Pop Culture Enthusiasm

I have to recommend this post by NPR's Linda Holmes. It's a brain dump, but a fascinating one about the trend in TV networks and their relationships with fans. I could add how much I think adding #hashtags to a show is stupid, and the feeling that they (who? the MAN of course) don't get it, but Linda sums it up perfectly. Here's my two key quotes:

"In fact, what has emerged from a lot of big-business attempts to monetize enthusiasm is a deep distrust of anything that looks like "viral marketing." "Viral marketing" is viewed almost like price-gouging or antitrust violations: it is a bridge too far when it comes to trying to make money."

and:

"You'd think enthusiasts would understand this, that they'd have enough familiarity with the workings of television supported by ad sales that they would know it was about breadth and not depth in most cases, particularly for broadcast. But they don't, really. How can you tell? Because when they lobby a network to keep a show, even on broadcast, what they put on is a grand demonstration of passion. They send nuts, soap, candy bars, potatoes, they fly banners and take out ads — they're showing depth, not breadth. It hurts to hear as someone who loves something, but if you're passionate, they're not worried about you."

There is absolutely a tension in my generation between the producers of culture and the consumers of culture. An entire identity- hipsters - is based on finding cool things before they are mainstream. Being taken to its extremes at this point yields the rise of the DIY (Do It Yourself) movement. And within that is the assumption that culture is collectively owned and we all are entitled some level of access to it.

And so, it frustrates me deeply when there aren't structures to support the monetization of enthusiams. I respect the heck out of HBO, but it annoys the heck out of me that I, a cord-cutter without a TV, cannot watch their shows legally. I would chip in a couple bucks for access, but it is not available. Rumor has it this may change, but not yet. Likewise, it annoys the heck out of me when a friend watches Parks and Recreation through an unblessed site which gives no royalties back to NBC and the production company.

Several years back, I made the conscious decision to watch TV and movies through legal means. I understand that TV stations primarily count their live viewers, but I wanted to show that making it available online legally was (a) something they should be doing and (b) a way to gain some monetization. Models like Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify offer a fantastic way to increase access, decrease pirating, and send some money to the artists. Something like Spotify is ideal, in that enthusiasts, aka people to listen to albums over and over again, send money to the artist each time, unlike original models of purchasing access one time. To those not utilizing these legal models, I challenge you to support these business models which increase access and allow monetization of our enthusiasm so that we keep getting more great content!

Cat + Ice = Laughs

I have literally watched this video ten times today and cracked up every time. Enjoy.

Best TV of 2013

As the year wraps up, one place I want to expand my blogging is entertainment blogging. I love watching good television, and want to share the gems I found, and hear from you about your favorites. It's a conversation!

(In alphabetical order)

Breaking Bad - This show had an amazing finish. Though it perhaps concluded slightly too neatly than felt fair to the anti-hero, the drive to get to there was excruciating and incredible. 

Broadchurch - This little-known show from the BBC was fantastic. Slow, down-to-earth, and emotion-crushing. This show gave me the feels.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine - As a new comedy finding its way, there are many elements of Parks and Rec's first season, in which the writers are still figuring the characters out. But this show gave me some of the biggest laughs, particularly the Thanksgiving episode.

Game of Thrones - Season 3 recovered amazingly well from a bit shakier Season 2, and was downright incredible. The Red Wedding - need I say more.

Justified - Every year, I think Justified won't be able to come back with the same strength, and yet it does. This season is notable for the incredible hour that was "Decoy". 

Masters of Sex - I don't think I can adequately express how much joy this show gives me. It's funny, fun, serious, important, genuine, and original. No other show is able to deal with a serious issue like human sexuality in an engaging and creative way. Highly anticipating the next season.

Michael J Fox Show - Ok, this is a little kitch-y, but I genuinely find this to be a sweet show. I get a nice combination of chuckles and smiles.

Orange is the New Black - Netflix proved its model, with a great show that completely took advantage of streaming. And no other show elevated women of color in the same way.

Parks and Recreation - Though the show is slowing a bit in its ability to deliver great episodes every week, it is still one of the warmest and happiest shows around and it will be hard to ever fall off my list.

