, etc.., there are no rules set in stone for making a movie. (And even those very basic rules get purposfully broken for the sake of artistic expression.) In fact I'd argue that many a good movie hasn't been made because of artificial limitations and a great deal of pathetic clinging onto tradition.
So back to good ol' GL. This guy got shot down by three studios. He probably had a bunch of "no" people around him. People who said "it was a good try, but obviously it wasn't meant to be." He may have even doubted himself. But when it was all said and done, he was right and they were wrong.
So how the heck can he listen to anyone now? How can someone who took a gamble and came out a big-time winner listen to anyone else when ignoring them was what got him to where he is today? If following his creative instincts gave birth to Star Wars Ep. IV, how could he doubt his instincts when he was creating the blight on humanity known as Jar-Jar-Binx?
How could a stiff, whiny golden robot with a British accent be so cool and a floppy eared Jamaican dinosaur be so horrific?
GL may not be surrounded by "yes" men. He might have people telling him "no" on a daily basis. He could have had his wife threatening to divorce him once she found out Anakin was going to be a five-year-old involved in a glorified NASCAR race.
But GL was doomed by his success.
I find it hard, even where I am now, to listen to the nay-sayers out there. What do they know? The experts, the professors...what have they done? Where is their stream of success? If 80% of the films released in a year are pieces of crap, what does that say about the top dogs who run this industry? I concede that there are the rare Spielburgs out there who consistently make high-quality productions, but they are the exceptions not the rule.
I haven't even found success yet and I would still trust my instincts over the advice of a film professor. Arrogance on my part? Could be, I guess. It's not that I'm sure my idea is a good one. It's not that I think I'm great and they're not. It's not that I don't think experience and knowledge have weight. It's not that I ignore common sense and reason all together. It's not that I'm sure of success. Heck, my idea could tank. But it could also impact people.
You can point to history and a score of any other "logical" reasons to justify why you played it safe. When you stick with what works (though it doesn't always) and kind of listen to consensus, you can easily explain away your actions and even spread the blame for failures. ..."Well it worked in the past..."
But there is no way to justify innovation, exploration and risk other than to say you've got a feeling, or that it's just something you have to do. It might not pay off. You could lose everything. But something inside tells you you've got to go for it and you won't be content unless you do.
So I feel sorry for GL because I think he's stuck. I think he did his best with the new Star Wars flicks. I think that in his mind the plot and characters were fantastic, woven from the same magical material that constituted his first three creations. Sure, he had to forget that he had someone help him write Empire and Jedi (which were actually the best ones), and that despite his claims he really had no idea where Star Was was going after New Hope. But he had a vision and he really couldn't do anything but ride it out as he had done in the past.
I've felt conviction, and I can only imagine it gets stronger with success. If I would be willing to defy the world to bring a vision to life, why should I expect any less of GL? His success was a blessing and a curse, making him immune to the no-men in his life. People who might otherwise have been able to convince him he needs a different approach or twist found their words falling on deaf ears post-'77.
Okay, so maybe I don't feel sorry for Lucas. I guess I just understand where he might have been coming from now.
And though I'm not there yet...I know one day I'll be able to find it in my heart to forgive him.
...For truely...he knew not what he did.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Breaking the "Waldo Code"
Date: May 9, 2006
Time: Unknown
Entry: Final Revelation
...I have done it. I fear for my life...I fear that the secret I now carry will cost me everything...even my Emmit Smith Pro Set Rookie card I've got stashed away in the attic as my retirement fund.
But I can't let this secret die with me. I must reveal it to the world so that all my careless meandering will not be in vain.
--I must reveal...the Waldo Code.
I have long questioned why there are more illegals working at construction sites than in fast-food restaurants. After all, if you don't know english and have little education, common sense says you'd be more likely to learn rudimentary culinary preparation than to try to build and wire a house.
The answer is so simple it has evaded the American public for years.
If you will notice that for every construction site there are many materials of a vast variation. Panel boxes, tools, conduit, forklifts, generators, copper wiring, breakers...you name it, it's there. And what is one thing almost all construction materials have in common? A warning label.
'Warning! This box conducts electricity and should be handled by experienced personnel only.' 'Warning! Fragile contents inside. Use caution.'
All this seems elementary because we only look at the surface. But what lies beneath? ...Literally, what's right below it? A "warning" label...in espanol! Many people simply assume it is the Spanish version of the American label, but the shocking truth is that these labels have little in common with each other.
While making a delivery to a job site not long ago, I chanced upon such a label. Since my contact hadn't arrived yet, I busied myself by applying my 5 years of Spanish in an attempt to decipher the message on the label. I covered up the English version with the palm of my right hand and read the Spanish version out loud.
Mind you, I was armed only with the education of a public school system, which is to say I knew very little. But had the English label matched the Spanish one, it would have said something to the effect of, "Green cards can be purchased via bribe from certain members in Congress. Most will only take legal American tender (no pesos) or cocaine, and you can only find them with the right contacts. John runs to the waiter in a hurry. She says "very good!" and cries because her dog is at the library..."
(The translation of the final line in particular is not verified. I believe this to be another level to the code.)
The fact is, the so-called Spanish "warning" labels are actually information pieces on how to smuggle other illegals into the country, where the weaknesses in the INS are, what cycles the border patrol works on, how and where to get drivers' licenses, and the delicate procedure of enrolling your kid in school when you don't pay taxes.
It has been known for a long time that such a massive illegal immigration movement could only be coordinated with strategic and detailed communication, but we have never known how it got out.
I believe the answer is in what they call "The Waldo Code" or "Warning!" labels. Further analysis and investigation revealed that some labels are legitimate warnings, but these are mostly for items you could buy in a Wal-Mart as a normal consumer. The only way to obtain the coded pieces is to work commercial construction--which is what many of the illegals do.
Once they have obtained all the information they need, they communicate it to others in their sector via smoke signals and Morse code.
Why do they call it the "Waldo Code"? Like many of you, I too read the "Where's Waldo?" books. I thought they were merely fun romps into creative (and hilarious) illustrations designed to provide long-lasting entertainment.
But that was the problem. Once you found Waldo, the fun was over. You can't "find him" again unless you have Alzheimer’s. The book was essentially worthless and devoid of any entertainment value after ten minutes.
...And that is because it was never meant to entertain. Waldo was the first illegal immigrant. Like 'The One' in The Matrix, it was Waldo who freed the first of them. He showed them how to survive and thrive in America without enduring the hassles of due process. In every page of the Waldo books, he was showing them how to hide and blend in with America. He was showing our nuances and how we handled social situations. He revealed our dress code and favorite touring sites. Through those illustrations, he taught them the art of distraction--to divert our attention to the Ferris wheel with the mimes and billy goats while they hid in the upper right-hand corner behind the roller-skating football player.
Disguised in a wool hat and horn-rimmed glasses, Waldo was like another Moses leading his people to the promised land. The books boosted morale and showed Waldo duping us Americans time and time again...page after page after page.
It was Waldo who started the trend of making a Spanish counterpart for every public sign in this country. Once the infrastructure was in place, he fazed out legitimate translations and began twisting them to serve his own twisted agenda.
What does all this mean? ...The implications could change the course of human history forever.
This is all irrefutable evidence that Jesus was actually Hispanic, Jose and Maria illegally immigrated to Bethlehem just so he would be a 'legal citizen'. There was no Messiah from Israel and therefore there is no God.
...I can only hope this message is found by someone with the understanding and wisdom to finish what I could not...
...Before it's too late...
Time: Unknown
Entry: Final Revelation
...I have done it. I fear for my life...I fear that the secret I now carry will cost me everything...even my Emmit Smith Pro Set Rookie card I've got stashed away in the attic as my retirement fund.
But I can't let this secret die with me. I must reveal it to the world so that all my careless meandering will not be in vain.
--I must reveal...the Waldo Code.
I have long questioned why there are more illegals working at construction sites than in fast-food restaurants. After all, if you don't know english and have little education, common sense says you'd be more likely to learn rudimentary culinary preparation than to try to build and wire a house.
The answer is so simple it has evaded the American public for years.
If you will notice that for every construction site there are many materials of a vast variation. Panel boxes, tools, conduit, forklifts, generators, copper wiring, breakers...you name it, it's there. And what is one thing almost all construction materials have in common? A warning label.
'Warning! This box conducts electricity and should be handled by experienced personnel only.' 'Warning! Fragile contents inside. Use caution.'
All this seems elementary because we only look at the surface. But what lies beneath? ...Literally, what's right below it? A "warning" label...in espanol! Many people simply assume it is the Spanish version of the American label, but the shocking truth is that these labels have little in common with each other.
While making a delivery to a job site not long ago, I chanced upon such a label. Since my contact hadn't arrived yet, I busied myself by applying my 5 years of Spanish in an attempt to decipher the message on the label. I covered up the English version with the palm of my right hand and read the Spanish version out loud.
Mind you, I was armed only with the education of a public school system, which is to say I knew very little. But had the English label matched the Spanish one, it would have said something to the effect of, "Green cards can be purchased via bribe from certain members in Congress. Most will only take legal American tender (no pesos) or cocaine, and you can only find them with the right contacts. John runs to the waiter in a hurry. She says "very good!" and cries because her dog is at the library..."
(The translation of the final line in particular is not verified. I believe this to be another level to the code.)
The fact is, the so-called Spanish "warning" labels are actually information pieces on how to smuggle other illegals into the country, where the weaknesses in the INS are, what cycles the border patrol works on, how and where to get drivers' licenses, and the delicate procedure of enrolling your kid in school when you don't pay taxes.
It has been known for a long time that such a massive illegal immigration movement could only be coordinated with strategic and detailed communication, but we have never known how it got out.
I believe the answer is in what they call "The Waldo Code" or "Warning!" labels. Further analysis and investigation revealed that some labels are legitimate warnings, but these are mostly for items you could buy in a Wal-Mart as a normal consumer. The only way to obtain the coded pieces is to work commercial construction--which is what many of the illegals do.
Once they have obtained all the information they need, they communicate it to others in their sector via smoke signals and Morse code.
Why do they call it the "Waldo Code"? Like many of you, I too read the "Where's Waldo?" books. I thought they were merely fun romps into creative (and hilarious) illustrations designed to provide long-lasting entertainment.
But that was the problem. Once you found Waldo, the fun was over. You can't "find him" again unless you have Alzheimer’s. The book was essentially worthless and devoid of any entertainment value after ten minutes.
...And that is because it was never meant to entertain. Waldo was the first illegal immigrant. Like 'The One' in The Matrix, it was Waldo who freed the first of them. He showed them how to survive and thrive in America without enduring the hassles of due process. In every page of the Waldo books, he was showing them how to hide and blend in with America. He was showing our nuances and how we handled social situations. He revealed our dress code and favorite touring sites. Through those illustrations, he taught them the art of distraction--to divert our attention to the Ferris wheel with the mimes and billy goats while they hid in the upper right-hand corner behind the roller-skating football player.
Disguised in a wool hat and horn-rimmed glasses, Waldo was like another Moses leading his people to the promised land. The books boosted morale and showed Waldo duping us Americans time and time again...page after page after page.
It was Waldo who started the trend of making a Spanish counterpart for every public sign in this country. Once the infrastructure was in place, he fazed out legitimate translations and began twisting them to serve his own twisted agenda.
What does all this mean? ...The implications could change the course of human history forever.
This is all irrefutable evidence that Jesus was actually Hispanic, Jose and Maria illegally immigrated to Bethlehem just so he would be a 'legal citizen'. There was no Messiah from Israel and therefore there is no God.
...I can only hope this message is found by someone with the understanding and wisdom to finish what I could not...
...Before it's too late...
With This Webring: Problems with Internet Dating
Ironically enough, it was during a frustrated ninth game of Solitaire a month ago that I made a decision: I didn’t want to be single anymore. I’ve been single since 1980…and I’m 27 years old. Oh sure I’ve enjoyed sleeping alone on cold nights, having no plans on the weekends, going solo to dinner and the movies, and wondering about this thing called “sex” that everyone claims is such a hoot; but I’d had enough. Unfortunately, my location, my job and my profession offered me pittance for dating opportunities, so I once again turned to the cyber world for my solution.
As is the case with most adventures in my life, this one proved to be a great learning experience and nothing more. I’ve used two different dating sites in the last four years and I have come to realize many things; namely the many reasons why internet dating doesn’t work.
Now, before I begin, let me just say that I first tried internet dating because of the remarkable testimony of one of my college chums. She found the man of her dreams online shortly after moving across the country where she knew no one. They’ve been happily married for three years and are still going strong. That to say, internet dating can work…for a lucky few. For the rest of us, let this be a warning about the three major pitfalls that await you: money and the communication breakdown, cyber attraction, and too many fish in the sea.
I don’t know who first got the idea to try to capitalize off of love; perhaps it was the same person who decided that almost all viruses would be linked to pornographic internet sites. Regardless, you will be very hard-put to find a truly free dating service. Oh, they’ll tell you sign up is free—and it is—but if you want to do anything except browse personals all day, you’ve got to cough up the dough. Usually it’s not an exorbitant fee…something around $20 a month. The good news is that you can get a monthly discount if you subscribe for several months up front. That’s right! Invest in failure! Count on not having a successful meeting with any person in that humongous database for 90 days!
Internet dating is like Vegas. It seems impossible to lose, yet somehow you end up broke every time. These sites don’t make any money if Jon Doe and Ann Onymous find each other within one month, and they don’t make a whole lot if only Jon is a subscriber. But the house in this case has two advantages. First of all, the odds of finding love are greater than the worst odds in a casino, no matter how long you play. Secondly, in order for Jon and Ann to make that magical connection, they both have to be subscribers.
There are two problems with this dual-paid-subscription. First of all, there is the principle of the matter. There are a score of websites out there that provide so much more than a dating site does…and they are free! If you go to myspace.com or something similar, you can post music, scores of good-sized photographs, daily blogs, and even videos! Not to mention that there is a vast networking option available that gives you exposure to thousands of people through the few friends you already have. True, such sites are not designed to bring two people together in love, but they perform the exact same function as a dating site. The only thing I’ve found on dating sites that is somewhat unique is a personality test. Answer a bunch of questions about yourself and you get a color or symbol or doohickey that wraps up all that you are in a tidy little blurb. To their credit, I’ve found many of these tests to be accurate, but what good does that do?
Find five happily married couples and they will all have different relationships with each other. Some couples seem to be so opposite in nature that it’s something of a miracle they can live under the same roof—let alone be happy. Other couples are so alike in mannerisms, speech, taste (and sometimes looks) that they’re essentially counterparts. Then of course there’s everything in between. Finding out I’m a blue and the girl I’m trying to talk to is a red doesn’t tell me how our colors will mix together. Heck, I could take a date out to any Chinese restaurant, find our corresponding animals on the paper place mat and reach the same conclusion. “You are a monkey. Seek out tigers and zebras; avoid snakes and giraffes.” Invaluable advice and I get a meal! The problem is that a relationship isn’t about who I am and who my date is, it’s about we relate to each other. It’s how we fill in the gaps, compliment each other, and communicate with each other. The latter element is severely inhibited by the internet dating service, and it’s the second problem with needing both parties to be subscribers.
Once you’ve established your profile, you can look but not touch. But in order to give you the illusion that you’re making headway in your pursuits, you can wink or smile at someone who strikes your fancy. Said winks and smiles are usually accompanied by a pre-packaged phrase, depending on your attitude. You can be congenial, flirty, romantic, or invitational. The problem, of course, is that ambiguity abounds. Even if your smile just says, “Hey, I wanted to smile at you!” there is implied interest. Why else would you take the time to send the smile? It’s simply a timid way of saying, “Um…I exist…do you think I’m attractive enough to talk to?”
There really is no way to know for sure why someone smiled or winked at you, and the phrase only makes things worse. And what do you do once you’ve gotten the smile? Do you take it as a compliment and move on, respond in kind even if you aren’t interested, or go out of your way to send a smile of rejection that says, “Thanks, but you’re not hot enough”? And the kicker is, what if you are interested and really want to smile back?
You mull over the fifty pre-packaged options that say exactly what you want to say. But you’re not pre-packed and neither is the person you want to talk to. You want to say something that reflects who you are…you want to express yourself and perhaps guard your intentions by saying that you’re just curious at this point. Or maybe you are completely enthralled and you want them to know how serious you are. But none of those blasted winks or smiles say any of that! So what do you do?
…You turn to the email function. Ah, but there’s the rub. You can set up your email— even type it out—but you can’t send it until you pony up the dough. This might not be such a bad thing if you’re gung-ho and have already gotten a, “I might be interested” smile back, but what if you aren’t ready to declare your love just yet? Too bad, the stakes have gone up. It’ll cost you $25 just to see her hand. Now you’ve gotta make a commitment of sorts.
Let’s just pretend you’re bold and rich, so you decide it’s worth it. You want to talk to this person and the smiles are too ambiguous and confusing. You’re tired of seeing that someone stopped by your profile and didn’t smile. You want to know why. You want to know what the smiles you’re getting really mean. You want those people to know what your smiles mean. You pay your money…you’re a premium member.
