On the episode of Saturday Night Live that aired on September 20th, there was a sketch about the New York Times sending their writers to Alaska to sniff out as much as they can about Governor Palin.

Host James Franco is playing the assignments editor and pitching the assignment to his staff.  As they are going over possible angles, the following exchange happens:

Reporter: What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.
Assignments Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.

At the end of the sketch, the reporter that asked this question is shown on the cover of the New York Times with the headline “While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”  It seems that some people are taking great offense to this portion of the sketch, and it has made it on to Fox News.

The article goes on about how maybe this whole sketch was about how the staff of the paper is out of touch with anything west of the Hudson river, however the rest of the article goes on and on about how this is harkening back to the rumors earlier this month that Governor Palin is not the mother of her youngest son, Trig and so on.

If the sketch had only pointed out about things about politics, I would say they have a case, but the sketch really was just focused on how New Yorkers fear what they don’t understand, which was pretty much anything.

• None of the writers in the sketch knew how to drive a stick… none had drivers licenses… they all thought they would get around by taxi.
• One writer stated he would need the number of two psychoanalysts while there to continue his treatment, but he was informed in all of Alaska there was only one licensed doctor for that.  He paniced.
• None of them could identify a shotgun or a snowmobile.
• Two writers dropped out when they discovered there was no Thai delivery food.
• One writer was positive he would be attacked by a polar bear, but he was assured there was none in the area where they would be.  (it was later revealed he was killed by a polar bear)

In the most damning moment of the sketch proving this was more about New Yorkers, and how out of touch with reality the paper was, the sketch was dated as events happening on Septmber 8th.  One writer was reluctant to go because he didn’t want to leave a story he was working on about Lehman Brothers facing potential financial problems.  He was informed by the editor that it could wait, Lehman Brothers would still be there when he got back.

This sketch was clearly about the the out of touch nature of the newspaper itself, and I felt it got the point across fairly well.  As for the Palin/incest joke, yes, this scenario has been floated by some bloggers, but that’s what SNL has been doing for 34 seasons and that’s touching on current events.  Palin is in the news, the paternity of Trig has been in the news, this makes the subject fair game to them.  If you don’t like it, well, I don’t know what to tell you except to not watch SNL.

Here is the part of the Fox News story that made me laugh out loud, though.  First off they use a very accusatory tone about how the video fo the sketch is not available on the NBC website.

Now, some bloggers are urging protests of the show be sent to producer Lorne Michaels. The video was not posted on the SNL Web site.

Well, I went and looked, and only five sketches were posted from this week’s episode.  Yes, the sketch in question is missing, but so was the one I actually thought was the funniest of the episode, “The Cougar’s Den” about older women obsessed with younger men.  Wow… NBC must have received protests from The Cougar Coalition to not post that sketch.

The article then had the following note tacked on the end:

Editor’s Note: When this story was originally published at 12:07 pm ET, the video was available on YouTube. It has since been removed and a notice posted that NBC Universal has issued a copyright claim. Many other SNL videos remain on YouTube.

Yes, it is true that the video was removed over a copyright notice, but so are dozens of other SNL videos removed in the same manner every day. Yes, there are some others on the site, but they honestly go up so fast, I doubt anyone could keep up with taking them down.  However, the way Fox News said it made me think back to the “Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.” line from the sketch.  There is no evidence this was removed due to pressure, it was just removed over the usual copyright issues.

I think everyone needs to just take a step back, take a deep breath and relax.  Remember, this is a comedy show, and SNL has a long history of picking on anyone and everything.  I will admit that in the first two episodes of this season there has not yet been an Obama sketch, but I think that is partially due to them lacking a strong Obama impersonator.  They attempted using Fred Armissan last season, and, well, to be honest, he sucked.  I am sure his turn is coming.

There are so many bigger issues in this election, why get worked up over a joke on a sketch comedy show known for pushing boundaries?  It’s beyond me.

Everyone seems to be in a tizzy over the fact that the voice we heard come out of 7-year-old Lin Miaoke during the Olympic Opening Ceremonies was actually that of Yang Peiyi, another 7-year-old.

Um… hello?  It’s China.

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, here is the video of the offending song, “Ode to the Motherland”.