The Good Wife - It can fluctuate between serial and episodic, but the first half of the fourth season was great and expertly built and executed the main character's departure from the firm. It was cooking with gas, as they say.

Top of the Lake - Another foreign import, this show gave us Elizabeth Moss in quantities Mad Men doesn't. The beautiful scenery, strong and complicated female lead, and a confidence in storytelling.

In quick sum, 7/11 have male leads, 5/11 have female leads (I'm counting Masters of Sex twice, as it feels equal to me), which to me suggests that we may finally be getting a breakthrough in gender parity. But mostly, I'm grateful for the good friends to come home to and be with. Among the shows I didn't get to this year but still want to: Enlightened, Orphan Black, Rectify, and The Returned.

Song of the week

I seriously cannot get this song out of my head.

What is media objectivity anyway?

After weeks of procrastinating, I'm finally ready to write about a fascinating and chilly conversation between Glenn Greenwald and Bill Keller. Greenwald is embarking on a new media adventure with an eBay executive and Keller is the former Executive Editor of the NY Times. Their conversation tackles major issues in journalism today: at it's heart was a deep divide over views of media - and how each perceives what the other does - wrapped up in some personal vendetta stuff. I have thoughts on the conversation.

I should start by saying my newsroom experience is limited to a semester in the basement of The Mac Weekly, the college newspaper for my alma mater Macalester. These were great times, working until ungodly hours putting together columns. It's from this experience, taking a couple media studies classes, and being an avid news reader that I formed my thoughts, and invite yours.

I would frame Greenwald versus Keller is a question of stenographer versus investigative journalist. Stenography, I would define, is the classic reporting model: this happened, she said, he said, a couple sentences about how it connects to XYZ, done. The vast majority of articles today resemble this form. It's simple, efficient, and effective for what it's trying to do: inform the reader that something happened. But the criticisms of this model are lengthy. Among them is the perception that the two sides presented are a) the only to sides, b) on equal standing, and c) truth-telling.

On the other side is what I would call investigative journalism. This is the stuff that tries to expose something. Usually it's based less on an event of the last 24 hours, but rather bringing to light a deeper issue. I would classify all of the NSA information the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have released to fall under this realm. Similarly, one of the best pieces of modern journalism I have read falls into this category - this 10,000 word piece in the NY Times from 2009. (Seriously, who writes or even commissions 10,000 word pieces anymore?)

What I felt was unfair in Glenn and Bill's letters was Glenn's presumption that the NY Times doesn't write investigative journalism. Glenn referenced several stories that were delayed because of national security concerns from the White House, and took those delays as a bow to powerful forces. To Glenn, this is highly treasonous to journalism - the truth is sacrosanct, and to delay is fake objectivity. By delaying, they showed that their allegiance was to the White House, objective reporting or not.

With that said, in the objective-partisan disagreement, I tend to prefer a transparent view in which journalists include themselves in the story. In simple, this supports Glenn's argument. I agree with him when he writes, "A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful 'here’s-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won’t-resolve-the-conflicts' formulation." Rather, a journalist who is clear about their role in the story is able to convey the story and any implicit biases they bring.

But there's a big part of the objectivity argument that neither mentioned, which is the bias of inclusion. This happens at many levels. To understand inclusion bias, I want to talk about quantum physics for a second. There's a really fascinating experiment called the double slit experiment. What scientists learned is that matter acts differently when it is observed; the act of observing affects the outcome. Bringing this back to journalism, I would argue the same thing happens - people act differently when observed. As a personal story, a local station was doing a story about pedestrians using crosswalks. I happened to be using the crosswalk when they were filming, and they asked me if they could film me. Suddenly, I'm acting differently - standing taller and sucking my gut in, looking both ways (I really should do that every time), waiting for a plenty big gap in the cars, etc. And in they end they never even used my footage! But the act of being observed changed my action.

So, when a reporter is writing up a story, which people they include affects the story. Which quotes they use, pictures attached, and words to describe. The reporter is trying to make the story say something, and they and their editor are in change of what makes the cut.

At a more macro level, the inclusion bias applies to which stories reporters are assigned to report on to begin with. It's here that Pope Francis comes in: "How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" Yet should we really be surprised that there is a selection bias? Not when you consider the underlying issue - newspapers need to make money, people with money are probably more concerned with the stock market than the unknown homeless person, and so the newspaper ultimately tries to meet the audience where they're at.