But guess what? They’re not! So you can mull and write and send and wait and you’ll never hear back because they haven’t subscribed yet. …And there’s no way to tell them that you’re serious and that you really want to talk to them because the blasted winks don’t say that. You can even be so determined that you’ll pay for their membership for one month, but you can’t convey that to them either!
Communication breaks down. The business wants money, and it makes double the profit by requiring both parties to be members. After all, once that crucial connection is made, the site is worthless to for those two people and there won’t be a renewal next month. So you’ll never know how serious the person was about being interested in you. You won’t know why they stopped sending smiley faces your way. Your “Sent” folder is stuffed with all the things you want to say but never can. All you can do is hope that the other person steps out on a limb and takes a chance. But what if they already have? What if they had been a paying member for four months and finally had enough? What if they’re not going to subscribe unless there’s someone they really want to talk to? …Does that mean you weren’t worth it? Ah, the big question…and the biggest problem with the on-line dating site.
Before I get to that problem however, I did want to address the presumably trite issue of photos and attraction. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a human being is far more than a series of pictures. How I look is not comprised of snap shots, no matter how clear or cunning. What I “look” like is comprised of the combination of my basic features with emotion and movement. It’s the tone of my voice, my posture, and my mannerisms. You could have twenty pictures of me and still not really know what I look like. You’ll know my body type and basic appearance, but those things aren’t how you determine attraction; lust perhaps, but not attraction.
The first time I tried online dating, I subscribed to the site for one girl. There was one girl I fell head-over-heels for and there was nothing that would stop me from talking to her. Not long after we “met” we exchanged more photos of each other. I was perplexed. She looked almost completely different in every single picture! The characteristics of her face changed drastically depending on the angle of the shot and her mood. I had a general idea of what her appearance was, but the photograph that had initially captured my interest was at odds with several others.
Fortunately, when I finally met her face-to-face, there was an attraction…but she was nothing like what my mind had conjured up. She was a real person, not a collection of photographs. The bottom line is that regardless of how many pictures you see, meeting that person from cyberspace is going to be very much like a blind date. Video will help a little, but that magic spark—that special attraction that binds two people together—cannot be formed apart from that person. You can be attracted to the virtual person you create in your mind, but rarely will fantasy and reality line up the way you’d like them to.
That said, it’s time to reveal the biggest problem with online dating: there are too many fish in the sea. In the “real” world, if we meet a person we attracted to, we accept the good with the bad. Our attraction and connection is based on who that person is as a whole, not the sum of their parts. We can’t add characteristics together to make the “perfect” person. To the contrary, we discover the characteristics we like after we meet the “perfect” person. We realize we are in love with someone and then we look and see what it is that we love about them.
Ever hear a poet say that words are not enough to express his love? It’s not romantic, it’s the truth. We can make a list of everything we love about someone, but that list will never seem to do that person justice…and rightly so. There is something intangible that makes our significant other “significant”. It’s about how they fit with us and how they capture our eyes in a way no one else can.
But will we like everything about them? No. There will be things we’d like to change, things we wish were different. But those flaws and quirks are part of that person so we have to, for all intents and purposes, accept them. In addition, those little things we don’t like might very well be the balance of something we do like. I might not like the fact that my girlfriend isn’t very outgoing, but her softness and quietness when we’re together is something I find extremely endearing. She might be too analytical to appreciate some of the comedy I like, but that analytical mind of hers is also what has kept us out of trouble and allows us to have deep conversations. There’s a give and take, a ying and yang so to speak. Every strength has a weakness and vice versa. We fit with our mates because of a unique interlocking of our characteristics—physically and otherwise.
And all that depth, all that intricate intertwining goes out the door with internet dating. Why? We don’t have to settle for “flaws”! There are thousands upon thousands of people on these sites! If you want a girl with straight brown hair, blue eyes, olive complexion, slender body, and great legs who can play pool and cook, chances are you can find her.
Dating services are designed to put you in the center of the relationship. It’s about what you want and need, not so much about the needs and wants of the other person. I received countless smiles and even emails from girls who met very few of the requisites I listed in my profile. I stated what my ideal match would be and they weren’t even close. Did that matter? No. They probably didn’t even read that part of the profile! Why? Because I was what they wanted. And I admit that I did the same thing. I emailed a girl when I knew my height and age were out of her range. Why? It was all about me. I typed out exactly what I wanted in my search criteria and she came up. I paid my money…she was the product.
Sound messed up? It is. But that’s the attitude these sites create.
There is no reason to settle for a flaw or physical characteristic I don’t like if I can easily find someone who doesn’t have it. If there comes a point where there isn’t someone who meets everything I want, I start to figure out what I wouldn’t mind doing without. …She can have green eyes now, be a little shorter, and not be that great at pool. In fact, heck, she doesn’t have to be able to play pool at all. But she has to cook.
If that search comes up empty, I keep adjusting my expectations. There are two problems with this. First of all, when I finally find my “Adjusted Gross Girl”, I’m going to balk a bit because she’s not everything I wanted. In real life, I have no list; I just want to meet someone I connect with. But the internet dating site gives me the chance to make a list, so I do. My attention shifts from our connection to my desires. By the time I am done, my list of characteristics is 50 items long and the girl I finally found meets only 30 of those. The dreaded question comes up: Am I settling? I might take her for granted and start thinking that if I found someone this close there must be someone even closer. I might cast her aside as soon as I find out she doesn’t exactly meet all 30 of the criteria I thought she did and move on to someone else. Initially I would have been blown away to find a girl who has 30 characteristics I like, but since I’m being catered to the only thing I see is that she’s barely batting over .500.
The second problem with adjusting expectations is my focus. You notice that my attention was on my particular tastes and desires. Though I might have been lowering my standards in a way, I was doing it in a very analytical manner that was continually reducing her to a product. I might as well be looking for a new car. Does it have all the functions I want? If so, what’s the cost? Does it come in the right color? What am I willing to do without? That perspective might work for an inanimate object that needs only to get me from place to place, but it will destroy any attempt at a real relationship with an actual person. After all, what out of all those characteristics is really going to make a relationship work? Does love really hinge on eye color or preference of leisure activities? If I knew there was someone I would connect perfectly with, would I toss her aside because she’s not the best cook in the world?
I have been attracted to eight girls in my life, and none of them were the same. It’s true that half of them played soccer and did gymnastics and six of them were honor students, but apart from that there were few similarities. There was one girl in particular who defied my “type”; in fact she was the opposite of my type in many ways. Yet I was fiercely attracted to her and pursued her until she told me I wasn’t her type. Now, had I come across her profile on an internet site, there is no doubt I wouldn’t have given her a second glance. Why should I get to know someone who is the opposite of me when there are so many people who match me perfectly?
Internet dating sites are essentially chaotic meat markets that raise expectations much higher than they are in the real world. Going back to the quandary I mentioned earlier, should I email a girl who seems really great but doesn’t meet at least 90% of my criteria? I might think she’s attractive, but is she worth the trouble when I’m pretty sure I could find someone even better on page 72 of my new search? How genuine can the smiles be when you know the one smiling at you probably smiled at fifty other people that day? The smile might mean something more, but there’s really no way to tell unless you can both read and send emails. And even then, will the emails stop once someone with the right color eyes comes along? What really can set you apart from the competition other than a series of photographs that may or may not really reflect who you are?
Two days ago I cancelled my membership to the dating site I had subscribed to. I had nearly three weeks left but I wanted to make a statement. Besides, I had grown weary of trying to figure everything out and wondering why the girl who smiled at me and said she loved my profile never actually read the whole thing. I got tired of sending out emails only to discover that the girl either wasn’t serious enough about the site to subscribe or simply didn’t have the money. Most of all, I got tired of analyzing women like they were some kind of product. I do have standards, but the standards I have can’t be realized in the narrow scope of information a dating site provides.
If you are going to try internet dating, remember the follies. One, the site is a business and the odds are against you coming out on top. The goal is to make money, not necessarily guarantee romantic success. Don’t expect too much real help, only just enough pseudo assistance to keep you subscribing. Two, you won’t know if there really is a connection until you physically meet that person. There is a reason why we have acquaintances, companions, friends, best friends, significant others and spouses. There are some people who will make great pen pals but aren’t meant to be an intimate part of your life. Pictures and words do not a person make. The “person” you create will be imaginary and comprised mainly of fantasy whether you like it or not. The real person might end up close to your fantasy but chances are there will be quite a few differences you didn’t see coming. Three, the lack of upfront communication will lead to great frustration and anxiety. Stated rejection is far easier to take than implied or questionable rejection. And even if it’s worth it to you to find out the truth, remember it has to be worth it for the other person as well or else you’ll have nothing but manufactured phrases to express yourself with. Fourth, and most importantly, internet dating will turn you into a shopper who is always looking for the fulfillment of your desires.
Love isn’t earned and it doesn’t respond to demand. You won’t find love or fulfillment in the gathering of all your desires. Love isn’t about who you are and who the other person is, it’s about how who you are together. Love is esteeming the other person above yourself, not seeking to satisfy some bogus checklist that a questionnaire and website helped you put together.
I have discovered this truth—that’s why I’ve given up the online dating game. I might not be in the best place to find love right now, but that’s okay; I would much rather find love in season and on its own terms. …So, for now at least, I am content to return to the simple game of Solitaire.
As is the case with most adventures in my life, this one proved to be a great learning experience and nothing more. I’ve used two different dating sites in the last four years and I have come to realize many things; namely the many reasons why internet dating doesn’t work.
Now, before I begin, let me just say that I first tried internet dating because of the remarkable testimony of one of my college chums. She found the man of her dreams online shortly after moving across the country where she knew no one. They’ve been happily married for three years and are still going strong. That to say, internet dating can work…for a lucky few. For the rest of us, let this be a warning about the three major pitfalls that await you: money and the communication breakdown, cyber attraction, and too many fish in the sea.
I don’t know who first got the idea to try to capitalize off of love; perhaps it was the same person who decided that almost all viruses would be linked to pornographic internet sites. Regardless, you will be very hard-put to find a truly free dating service. Oh, they’ll tell you sign up is free—and it is—but if you want to do anything except browse personals all day, you’ve got to cough up the dough. Usually it’s not an exorbitant fee…something around $20 a month. The good news is that you can get a monthly discount if you subscribe for several months up front. That’s right! Invest in failure! Count on not having a successful meeting with any person in that humongous database for 90 days!
Internet dating is like Vegas. It seems impossible to lose, yet somehow you end up broke every time. These sites don’t make any money if Jon Doe and Ann Onymous find each other within one month, and they don’t make a whole lot if only Jon is a subscriber. But the house in this case has two advantages. First of all, the odds of finding love are greater than the worst odds in a casino, no matter how long you play. Secondly, in order for Jon and Ann to make that magical connection, they both have to be subscribers.
There are two problems with this dual-paid-subscription. First of all, there is the principle of the matter. There are a score of websites out there that provide so much more than a dating site does…and they are free! If you go to myspace.com or something similar, you can post music, scores of good-sized photographs, daily blogs, and even videos! Not to mention that there is a vast networking option available that gives you exposure to thousands of people through the few friends you already have. True, such sites are not designed to bring two people together in love, but they perform the exact same function as a dating site. The only thing I’ve found on dating sites that is somewhat unique is a personality test. Answer a bunch of questions about yourself and you get a color or symbol or doohickey that wraps up all that you are in a tidy little blurb. To their credit, I’ve found many of these tests to be accurate, but what good does that do?
Find five happily married couples and they will all have different relationships with each other. Some couples seem to be so opposite in nature that it’s something of a miracle they can live under the same roof—let alone be happy. Other couples are so alike in mannerisms, speech, taste (and sometimes looks) that they’re essentially counterparts. Then of course there’s everything in between. Finding out I’m a blue and the girl I’m trying to talk to is a red doesn’t tell me how our colors will mix together. Heck, I could take a date out to any Chinese restaurant, find our corresponding animals on the paper place mat and reach the same conclusion. “You are a monkey. Seek out tigers and zebras; avoid snakes and giraffes.” Invaluable advice and I get a meal! The problem is that a relationship isn’t about who I am and who my date is, it’s about we relate to each other. It’s how we fill in the gaps, compliment each other, and communicate with each other. The latter element is severely inhibited by the internet dating service, and it’s the second problem with needing both parties to be subscribers.
Once you’ve established your profile, you can look but not touch. But in order to give you the illusion that you’re making headway in your pursuits, you can wink or smile at someone who strikes your fancy. Said winks and smiles are usually accompanied by a pre-packaged phrase, depending on your attitude. You can be congenial, flirty, romantic, or invitational. The problem, of course, is that ambiguity abounds. Even if your smile just says, “Hey, I wanted to smile at you!” there is implied interest. Why else would you take the time to send the smile? It’s simply a timid way of saying, “Um…I exist…do you think I’m attractive enough to talk to?”
There really is no way to know for sure why someone smiled or winked at you, and the phrase only makes things worse. And what do you do once you’ve gotten the smile? Do you take it as a compliment and move on, respond in kind even if you aren’t interested, or go out of your way to send a smile of rejection that says, “Thanks, but you’re not hot enough”? And the kicker is, what if you are interested and really want to smile back?
You mull over the fifty pre-packaged options that say exactly what you want to say. But you’re not pre-packed and neither is the person you want to talk to. You want to say something that reflects who you are…you want to express yourself and perhaps guard your intentions by saying that you’re just curious at this point. Or maybe you are completely enthralled and you want them to know how serious you are. But none of those blasted winks or smiles say any of that! So what do you do?
…You turn to the email function. Ah, but there’s the rub. You can set up your email— even type it out—but you can’t send it until you pony up the dough. This might not be such a bad thing if you’re gung-ho and have already gotten a, “I might be interested” smile back, but what if you aren’t ready to declare your love just yet? Too bad, the stakes have gone up. It’ll cost you $25 just to see her hand. Now you’ve gotta make a commitment of sorts.
Let’s just pretend you’re bold and rich, so you decide it’s worth it. You want to talk to this person and the smiles are too ambiguous and confusing. You’re tired of seeing that someone stopped by your profile and didn’t smile. You want to know why. You want to know what the smiles you’re getting really mean. You want those people to know what your smiles mean. You pay your money…you’re a premium member.
But guess what? They’re not! So you can mull and write and send and wait and you’ll never hear back because they haven’t subscribed yet. …And there’s no way to tell them that you’re serious and that you really want to talk to them because the blasted winks don’t say that. You can even be so determined that you’ll pay for their membership for one month, but you can’t convey that to them either!
Communication breaks down. The business wants money, and it makes double the profit by requiring both parties to be members. After all, once that crucial connection is made, the site is worthless to for those two people and there won’t be a renewal next month. So you’ll never know how serious the person was about being interested in you. You won’t know why they stopped sending smiley faces your way. Your “Sent” folder is stuffed with all the things you want to say but never can. All you can do is hope that the other person steps out on a limb and takes a chance. But what if they already have? What if they had been a paying member for four months and finally had enough? What if they’re not going to subscribe unless there’s someone they really want to talk to? …Does that mean you weren’t worth it? Ah, the big question…and the biggest problem with the on-line dating site.
Before I get to that problem however, I did want to address the presumably trite issue of photos and attraction. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a human being is far more than a series of pictures. How I look is not comprised of snap shots, no matter how clear or cunning. What I “look” like is comprised of the combination of my basic features with emotion and movement. It’s the tone of my voice, my posture, and my mannerisms. You could have twenty pictures of me and still not really know what I look like. You’ll know my body type and basic appearance, but those things aren’t how you determine attraction; lust perhaps, but not attraction.
The first time I tried online dating, I subscribed to the site for one girl. There was one girl I fell head-over-heels for and there was nothing that would stop me from talking to her. Not long after we “met” we exchanged more photos of each other. I was perplexed. She looked almost completely different in every single picture! The characteristics of her face changed drastically depending on the angle of the shot and her mood. I had a general idea of what her appearance was, but the photograph that had initially captured my interest was at odds with several others.
Fortunately, when I finally met her face-to-face, there was an attraction…but she was nothing like what my mind had conjured up. She was a real person, not a collection of photographs. The bottom line is that regardless of how many pictures you see, meeting that person from cyberspace is going to be very much like a blind date. Video will help a little, but that magic spark—that special attraction that binds two people together—cannot be formed apart from that person. You can be attracted to the virtual person you create in your mind, but rarely will fantasy and reality line up the way you’d like them to.
That said, it’s time to reveal the biggest problem with online dating: there are too many fish in the sea. In the “real” world, if we meet a person we attracted to, we accept the good with the bad. Our attraction and connection is based on who that person is as a whole, not the sum of their parts. We can’t add characteristics together to make the “perfect” person. To the contrary, we discover the characteristics we like after we meet the “perfect” person. We realize we are in love with someone and then we look and see what it is that we love about them.