According to a radio interview with the musical director of the ceremonies, Chen Qigang, on state radio in China, it was decided that Peiyi had the voice, but wasn’t cute enough. On the other hand, Miaoke had the face they wanted, but not the voice, so upper level officials made the call to have the cuter girl lip-sync the song.

“The reason was for the national interest,” said Qigang.  He went on to add, “the child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feeling and expression. … Lin Miaoke is excellent in those aspects.”  Was it his decision, though?  No.  “We had to do it. We’d been through several inspections. They’re all very strict. When we rehearsed at the spot, there were several spectators from various divisions, especially leaders from the Politburo, who gave the opinion it must change.”

I think I’m more surprised at the reaction than the actual act.  No, that doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do, but, come on, it’s a Communist nation, of course they want to portray a vision of perfection.  This is also not that uncommon in music. Anyone remember C + C Music Factory? Zelma Davis appeared in their videos lip-syncing the vocals of Martha Wash as Ms. Wash was heavier than the image the group wanted in their videos. This was only revealed after the whole Milli Vanilli debacle where it was revealed that Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus hadn’t sung one word of “their” hit album.

Again, none of this makes it “right”, but it isn’t especially shocking either.  I’m more shocked/surprised it even got revealed because this reaction isn’t to be unexpected.  China has the eyes of the entire world on it right now, and everyone is looking for things to pick on.  The fact the music director got away with revealing it on state-run radio is far more interesting to me than the story itself.  How did this happen?  Was it intentional?  Was someone just not paying attention?  Will there be ramifications against Qigang?  The interviewer?  All of that is the real story here, and I am dismayed by the lack of follow-up by professional journalists to go to that part of the story.  No no, it’s far easier to just point a finger and go, “A-ha!  See?!? The Chinese are deceiving us!”

Heaven forbid journalists actually ever WORK for a story.

In the end, it’s been revealed, the true singer has gotten her credit, and I think that is a good thing far more than I think it is a bad thing.  Sure, it would have been nice to hace seen the true singer out there, but it’s over and done with, just stop playing shocked by it!

Ina follow-up to my original post, Beijing has opened the Internet to journalists slightly more, but it still isn’t what they promised.

While the International Olympic Committee has met with Beijing officials, they still have not gotten the unrestricted access to the Internet that journalists were promised.  According to the Telegraph, journalists are finding the sites of BBC’s Chinese language service, Amnesty International and Radio Free Asia amongst others.

However, Sun Weide, spokesman for the Beijing Olympics, was quoted on ChinaView.net with the reasons such sites would be blocked:

“If a few websites are difficult to browse, it’s mainly because they have spread content that is banned by the Chinese laws.”

Okay, fine, we all know the Chinese hate Amnesty International, but the BBC Chinese language service? It’s just another news service like any other, so what could be the reason for blocking that one?  I have also heard that they are blocking information about Tibet (surprise, surprise), but the BBC blockage still surprises the heck out of me.

Sun Wiede was also heard to say that he hoped journalists could respect the laws and regulations of China, and that isn’t my issue, for me it is that they said one thing and are doing another.  Why was their promise of unrestricted access and no one learns until they got there that this wasn’t true.  I think if it had been announced previous it would have still annoyed people, but people wouldn’t be quite as annoyed because they could have planned for it better.

The thing that gets me is that China is making a bigger story out of this it needed to be if they had just left the access alone.  Do they somehow think blocking these sites will keep them from being included in a story?  That is what the “Additional Reporting by…” credit is for in an article.  You write up your part, email it to your office, they can add away with information from those sites.

While I understand this firewall is fairly strong, there are ways to still have the information on your own:

- If they are allowed access to remote desktop systems such as GoToMyPc, you can log in to your home computer, browse any site you want via your desktop, and all that will be seen on your end is the IP of the site you used to access to your home system.

- Site stripping programs will make a complete copy of a website you download, just bring it with you on your laptop, or download it from your companies server.

- Screenshots are amazing things.

- People can read a website to you over the phone without much trouble.

There are more, but you get the idea.

Again, I do believe in the laws of a nation you are in, but when you promise one thing, but deliver another with no warning, of course people are going to be annoyed, and that ends up becoming the story.

There has been a lot of coverage in the media, especially in the UK, that the identity of well-known graffiti artist Banksy has been discovered.  I hope it hasn’t, and if it has, I would hope people would have the good sense to keep it quiet.