I would argue that we ultimately need both; We need the stenographers and the recorders. The vast amount of knowledge, events, actions, relationships - these are things we should be capturing. Anyone who has come into an organization with poor institutional knowledge appreciates that. But we also need the investigative reporting. Watergate is the go-to example, but there are so many more. Edward Snowden's contributions to investigative journalism have been immense this year, allowing for a new understanding of government surveillance. The best way to ensure that both of these things occur is to remove the profit motivation. Stenography is a public service, and in my view should be paid for publicly. We need the places where we go to see sports scores, wedding announcements, death announcements, and events around town. Investigative journalism is also a public service, contributing to swift changes in public opinion and holding individuals, institutions, and systems accountable. But when tied to a profit model or beholden to maintaining good relationships, we get examples like Greenwald's, of stories that have been delayed in deference to White House administrations. In a profit-driven system, I genuinely wonder if The Washington Post would ever write an article about the harsh working conditions of its new owner, Jeff Bezos' company.

A Heart Don't Break Even

I was really unsure if I wanted to write about things I saw during my service term. Though I'm proud to be serving, I think the program has several flaws, chief among them is the feeling that we can be tourists to poverty, giving a year of service only to go back to the comforts of the middle class. Perhaps that's especially true for me, a child of the suburbs and the elite liberal arts. But I changed my mind this week because I need to put words to paper (or e-paper) and wrestle with what I'm seeing. This blog is intended then to talk about a number of issues, with a personal bent. I welcome thoughts, comments, critiques, and laudings.

So why did I decide to start writing?

I consider myself to be a pretty aware person, in terms of structures and statistics and reality. I also consider myself to be a conversationally open person, but not always an emotionally open person. I preface my writing to say that I know poverty exists in America; I argue to friends that it's getting worse. I care about poverty... Because that's what the statistics show. My struggle, then, is coming to terms with what I'm now seeing and feeling.

For my term, I'm spending my time in the West Central community of Spokane. Colloquially, its called the poorest community in the state - though I've never actually seen the report. As part of my placement, my Wednesdays are spent in an afterschool program at the elementary school, and then at a community meal through a church. I've been in the position for a little over 2 months.

The afterschool program wore me down. A student who is normally pretty good really struggled to stay focused. He was tough to engage. I think I learned that he was hungry, and the way he was acting makes me think he probably hadn't had a good meal in a bit. What could I do? Could I mention the community meal I was heading to next? Could I try and get a message to his parents? Could we bring an extra snack for him to take with him? What about his siblings?

Immediately after the program ended and the student ran off, I headed over to the community meal. It was a light night - the beginnings of the month typically are. And yet, the back-to-back programs made it tough for me. I had this feeling of cycle, of a wheel turning and turning, the guests at the meal older versions of the students I had just taught. It was a cycle without an intervention, and without that intervention, one could be in my position fifty years from now and see the same.

A mentor once described West Central as a community that will break your heart. I nodded, intellectually knowing it was true, but not experiencing it myself - yet. But this week, my heart was broken. Knowing that a heart can, metaphorically, break open or break cold, I felt the need to write, to make sure mine breaks open. I can feel both forces within me. The one that disengages, feeling hopeless, seeing individual failings of drug abuse and benefit reliance, systems and institutions that aren't present, aren't effective, and don't build individuals but administer programs. Then there's the other, the compassionate side the sees the uphill battle, the absence of economic opportunity and jobs, the absence of a mental health system, of the police and treatment facilities to handle the drugs, the inadequate schools and community institutions, the absence of healthy food options, of public transportation, and more. 

And so as my heart breaks, I'm working to remember the positive, and the assets. There are great kids in the afterschool program. I appreciate how friendly and community-minded the guests are at dinner. There are a couple organizations with incredible people that are giving their all for this community. And they've accepted me to join them in the struggle. Together, we can build the intervention. Together, we can lift up the community and raise its outcomes and its prospects. Together, we can open our hearts, our doors, and our hands.

Stick with me as we undergo this journey. Hold me accountable to being a part of the intervention. And join me in the struggle.