Ever hear a poet say that words are not enough to express his love? It’s not romantic, it’s the truth. We can make a list of everything we love about someone, but that list will never seem to do that person justice…and rightly so. There is something intangible that makes our significant other “significant”. It’s about how they fit with us and how they capture our eyes in a way no one else can.
But will we like everything about them? No. There will be things we’d like to change, things we wish were different. But those flaws and quirks are part of that person so we have to, for all intents and purposes, accept them. In addition, those little things we don’t like might very well be the balance of something we do like. I might not like the fact that my girlfriend isn’t very outgoing, but her softness and quietness when we’re together is something I find extremely endearing. She might be too analytical to appreciate some of the comedy I like, but that analytical mind of hers is also what has kept us out of trouble and allows us to have deep conversations. There’s a give and take, a ying and yang so to speak. Every strength has a weakness and vice versa. We fit with our mates because of a unique interlocking of our characteristics—physically and otherwise.
And all that depth, all that intricate intertwining goes out the door with internet dating. Why? We don’t have to settle for “flaws”! There are thousands upon thousands of people on these sites! If you want a girl with straight brown hair, blue eyes, olive complexion, slender body, and great legs who can play pool and cook, chances are you can find her.
Dating services are designed to put you in the center of the relationship. It’s about what you want and need, not so much about the needs and wants of the other person. I received countless smiles and even emails from girls who met very few of the requisites I listed in my profile. I stated what my ideal match would be and they weren’t even close. Did that matter? No. They probably didn’t even read that part of the profile! Why? Because I was what they wanted. And I admit that I did the same thing. I emailed a girl when I knew my height and age were out of her range. Why? It was all about me. I typed out exactly what I wanted in my search criteria and she came up. I paid my money…she was the product.
Sound messed up? It is. But that’s the attitude these sites create.
There is no reason to settle for a flaw or physical characteristic I don’t like if I can easily find someone who doesn’t have it. If there comes a point where there isn’t someone who meets everything I want, I start to figure out what I wouldn’t mind doing without. …She can have green eyes now, be a little shorter, and not be that great at pool. In fact, heck, she doesn’t have to be able to play pool at all. But she has to cook.
If that search comes up empty, I keep adjusting my expectations. There are two problems with this. First of all, when I finally find my “Adjusted Gross Girl”, I’m going to balk a bit because she’s not everything I wanted. In real life, I have no list; I just want to meet someone I connect with. But the internet dating site gives me the chance to make a list, so I do. My attention shifts from our connection to my desires. By the time I am done, my list of characteristics is 50 items long and the girl I finally found meets only 30 of those. The dreaded question comes up: Am I settling? I might take her for granted and start thinking that if I found someone this close there must be someone even closer. I might cast her aside as soon as I find out she doesn’t exactly meet all 30 of the criteria I thought she did and move on to someone else. Initially I would have been blown away to find a girl who has 30 characteristics I like, but since I’m being catered to the only thing I see is that she’s barely batting over .500.
The second problem with adjusting expectations is my focus. You notice that my attention was on my particular tastes and desires. Though I might have been lowering my standards in a way, I was doing it in a very analytical manner that was continually reducing her to a product. I might as well be looking for a new car. Does it have all the functions I want? If so, what’s the cost? Does it come in the right color? What am I willing to do without? That perspective might work for an inanimate object that needs only to get me from place to place, but it will destroy any attempt at a real relationship with an actual person. After all, what out of all those characteristics is really going to make a relationship work? Does love really hinge on eye color or preference of leisure activities? If I knew there was someone I would connect perfectly with, would I toss her aside because she’s not the best cook in the world?
I have been attracted to eight girls in my life, and none of them were the same. It’s true that half of them played soccer and did gymnastics and six of them were honor students, but apart from that there were few similarities. There was one girl in particular who defied my “type”; in fact she was the opposite of my type in many ways. Yet I was fiercely attracted to her and pursued her until she told me I wasn’t her type. Now, had I come across her profile on an internet site, there is no doubt I wouldn’t have given her a second glance. Why should I get to know someone who is the opposite of me when there are so many people who match me perfectly?
Internet dating sites are essentially chaotic meat markets that raise expectations much higher than they are in the real world. Going back to the quandary I mentioned earlier, should I email a girl who seems really great but doesn’t meet at least 90% of my criteria? I might think she’s attractive, but is she worth the trouble when I’m pretty sure I could find someone even better on page 72 of my new search? How genuine can the smiles be when you know the one smiling at you probably smiled at fifty other people that day? The smile might mean something more, but there’s really no way to tell unless you can both read and send emails. And even then, will the emails stop once someone with the right color eyes comes along? What really can set you apart from the competition other than a series of photographs that may or may not really reflect who you are?
Two days ago I cancelled my membership to the dating site I had subscribed to. I had nearly three weeks left but I wanted to make a statement. Besides, I had grown weary of trying to figure everything out and wondering why the girl who smiled at me and said she loved my profile never actually read the whole thing. I got tired of sending out emails only to discover that the girl either wasn’t serious enough about the site to subscribe or simply didn’t have the money. Most of all, I got tired of analyzing women like they were some kind of product. I do have standards, but the standards I have can’t be realized in the narrow scope of information a dating site provides.
If you are going to try internet dating, remember the follies. One, the site is a business and the odds are against you coming out on top. The goal is to make money, not necessarily guarantee romantic success. Don’t expect too much real help, only just enough pseudo assistance to keep you subscribing. Two, you won’t know if there really is a connection until you physically meet that person. There is a reason why we have acquaintances, companions, friends, best friends, significant others and spouses. There are some people who will make great pen pals but aren’t meant to be an intimate part of your life. Pictures and words do not a person make. The “person” you create will be imaginary and comprised mainly of fantasy whether you like it or not. The real person might end up close to your fantasy but chances are there will be quite a few differences you didn’t see coming. Three, the lack of upfront communication will lead to great frustration and anxiety. Stated rejection is far easier to take than implied or questionable rejection. And even if it’s worth it to you to find out the truth, remember it has to be worth it for the other person as well or else you’ll have nothing but manufactured phrases to express yourself with. Fourth, and most importantly, internet dating will turn you into a shopper who is always looking for the fulfillment of your desires.
Love isn’t earned and it doesn’t respond to demand. You won’t find love or fulfillment in the gathering of all your desires. Love isn’t about who you are and who the other person is, it’s about how who you are together. Love is esteeming the other person above yourself, not seeking to satisfy some bogus checklist that a questionnaire and website helped you put together.
I have discovered this truth—that’s why I’ve given up the online dating game. I might not be in the best place to find love right now, but that’s okay; I would much rather find love in season and on its own terms. …So, for now at least, I am content to return to the simple game of Solitaire.
Transformers: A Writer’s Lesson In Cultural Caricature
Not too long ago, a movie called Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen hit theaters and brought with it a startling wave of disapproval from many critics. Among the complaints was that two characters, Mudflap and Skids, were racial stereotypes that demeaned black people. The offending characteristics cited included a large gold tooth, trendy hip-hop dialogue, illiteracy, profanity, and relative foolishness. I don’t want to delve into that cesspool of conflict with an opinion one way or another; many such claims and debates seem to arise almost every day in some form or another, and the arguments just get worn out. There are those who don’t care, and those who will take offense, and that’s not going to change.
What I found interesting was examining the critiques from the perspective of a writer. Is it possible to avoid what is being called “racial stereotyping” or blatant “racism”? Are characters like Mudflap and Skids really a direct assault on a specific culture, or are they indicative of an entertainment trend? As I contemplated these questions, it became clear that “racism”, as defined by the critics of this film, is in fact unavoidable, and that the so called “racial stereotyping” is in fact nothing more than a caricature of a culture as seen through the eyes of entertainment.
You are a writer. Michael Bay has just approached you and said the following:
“I’m looking for a comedic character for the Autobots. Right now most of the comedy is coming from the humans—I want some memorable, entertaining robots thrown into the mix. The movie’s already 2.5 hours long, so I need the humor to be quick and easily inserted into the flow of the film. Give me something to work with…”
As a writer, your process of developing these characters goes something like this:
“Okay, time is an issue. If I have one comedic character, he’s going to have to play off of one of the main characters like Optimus Prime. But the main characters need to be pushing the plot forward and providing exposition—there isn’t enough time for them to play straight-men setting up jokes for a wisecracking Autobot. We need two characters, not one—that way they can play off each other.
Any sort of depth is going to be lost because they won’t have enough screen time to develop as anything more than comic relief, so they can almost be the same character. Cut from the same…Matrix or All Spark or whatever.
Twins!
Sibling rivalry! Conflict is always more entertaining than harmony, and it creates more comedic potential as well. They’ll be antagonistic towards each other, verbally and physically; that way they can add comedic spice without interfering with important plot points or slowing the pacing.
Pacing. Yes. If the action is fast, these guys have to be too. Impulsive, action-oriented. Shoot first, think later. Not incredibly bright. Intelligent robots are logical, ponderous, and analyze the situation and circumstances. I can’t have these guys making witty social commentaries, or taking time out for Seinfeldian observations. They’ve got to be aggressive and almost hyper with a very simple, almost juvenile mentality…”
Now look at the characteristics developed so far: juvenile, aggressive, simple-minded, and impulsive. We’re talking about a pair of buffoons here; lots of physical comedy, coarse dialogue, and all around foolish behavior. For the type of film that Revenge was, comedic relief had to take that form, or else the pacing (which was arguably awry to begin with) and dramatic elements would suffer.
With that in mind, is there any “race” that would be edified by being identified with these characters? Right now these two are merely silhouettes—skeletal outlines that can be fleshed out in any number of ways. But as soon as they are given specific characteristics of any kind, they are naturally going to be indicative of some existing culture or race of people. Whether they have a British accent, a country twang, or a Scottish brogue, they will still be viewed as buffoons because of the essential elements that form their core.
Any group of people could be offended by having their nationality identified with such clowns! Even white Americans, who are often overlooked as having any culture or substance of their own, could be targeted and demeaned. So what is the answer? The only option would be to eliminate such clownish characters from all screenplays. No goofy sidekicks, no more unintelligent people doing crazy things.
But wait, you can’t stop there. No more villains either. After all, you can’t very well have one race of people being identified as “bad” people. From now on, all characters must be educated, pleasant, and courteous—drama will be created by innocent misunderstandings and hapless blunders.
The fact of the matter is that there are geniuses, idiots, heroes and villains of all languages, colors, races, and dialects. There is no way to create a character that is not in some way identified with a specific group of people. Mudflap and Skids had to be high-energy, antagonistic, impulsive, and, therefore, less cerebral than the other robots. That’s what the script called for—the only thing left was to choose a style. The essence of the characters would have stayed the same no matter which direction the filmmakers went, so some group of people was going to end up sounding like bickering adolescents.
Without removing the characters altogether, there is no way of getting around what seems to be considered “racial stereotyping” or “racism”. Unfortunately everyone in the world is a member of some race, and that includes the writers and actors. Apparently having robots with perceived negative characteristics is intolerable, unless they have no personality, accents, or distinct diction.
Screenwriters, take note!
Aside from trying to see if such vile acts of wanton racism could be avoided in writing a screenplay, I also wanted to pinpoint where the source of these perceived stereotypes came from. Mudflap and Skids are supposed to be a mockery of black culture, but what I discovered is that they are in fact merely caricatures of black entertainment.
Stereotyping is, “a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, or prejudiced attitude”. In order for the characters in Transformers to be stereotypes, they would have to be in some way a representative of a group of people—in this case, black people. The problem is that I don’t know a single black person who acts or talks the way the two characters in question do. I have friends, co-workers, acquaintances, teachers, coaches, and pastors who are black, and none of them even come close to being mimicked in Revenge. I recognized a connection, but it wasn’t from the real people that I knew and corresponded with on a daily basis.
So that got me thinking that maybe these characters weren’t stereotypes as much as they were caricatures of some sort. A caricature is defined as, “an exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics”. Caricatures by their very nature are unflattering—it’s almost impossible for them not to be. Exaggerating one characteristic creates disproportion, and disproportion always looks ridiculous and/or comical.
In the case of Mudflap and Skids, they were caricatures by necessity. There was no time in the plot to give them depth or fullness—the characteristics that allowed them to be comedic relief were developed to the detriment of everything else. And, in order to make them memorable, they had to be exaggerated even more. The design and mechanical nature of the transformers makes it difficult to convey emotion and character without juicing them up a bit. Optimus Prime isn’t memorable because of his character; he has the most lines, the best fight scenes, and he drives the plot forward. Bumblebee is able to get away with minimal exaggeration, but he has a gimmick: he talks using TV and radio catch phrases. The rest of the Transformers are, well, forgettable. They can afford to be.
In order for the two robots to do what Michael Bay wanted them to, they had to be exaggerated, which in turn meant that they had to be caricatures of something. But again, caricatures are disproportionate representatives of something or someone that exists. The characteristics I saw in Mudflap and Skids weren’t caricatures of any black people I knew—or any people I knew in general.
Then it hit me. They were caricatures of black culture as it is portrayed in the entertainment industry.
Turn on a rap or hip-hop video. You’ll see gold and platinum teeth aplenty. And they aren’t just visible, they are displayed with pride. Listen to the lyrics. They worship violence and aggression. Not to say that you won’t get similar messages from heavy metal or other genres of music, but if you’re looking for the model that the caricatures are based off of, you can find them in the images put forth by the music industry. If countless successful black entertainers sport gold teeth, why is it so outlandish for a robot to have one as well? (Bearing in mind the type of film Transformers is.)
Watch movies like Bad Boys, Rush Hour, and Gone In 60 Seconds, and you will hear almost verbatim the same dialogue that is used by Mudflap and Skids in Revenge. None of those movies were lambasted for racism, yet the black characters in those films make the same punch-lines, comedic threats of violence, and quips. So what is the difference? After all, the lines don’t sound any smarter coming from a live person than from someone doing a VO for a CGI character.
The difference is that the exaggeration used in Revenge made the lines and actions a parody of the characters instead of a celebration of them. Instead of looking smooth and sounding dangerously amusing, they looked goofy and sounded foolish. Same characters, same lines, different perspective.
In a film like Revenge, the perspective of everything is going to be different. It’s essentially a very long Saturday-morning cartoon that substitutes real people for animation. In that light, everything and everyone is going to seem childlike and silly. Short of having Will Smith voicing a suped-up Bentley that fires off pithy one-liners along with armor-piercing rounds, the film wasn’t going to show black entertainment culture in a flattering light.
The question is, should it have? Is it racist to parody a stylized culture that has been created by entertainers from the original culture? If actors like Martin Lawrence, Chris Tucker, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and Master P can create a standard of sorts for how comedic roles are written for black people, is caricaturizing that standard such an offense?
For every culture, every race, every group of people, there is a “real” version and an “entertainment” version. The entertainment version is the easily-digestible, superficial, quotable, and profitable presentation of the original. It needs to appeal to the masses to be profitable, and it has to be formulaic so it can be mass produced for multiple films. It’s almost a caricature in and of itself; exaggerate or distort even a small portion of it, and it becomes parody.
As a writer, I found Revenge and its critiques to be an enlightening window into the realities and perceptions of the entertainment industry. I have always been taught that generalization is the death of character, so I can’t say I’m a fan of the broad strokes the entertainment industry uses to characterize a culture, but judging by box office results, I’m in the minority. It is helpful to bear in mind however, that it is not any true culture that such films victimize, but rather the shadow of said cultures created by an industry that makes decisions based almost completely on profit.
Revenge may have many faults in many aspects of filmmaking, but in terms of racism, it does little more than mimic the characterizations presented by the industry on scores of films before it. It exposes the cultural caricatures for what they are, and leaves it to future writers and directors to either maintain those counterfeits, or to transform them into a deeper reflection that edifies the true diversity of the industry.
What I found interesting was examining the critiques from the perspective of a writer. Is it possible to avoid what is being called “racial stereotyping” or blatant “racism”? Are characters like Mudflap and Skids really a direct assault on a specific culture, or are they indicative of an entertainment trend? As I contemplated these questions, it became clear that “racism”, as defined by the critics of this film, is in fact unavoidable, and that the so called “racial stereotyping” is in fact nothing more than a caricature of a culture as seen through the eyes of entertainment.
You are a writer. Michael Bay has just approached you and said the following:
“I’m looking for a comedic character for the Autobots. Right now most of the comedy is coming from the humans—I want some memorable, entertaining robots thrown into the mix. The movie’s already 2.5 hours long, so I need the humor to be quick and easily inserted into the flow of the film. Give me something to work with…”
As a writer, your process of developing these characters goes something like this:
“Okay, time is an issue. If I have one comedic character, he’s going to have to play off of one of the main characters like Optimus Prime. But the main characters need to be pushing the plot forward and providing exposition—there isn’t enough time for them to play straight-men setting up jokes for a wisecracking Autobot. We need two characters, not one—that way they can play off each other.