For those of you with no clue who I am talking about, Banksy is a graffiti artist working primarily in the United Kingdom, though he does occasionally pop up in various locations around the United States.  While the word “graffiti” immediately brings to mind all sorts of ugly scrawls on walls, but that word does a disservice to what this person does.  His works are only graffiti in the sense that he does his work on walls without the prior permission of the property owners.

His works have been popping up since the mid-90’s, but he became well known after he helped organize a graffiti exhibition called “Walls on Fire” in 2000.  When he fully turned to using stencils to do his work, his notoriety really took off, and he was able to do some amazingly elaborate pieces due to the amount of time stencils shaved off his free hand work.

His works, such as the Tesco Flag pictured above make an an amazing use of items already in the landscape, which also shows he must plot his moves well ahead of time to build the stencils to take these items into account.  His work is always tinged with humor, but also make powerful statements on society and the establishment that are hard to miss, let alone wonder if he isn’t also a bit correct in what he asks.

Unlike the revealing of Fake Steve Jobs that sent some people into a tizzy, Banksy is not only an artist, but socially relevant.  Part of his ability to say the things he does thorugh his art can only be accomplished via anonymity, and revealing whom he is would only serve to destroy any future works he may do, and possibly tarnish the past ones.

I was one of the people who was thrilled when W. Mark Felt was revealed to be “Deep Throat”, but after reading his back story, it changed my views of the man’s motivations for his actions.  While it had been something I had wished for, I was kinda sorry to see it happen.  With Banksy, I beg of the media to just leave it be.  Don’t actively pursue this, if he slips up, he slips up, but don’t try rooting him out because it just isn’t worth it as it will probably cost him his voice in this world, and we need it in these puzzling times.

Oh, for those of you who worry about the feelings of people that own the buildings he does his work on, most of them like it as it actually raises the value of their property as they can sell it as “a work of art with a home attached”.  (this actually happened)

For the most part I have tried staying out of the whole controversy over the Olympics being held in China, except for one post about attacking the torch carriers, but now I’m annoyed.

The media had been assured they would receive unrestricted Internet access while in the Main Press Center or at the event venues.  This was in direct contradiction with the the typical censorship the Web receives in China, but was expected due to China wanting to show itself off to the world.

Now news is coming out that not only will they be restricted from some sites, it also seems they are being given miserably slow speeds that some suspect are on purpose to discourage use.  Sites such as Amnesty International and any site related to Tibet, will be blocked from the journalists, and who knows what else journalists will find blocked as they check more during the course of the games.  NBC also requested permission to film in Tiananmen Square and was essentially told not to bring the issue up any more.

Am I surprised by these moves?  No, not in the least, but I will say I’m disappointed.  I thought the Chinese might actually use this chance to change their image on the world stage, but instead they seem to be doing nothing more than reinforcing all the thoughts we already had about them.  At this late date there is little the media can do as they are already moving in, so it would be difficult to say, “Hey, we’re pulling out now!”  Deals are signed, teams ae in place, and more than likely all of them will just ride this out, but hopefully this will continue to be exposed after the games.  Sure they may be censored while they are inside the country, but there is nothing stopping them from collecting info and publishing all of it post games when they’re back home.

This certainly is not the worst thing the Chinese have ever done, but it hits close to home for me being involved with the media, and restricting the tools and freedoms of the media, while the norm in China, are just not acceptable.

Danica Patrick won the Indy Racing League (IRL) Japan 300 race today, making her the first woman to win such a race. A major accomplishment to be sure, and she is to be congratulated, just as any racer should be.

Unless you are Bob Margolis of Yahoo Sports, then it’s just time to show that misogyny is alive and well.

See, Mr. Margolis feels compelled to write a piece about the race entitled “Putting Patrick’s victory in perspective“, because we’re all incapable of doing that ourselves. In his piece he felt compelled to try to educate us that the win had nothing to do with her.

It didn’t happen as the result of a final lap, wheel-to-wheel battle, one that many close observers of the sport feel she will never win.

It instead was more a battle between the race engineer’s computers on the Andretti Green team and that of her rival Helio Castroneves’ Penske Racing team. It was a matter of who would get the best fuel mileage in the final handful of laps of the 200-lap race.

So?

