Presidential Snark

Ahahaha:

Official White House Response to "Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016":

This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

• The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
• The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
• Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

That's awesome, I don't care who you voted for.

Review: Sweet Tooth

Originally published in the Greymouth Star, 10 January 2013

Imagine Jane Austen writing a spy novel set in 1970s London, and you’ll have a decent idea what to expect of the latest book from Atonement author Ian McEwan.

Beautiful, conservative Serena Frome, a third-rate mathematician with a passion for books, is groomed for recruitment to the British intelligence service by her much-older lover. She is assigned to the “Sweet Tooth” project, a secret effort to fight the Communism culture war by funnelling government money to anti-Communist writers.

Serena’s first recruit is Tom Haley, a charming artistic sort who writes short stories about lust, betrayal and self-delusion. Her fascination with these stories leads to an attraction to Tom and they begin an exciting affair, spending their weekends going to classy restaurants, drinking champagne and discussing literature.

But the longer the affair continues, the harder it is for Serena to keep her mission a secret or avoid the suspicions of MI5 – especially when Tom uses their money to write a dystopian novel about the excesses of capitalism.

Sweet Tooth is a classic McEwan book, with the same slow pace and long, introspective chapters as Atonement and On Chesil Beach. The Cold War discussions are interesting if you like history and politics, and the descriptions of British intelligence call to mind the dimly-lit bureaucratic intrigue of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

But if you’re hoping for a thriller, you’ll be disappointed. Early hints of violence and danger never go anywhere, and the only real surprise is a clever plot twist at the very end, which makes you want to go through the book all over again to pick up the clues you missed.

Hobbit Politics

I was enchanted with Lord of the Rings when the first film came out in 2001. I saw Fellowship in cinema literally a dozen times, and let's be honest, where do you think I got the idea to move to New Zealand in the first place?

So it's been interesting to live here during the filming and production of The Hobbit and realise just how much political maneuvering goes on in New Zealand's film industry these days - including the Prime Minister signing autographs on the red carpet, because he all but made these movies himself. And won the Rugby World Cup! Read it and weep, Labour.

You can get a sense of the behind-the-scenes lobbying and PR scandals from this political round-up by Bryce Edwards at the New Zealand Herald.

"Hollywood, by and large, swung in behind Barack Obama in the recent US presidential elections," Mr Edwards says. "Our own leader's relationship with the 'dream factory' is somewhat different, involving John Key swinging the Government, its limos, our taxes and even our laws in behind Hollywood."

Liberty Booze

If you want to brush up on the basics of the American Constitution, you could do worse than making yourself a drink (or nursing a hangover, in my case) and curling up with What Prohibition Has Done to America by Fabian Franklin.

Fabian was a civil engineer and mathematician who went on to become editor of the Baltimore News and later associate editor of the New York Evening Post.

He worked himself into a conservative fury over Prohibition in 1922, accusing supporters of the Eighteenth Amendment of perverting the Constitution, undermining America's respect for the law, destroying our federal system and weakening our sense of individual liberty.

The Founding Fathers, he declared, "did not for a moment entertain the idea of imposing upon future generations, through the extraordinary sanctions of the Constitution, their views upon any special subject of ordinary legislation. Such a proceeding would have seemed to them far more monstrous, and far less excusable, than that tyranny of George III and his Parliament which had given rise to the American Revolution."

Study Project

I've given in and bought a Kindle. The part of me that loves rummaging through second-hand bookshops is horrified, but in the end practicality won out. My reading list is too long, and I don't have the time or money to buy hardcover books, or wait for paperback editions, and then lug them around in boxes every time I change addresses. I'll still buy books that have special meaning to me, but for the most part I've gone digital.

I plan to step up my reading on journalism and politics, and the Kindle could be really useful for that. I can download free resources from websites like Project Gutenberg and then step away from the Internet to avoid distractions (ahem), and I can buy the latest books without traveling to a city or shipping them all the way from America. Not a lot of fancy politically-themed bookshops in Greymouth, you see.

What I'm hoping is that by following journalists and scholars on social media and doing independent study while learning basic reporting skills at my job, I can gain some insight and sharpen my focus on where I want my career to go. A four-year journalism degree is beyond my reach for now, but I suspect I can learn quite a lot just by knowing where to look.

We'll see how it goes. Expect more ramblings about what I'm reading, along with the usual snarky jokes. Like these ones!

Election 2012

h/t @moikl

I love politics. For some reason.

Thoughts on Fact-checking

The American presidential election is over, thank goodness, and I'm in the process of separating the important lessons from the emotional drama of the last few months.