Any sort of depth is going to be lost because they won’t have enough screen time to develop as anything more than comic relief, so they can almost be the same character. Cut from the same…Matrix or All Spark or whatever.
Twins!
Sibling rivalry! Conflict is always more entertaining than harmony, and it creates more comedic potential as well. They’ll be antagonistic towards each other, verbally and physically; that way they can add comedic spice without interfering with important plot points or slowing the pacing.
Pacing. Yes. If the action is fast, these guys have to be too. Impulsive, action-oriented. Shoot first, think later. Not incredibly bright. Intelligent robots are logical, ponderous, and analyze the situation and circumstances. I can’t have these guys making witty social commentaries, or taking time out for Seinfeldian observations. They’ve got to be aggressive and almost hyper with a very simple, almost juvenile mentality…”
Now look at the characteristics developed so far: juvenile, aggressive, simple-minded, and impulsive. We’re talking about a pair of buffoons here; lots of physical comedy, coarse dialogue, and all around foolish behavior. For the type of film that Revenge was, comedic relief had to take that form, or else the pacing (which was arguably awry to begin with) and dramatic elements would suffer.
With that in mind, is there any “race” that would be edified by being identified with these characters? Right now these two are merely silhouettes—skeletal outlines that can be fleshed out in any number of ways. But as soon as they are given specific characteristics of any kind, they are naturally going to be indicative of some existing culture or race of people. Whether they have a British accent, a country twang, or a Scottish brogue, they will still be viewed as buffoons because of the essential elements that form their core.
Any group of people could be offended by having their nationality identified with such clowns! Even white Americans, who are often overlooked as having any culture or substance of their own, could be targeted and demeaned. So what is the answer? The only option would be to eliminate such clownish characters from all screenplays. No goofy sidekicks, no more unintelligent people doing crazy things.
But wait, you can’t stop there. No more villains either. After all, you can’t very well have one race of people being identified as “bad” people. From now on, all characters must be educated, pleasant, and courteous—drama will be created by innocent misunderstandings and hapless blunders.
The fact of the matter is that there are geniuses, idiots, heroes and villains of all languages, colors, races, and dialects. There is no way to create a character that is not in some way identified with a specific group of people. Mudflap and Skids had to be high-energy, antagonistic, impulsive, and, therefore, less cerebral than the other robots. That’s what the script called for—the only thing left was to choose a style. The essence of the characters would have stayed the same no matter which direction the filmmakers went, so some group of people was going to end up sounding like bickering adolescents.
Without removing the characters altogether, there is no way of getting around what seems to be considered “racial stereotyping” or “racism”. Unfortunately everyone in the world is a member of some race, and that includes the writers and actors. Apparently having robots with perceived negative characteristics is intolerable, unless they have no personality, accents, or distinct diction.
Screenwriters, take note!
Aside from trying to see if such vile acts of wanton racism could be avoided in writing a screenplay, I also wanted to pinpoint where the source of these perceived stereotypes came from. Mudflap and Skids are supposed to be a mockery of black culture, but what I discovered is that they are in fact merely caricatures of black entertainment.
Stereotyping is, “a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, or prejudiced attitude”. In order for the characters in Transformers to be stereotypes, they would have to be in some way a representative of a group of people—in this case, black people. The problem is that I don’t know a single black person who acts or talks the way the two characters in question do. I have friends, co-workers, acquaintances, teachers, coaches, and pastors who are black, and none of them even come close to being mimicked in Revenge. I recognized a connection, but it wasn’t from the real people that I knew and corresponded with on a daily basis.
So that got me thinking that maybe these characters weren’t stereotypes as much as they were caricatures of some sort. A caricature is defined as, “an exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics”. Caricatures by their very nature are unflattering—it’s almost impossible for them not to be. Exaggerating one characteristic creates disproportion, and disproportion always looks ridiculous and/or comical.
In the case of Mudflap and Skids, they were caricatures by necessity. There was no time in the plot to give them depth or fullness—the characteristics that allowed them to be comedic relief were developed to the detriment of everything else. And, in order to make them memorable, they had to be exaggerated even more. The design and mechanical nature of the transformers makes it difficult to convey emotion and character without juicing them up a bit. Optimus Prime isn’t memorable because of his character; he has the most lines, the best fight scenes, and he drives the plot forward. Bumblebee is able to get away with minimal exaggeration, but he has a gimmick: he talks using TV and radio catch phrases. The rest of the Transformers are, well, forgettable. They can afford to be.
In order for the two robots to do what Michael Bay wanted them to, they had to be exaggerated, which in turn meant that they had to be caricatures of something. But again, caricatures are disproportionate representatives of something or someone that exists. The characteristics I saw in Mudflap and Skids weren’t caricatures of any black people I knew—or any people I knew in general.
Then it hit me. They were caricatures of black culture as it is portrayed in the entertainment industry.
Turn on a rap or hip-hop video. You’ll see gold and platinum teeth aplenty. And they aren’t just visible, they are displayed with pride. Listen to the lyrics. They worship violence and aggression. Not to say that you won’t get similar messages from heavy metal or other genres of music, but if you’re looking for the model that the caricatures are based off of, you can find them in the images put forth by the music industry. If countless successful black entertainers sport gold teeth, why is it so outlandish for a robot to have one as well? (Bearing in mind the type of film Transformers is.)
Watch movies like Bad Boys, Rush Hour, and Gone In 60 Seconds, and you will hear almost verbatim the same dialogue that is used by Mudflap and Skids in Revenge. None of those movies were lambasted for racism, yet the black characters in those films make the same punch-lines, comedic threats of violence, and quips. So what is the difference? After all, the lines don’t sound any smarter coming from a live person than from someone doing a VO for a CGI character.
The difference is that the exaggeration used in Revenge made the lines and actions a parody of the characters instead of a celebration of them. Instead of looking smooth and sounding dangerously amusing, they looked goofy and sounded foolish. Same characters, same lines, different perspective.
In a film like Revenge, the perspective of everything is going to be different. It’s essentially a very long Saturday-morning cartoon that substitutes real people for animation. In that light, everything and everyone is going to seem childlike and silly. Short of having Will Smith voicing a suped-up Bentley that fires off pithy one-liners along with armor-piercing rounds, the film wasn’t going to show black entertainment culture in a flattering light.
The question is, should it have? Is it racist to parody a stylized culture that has been created by entertainers from the original culture? If actors like Martin Lawrence, Chris Tucker, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and Master P can create a standard of sorts for how comedic roles are written for black people, is caricaturizing that standard such an offense?
For every culture, every race, every group of people, there is a “real” version and an “entertainment” version. The entertainment version is the easily-digestible, superficial, quotable, and profitable presentation of the original. It needs to appeal to the masses to be profitable, and it has to be formulaic so it can be mass produced for multiple films. It’s almost a caricature in and of itself; exaggerate or distort even a small portion of it, and it becomes parody.
As a writer, I found Revenge and its critiques to be an enlightening window into the realities and perceptions of the entertainment industry. I have always been taught that generalization is the death of character, so I can’t say I’m a fan of the broad strokes the entertainment industry uses to characterize a culture, but judging by box office results, I’m in the minority. It is helpful to bear in mind however, that it is not any true culture that such films victimize, but rather the shadow of said cultures created by an industry that makes decisions based almost completely on profit.
Revenge may have many faults in many aspects of filmmaking, but in terms of racism, it does little more than mimic the characterizations presented by the industry on scores of films before it. It exposes the cultural caricatures for what they are, and leaves it to future writers and directors to either maintain those counterfeits, or to transform them into a deeper reflection that edifies the true diversity of the industry.
Laughter Catagorized
For many months now, the introspective and dynamic aspects of my mind have lain curiously dormant, wallowing sluggishly in the hollow swamp of mediocrity. Ironically enough, it is during these intellectually lethargic times that a stroke of genius usually finds me and inspires some word or deed of great daring and charisma.
…However, as it stands right now I am finding it difficult to spell even the simplest of words in our English language, much less form coherent thoughts with them. In fact, were it not for spell check, I fear this whole effort would be woefully in vain. Isn’t it amazing how our consonants and vowels are so much like the digital 0’s and 1’s of a computer? Take one out of sequence and nothing works. Put them together just so, and you have the closest thing to magic in the human experience. It is an interesting principle, and in fact it is the only one that can adequately explain exactly how the debacle that was Super Bowl XL came to pass. What I mean by this, I will conveniently fail to disclose.
My true purpose in writing this was to share with you, the reader, a theory that has recently been concocted in my mind. While it will do nothing to enrich your life or explain anything of any consequence, it will nevertheless clarify some confusion on the topic of humor.
My theory is simple: we all have an inner audience that guides both our expression of, and reaction to humor. This is why sometimes you can say something and start laughing in the middle of it. You didn’t think it was funny at the moment of conception, but once your inner audience heard it, it decided it was funny and started laughing. Some people have hyper-passive inner audiences, some have hyper-aggressive inner audiences, still others have hyper-dormant and just plain wrong inner audiences. For the sake of brevity and succinctness (this is off to a poor start already) I will outline the various types in all caps with a brief description below it.
The general premise is that we as humans generally obey or follow what our inner audience does. If out audience laughs, we laugh. If the audience cries, we cry. The IA (inner audience) is the gauge by which everything we say and hear is measured in terms of comedic value.
If The Bard is right, and the world is truly a stage, then this life is merely a performance that our inner audience guides us through. It helps us enjoy the acts and scenes, note the high and low points, sense the climax, and even prepare for the closing curtain.
--This dramatic babble has severely bored and offended my inner audience, and so it is no more.
HYPER-PASSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
These are generally the best inner audiences, and therefore make some of the better people. These are the folks who laugh easy and often, and seem to be content with mostly listening to others when it comes to comedy. Their inner audience is highly sensitive (hyper) to the faintest whiff of humor in the air and reacts accordingly. While the HPIP is eager to laugh, it is not so eager to contribute (passive). The audience does not clamor for repartee or response, merely an encore. The only downside to these kinds of people is that nothing is really funny because everything is. Everything is “the funniest thing ever!” While this can be an ego booster for the ignorant comedian, anyone who recognizes the person with a HPIP will most likely be annoyed in a very short time. Even attempts to not be funny can result in a fit of laughter from someone with a HPIA. The worst common side effect of this is that the person repeats the funny quote, noise, or story time and time again…and they find it funny every time. (People who have conversations forged exclusively from movie quotes often fit into this category.) As a conversationalist, the person with HPIP might be a bit trying, but you couldn’t ask for better support.
HYPER-AGGRESSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
While the HPIP is one of the best and most welcomed inner audience, the HAIA is probably the most despised. This inner audience finds everything funny—including the thoughts of its host. When said host has a thought that is anywhere near abstract or absurd, the inner audience chuckles and applauds, encouraging the host to share his/her thoughts with the outside world (aggressive). In fact, the inner audience is so sure that the thought is funny that they will beg the host to share it with everyone in earshot. This generally means that the person is loud—presumably obnoxious. They express their thought with a faint smile or smirk on their lips, secure in the fact that their inner audience loves this thought and that the outside world will too. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Because it is hyper, the HAIA has no true judgment as to what is funny and what isn’t. Everything from flatulence, to pointless stories, to hapless one-liners all find acceptance with the HAIA. One of the most annoying traits of a person with HAIA is the repetition of other people’s jokes that got a laugh. Their inner audience enjoyed the joke so much that they clamor for the host to repeat it in order to illicit a similar reaction in other people’s inner audiences. However, because the person with a HAIA has no idea what was funny or why, generally they lack whatever spark it was that made the joke work in the first place. Yet they will repeat it over and over again, causing their inner audience to laugh with glee each time. Unless the host of the HAIA has many HPIA friends, this person will most likely be lonely and shunned. Seek out rabbits and dragons; avoid rats and monkeys.
DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE
The DIA can create some of the most frightening and unnerving people on God’s green earth. Though these people received nutrients in the womb, their sense of humor and creativity apparently got lodged somewhere in the umbilical cord en route, and thus they were permanently severed from much of their personality at birth. The DIA is sparse—much like the crowd at a Washington Capitals game—and equally as quiet. The result is that the person does not think anything is funny or even amusing. Symptoms include failure to laugh, as well as a complete lack of effort to deliver any potentially humorous anecdote or story with the proper emphasis or timing. There’s not much more to be said for the DIA. It does its job even less effectively than the folks who predict the weather—and that’s saying a lot.
DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE WITH TURRETTE’S SYNDROME
You just have to feel sorry for the folks with ADIATS (sometimes pronounced “idiots”). These folks are much akin to the DIA’s in that they don’t think much is funny, and so react very little to comedic stimuli. They also don’t make many attempts at presenting comedy. However, somehow the ADIATS knows it’s not doing its job, and whether because of impatience or a chemical imbalance, it will randomly choose to endorse a thought from the host as funny, and begin screaming for him or her to say it. Unprepared for any such kind of reaction from his/her inner audience, the host will usually be panicked into heeding the screams. Unfortunately, because the person has no timing or presentation, 9 times out of 10 the “joke” falls flat and the ADIATS becomes indignant. It continues to insist that the thought was in fact funny. It is difficult to live with a pissed off inner audience, and so the person generally becomes irritable and even more unsocial. The upshot to this is the 1 time out of 10 that the “joke” does in fact hit the mark. This is when you have the phenomenon of someone incredulously saying “You mean Joe said that?!” after you give a second-hand account of the joke. The bonus is that the joke usually becomes funnier simply because someone born without a personality made it. Occasionally this outburst happens when the DIA hears something someone else said and randomly decides it’s funny. The result is laughter at inappropriate times, or at something very trite. You can usually tell if someone has a DIA because when you ask them why something was funny, they have absolutely no idea.
SELECTIVELY AGGRESSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
This is the audience found in most of your comedians. Having this audience is a gift and a blessing, because it happens to align itself with the Truth of comedy. Generally this audience doesn’t laugh at much that it hears, nor does it always endorse the thoughts that cross the person’s mind. In fact, if the person’s brain worked in the same fashion that other people’s did, there would be almost no laughter at all. However, if the normal person filters an average of 2.4 thoughts (some funny, others practical) through their inner audience per second, the comedian averages about 5.6 in the same amount of time. Often this is the case because of an attention deficit of some kind, but it is always because normal, useful thoughts are frequently replaced by observations and abstract notions. Therefore, the SAIA hears nearly 4 potentially funny thoughts every second, keeping it on its toes. Frequent alignment between inner audience laughter and normal audience laughter bolsters confidence, and the high volume of thoughts helps compensate for any jokes that fall flat. Again, the SAIA is selective and picky, but when it laughs, the world laughs with it.
SELECTIVELY DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE
The SDIA is found in many folks who are perceived as funny in social situations, but don’t always make the best comedians. First of all, they don’t have the high volume of thoughts going past their audience, so there isn’t as much feedback. This results in a lag between jokes, or dry patches of humorless drivel in an otherwise funny story. The biggest difference between the SDIA and the SAIA is that the SDIA is far less inclined to laugh, irregardless of whether something is universally funny. This audience isn’t as sparse or lethargic as the DIA—it’s just very selective. Many things that a SAIA will pick up on and laugh about will be missed by the SDIA. The result is that the person has less confidence in their presentation because there is no inner audience feedback. As an audience, these people tend to smile, nod, chuckle, and occasionally laugh as they realize that what someone said was funny, even if their inner audience seemed to have missed it. Since one cannot laugh without their inner audience, these people seem to be melancholy some of the time and rarely appear to be amused. The good part about having a SDIA is that there are many unexpected laughs from others in response to what the person says. Because the inner audience didn’t laugh, the host doesn’t think what they are about to say will be seen as funny by others. As a result, making people laugh seems effortless for these people because they are just talking and saying nothing that they themselves find amusing. The severe downside is that when they can’t make people laugh, they aren’t sure why. Sometimes their inner audience laughs…sometimes it doesn’t. It becomes a dangerous game of hit or miss that can make life miserable at times.
SELECTIVELY WRONG INNER AUDIENCE
This is almost the exact opposite of the Selectively Aggressive Inner Audience. The thoughts are numerous and the audience is picky…it just endorses the duds instead of the hits. Obviously if the person says enough, one joke is bound to work out, but for the most part, this person can be counted upon to be very not funny. They have the delivery and set-up, but you know as soon as they open their mouth some of the dumbest things are going to come out. The SWIA laughs selectively, giving the person the illusion of having the comedic gift. After all, they don’t laugh at everything. Sadly, because of the confidence involved, it is difficult for someone with a SWIA to fathom the fact that they are the anti-funny. The good news is that these folks fit together with each other perfectly. The world may cringe, but two people with SWIA’s will consider the other to be the funniest person alive. In addition, the presentation, delivery, and confidence of the person will often disguise or bolster poor material in such a way as to trick the inner audiences of others into finding the joke humorous. As a result, many people with SWI’s are relatively successful comedians, and can still have friends.