Since when has racing ever not been about the crew, as well as the driver? True, I am not a race fan, but what little I do catch, be it Nascar or IRL, fueling has always been a part of the strategy. When to take a pit stop to fuel up, drafting to conserve fuel, etc, but Mr. Margolis seems to feel this was some sort of sin.

Both drivers had made their final pit stop on Lap 148, and when race leader Scott Dixon was forced onto pit road for a final splash of fuel, it became an opportunity for both Patrick and Castroneves to win – in a fuel mileage battle.

Really, a fuel mileage battle… how shocking! How about instead of bemoaning her win, you point the finger at Mr. Dixon’s crew for not doing their job and mismanaging his fuel?  He was in the lead and he had to pit for fuel… guess his management sucked.

Even Ms. Patrick admits it was a fuel battle in a quote to the media:

“It was a fuel strategy race, but my team called it perfectly for me,” said Danica Patrick. “I know I was on the same strategy at Helio (Castroneves) and when I passed him for the lead, I couldn’t believe it. This is fabulous.” She won the race by finishing with 5.8594 seconds ahead Helio Castroneves.

5.8594 seconds seems like a pretty sound win to me, and a factoid that Mr. Margolis chooses not to raise. Instead he prefers to say that Patrick likes to silence her detractors by posing in swimsuits.

Even when he compliments her, he can’t resist making another misogynistic comment.

To her credit, Patrick remains a model for young women everywhere. It may be a model of how persistence, a pretty face and the willingness to take the heat can pay off in the end.

What do her looks have to do with anything? Do you bring up the appearance of the male drivers when they win? “He was persistent, had a well defined chin…”, somehow I don’t think so.

For a sport I don’t even care about, I can’t believe how much this man’s… “writing”… irritated me. (I won’t even start on his abysmal sentence structure) A win is a win, and saying it was somehow less due to fuel management is just a cop out. So, if he can call it as he sees it, so can I… Misogynist pig, table of 1?

The New York Times ran a piece this weekend entitled “In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop“, and considering the play it is getting in the blogosphere, it seems to have hit a chord.

Basically the article talks about how bloggers are working in unsustainable circumstances, especially in the technology field, and it is leading to health problems: sleeping disorders, weight issues, possibly two deaths and a heart attack. They also point to the fact that most bloggers are paid by the piece, leading to a drive to produce as much as possible, no matter what the consequences. The article also points to other problems, such as Michael Arrington of TechCrunch gaining 30 pounds since he started his site in 2005.

Essentially the entire article seems to imply we are all big quivering messes of nerves, ready to turn into pools of jelly at any given moment.

I am sure someone at the paper is patting themselves on the backs for the amount of attention this piece is attracting. As Mathew Ingram aptly points out:

Obviously, the Times has learned the first rule of getting attention from blogs: talk about blogs. The Times also seems to have learned the second lesson, which is related to blog “trolling,” namely: associate blogs or blogging with some kind of apocalyptic or otherwise incendiary statement, viz. “Blogging kills.”

I’ve gone back and forth on my feelings about this piece, but I think I am coming to a similar conclusion as Mr. Ingram: We got gamed, and we got gamed hard. The deaths of Russell Shaw, 60, and Marc Orchant, 50, while tragic, certainly do not point to some form of trend in the industry. Even the article aptly states that they can’t be sure if blogging played any factor in their passing, but it certainly did not stop them from casting a shadow over the industry as a whole.

If anything positive came out of this mess of a “news” story, it is that the payment structure of some blogs are taking advantage of their writers. While I still think a union for bloggers is a bad idea, I do think that these low paying blogs will eventually be weeded out as their employees discover there are sites that pay a fair wage, and don’t drive you to insanity. When I started doing this professionally last year, I did run into some crazy pay situations, and I accepted them because I knew I had to build up my body of work. You will, however, notice that I am down to only one paying job now, Mashable, and I am quite happy there.

The New York Times, as well as others, are now enjoying making analogies that blogging has turned into “the digital-era sweatshop”, or that what we do should be called “flogging“, a thinly veiled analogy to the days of slavery. I think both analogies, especially the sweatshop one, are horribly off base. Blogging is bigger than ever with a wealth of opportunities out there for writers, and more appearing each day. Unlike a normal job, you can switch blogs extremely easily, sometimes working for one only a matter of weeks, as I did a few times. This is not some form of indentured servitude.