On the journalism side, one of the most interesting topics has been the conflict between balance and fact-checking, which I find to be just as polarising as the Bias vs Objectivity debate in some cases (hi there, PolitiFact).

The issue was summed up in this article from The New York Times's public editor Margaret Sullivan. The rise of fact-checkers, she said, was "all a part of a movement — brought about, in part, by a more demanding public, fueled by media critics, bloggers and denizens of the social media world — to present the truth, not just conflicting arguments leading to confusion."

"The Campaign"

I wasn't planning to see this - Will Ferrell isn't really my thing - but my newspaper's social club picked it for our movie night and I had nothing else to do, so what the hell.

In "The Campaign" (or "Citizens United 101 for Frat Boys" as I like to think of it), Ferrell plays Cam Brady, a North Carolina congressman running unopposed for his fifth term until he accidentally leaves a sexually explicit message for his mistress on a Christian family's answering machine.

The Motch brothers, two corrupt billionaires blatantly based on the Koch brothers, see this as a chance to buy the election so they can sell the district to Chinese sweatshops and save on shipping.

They pick an associate's son, Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis), to run against Cam, putting millions of dollars into his campaign. "When you have the money," Jon Lithgow's Glen Motch smirks, "nothing is unpredictable." But Marty is fat and silly and sounds kinda gay, giving Cam plenty of opportunities to make gross Will Ferrell jokes.

HBO's "The Newsroom"

Days after Keith Olbermann gets fired from Current TV, we get this spectacular teaser from Aaron Sorkin.
 

I'm hooked. Sorry, "Mad Men."

(I can see it now. Sorkin in interview after interview, saying "Why, my character is completely fictional! He's a combination of a range of different TV personalities! After all, he's a Republican!")

Melissa Harris-Perry's "Nerdland"

Fair play to MSNBC. They're actually starting to seem a bit edgy - at least on the weekends.

I've loved watching Dr Harris-Perry as a guest and guest host on the network. As a tenured professor and a political scientist, she makes me feel like I should be taking notes and doing homework - a rare thing for cable news.

Now she has her own show, following the equally nerdy "Up with Chris Hayes". Michael P Jeffries writes in The Guardian that this proves MSNBC's commitment to education and intellectual debate:

The Harris-Perry show will not solve the deeply-rooted inequities that restrict access to higher education for so many Americans. But it does represent MSNBC's recognition that the public thirsts for earnest intellectual discussion, driven by data and evidence and facilitated by trained professionals. All members of the academy, regardless of discipline or political preference, should recognize the value of the Harris-Perry show, as its host explicitly acknowledges the different skill sets and demands of academic research and public intellectualism.

Sounds great. If we see more of this intellectual style brought into the primetime lineup, I'll be a happy news geek.

One Foot on the Ladder

Making the transition from news junkie to journalist is a strange experience. I have insight now that I never imagined when I was just watching political shows and bumming around on the Internet - and there are a few guilty pleasures from my fangirl days that I can't get away with anymore.

Here are a few of the things I've learned:

• Controversial issues have a tendency to split into obvious, polarised and ultimately unhelpful factions. Reporters ought to find a different way to frame the debate while still getting ratings and page clicks. Good luck with that, reporters.
• Everyone thinks their favourite story should be on the front page or at the top of the news hour. Don't even try to please them all - but have a good reason for your decision.
• Humour, sarcasm and moral indignation are fun, useful tools that can backfire spectacularly.

Sex and Infotainment

Today our journalism tutor Jim Tucker started the class with “Well, we’re famous, maybe for all the wrong reasons” – kicking off an argument that lasted all morning.

He’d just been interviewed by RadioLive’s Marcus Lush over a poll he’d posted to Whitireia’s news website, NewsWire, asking readers “Which politician would you like to go to bed with?”

The poll went viral after conservative blogger David Farrar tweeted the link and posted it to his Facebook page, and soon the comments were flooding in.

Journalist and former ACT MP Deborah Coddington was furious. “I find that so bloody offensive. Is this what this country has come to? The people we vote for are nothing more than something to consider mating with?”

By this morning the sex poll story had only gotten bigger (ha ha) with coverage from RadioLive, Newstalk ZB and the New Zealand Herald.

Jim insisted that the poll was meant to show the superficial nature of political reporting, to get NewsWire some attention and to “have a bit of fun”. Half the class thought the whole thing was hilarious and couldn’t see why anyone was complaining.