…However, as it stands right now I am finding it difficult to spell even the simplest of words in our English language, much less form coherent thoughts with them. In fact, were it not for spell check, I fear this whole effort would be woefully in vain. Isn’t it amazing how our consonants and vowels are so much like the digital 0’s and 1’s of a computer? Take one out of sequence and nothing works. Put them together just so, and you have the closest thing to magic in the human experience. It is an interesting principle, and in fact it is the only one that can adequately explain exactly how the debacle that was Super Bowl XL came to pass. What I mean by this, I will conveniently fail to disclose.
My true purpose in writing this was to share with you, the reader, a theory that has recently been concocted in my mind. While it will do nothing to enrich your life or explain anything of any consequence, it will nevertheless clarify some confusion on the topic of humor.
My theory is simple: we all have an inner audience that guides both our expression of, and reaction to humor. This is why sometimes you can say something and start laughing in the middle of it. You didn’t think it was funny at the moment of conception, but once your inner audience heard it, it decided it was funny and started laughing. Some people have hyper-passive inner audiences, some have hyper-aggressive inner audiences, still others have hyper-dormant and just plain wrong inner audiences. For the sake of brevity and succinctness (this is off to a poor start already) I will outline the various types in all caps with a brief description below it.
The general premise is that we as humans generally obey or follow what our inner audience does. If out audience laughs, we laugh. If the audience cries, we cry. The IA (inner audience) is the gauge by which everything we say and hear is measured in terms of comedic value.
If The Bard is right, and the world is truly a stage, then this life is merely a performance that our inner audience guides us through. It helps us enjoy the acts and scenes, note the high and low points, sense the climax, and even prepare for the closing curtain.
--This dramatic babble has severely bored and offended my inner audience, and so it is no more.
HYPER-PASSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
These are generally the best inner audiences, and therefore make some of the better people. These are the folks who laugh easy and often, and seem to be content with mostly listening to others when it comes to comedy. Their inner audience is highly sensitive (hyper) to the faintest whiff of humor in the air and reacts accordingly. While the HPIP is eager to laugh, it is not so eager to contribute (passive). The audience does not clamor for repartee or response, merely an encore. The only downside to these kinds of people is that nothing is really funny because everything is. Everything is “the funniest thing ever!” While this can be an ego booster for the ignorant comedian, anyone who recognizes the person with a HPIP will most likely be annoyed in a very short time. Even attempts to not be funny can result in a fit of laughter from someone with a HPIA. The worst common side effect of this is that the person repeats the funny quote, noise, or story time and time again…and they find it funny every time. (People who have conversations forged exclusively from movie quotes often fit into this category.) As a conversationalist, the person with HPIP might be a bit trying, but you couldn’t ask for better support.
HYPER-AGGRESSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
While the HPIP is one of the best and most welcomed inner audience, the HAIA is probably the most despised. This inner audience finds everything funny—including the thoughts of its host. When said host has a thought that is anywhere near abstract or absurd, the inner audience chuckles and applauds, encouraging the host to share his/her thoughts with the outside world (aggressive). In fact, the inner audience is so sure that the thought is funny that they will beg the host to share it with everyone in earshot. This generally means that the person is loud—presumably obnoxious. They express their thought with a faint smile or smirk on their lips, secure in the fact that their inner audience loves this thought and that the outside world will too. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Because it is hyper, the HAIA has no true judgment as to what is funny and what isn’t. Everything from flatulence, to pointless stories, to hapless one-liners all find acceptance with the HAIA. One of the most annoying traits of a person with HAIA is the repetition of other people’s jokes that got a laugh. Their inner audience enjoyed the joke so much that they clamor for the host to repeat it in order to illicit a similar reaction in other people’s inner audiences. However, because the person with a HAIA has no idea what was funny or why, generally they lack whatever spark it was that made the joke work in the first place. Yet they will repeat it over and over again, causing their inner audience to laugh with glee each time. Unless the host of the HAIA has many HPIA friends, this person will most likely be lonely and shunned. Seek out rabbits and dragons; avoid rats and monkeys.
DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE
The DIA can create some of the most frightening and unnerving people on God’s green earth. Though these people received nutrients in the womb, their sense of humor and creativity apparently got lodged somewhere in the umbilical cord en route, and thus they were permanently severed from much of their personality at birth. The DIA is sparse—much like the crowd at a Washington Capitals game—and equally as quiet. The result is that the person does not think anything is funny or even amusing. Symptoms include failure to laugh, as well as a complete lack of effort to deliver any potentially humorous anecdote or story with the proper emphasis or timing. There’s not much more to be said for the DIA. It does its job even less effectively than the folks who predict the weather—and that’s saying a lot.
DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE WITH TURRETTE’S SYNDROME
You just have to feel sorry for the folks with ADIATS (sometimes pronounced “idiots”). These folks are much akin to the DIA’s in that they don’t think much is funny, and so react very little to comedic stimuli. They also don’t make many attempts at presenting comedy. However, somehow the ADIATS knows it’s not doing its job, and whether because of impatience or a chemical imbalance, it will randomly choose to endorse a thought from the host as funny, and begin screaming for him or her to say it. Unprepared for any such kind of reaction from his/her inner audience, the host will usually be panicked into heeding the screams. Unfortunately, because the person has no timing or presentation, 9 times out of 10 the “joke” falls flat and the ADIATS becomes indignant. It continues to insist that the thought was in fact funny. It is difficult to live with a pissed off inner audience, and so the person generally becomes irritable and even more unsocial. The upshot to this is the 1 time out of 10 that the “joke” does in fact hit the mark. This is when you have the phenomenon of someone incredulously saying “You mean Joe said that?!” after you give a second-hand account of the joke. The bonus is that the joke usually becomes funnier simply because someone born without a personality made it. Occasionally this outburst happens when the DIA hears something someone else said and randomly decides it’s funny. The result is laughter at inappropriate times, or at something very trite. You can usually tell if someone has a DIA because when you ask them why something was funny, they have absolutely no idea.
SELECTIVELY AGGRESSIVE INNER AUDIENCE
This is the audience found in most of your comedians. Having this audience is a gift and a blessing, because it happens to align itself with the Truth of comedy. Generally this audience doesn’t laugh at much that it hears, nor does it always endorse the thoughts that cross the person’s mind. In fact, if the person’s brain worked in the same fashion that other people’s did, there would be almost no laughter at all. However, if the normal person filters an average of 2.4 thoughts (some funny, others practical) through their inner audience per second, the comedian averages about 5.6 in the same amount of time. Often this is the case because of an attention deficit of some kind, but it is always because normal, useful thoughts are frequently replaced by observations and abstract notions. Therefore, the SAIA hears nearly 4 potentially funny thoughts every second, keeping it on its toes. Frequent alignment between inner audience laughter and normal audience laughter bolsters confidence, and the high volume of thoughts helps compensate for any jokes that fall flat. Again, the SAIA is selective and picky, but when it laughs, the world laughs with it.
SELECTIVELY DORMANT INNER AUDIENCE
The SDIA is found in many folks who are perceived as funny in social situations, but don’t always make the best comedians. First of all, they don’t have the high volume of thoughts going past their audience, so there isn’t as much feedback. This results in a lag between jokes, or dry patches of humorless drivel in an otherwise funny story. The biggest difference between the SDIA and the SAIA is that the SDIA is far less inclined to laugh, irregardless of whether something is universally funny. This audience isn’t as sparse or lethargic as the DIA—it’s just very selective. Many things that a SAIA will pick up on and laugh about will be missed by the SDIA. The result is that the person has less confidence in their presentation because there is no inner audience feedback. As an audience, these people tend to smile, nod, chuckle, and occasionally laugh as they realize that what someone said was funny, even if their inner audience seemed to have missed it. Since one cannot laugh without their inner audience, these people seem to be melancholy some of the time and rarely appear to be amused. The good part about having a SDIA is that there are many unexpected laughs from others in response to what the person says. Because the inner audience didn’t laugh, the host doesn’t think what they are about to say will be seen as funny by others. As a result, making people laugh seems effortless for these people because they are just talking and saying nothing that they themselves find amusing. The severe downside is that when they can’t make people laugh, they aren’t sure why. Sometimes their inner audience laughs…sometimes it doesn’t. It becomes a dangerous game of hit or miss that can make life miserable at times.
SELECTIVELY WRONG INNER AUDIENCE
This is almost the exact opposite of the Selectively Aggressive Inner Audience. The thoughts are numerous and the audience is picky…it just endorses the duds instead of the hits. Obviously if the person says enough, one joke is bound to work out, but for the most part, this person can be counted upon to be very not funny. They have the delivery and set-up, but you know as soon as they open their mouth some of the dumbest things are going to come out. The SWIA laughs selectively, giving the person the illusion of having the comedic gift. After all, they don’t laugh at everything. Sadly, because of the confidence involved, it is difficult for someone with a SWIA to fathom the fact that they are the anti-funny. The good news is that these folks fit together with each other perfectly. The world may cringe, but two people with SWIA’s will consider the other to be the funniest person alive. In addition, the presentation, delivery, and confidence of the person will often disguise or bolster poor material in such a way as to trick the inner audiences of others into finding the joke humorous. As a result, many people with SWI’s are relatively successful comedians, and can still have friends.
Heather
I’ve searched the world to catch a glimpse of her,
I saw the clothes, I saw the fame
I saw the fads each one as they came,
But I never found her.
I’ve searched the earth to steal a glimpse of her,
I saw the picture but not the face
Heard the rumors of her social place
But I never found her.
I’ve searched the Heavens to find a reflection of her
I saw the outside, the physical shell
When I gazed in her mirror I saw everyone else
But I never found her.
I’ve given up the search to catch a glimpse of her
I realize now she has been buried forever
She allowed the world to put her life on a tether
And that, I discover, is why I never found Heather.
I saw the clothes, I saw the fame
I saw the fads each one as they came,
But I never found her.
I’ve searched the earth to steal a glimpse of her,
I saw the picture but not the face
Heard the rumors of her social place
But I never found her.
I’ve searched the Heavens to find a reflection of her
I saw the outside, the physical shell
When I gazed in her mirror I saw everyone else
But I never found her.
I’ve given up the search to catch a glimpse of her
I realize now she has been buried forever
She allowed the world to put her life on a tether
And that, I discover, is why I never found Heather.
Perfect Dreams
Perfect fragments I’ve collected
Pieced together day by day
Create in time a pure reflection
Of affection gone astray
Her soul, her mind, her heart sincere
Untouched by human wax
My eyes, my heart as lost companions
Fashion a faulty likeness with no cracks
She may be only perfect in my mind
But that’s the only place she’s still alive…
Asleep, I was with her again…
Again I almost cried
Her eyes sought me out the entire time
To know me and how much I loved her
It was everything that’s ever screamed
Inside of me to be released
How sad it seems that my dreams
Are always better than the real thing
I’ve never felt so worthless
That my sum does not add up
My shame ignites in memories
And shows me all I am is not enough
Awake I am a nightmare
But in my dreams I am a knight
Her heart has opened up to me
And at last I mean something in her life
Why can this only be a fantasy?
Something so simple so hard to believe
How sad it seems that my dreams
Are always better than the real thing
Pieced together day by day
Create in time a pure reflection
Of affection gone astray
Her soul, her mind, her heart sincere
Untouched by human wax
My eyes, my heart as lost companions
Fashion a faulty likeness with no cracks
She may be only perfect in my mind
But that’s the only place she’s still alive…
Asleep, I was with her again…
Again I almost cried
Her eyes sought me out the entire time
To know me and how much I loved her
It was everything that’s ever screamed
Inside of me to be released
How sad it seems that my dreams
Are always better than the real thing
I’ve never felt so worthless
That my sum does not add up
My shame ignites in memories
And shows me all I am is not enough
Awake I am a nightmare
But in my dreams I am a knight
Her heart has opened up to me
And at last I mean something in her life
Why can this only be a fantasy?
Something so simple so hard to believe
How sad it seems that my dreams
Are always better than the real thing
Four Twenty Seven Oh Three
These flesh and bones they cry and moan
Blood cannot flow from this heart of stone
My gaze it falls on nothing at all
Migraine is my brain hard-put to a wall
Never been nowhere for quite this long
Somewhere I know though something went wrong
Because there’s no room for hope in this body of mine
Lost methods to cope with the passage of time
Vitality, energy—years ago they abandoned me
Perpetual languish of a life gone awry
But my body’s too tired to lie down and die
My creative thinking has all gone to waste
I can’t turn to drinking ‘cause I can’t stand the taste
Tasting forbidden, the fruits of my labors
My vision is hidden, my desires macabre
Was this my choice or was it all for the best
Can’t help but to think that I bypassed my test
Keep breathing keep breathing but the air here is toxic
Keep eating and eating but I’m still anorexic
Keep writing and writing, my mind’s lost its voice
Keep fighting and fighting ‘cause I don’t have a choice
Longings and prayers have all ceased to matter
…At age 22 I’m a living cadaver
Because there’s no room for hope in this body of mine
Lost methods to cope with the passage of time
Vitality, energy—years ago they abandoned me
Perpetual languish of a life gone awry
But my body’s too tired to lie down and die
Blood cannot flow from this heart of stone
My gaze it falls on nothing at all
Migraine is my brain hard-put to a wall
Never been nowhere for quite this long
Somewhere I know though something went wrong
Because there’s no room for hope in this body of mine
Lost methods to cope with the passage of time
Vitality, energy—years ago they abandoned me
Perpetual languish of a life gone awry
But my body’s too tired to lie down and die
My creative thinking has all gone to waste
I can’t turn to drinking ‘cause I can’t stand the taste
Tasting forbidden, the fruits of my labors
My vision is hidden, my desires macabre
Was this my choice or was it all for the best
Can’t help but to think that I bypassed my test
Keep breathing keep breathing but the air here is toxic
Keep eating and eating but I’m still anorexic
Keep writing and writing, my mind’s lost its voice
Keep fighting and fighting ‘cause I don’t have a choice
Longings and prayers have all ceased to matter
…At age 22 I’m a living cadaver
Because there’s no room for hope in this body of mine
Lost methods to cope with the passage of time
Vitality, energy—years ago they abandoned me
Perpetual languish of a life gone awry
But my body’s too tired to lie down and die
Sonnet 501
Compared to thee, beauty itself is flawed
‘Tis a sweet joy to gaze long on thy face
To be near to thee is a kiss from God
Words sent from thy lips are like His embrace
But my love finds not its mirror in thee
The force of man has no weight on the heart
A choice must I make to yearn silently
And pray love’s echo to swiftly depart
Yet struggle oft proves what something is worth
So my will affirmed stands poised for a war
For thou art by far most precious on Earth
And trials wrought drive me on all the more
To quietly fade, or endure love’s strife
I want that which would bring joy to thy life.
‘Tis a sweet joy to gaze long on thy face
To be near to thee is a kiss from God
Words sent from thy lips are like His embrace
But my love finds not its mirror in thee
The force of man has no weight on the heart
A choice must I make to yearn silently
And pray love’s echo to swiftly depart
Yet struggle oft proves what something is worth
So my will affirmed stands poised for a war
For thou art by far most precious on Earth
And trials wrought drive me on all the more
To quietly fade, or endure love’s strife
I want that which would bring joy to thy life.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Media Circus
There is a show out there that takes place on a series of enormous stages under the glare of blindingly bright lights. These stages are filled with performers, illusionists, buffoons, tricksters, tramps, whores, and a varied assortment of other motley characters. Almost all of them wear makeup of some kind to further the act and to add to the glamour of their illustrious craft. They display dazzling images that instill a sense of danger and disbelief to anyone who watches. They produce a seemingly endless stream of marionettes that dance and jerk about wildly, their strings manipulated by unseen hands. They contrive spectacles that amaze and astound those with simple minds, while generating controversy for those who have the ability to think for themselves.
And through it all, these harlequins, performers and illusionists smile broadly with their arms outstretched to the audience and say, “Trust us! Believe in us! We do all of this for you!”
Now you might think that perhaps this show is some kind of Marti Gras, but it takes place far more often than that. It is in fact a circus…a Media Circus, to be exact.
The term “media circus” has been used to describe the frenzy that occurs when a large group of journalists and news crews come together to cover a certain story or event. What I put forth is that the media is a circus. The news you see is always a media circus…the worst show on earth.
Before I begin, I have two disclaimers. One, like everything else in the world there are exceptions to the rule. What I am about to say applies to a large number of media personnel and journalists, but not to every single one. I know this. There are some good apples here and there, but it only takes one apple to spoil a bunch. –And the media is full of bad apples. The second disclaimer is that I love the real three-ringed circus and I have nothing but respect for the performers and acrobats who perform daring feats that few others can do. I would rather watch a daring young man on a flying trapeze than watch twenty-two football players on a tuft of grass any day.
I also want to clarify what I mean when I say “the media”. Media usually refers to everything from TV to radio to movies to books. What I am talking about here is the news media. Time Magazine, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Newsweek, The New York Times…these are examples of what constitutes the media I’m talking about. It’s true that there are many novels, books and TV shows that make political statements and assumptions about the way things are in America and around the world, but it is the news media that claims to be the caretaker of truth. When you turn on the evening news or pick up a newspaper you are supposed to be getting facts and information, but that’s not what you get.