As for the other accusations the article levels at us (driving ourselves to exhaustion, poor health, etc), I say this life is what you make of it. Yes, I am tired, but anyone who has known me for any length of time can you tell you that I’ve been tired since the day I was born. If anything, blogging has made me get more sleep because I know I have a tighter schedule to keep. I make sure to exercise at least every other day because I am aware I am sitting more, and I also force myself to eat better because of the schedule I keep. If anything, I think blogging has made me more health conscience. And, I’m sorry, but it’s not a bad life: during a slow moment during my shift today, I laid on the floor of my family room, in my pajamas, and let myself get ravaged by three cocker spaniels all trying to lick my face. If that’s what sweatshops are like, I think I want to work in one for the rest of my life.

I think they may have had their heart in the right place, but they went about it all wrong. We are not slaves, we don’t have whips at our backs, and this career is what you make of it. If you are working in poor conditions, more than likely you can change it if you really want to. Perhaps I have a different perspective due to my age (I am the oldest employee at Mashable), but I honestly think we’re working in a pretty exciting industry, and I hope to be doing it for quite some time to come.

The SXSW conference, a music/movie/interactive conference held once a year in Austin, TX, is happening at the moment, and, as always, it’s filled with all sorts of Internet goodness. Most of it boring to the masses, exciting to the web 2.0 crowd.

Normally a keynote address sets the tone of a conference, most of them make you sleepy, and some are a good chance to catch up on your text messages. Today at the SXSW keynote, a conversation between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Business Week writer Sarah Lacy, all hell broke loose.

Ms. Lacy, who has a pre-existing relationship with Mr. Zuckerberg from previous interviews, turned it into a chat filled with statements that Zuckerberg could merely confirm, and barely any questions were asked. This got to such a point that even Mr. Zuckerberg inquired if Ms. Lacy would be asking any more questions, to which the crowd cheered. My co-worker at Mashable, Kristen Nicole, has a first hand recount of the keynote since she was in attendance.

So why do I bring you a non-first hand opinion on this matter? It was fascinating to watch unfold in real time on my Twitter feed. With the interconnectivity of people nowadays, I was able to watch the rising ire of people in attendance at the little tête à tête as they repeatedly sent out Tweets about how poor a job Ms. Lacy was doing, at how the crowd was starting to grumble, and how they burst out in anger at her incredibly poor job she was doing.

With the keynote over, and bloggers filling pages with their obvious disgust with a job poorly done, Ms. Lacy finally decided to address her critics via her Twitter account. (pictured to the right)

Seriously, is this how a professional journalist now replies to criticism of her work? “Screw all you guys”? That’s just lovely. When even your interviewee calls you on your lackluster job in front of a room full of people craving more, you obviously have done something wrong. To mouth off to people criticizing your job, while momentarily satisfying, shows yet another serious lapse in judgment on her part.

You did a bad job, own up to it, write a piece about how you wish it had gone better, how you misjudged the room, or what people wanted from it. To turn it around and tell off the people who are calling you to the carpet is immature, unprofessional and shameful to your reputation. I really had no opinion on what happened today as I wasn’t there, but this is for everyone to see, and no matter what happened, this was not the way to handle it.  I will never claim I am a perfect journalist, but I always own up to my mistakes, and rule #1 is always take a deep breath before responding to the public about your work.  Take notes, Ms. Lacy, you need them.

This will be my final post on “GizmodoGate”, (yes, I made that the name… this was needing of a “Gate” <em>edit:I didn’t mean first anywhere… I figured SOMEONE had said it, I just hadn’t seen it, much to my surprise</em>) as it is obvious that they have their heads to far up their own hindquarters to care what anyone in the world says about them.

They have posted a reply to their “critics” about the “prank” they pulled at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) last week. Instead of standing up and taking their comeuppance like men (it was all men from what I understand, so I’m not being sexist), they have decided to wag a finger at the people who have criticized their childish antics.

What Brian Lam, the “man” in charge of Gizmodo, fails to see is that his actions reflected on the entire blogosphere. Any blogger trying to get access to an event now will now be lumped into the same primordial ooze pit these troglodytes crawled out from. Bloggers already have credibility issues, and for you to attend a major business function such as CES with the intent to cause disruptions is inexcusable.