Michael Moore vs Jon Stewart

This article recently made the rounds through pundit fandom and sparked a few arguments, as I'm sure the author intended it to:

Just as one is likely to hear criticism of [Michael] Moore in liberal circles or carefully qualified appreciation, i.e. “I like him, but I wish he wasn’t so strident,” one will never hear any blasphemy spoken against the idol of modern, urbanite, educated liberal culture, Jon Stewart.

It’s impossible to understand the hatred of Moore from the cocktail party and faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment without also understanding the same politically impotent group’s love for Jon Stewart. Understanding the juxtaposition of Moore and Stewart reveals the true depths of the failure and soullessness of modern American liberalism.

Personally I think Stewart is much more likeable than Moore, but I found myself nodding my head at the observation that many Daily Show fans don't like embarrassing displays of emotion or undignified tactics - things like LGBT activists glitter-bombing anti-gay politicians.

Outing the Ringers

The usual clever take from Jay Smooth on media coverage of Occupy Wall Street:

Drunk Ron Paul Fan

I need to not run around showing this to every Libertarian I can get my hands on. That would be rude.



Constitution. Read it. Live by it.

Televising the Revolution

One surprising result of my journalism studies is a shift in perspective when it comes to social media versus the mainstream press.

Today I was involved in a Twitter debate over the protest that's going on in Lower Manhattan. Hundreds of activists have gathered on Wall Street to protest economic disparity and the principle of "profit over and above all else".

The protesters are copying the Arab Spring by using social media like Twitter and YouTube to spread word about what's going on - and to mock or criticise the mainstream media for inadequate coverage. Jeff Sharlet, an author and political journalist who writes for Harper's Magazine and Rolling Stone, engaged with some of these criticisms.
 

 

Just a Comedian?

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart will be in the next issue of Rolling Stone, doing what he does best -- making insightful and yet oddly frustrating jokes about President Obama and 24-hour cable news:

"[The 24-hour networks] are now the absolute most powerful force driving the political narrative," he says. "And the picture that they create is one of conflict, because they're on for 24 hours a day, so they have to create a compelling reason for you to watch them. Otherwise, they're just Muzak – newzak."

He held his Rally To Restore Sanity last fall as an attempt to counteract their message: "The idea of the rally was to say, 'They created this false sense of urgency. It's a funhouse mirror.' That's probably the frustration that people had with the rally: It didn't have aspirations beyond our normal aspiration, which is to point out comedically something we think is fucked." 
 

Journo Book Club

I like reading books written by journalists, mainly because I find stories more interesting when I know a bit about the person telling them. The last few I've read make for a nice cross-section.

I enjoyed The Influencing Machine by NPR's Brooke Gladstone, a comic book (of all things) about the history of the media and how we consume and shape it:

The media machine is a delusion. What we're really dealing with is a mirror: an exalting, degrading, tedious, and transcendent funhouse mirror of America. Actually, media is a plural noun: we're dealing with a whole mess of mirrors. They aren't well calibrated; they're fogged, and cracked. But you're in there, reflected somewhere, and so is everyone else (including people you dislike).

Compromise

h/t Stuart Carlson

Social Media: Are You Guys Real?

The possibility of being manipulated via social media has been on my mind a lot lately.

First there was the discovery by The New York Times' Jennifer Preston that one or more people created fake Twitter identities to dig up dirt on Anthony Weiner. I hear from her own (presumably genuine) Twitter account that she's now working on a story on the subculture of "sock puppets", which I can't wait to read.

Then there was the "Gay Girl in Damascus" saga, which gave us not one but two middle-aged American men pretending to be lesbians on the Internet. (Check out the Washington Post for a really good article on what journalists should learn from this.)

Now I'm hearing that some politicians may be using social media to fight dirty against their opponents:

[C]ampaigns across the country are discovering that the anonymous and instantaneous qualities of Twitter can also create headaches when candidates come under attack.

In the San Francisco mayoral race, most of the mock feeds have at most several hundred followers and so far do not appear to be having much influence. But the growing prevalence of the anonymous accounts is raising questions about how to balance free speech and transparency in the fast-evolving world of online political communication.

It's all fascinating stuff, particularly when you throw satire and creativity into the mix (hi there, @MayorEmanuel). But I have to wonder - are there any dirty tricks going on in my little corner of the internet? As a politically active person and an aspiring journalist, do I need to be careful who I talk to? Am I social media-savvy enough to recognise a sock puppet when I see one?

It's something to think about.

P.S. I'm totally who I say I am.

P.P.S. Swear to God.