We’ve been told time and time again that we need to be informed. We’ve been told that we need to be up-to-date on the current events in the world and know what’s happening in our country and in our communities. We need to be on the cutting edge, riding in the fast lane on the information highway. We need to form opinions about everything from politics to civil rights issues. We need to be involved and knowledgeable so that we can function well in society and generate conversation.
Where do we hear this from? The media. How can we possibly achieve all the goals mentioned above? The media. Convenient, isn’t it?
The bottom line is that almost all news is nothing but entertainment. The media tries to make it seem like you have to be in the know, that you have to tune in and find out what’s going on. Sometimes they make it seem like you’re missing out if you don’t watch and read what they say, while at other times they’ll flat out call you an irresponsible citizen for ignoring them; you’re taking your rights for granted, failing to exercise all the freedoms you are entitled to in this great yet somehow horrible nation you live in.
But ask yourself, how did your life change when you heard about Hurricane Katrina? How does knowing the American troop death toll make a difference in your day-to-day life? Does knowing that the CIA is “torturing” terrorists on some island do anything to alter your routine? Unless you are directly involved, those events mean absolutely nothing to you—and the catch is, if you are involved, you already know those things.
For example, I work in an industry that uses a lot of PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride). As it happens, many of America’s PVC factories were in New Orleans and were consequently wiped out during the hurricane. The media didn’t say one thing about PVC. It exaggerated the death toll on a daily basis and it made everyone down there seem like crazed wild beasts but it didn’t tell me that PVC was going to jump up in price because production was going to go down. –I found that little fact out from my boss because information like that directly concerned him.
If one of your friends or family members lost their life in Iraq, you didn’t need the news media to tell you that—you found out from another source. If you had business or personal interests in New Orleans, you most likely would have found out without any kind of press. And if you had no business or relations down there, why the heck should you care?
My point is that news is no more important than a sitcom. I don’t need to know about Cindy Sheehan’s arrest for yet another protest any more than I need to know if Ross and Rachel are still on a break. Most news is useless, pointless information that is spun by the media to sound important in order to justify it’s own existence.
I know this is a crazy concept, but think about it. What did you change about your life when you heard about the tsunami? What about when you heard about the Duke rape case? Did knowing there were snipers in Virginia help you avoid them, or did it simply lock you down in fear? What news actually helps you or has any impact on your life?
The weather forecast is wrong more often than it’s right, and telling me I’ve got a 65% chance of rain doesn’t really do squat. It’s either going to rain or it isn’t and the weather folks can’t seem to get it right even a day in advance. I would venture to say that traffic reports important and pertinent to my life and plans, as is the local news about school closings, grand openings, job opportunities, sales, and the like.
Not too long ago an article in the local paper here in Fredericksburg caught my eye. It was a small piece on the up-and-coming flag football league here in town. It gave a brief history of how it started a couple years back and talked about how it has grown. It told me where the games took place, who could play and how to register. That was useful news and information. If I had so desired, I could have changed my daily routine and added an activity to my life that I might not otherwise had known existed without the newspaper.
…But that’s the only thing I can think of. Most everything else is trash. Whether or not Bush lied about Iraq is completely irrelevant to my life. What could I do to change anything? The guy isn’t even going to be running in the next election, and I’m not going to call for his impeachment when I know only a small portion of the facts.
To epitomize this point, I’d say that the media should have kept its mouth shut about Watergate. *GasP!* Can I be serious? Watergate? The big news story that represents all that’s right and good in the media? The event that infused the media with its current hubris and lust for blood?
I wasn’t alive during Watergate, but I challenge anyone to say how they or the nation as a whole benefited from knowing about Watergate. Now, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t have been investigated and prosecuted. I’m not saying it wasn’t a big deal and that it wasn’t a sign of some serious corruption. But what did you or your parents do with that information? How was your life improved by knowing about that scandal? Did people suddenly feel a wave of euphoria wash over them as the media inundated them with the latest breaking news? Were the old made young and the dead brought to life because some idiot with a microphone talked about what some guys did at a hotel, and how a guy tried to destroy some tapes?
Yes, “a guy” was the president of the United States—so what? The media calls itself the whistle blower…what the heck good does that do? Are they actually saying that without reporters Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate? Are they saying that the media caught the burglars and made the arrest? Are they claiming that they brought the Senate Watergate Committee together and investigated the facts?
The people that needed to know—the people who investigated and conducted the trials—didn’t get their information from the media. They didn’t run to Walter and say, “Hey, what the heck is going on, ‘cause we have no frigg’in clue?” The only people who learned anything from the media were the people who really had no business knowing and who couldn’t do a thing about it one way or another.
Watergate was only a big deal for the people involved. The consequences didn’t reach to you or your families. It’s just like anything in life. You breaking your leg is news to your family and friends, and it’s a big stink to you, but no one else really cares. Watergate and stories like it are important to the people whose lives are impacted by them—no one else really should care.
And don’t try to give me this bologna about how it changed our outlook on our country and our leaders. Anyone who thinks our presidents’ poop doesn’t stink, or that our nation is the exception to historical follies and human nature is a naïve fool. Watergate as a news story didn’t do a single thing for this country or its citizens. When the whole thing was over, it should have gotten a small blurb in the newspaper saying that Nixon left office because of a scandal that took place and listed some of the details.
“Nixon screwed up. He’s out and someone else is in”. That’s the only bit of copy about Watergate that’s worth anything.
So the first strike against the media is it is worthless. It’s cheap entertainment. Ooo! Look at the murder that happened 2,000 miles away! Ooo! Look at the water that’s covering some strangers’ yard! Ooo! Look at the bad corporate guys going to jail because they cheated on their taxes! Why the heck should we care? We’re not going to help, all we’re going to do is say, “Whew, I’m glad it’s not me!” and move on. Either that or we’ll stand around the proverbial water-cooler saying, “Did you see what happened down in Texas? Crazy isn’t it? Can you believe that guy got away with it?” Idle chatter. That’s the reward news offers us.
Besides the stuff we don’t need to know about, what about the stuff we shouldn’t know about? The media puts out this lie that we have a right to know. Do we? Do we have a right to know how exactly we’ve stopped terrorist attacks? What happens when our enemies find out?
Just because there are spineless wretches who betray this country and leak secrets about its security and operations to the press doesn’t mean the press has to write about it. Reporters aren’t forced at gunpoint to spray leaks all over the front page of a newspaper. There are reasons for secrets—some good, some bad. Who the heck gave the media the right to determine which is which? How many people have lost their lives because the operation or mission they were on got it’s cover blown when the story broke? How many lives have been ruined because the media decided to make a secret public?
How would you like your life investigated and reported on to the rest of the world? You think it’s great when these politicians, government officials and celebrities get exposed and humiliated, but what if the great media decides you’re of interest? The only reason the world doesn’t know everything about you is because the media doesn’t think enough people would buy their papers or watch their programs just to find out about you. These guys don’t care about your protection or m rights. They say they do. They say they’re helping to keep you safe. But as soon as they can make money off of you, they’ll tear you to pieces in the name of good journalism. And what happens when half the stuff they write about you is out of context or completely fabricated? How are you going to get the truth out? Who is going to believe you?
How can you trust these leeches who obviously have no discretion and lack the ability to keep their mouths shut about anything? Even comments made off the record have mysteriously turned up. Sure it’s illegal, but the damage is done.
Some worthless reporter recorded a coach telling a questionable joke. The joke was bad and it was off the record, but this reporter decided to leak it anyway. He gave it to a radio station that then played the tape. Who here has never told a bad joke? Anyone ever told a Pollock joke? A Jewish joke? I know I have. That’s racism according to these idiots, and they make a big deal out of it. It’s one thing if the guy came out at a press conference and thought the joke was something to be shared with the public. That’s poor judgement. But this coach had no idea he was being recorded, never mind that it would get played on the radio.
And what happened to this bold reporter who exposed a coach saying something that none of us would ever, ever say? Nothing. He got a slap on the wrist. What about the coach? What about his reputation? Nothing can be done about that now. The toothpaste is out of the tube, as the saying goes.
But I digress.
Watching the news is just like watching a reality show. It’s not really reality. It’s a collection of manipulated and faulty data constructed by an agenda and given artificial credibility so it can entertain. Reality shows are so pathetic in terms of plot and interest that if they were marketed as scripted shows they would have tanked a long time ago.
The Blair Witch Project was a low-budget film that made a ton of money when it first came out. It wasn’t because the footage was great—in fact a lot of it was horrible. It wasn’t because the characters were well developed and shared riveting dialogue. It wasn’t because the direction was so amazing or the cinematography was breathtaking. The movie was a success because people believed it was actual footage from a real disaster. They thought the tape was found in an abandoned camera out in the woods, and the footage actually showed what were most likely these kids’ final hours on earth. Once people found out that it was all bogus, the movie quickly lost people’s interest and the sequel wasn’t even good enough to flop.
So too is it with the news. It has to come across as real and accurate so that people will be interested, yet it has to be entertaining. And it is this last requisite that creates a problem that is impossible for the media to solve: credibility.
The media has to sell news. Unless there are stories that can grab a reader’s attention, the paper doesn’t sell. And what grabs people’s attention? Controversy, disaster, misfortune, violence, strife, death, and gossip. So how can we believe anything the media puts out when we know it has to generate money?
It’s the same principle as a salesman working on commission. Sure, he’d like to be honest, he’d like to have integrity. But when he needs money, honesty goes out the window. Do you believe everything a salesman tells you, knowing that he is biased? He only gets paid when he makes a sale, so isn’t he going to tell you whatever you want to hear in order to make that happen? Again, he might not want to, but when it comes to going without dinner or fudging the facts a bit, he’s going to fudge the facts.
If the media doesn’t entertain it goes under. If it can’t grab your attention everyday, it dies. These guys have to sell the news and they can’t do it if there’s nothing to sell. I think journalists should be called ‘construction workers’ because every day they have to make mountains out of a molehills.
I spoke with a friend of mine who was a cop for 32 years. He said, “Never trust anyone who buys ink in 55 gallon drums”. He went on to say that he got burned many times by the newspaper when it took what he said and twisted it out of context. The media isn’t made up of noble, moralistic people. These are people who thrive off the misery of others.
I used to listen to a sports radio show, and the commentators were complaining because there was no controversy. They said, “Well everyone’s getting along great…which I guess is good for them but its’ really bad for us.” The media goes bye-bye if everyone gets along. They are instigators—they ask questions that they hope will ignite some kind of fire. They stir up trouble where there isn’t any and don’t care what the consequences are as long as they get a story.
Not only is the media’s credibility shot by their need to manufacture news, it also suffers from blatant bias. I have witnessed several instances where the media took a statement or a set of facts and manipulated them to say something completely different. The media is comprised of people with their own beliefs and agendas and so they generate stories that agree with them. It is no secret that most of the news you hear has a political and social bias. If you can’t see it, I’m afraid nothing I can say is going to make it obvious to you. Most of the times the bias is overt—one side will get its voice heard a lot more than the other side, or there will simply be a greater number of negative stories about a particular person or point-of-view.
But sometimes the bias is subtle. For example, note the difference between, “He looked very concerned”, and “He looked very worried”. They both essentially say the same thing, but I would much rather be reported as looking “concerned” than “worried”. Concern shows strength…it’s more of a mental thing. I’m mulling over the problem. I’m not disregarding it, but I’m staying cool under the pressure. “Worried” makes it sound like I’m an emotional wreck. It makes me sound cowardly and timid with my eyes frantically darting about the room in anxiety. When the media likes an issue or politician, it uses subtle choices in diction to portray him, her or it in a positive way.
Every person has an opinion. Every person has a preference. The media is comprised of people—people who are taught to find their own voice, to not compromise their principles, and to seek out “truth”. Therefore, the “truth” is going to be what these people want it to be—what matches their voice and their principles. Of course they won’t admit to this. They are completely objective with no agenda. They have no personal opinions about anything, and if they do those opinions don’t factor at all into what they write.
The media insults our intelligence. Maybe they honestly think they cover it up well enough, or maybe they can’t even see it for themselves. But most of the time the headline itself gives it away, and anyone with any kind of a memory will find that the same stories have the same angles over and over again.
As I said, I have actually heard the truth get twisted by the media on several occasions. I have heard the media completely butcher the truth on several more occasions, and they only apologize for it half the time. Why should they? Who is keeping them honest? Unless you sue them (and what chance do you have against the lawyers they can hire and the influence they have in the justice system) they don’t care if you know they’re liars or not.
So not only is the news pointless, it’s also distorted and false a good portion of the time. How great is the hypocrisy of the media! They decry politicians for their lies and deceit while they themselves are guilty of it in far greater measure! So if we can’t even trust the meaningless drivel the media puts out…what is the point? What good does it do?
The answer is none. In fact, the media is one of the most destructive forces in this country.
Not long ago, three lacrosse players at Duke University were charged with rape by a stripper. She pointed them out in a lineup and said they were the ones who molested and raped her during a party. As it turned out, none of the boys did anything to her. A DNA test revealed that not only were the three boys innocent, but that the stripper had sexual contact with guys who weren’t even at the lacrosse party!
The stripper changed her story several times, especially when it was revealed that there was concrete video evidence that one of the guys she identified wasn’t even in the house during the alleged rape.
The girl was full of crap and told malicious lies that have permanently tarnished the reputations and lives of those three players. The coach got fired, the lacrosse season got canceled, and the players were kicked out of school.
Riots broke out, incited by the mindless mob who vehemently declared it to be a race crime since the boys were white and the girl was black. Unfortunately there are far too many ignorant, bitter, hateful people in this country who are just waiting for an excuse and someone to blame. They have no morality, no intelligence and no interest in the truth. They want violence and they want blood.
How did these people find out about this case? Our friends in the media.
Rush Limbaugh refers to the media as “the drive-by media” because they drive up, spray bullets into the crowd, report the mayhem, then drive off again to do it elsewhere, leaving a mess behind.
Whether you like the man or not, that is exactly what the media does. They tacked on the term “allegedly” when talking about the boys’ crimes but that doesn’t mean jack-squat anymore. The media uses the term “allegedly” even when a car-thief gets arrested after a high-speed chase that was caught on video. “Allegedly” is nothing but a CYA term. If it was really “alleged”, a responsible media wouldn’t report the story until it found out if anything really happened. After all, there are cases of rape not happening every day. That’s not news. Heck, I didn’t rape someone. Should my name and face be all over the news for three months because of it?
The fact that an irresponsible stripper accused some guys of raping her isn’t a story by any stretch of the imagination. It might make a great novel or movie, but it’s not news. Why? Because nothing has been proven. For all the media knew, the event never took place! The real news would have been the verdict after the trial. Again, I’d argue that for you and me the story is nothing but worthless entertainment, but if there had to be some kind of reporting done, it should have been on what did happen, not what “allegedly” happened.
The media isn’t dumb. It knew very well what would happen when it put that story out. It knew the chaos it would cause. Race has always been a big seller in the news and so it was here. Controversy, ruined lives, deceit, disaster, violence. It was everything the media needed. They protected the identity of the girl, even after it was proven she was a liar…but the boys…they were sacrificed for the story. Innocent college students got smeared by an irresponsible and reckless press that decided the rest of the world had a right to know about an accusation.
The story was reported as if the event actually took place. If you read it, you didn’t get a sense of doubt as to whether or not these guys did it, you just wondered why it was taking so long to convict them. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, they were guilty because someone else said so.
In the end it was most likely a political stunt that the media was more than happy to help out with. They didn’t apologize for the way they reported the story, or that they reported it at all. They were directly and solely responsible for screwing those players over, and they simply moved on.
Blood suckers. Vile, contemptible blood suckers.
I already brought up the point that the media is eager to print leaks. Leaks are a nice way of saying, “Someone betrayed trust to blab about something they didn’t agree with”. Leaks are what traitors give out to hamstring their country and their opponents. Can you trust a traitor? Can you trust a tattle tale? How do we know the leaks are real? When a media that is notorious for lies and slander puts out “secret” information, how can you trust it?
Do you actually think the government can’t shut up the media if it really wants to? What can the media do? It’s not invincible. It’s not some kind of invisible presence that can’t be harmed. The media is flesh and blood. It can’t pass laws, it can’t prosecute and it can’t condemn. What is it going to do if one of its reporters gets killed because he went too far?
There may be some leaks that do some good, but none that I can think of. The leak about the wire-taps on terrorists didn’t do anything except spread unjustified fear that every American was under surveillance and had no privacy. It was a program that we didn’t need to know about and one that was actually helping us spy on terrorists until it was compromised by some jackal and then printed by a reporter desperate for a story.