Journalists are meant to report the news, not to create it. By injecting themselves into the proceedings in such a manner they ended up doing just that; you became the story. They took the focus away from the event, from the companies who pay enormous sums to hold this event, and made their little Jackass style prank the belle of the ball. If it wasn’t their intent to put the focus on themselves, they wouldn’t have videoed the entire proceedings and then placed it on their site.

In his response, Mr. Lam tries to make the prank sound almost noble, as if it was his site’s duty to do this.

You don’t get more access by selling out for press credentials first chance you get, kowtowing to corporations and tradeshows and playing nice; you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things. Our prank pays homage to the notion of independence and independent reporting. And no matter how much access the companies give us, we won’t ever stop being irreverent. That’s what this prank was about and what the press should understand.

“Untouchable integrity”? Intentionally interfering with the operations of a business during a presentation is now considered “untouchable integrity”? And to lift your antics to such lofty levels to say it “pays homage to the notion of independence and independent reporting” is nauseating, at best. How was this reporting? At what point during this “homage” did it lead to anything more than a self-gratifying night of giggling as these people edited together video snippets of their acting like asses?

Mr. Lam tries to liken his site’s reporting to great journalism, but I hate to burst his delusional bubble of self-importance… he writes about gadgets. Yes, it is a multi-billion dollar industry, but at the end of the day, it’s still just shiny, expensive toys. This style of reporting isn’t saving lives, it isn’t uncovering government corruption, it’s not reporting on genocidal crises such as Darfur, or the current unrest in Kenya, it’s expensive toys. Nothing more, nothing less.

This isn’t to say gadget bloggers shouldn’t be considered journalists, it’s no different than someone working at a newspaper as a food critic; that person is still a journalist, just of a different stripe. And gadget bloggers could be seen as journalists someday, but we won’t ever get their if we continue to over inflate our importance in the world of journalism, or as long as we pull grade school pranks.

Gizmodo should have said “mea culpa”, taken their lumps, and moved on, instead they decided to alienate themselves from the rest of the industry. Good job.

In a continuation from yesterday’s story, Gizmodo has had one writer banned from all future the Consumer Electronics Show. Webware has the official announcement.

We have been informed of inappropriate behavior on the show floor by a credentialed media attendee from the Web site Gizmodo, owned by Gawker Media. Specifically, the Gizmodo staffer interfered with the exhibitor booth operations of numerous companies, including disrupting at least one press event. The Gizmodo staffer violated the terms of CES media credentials and caused harm to CES exhibitors. This Gizmodo staffer has been identified and will be barred from attending any future CES events. Additional sanctions against Gizmodo and Gawker Media are under discussion.

You would think that Gizmodo would be taking this whole matter a bit more seriously, but they aren’t. Owen Thomas wrote over at Valleywag, a sister publication to Gizmodo, that this was a “silly stunt”. Brian Lam, editor of Gizmodo, replied with the following comment:

Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don’t do things the way you do, I don’t see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we’re CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you’re actually…Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.

I love that A)he admits this was all done under his orders and B)he still doesn’t get it. He doesn’t see what the problem is with their antics, because in a later comment he even responds to another commenter by saying “Definition of Press to ponies: Compliance with corporate america. Great.”

This has nothing to do with “compliance with corporate America”, this has to do with common sense, decency, and acting like a professional!  From 1992 - 1996, I attended the International Toy Fair in New York City.  I was always there as a journalist, dealing with multi-billion dollar corporations, and standing within centimeters of prototypes that cost tens-of-thousands of dollars.  I would have never dreamed for a second of interfering with their operations or presentations.  It would have been a reflection on me, my employers, and my profession.

What Gizmodo did was so unbelievably angering to me because they don’t see the big picture.  They had their fun, that’s all that matters.  They don’t see that their actions reflect on bloggers as a whole, and does nothing but reinforce the idea that we are immature, unproffesionals that couldn’t get real jobs.  I can’t even describe how much I want to throttle these idiots.

Thanks, Gizmodo.

If one is paid for blogging, this makes them a professional.  Since blogging is a news source, this makes them, in theory, professional journalists.  One would hope that bloggers would keep this in mind as they go about their jobs, and act accordingly.

The Consumer Electronics Show, for the very first time, gave press credentials to bloggers, and even gave them their own lounge.  This was a major step for bloggers into the realm of acceptance, and one we should have treated with some respect.