I could go on and on. For some reason we have been inundated with leaks in the past few years. Again, no one forces the media to report these leaks. The media decides that we have the right to know (oh, and it may increase circulation and sales) and makes it so. And then it protects the source so that it can keep doing it!
It’s all good until someone you know or care about is hurt by a leak. We’ve already seen that reporters have no problem leaking events that occur during a grand jury even though they are forbidden to do so. What happens when you or I are in a grand jury and a reporter decides to leak something that was said or done in there that makes us look like criminals when we are not? Who will defend us? How will the wrong be righted? Certainly not by the media.
The media destroys lives. Destroyed lives make good stories, and who knows? Maybe one of those lacrosse boys might commit suicide from grief and despair in a couple of years and then the whole thing can be brought back up and dramatized again.
That brings up yet another strike on the media: it is redundant.
I took a journalism class in college and I learned about the inverted pyramid style of writing. You write a lead that tells the who, what, when, and where. Then you put all the important facts in the next two to three sentences. You do this because apparently the average reader doesn’t have the attention span to read the whole article, so you put the crucial information up front so the reader doesn’t have to search for the point before moving on. …Conveniently, that leaves out any chance they have of putting it in context and seeing a different truth than the one you’re putting forth.
So what this means is that all the new information takes up the first few sentences and the rest of the story is just meaningless details. For any story that lasts more than a day, it also means that you only get small tidbits of new information before having the same crap drilled into your head from the day before. The same is true of television.
The story breaks and then reporters spend hours analyzing it and talking about it until a little development occurs. Then they latch onto that, reanalyzing the whole situation before tacking on the new development. And on it goes. In one hour you might get twenty seconds of actual fact. The rest of it is speculation and interviews with “experts” who slowly shape the facts in the direction they want it to go. They have to entertain an audience and hold its attention and they have to achieve their agenda, so they report some facts and omit others. When they get one good solid fact that agrees with what they want, they repeat it over and over again.
Oftentimes to get that one fact, reporters will ask the same questions again and again. Have you ever seen an interview or press conference where it seems like the reporters were getting agitated and simply kept asking the same question in a different way? It genuinely offends and infuriates them to think that anyone would have the audacity to say “no comment” or “I don’t want to talk about that”. They’ll tear into a person if they get the answer they were fishing for, and they bash the person if they don’t give them the answer they were fishing for.
“Well he was very stand-offish…obviously has something to hide. Why else wouldn’t he answer my simple question?”
I’ve noticed that every ‘simple question’ they ask has a severe slant to it.
“Sir, most people would say that you’ve made a big mistake. How are you going to correct it? Do you feel bad?” The question has a faulty premise built into it: that the interviewee made a big mistake. It’s like the media tells someone, “Okay, here’s what we’re going to say you did regardless of whether or not it’s the truth. So based on what we’re going to report, are you going to defend yourself or apologize for it?” If the interviewee says, “No, I think it was the right decision,” then another reporter will get up and say, “But your popularity is down. Doesn’t that tell you there’s a problem that needs correcting?”
Same freak’in question, different way of phrasing it. Journalists have a one-track mind and they don’t care if they piss someone off to get what they want. In fact, if they can get the interviewee visibly angry or upset, they can use that to their advantage as well. They can report that the person is a zealot or firebrand, easily brought to anger by a few simple little questions. The media is a trap for anyone unfortunate enough to be out of their favor or against their agenda.
Not only do individual reporters repeat themselves, most all the news stations and newspapers echo each other as well. You get almost the exact same story with some details changed. Oftentimes those details are actually important to the story, so you begin to wonder just who has the “truth”. Anything that might be considered newsworthy could be listed on one piece of paper (sans editorials and opinions) and would take up all of five minutes of air time. But the media must justify its existence and its lengthy time on the airwaves, so it drags it all out until it has become a big ball of redundancy. Not all news is new news.
Perhaps one of the most damaging strikes against the media is that it’s just plain inaccurate. “Some experts say…” “Many people believe…” “Many would argue that…”
Have you ever noticed how often the media uses terms like that? Who are these experts? Why do they have credibility over other experts who disagree? Who are these people? What number constitutes “many”? How many people have you talked to in order to justify saying “many would argue”? Have many argued? These gross generalizations give artificial weight to statements and construct an illusion of authority.
Polls are another big one. Polls aren’t news! They are presented as if they reveal the ultimate truth, when in reality it’s a bunch of people reciting what they’ve heard on the news in the past! I don’t care how many people think hemlock is safe to ingest—it’s poison, pure and simple. Polls aren’t facts, they’re opinions. They’re actually gauges to tell the media just how many people are buying the crap that they’re selling.
When Katrina hit, the media reported that there were babies being raped in the stadium, that there was looting and rioting, and that approximately 25,000 people were dead.
No babies were raped, no looting and rioting took place, and about 1,500 people were found dead.
As for things like 911, I would argue that the event itself and its impact made it what it was, not the media. We would have heard about it without any news articles or video footage.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t know about these things, but our knowledge of the events doesn’t make us better people or even more intelligent. My life would be just as successful if I never heard about these things in the news. I don’t need the news at all—and neither do you.
How do I know? Because I’ve gone without the news for the past four years. No radio, no TV, no newspapers. I plan to keep it that way. I used to be oblivious to the news growing up, but I bought into the lies of the media and started lending it my ear. What was the difference? I found that I was gradually becoming more depressed and more frustrated because of how many stupid things people did and said. I was almost constantly pissed off because I had to listen to the politically correct crap coming from the talking heads of the news anchors and commentators. I got fed up with the bias and slants, the inequality and double standards. I found myself having a short temper and disliking people I used to get along with because they had different political and social views than I did.
I don’t like violence and destruction. I don’t like reality shows, and I certainly don’t like money-hungry hypocrites trying to pass off fiction as truth. I don’t stare at car accidents or try to see what happened. It’s none of my business, it doesn’t effect me. As long as the people involved are being taken care of I have no obligations. I can’t do anything for the people in New Orleans. I have enough on my plate that actually has consequences in my life to worry about stuff that doesn’t. I have a family, I have friends, I have a job, and I have commitments to fulfill. The last thing I need is to start getting distracted and filling my time with meaningless drivel at the expense of what is really important.
Since I gave up listening to the media, I’ve been happier, more relaxed, less worried and less aggravated. I’m not missing out on anything. When I vote, I’ll vote based on political affiliation. Such a thing has become taboo, but I have no other option. The media distorts and misrepresents the candidates so badly that I have no idea what they stand for. I want to get educated about what the candidates believe, but I have come to the conclusion that the media is incapable of providing that education. I’ll vote for the person who, by virtue of the party they represent, shares a good portion of my views and beliefs on most issues.
So someone tell me what I’m missing out on. Someone explain to me how being without the news is going to ruin my life or deprive me of joy. Explain to me why it’s so important to be informed, and how I can consider the distorted lies of the media to be information at all. Better yet, explain to me why the vipers in the media shouldn’t be locked up as criminals when they destroy lives by publishing leaks and covering stories that aren’t even confirmed yet. Tell me why these people can assassinate the character and reputation of individuals and then move on to the next flavor of the week without any consequences. Tell me who gave the media the right to tell me what’s right and wrong to say? Who gave them the ability to judge and decide that what I’ve done is reprehensible or sensible? Who can protect us from the media?
“The pen is mightier than the sword”. I believe that saying referred to a time when the pen was a substitute for the sword—when diplomacy and rhetoric took the place of violence and chaos. Unfortunately in this day in this country, the media has turned the pen into a sword, wielding it as a weapon to malign and destroy anything and anyone it chooses. And the media delights in the ensuing carnage and the gruesome aftermath—those things are its bloodline. The media has no desire to see a peaceful world free of suffering and turmoil. It used to be content merely to seek out and record the wickedness of mankind, but now it has taken upon itself to create it.
So come one, come all! Gather around your televisions, radios, and pick your newspaper up off the front stoop. Suspend your disbelief and throw aside reason and common sense. Find a comfortable seat, prop your feet up and enjoy the great Media Circus: The Lamest Show On Earth!
And through it all, these harlequins, performers and illusionists smile broadly with their arms outstretched to the audience and say, “Trust us! Believe in us! We do all of this for you!”
Now you might think that perhaps this show is some kind of Marti Gras, but it takes place far more often than that. It is in fact a circus…a Media Circus, to be exact.
The term “media circus” has been used to describe the frenzy that occurs when a large group of journalists and news crews come together to cover a certain story or event. What I put forth is that the media is a circus. The news you see is always a media circus…the worst show on earth.
Before I begin, I have two disclaimers. One, like everything else in the world there are exceptions to the rule. What I am about to say applies to a large number of media personnel and journalists, but not to every single one. I know this. There are some good apples here and there, but it only takes one apple to spoil a bunch. –And the media is full of bad apples. The second disclaimer is that I love the real three-ringed circus and I have nothing but respect for the performers and acrobats who perform daring feats that few others can do. I would rather watch a daring young man on a flying trapeze than watch twenty-two football players on a tuft of grass any day.
I also want to clarify what I mean when I say “the media”. Media usually refers to everything from TV to radio to movies to books. What I am talking about here is the news media. Time Magazine, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Newsweek, The New York Times…these are examples of what constitutes the media I’m talking about. It’s true that there are many novels, books and TV shows that make political statements and assumptions about the way things are in America and around the world, but it is the news media that claims to be the caretaker of truth. When you turn on the evening news or pick up a newspaper you are supposed to be getting facts and information, but that’s not what you get.
We’ve been told time and time again that we need to be informed. We’ve been told that we need to be up-to-date on the current events in the world and know what’s happening in our country and in our communities. We need to be on the cutting edge, riding in the fast lane on the information highway. We need to form opinions about everything from politics to civil rights issues. We need to be involved and knowledgeable so that we can function well in society and generate conversation.
Where do we hear this from? The media. How can we possibly achieve all the goals mentioned above? The media. Convenient, isn’t it?
The bottom line is that almost all news is nothing but entertainment. The media tries to make it seem like you have to be in the know, that you have to tune in and find out what’s going on. Sometimes they make it seem like you’re missing out if you don’t watch and read what they say, while at other times they’ll flat out call you an irresponsible citizen for ignoring them; you’re taking your rights for granted, failing to exercise all the freedoms you are entitled to in this great yet somehow horrible nation you live in.
But ask yourself, how did your life change when you heard about Hurricane Katrina? How does knowing the American troop death toll make a difference in your day-to-day life? Does knowing that the CIA is “torturing” terrorists on some island do anything to alter your routine? Unless you are directly involved, those events mean absolutely nothing to you—and the catch is, if you are involved, you already know those things.
For example, I work in an industry that uses a lot of PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride). As it happens, many of America’s PVC factories were in New Orleans and were consequently wiped out during the hurricane. The media didn’t say one thing about PVC. It exaggerated the death toll on a daily basis and it made everyone down there seem like crazed wild beasts but it didn’t tell me that PVC was going to jump up in price because production was going to go down. –I found that little fact out from my boss because information like that directly concerned him.
If one of your friends or family members lost their life in Iraq, you didn’t need the news media to tell you that—you found out from another source. If you had business or personal interests in New Orleans, you most likely would have found out without any kind of press. And if you had no business or relations down there, why the heck should you care?
My point is that news is no more important than a sitcom. I don’t need to know about Cindy Sheehan’s arrest for yet another protest any more than I need to know if Ross and Rachel are still on a break. Most news is useless, pointless information that is spun by the media to sound important in order to justify it’s own existence.
I know this is a crazy concept, but think about it. What did you change about your life when you heard about the tsunami? What about when you heard about the Duke rape case? Did knowing there were snipers in Virginia help you avoid them, or did it simply lock you down in fear? What news actually helps you or has any impact on your life?
The weather forecast is wrong more often than it’s right, and telling me I’ve got a 65% chance of rain doesn’t really do squat. It’s either going to rain or it isn’t and the weather folks can’t seem to get it right even a day in advance. I would venture to say that traffic reports important and pertinent to my life and plans, as is the local news about school closings, grand openings, job opportunities, sales, and the like.
Not too long ago an article in the local paper here in Fredericksburg caught my eye. It was a small piece on the up-and-coming flag football league here in town. It gave a brief history of how it started a couple years back and talked about how it has grown. It told me where the games took place, who could play and how to register. That was useful news and information. If I had so desired, I could have changed my daily routine and added an activity to my life that I might not otherwise had known existed without the newspaper.
…But that’s the only thing I can think of. Most everything else is trash. Whether or not Bush lied about Iraq is completely irrelevant to my life. What could I do to change anything? The guy isn’t even going to be running in the next election, and I’m not going to call for his impeachment when I know only a small portion of the facts.
To epitomize this point, I’d say that the media should have kept its mouth shut about Watergate. *GasP!* Can I be serious? Watergate? The big news story that represents all that’s right and good in the media? The event that infused the media with its current hubris and lust for blood?
I wasn’t alive during Watergate, but I challenge anyone to say how they or the nation as a whole benefited from knowing about Watergate. Now, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t have been investigated and prosecuted. I’m not saying it wasn’t a big deal and that it wasn’t a sign of some serious corruption. But what did you or your parents do with that information? How was your life improved by knowing about that scandal? Did people suddenly feel a wave of euphoria wash over them as the media inundated them with the latest breaking news? Were the old made young and the dead brought to life because some idiot with a microphone talked about what some guys did at a hotel, and how a guy tried to destroy some tapes?
Yes, “a guy” was the president of the United States—so what? The media calls itself the whistle blower…what the heck good does that do? Are they actually saying that without reporters Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate? Are they saying that the media caught the burglars and made the arrest? Are they claiming that they brought the Senate Watergate Committee together and investigated the facts?
The people that needed to know—the people who investigated and conducted the trials—didn’t get their information from the media. They didn’t run to Walter and say, “Hey, what the heck is going on, ‘cause we have no frigg’in clue?” The only people who learned anything from the media were the people who really had no business knowing and who couldn’t do a thing about it one way or another.
Watergate was only a big deal for the people involved. The consequences didn’t reach to you or your families. It’s just like anything in life. You breaking your leg is news to your family and friends, and it’s a big stink to you, but no one else really cares. Watergate and stories like it are important to the people whose lives are impacted by them—no one else really should care.
And don’t try to give me this bologna about how it changed our outlook on our country and our leaders. Anyone who thinks our presidents’ poop doesn’t stink, or that our nation is the exception to historical follies and human nature is a naïve fool. Watergate as a news story didn’t do a single thing for this country or its citizens. When the whole thing was over, it should have gotten a small blurb in the newspaper saying that Nixon left office because of a scandal that took place and listed some of the details.
“Nixon screwed up. He’s out and someone else is in”. That’s the only bit of copy about Watergate that’s worth anything.
So the first strike against the media is it is worthless. It’s cheap entertainment. Ooo! Look at the murder that happened 2,000 miles away! Ooo! Look at the water that’s covering some strangers’ yard! Ooo! Look at the bad corporate guys going to jail because they cheated on their taxes! Why the heck should we care? We’re not going to help, all we’re going to do is say, “Whew, I’m glad it’s not me!” and move on. Either that or we’ll stand around the proverbial water-cooler saying, “Did you see what happened down in Texas? Crazy isn’t it? Can you believe that guy got away with it?” Idle chatter. That’s the reward news offers us.
Besides the stuff we don’t need to know about, what about the stuff we shouldn’t know about? The media puts out this lie that we have a right to know. Do we? Do we have a right to know how exactly we’ve stopped terrorist attacks? What happens when our enemies find out?
Just because there are spineless wretches who betray this country and leak secrets about its security and operations to the press doesn’t mean the press has to write about it. Reporters aren’t forced at gunpoint to spray leaks all over the front page of a newspaper. There are reasons for secrets—some good, some bad. Who the heck gave the media the right to determine which is which? How many people have lost their lives because the operation or mission they were on got it’s cover blown when the story broke? How many lives have been ruined because the media decided to make a secret public?
How would you like your life investigated and reported on to the rest of the world? You think it’s great when these politicians, government officials and celebrities get exposed and humiliated, but what if the great media decides you’re of interest? The only reason the world doesn’t know everything about you is because the media doesn’t think enough people would buy their papers or watch their programs just to find out about you. These guys don’t care about your protection or m rights. They say they do. They say they’re helping to keep you safe. But as soon as they can make money off of you, they’ll tear you to pieces in the name of good journalism. And what happens when half the stuff they write about you is out of context or completely fabricated? How are you going to get the truth out? Who is going to believe you?
How can you trust these leeches who obviously have no discretion and lack the ability to keep their mouths shut about anything? Even comments made off the record have mysteriously turned up. Sure it’s illegal, but the damage is done.
Some worthless reporter recorded a coach telling a questionable joke. The joke was bad and it was off the record, but this reporter decided to leak it anyway. He gave it to a radio station that then played the tape. Who here has never told a bad joke? Anyone ever told a Pollock joke? A Jewish joke? I know I have. That’s racism according to these idiots, and they make a big deal out of it. It’s one thing if the guy came out at a press conference and thought the joke was something to be shared with the public. That’s poor judgement. But this coach had no idea he was being recorded, never mind that it would get played on the radio.
And what happened to this bold reporter who exposed a coach saying something that none of us would ever, ever say? Nothing. He got a slap on the wrist. What about the coach? What about his reputation? Nothing can be done about that now. The toothpaste is out of the tube, as the saying goes.
But I digress.
Watching the news is just like watching a reality show. It’s not really reality. It’s a collection of manipulated and faulty data constructed by an agenda and given artificial credibility so it can entertain. Reality shows are so pathetic in terms of plot and interest that if they were marketed as scripted shows they would have tanked a long time ago.
The Blair Witch Project was a low-budget film that made a ton of money when it first came out. It wasn’t because the footage was great—in fact a lot of it was horrible. It wasn’t because the characters were well developed and shared riveting dialogue. It wasn’t because the direction was so amazing or the cinematography was breathtaking. The movie was a success because people believed it was actual footage from a real disaster. They thought the tape was found in an abandoned camera out in the woods, and the footage actually showed what were most likely these kids’ final hours on earth. Once people found out that it was all bogus, the movie quickly lost people’s interest and the sequel wasn’t even good enough to flop.
So too is it with the news. It has to come across as real and accurate so that people will be interested, yet it has to be entertaining. And it is this last requisite that creates a problem that is impossible for the media to solve: credibility.
The media has to sell news. Unless there are stories that can grab a reader’s attention, the paper doesn’t sell. And what grabs people’s attention? Controversy, disaster, misfortune, violence, strife, death, and gossip. So how can we believe anything the media puts out when we know it has to generate money?
It’s the same principle as a salesman working on commission. Sure, he’d like to be honest, he’d like to have integrity. But when he needs money, honesty goes out the window. Do you believe everything a salesman tells you, knowing that he is biased? He only gets paid when he makes a sale, so isn’t he going to tell you whatever you want to hear in order to make that happen? Again, he might not want to, but when it comes to going without dinner or fudging the facts a bit, he’s going to fudge the facts.
If the media doesn’t entertain it goes under. If it can’t grab your attention everyday, it dies. These guys have to sell the news and they can’t do it if there’s nothing to sell. I think journalists should be called ‘construction workers’ because every day they have to make mountains out of a molehills.
I spoke with a friend of mine who was a cop for 32 years. He said, “Never trust anyone who buys ink in 55 gallon drums”. He went on to say that he got burned many times by the newspaper when it took what he said and twisted it out of context. The media isn’t made up of noble, moralistic people. These are people who thrive off the misery of others.
I used to listen to a sports radio show, and the commentators were complaining because there was no controversy. They said, “Well everyone’s getting along great…which I guess is good for them but its’ really bad for us.” The media goes bye-bye if everyone gets along. They are instigators—they ask questions that they hope will ignite some kind of fire. They stir up trouble where there isn’t any and don’t care what the consequences are as long as they get a story.
Not only is the media’s credibility shot by their need to manufacture news, it also suffers from blatant bias. I have witnessed several instances where the media took a statement or a set of facts and manipulated them to say something completely different. The media is comprised of people with their own beliefs and agendas and so they generate stories that agree with them. It is no secret that most of the news you hear has a political and social bias. If you can’t see it, I’m afraid nothing I can say is going to make it obvious to you. Most of the times the bias is overt—one side will get its voice heard a lot more than the other side, or there will simply be a greater number of negative stories about a particular person or point-of-view.
But sometimes the bias is subtle. For example, note the difference between, “He looked very concerned”, and “He looked very worried”. They both essentially say the same thing, but I would much rather be reported as looking “concerned” than “worried”. Concern shows strength…it’s more of a mental thing. I’m mulling over the problem. I’m not disregarding it, but I’m staying cool under the pressure. “Worried” makes it sound like I’m an emotional wreck. It makes me sound cowardly and timid with my eyes frantically darting about the room in anxiety. When the media likes an issue or politician, it uses subtle choices in diction to portray him, her or it in a positive way.
Every person has an opinion. Every person has a preference. The media is comprised of people—people who are taught to find their own voice, to not compromise their principles, and to seek out “truth”. Therefore, the “truth” is going to be what these people want it to be—what matches their voice and their principles. Of course they won’t admit to this. They are completely objective with no agenda. They have no personal opinions about anything, and if they do those opinions don’t factor at all into what they write.
The media insults our intelligence. Maybe they honestly think they cover it up well enough, or maybe they can’t even see it for themselves. But most of the time the headline itself gives it away, and anyone with any kind of a memory will find that the same stories have the same angles over and over again.
As I said, I have actually heard the truth get twisted by the media on several occasions. I have heard the media completely butcher the truth on several more occasions, and they only apologize for it half the time. Why should they? Who is keeping them honest? Unless you sue them (and what chance do you have against the lawyers they can hire and the influence they have in the justice system) they don’t care if you know they’re liars or not.
So not only is the news pointless, it’s also distorted and false a good portion of the time. How great is the hypocrisy of the media! They decry politicians for their lies and deceit while they themselves are guilty of it in far greater measure! So if we can’t even trust the meaningless drivel the media puts out…what is the point? What good does it do?
The answer is none. In fact, the media is one of the most destructive forces in this country.
Not long ago, three lacrosse players at Duke University were charged with rape by a stripper. She pointed them out in a lineup and said they were the ones who molested and raped her during a party. As it turned out, none of the boys did anything to her. A DNA test revealed that not only were the three boys innocent, but that the stripper had sexual contact with guys who weren’t even at the lacrosse party!
The stripper changed her story several times, especially when it was revealed that there was concrete video evidence that one of the guys she identified wasn’t even in the house during the alleged rape.
The girl was full of crap and told malicious lies that have permanently tarnished the reputations and lives of those three players. The coach got fired, the lacrosse season got canceled, and the players were kicked out of school.
Riots broke out, incited by the mindless mob who vehemently declared it to be a race crime since the boys were white and the girl was black. Unfortunately there are far too many ignorant, bitter, hateful people in this country who are just waiting for an excuse and someone to blame. They have no morality, no intelligence and no interest in the truth. They want violence and they want blood.
How did these people find out about this case? Our friends in the media.
Rush Limbaugh refers to the media as “the drive-by media” because they drive up, spray bullets into the crowd, report the mayhem, then drive off again to do it elsewhere, leaving a mess behind.
Whether you like the man or not, that is exactly what the media does. They tacked on the term “allegedly” when talking about the boys’ crimes but that doesn’t mean jack-squat anymore. The media uses the term “allegedly” even when a car-thief gets arrested after a high-speed chase that was caught on video. “Allegedly” is nothing but a CYA term. If it was really “alleged”, a responsible media wouldn’t report the story until it found out if anything really happened. After all, there are cases of rape not happening every day. That’s not news. Heck, I didn’t rape someone. Should my name and face be all over the news for three months because of it?
The fact that an irresponsible stripper accused some guys of raping her isn’t a story by any stretch of the imagination. It might make a great novel or movie, but it’s not news. Why? Because nothing has been proven. For all the media knew, the event never took place! The real news would have been the verdict after the trial. Again, I’d argue that for you and me the story is nothing but worthless entertainment, but if there had to be some kind of reporting done, it should have been on what did happen, not what “allegedly” happened.
The media isn’t dumb. It knew very well what would happen when it put that story out. It knew the chaos it would cause. Race has always been a big seller in the news and so it was here. Controversy, ruined lives, deceit, disaster, violence. It was everything the media needed. They protected the identity of the girl, even after it was proven she was a liar…but the boys…they were sacrificed for the story. Innocent college students got smeared by an irresponsible and reckless press that decided the rest of the world had a right to know about an accusation.
The story was reported as if the event actually took place. If you read it, you didn’t get a sense of doubt as to whether or not these guys did it, you just wondered why it was taking so long to convict them. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, they were guilty because someone else said so.
In the end it was most likely a political stunt that the media was more than happy to help out with. They didn’t apologize for the way they reported the story, or that they reported it at all. They were directly and solely responsible for screwing those players over, and they simply moved on.
Blood suckers. Vile, contemptible blood suckers.
I already brought up the point that the media is eager to print leaks. Leaks are a nice way of saying, “Someone betrayed trust to blab about something they didn’t agree with”. Leaks are what traitors give out to hamstring their country and their opponents. Can you trust a traitor? Can you trust a tattle tale? How do we know the leaks are real? When a media that is notorious for lies and slander puts out “secret” information, how can you trust it?
Do you actually think the government can’t shut up the media if it really wants to? What can the media do? It’s not invincible. It’s not some kind of invisible presence that can’t be harmed. The media is flesh and blood. It can’t pass laws, it can’t prosecute and it can’t condemn. What is it going to do if one of its reporters gets killed because he went too far?
There may be some leaks that do some good, but none that I can think of. The leak about the wire-taps on terrorists didn’t do anything except spread unjustified fear that every American was under surveillance and had no privacy. It was a program that we didn’t need to know about and one that was actually helping us spy on terrorists until it was compromised by some jackal and then printed by a reporter desperate for a story.
I could go on and on. For some reason we have been inundated with leaks in the past few years. Again, no one forces the media to report these leaks. The media decides that we have the right to know (oh, and it may increase circulation and sales) and makes it so. And then it protects the source so that it can keep doing it!
It’s all good until someone you know or care about is hurt by a leak. We’ve already seen that reporters have no problem leaking events that occur during a grand jury even though they are forbidden to do so. What happens when you or I are in a grand jury and a reporter decides to leak something that was said or done in there that makes us look like criminals when we are not? Who will defend us? How will the wrong be righted? Certainly not by the media.
The media destroys lives. Destroyed lives make good stories, and who knows? Maybe one of those lacrosse boys might commit suicide from grief and despair in a couple of years and then the whole thing can be brought back up and dramatized again.
That brings up yet another strike on the media: it is redundant.
I took a journalism class in college and I learned about the inverted pyramid style of writing. You write a lead that tells the who, what, when, and where. Then you put all the important facts in the next two to three sentences. You do this because apparently the average reader doesn’t have the attention span to read the whole article, so you put the crucial information up front so the reader doesn’t have to search for the point before moving on. …Conveniently, that leaves out any chance they have of putting it in context and seeing a different truth than the one you’re putting forth.
So what this means is that all the new information takes up the first few sentences and the rest of the story is just meaningless details. For any story that lasts more than a day, it also means that you only get small tidbits of new information before having the same crap drilled into your head from the day before. The same is true of television.
The story breaks and then reporters spend hours analyzing it and talking about it until a little development occurs. Then they latch onto that, reanalyzing the whole situation before tacking on the new development. And on it goes. In one hour you might get twenty seconds of actual fact. The rest of it is speculation and interviews with “experts” who slowly shape the facts in the direction they want it to go. They have to entertain an audience and hold its attention and they have to achieve their agenda, so they report some facts and omit others. When they get one good solid fact that agrees with what they want, they repeat it over and over again.
Oftentimes to get that one fact, reporters will ask the same questions again and again. Have you ever seen an interview or press conference where it seems like the reporters were getting agitated and simply kept asking the same question in a different way? It genuinely offends and infuriates them to think that anyone would have the audacity to say “no comment” or “I don’t want to talk about that”. They’ll tear into a person if they get the answer they were fishing for, and they bash the person if they don’t give them the answer they were fishing for.
“Well he was very stand-offish…obviously has something to hide. Why else wouldn’t he answer my simple question?”
I’ve noticed that every ‘simple question’ they ask has a severe slant to it.
“Sir, most people would say that you’ve made a big mistake. How are you going to correct it? Do you feel bad?” The question has a faulty premise built into it: that the interviewee made a big mistake. It’s like the media tells someone, “Okay, here’s what we’re going to say you did regardless of whether or not it’s the truth. So based on what we’re going to report, are you going to defend yourself or apologize for it?” If the interviewee says, “No, I think it was the right decision,” then another reporter will get up and say, “But your popularity is down. Doesn’t that tell you there’s a problem that needs correcting?”
Same freak’in question, different way of phrasing it. Journalists have a one-track mind and they don’t care if they piss someone off to get what they want. In fact, if they can get the interviewee visibly angry or upset, they can use that to their advantage as well. They can report that the person is a zealot or firebrand, easily brought to anger by a few simple little questions. The media is a trap for anyone unfortunate enough to be out of their favor or against their agenda.
Not only do individual reporters repeat themselves, most all the news stations and newspapers echo each other as well. You get almost the exact same story with some details changed. Oftentimes those details are actually important to the story, so you begin to wonder just who has the “truth”. Anything that might be considered newsworthy could be listed on one piece of paper (sans editorials and opinions) and would take up all of five minutes of air time. But the media must justify its existence and its lengthy time on the airwaves, so it drags it all out until it has become a big ball of redundancy. Not all news is new news.
Perhaps one of the most damaging strikes against the media is that it’s just plain inaccurate. “Some experts say…” “Many people believe…” “Many would argue that…”
Have you ever noticed how often the media uses terms like that? Who are these experts? Why do they have credibility over other experts who disagree? Who are these people? What number constitutes “many”? How many people have you talked to in order to justify saying “many would argue”? Have many argued? These gross generalizations give artificial weight to statements and construct an illusion of authority.
Polls are another big one. Polls aren’t news! They are presented as if they reveal the ultimate truth, when in reality it’s a bunch of people reciting what they’ve heard on the news in the past! I don’t care how many people think hemlock is safe to ingest—it’s poison, pure and simple. Polls aren’t facts, they’re opinions. They’re actually gauges to tell the media just how many people are buying the crap that they’re selling.
When Katrina hit, the media reported that there were babies being raped in the stadium, that there was looting and rioting, and that approximately 25,000 people were dead.
No babies were raped, no looting and rioting took place, and about 1,500 people were found dead.
As for things like 911, I would argue that the event itself and its impact made it what it was, not the media. We would have heard about it without any news articles or video footage.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t know about these things, but our knowledge of the events doesn’t make us better people or even more intelligent. My life would be just as successful if I never heard about these things in the news. I don’t need the news at all—and neither do you.
How do I know? Because I’ve gone without the news for the past four years. No radio, no TV, no newspapers. I plan to keep it that way. I used to be oblivious to the news growing up, but I bought into the lies of the media and started lending it my ear. What was the difference? I found that I was gradually becoming more depressed and more frustrated because of how many stupid things people did and said. I was almost constantly pissed off because I had to listen to the politically correct crap coming from the talking heads of the news anchors and commentators. I got fed up with the bias and slants, the inequality and double standards. I found myself having a short temper and disliking people I used to get along with because they had different political and social views than I did.
I don’t like violence and destruction. I don’t like reality shows, and I certainly don’t like money-hungry hypocrites trying to pass off fiction as truth. I don’t stare at car accidents or try to see what happened. It’s none of my business, it doesn’t effect me. As long as the people involved are being taken care of I have no obligations. I can’t do anything for the people in New Orleans. I have enough on my plate that actually has consequences in my life to worry about stuff that doesn’t. I have a family, I have friends, I have a job, and I have commitments to fulfill. The last thing I need is to start getting distracted and filling my time with meaningless drivel at the expense of what is really important.
Since I gave up listening to the media, I’ve been happier, more relaxed, less worried and less aggravated. I’m not missing out on anything. When I vote, I’ll vote based on political affiliation. Such a thing has become taboo, but I have no other option. The media distorts and misrepresents the candidates so badly that I have no idea what they stand for. I want to get educated about what the candidates believe, but I have come to the conclusion that the media is incapable of providing that education. I’ll vote for the person who, by virtue of the party they represent, shares a good portion of my views and beliefs on most issues.
So someone tell me what I’m missing out on. Someone explain to me how being without the news is going to ruin my life or deprive me of joy. Explain to me why it’s so important to be informed, and how I can consider the distorted lies of the media to be information at all. Better yet, explain to me why the vipers in the media shouldn’t be locked up as criminals when they destroy lives by publishing leaks and covering stories that aren’t even confirmed yet. Tell me why these people can assassinate the character and reputation of individuals and then move on to the next flavor of the week without any consequences. Tell me who gave the media the right to tell me what’s right and wrong to say? Who gave them the ability to judge and decide that what I’ve done is reprehensible or sensible? Who can protect us from the media?
“The pen is mightier than the sword”. I believe that saying referred to a time when the pen was a substitute for the sword—when diplomacy and rhetoric took the place of violence and chaos. Unfortunately in this day in this country, the media has turned the pen into a sword, wielding it as a weapon to malign and destroy anything and anyone it chooses. And the media delights in the ensuing carnage and the gruesome aftermath—those things are its bloodline. The media has no desire to see a peaceful world free of suffering and turmoil. It used to be content merely to seek out and record the wickedness of mankind, but now it has taken upon itself to create it.
So come one, come all! Gather around your televisions, radios, and pick your newspaper up off the front stoop. Suspend your disbelief and throw aside reason and common sense. Find a comfortable seat, prop your feet up and enjoy the great Media Circus: The Lamest Show On Earth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)