Then Gizmodo showed up and acted like giant bastards. (video included)
Using a little device called TV-B-Gone, they went around the electronics show, finding great amusement in turning off walls of televisions in the booths.  They then went to the Motorola press conference and turned off their TVs during the company presentation.  All of this was done discretely, which is what the TV-B-Gone is for.

Was this funny?  No.  Was this professional?  No.  Did Gizmodo make it worse by making a video of their antics and putting on their site?  Yes.

I don’t care if blogging is a “new media”, and that there are rules being broken all the time in the form of traditional standards, there should be a common sense of professional decency.  This was nothing better than you would see on a show such as Jackass, except it was done under the guise of people who are supposedly journalists.

The Gizmodo employees may have set back bloggers in the tech industry several years with their grade school antics.  Thanks a lot guys… I hope someone rolls you for your lunch money.

While watching the BBC World News on BBC America Monday night (the 7 PM EST showing), the anchor, Matt Frei, twice referred to the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) as a “gathering of geeks”.

Normally someone referring to myself, or those around me, as a “geek” doesn’t faze me. Whether it was from my time in the comic book industry, the toy industry, or now the technology industry, I’ve heard it more times that I can count. Heck, I even call myself a geek, a gadget head, tech fiend, etc, etc.

The problem here is that Mr. Frei is a journalist. Not only is he a journalist, but a journalist for one of the most esteemed news sources on the planet. The fact that he would refer to a gathering of people from a multi-billion dollar industry as a “gathering of geeks” is distressing to me as a journalist, not as a member, albeit on the cursory edge, of the tech community. This was a cheap shot, and one well beneath such as esteemed organization.

So, did I just complain here? No, I didn’t. I did send a note via the BBC America website to express my disappointment that their anchor would lower himself to such a low-brow comment.  I don’t expect an apology, nor would I want one, but if matters such as this aren’t brought to the attention of those in charge, then it will continue to happen more and more.

Think back, when did it become so accepted to say that something you find silly or stupid to be “retarded”?  When did it also become okay to call things you disagree with, “gay”?  Never mind neither has a real connection to their current usages, but they were allowed to continue to slip, and now it’s okay to use terms originally designed to describe a group of people as something derogatory.

So when someone such as a BBC anchorman calls a group of people “geeks”, doesn’t that give the concept some credence as being socially acceptable?  And I don’t want anyone to think I’ve being politically correct here, because I’m really not, but as a journalist, he should know to pick his words better.

“Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant!”

“Yes… we all know this, thank you mass media outlets.”

“Did you know she’s only 16?!?”

“Yes.”

“But did you also know her boyfriend is either 18 or 19?!? (we don’t know for sure…)”

“Yes… thank you, please go on to the next story.”

“But did you know we’re going to talk to either family and/or people who know them in their little town to get their opinion?!?”

“Did you know you make me want to take my own life?”

“This is important news!  She may lose her show, Zoey 101, over this!”

“Did you know I know over 50 ways to kill the next person who thinks this is a news story?”

There are over one million teen pregnancies in the United States every year, why is this one so special?  Well a) she has a sister named Britney who appears to be nuttier than a fruit cake b) she stars on a show popular with young girls.  Does this still make an over saturation by the media necessary?  Of course not, but as we have all seen over the past few years, the media latches on to anything that seems the least bit controversial.

Let’s face it, the Spears family, as a whole, is a train wreck, how about we stop drooling over every moment of their lives?  Jamie’s situation should be nothing more than a footnote in the entertainment news, it should not be on every channel at all times.

Yes, I constantly harp on this, and I also realize it’s not going to change any time soon.  In a report of the 25 most powerful people on the web put together by Forbes, #1 was Perez Hilton, the infamous celeb gossip blogger.  The biggest celeb on the web is someone who writes about celebs… how is that for a commentary on the state of the world?  (#22 on the list is Pete Cashmore, my boss at Mashable.com)

The world is filled with fascinating stories, and journalists feel compelled to talk about a teenage girl getting pregnant?  Something that happens countless times every day, but when you are the younger sister of a deranged pop star, that makes it newsworthy?  I just don’t get it.

The only thing I find remotely amusing this whole thing is how their mother was due to publish a book about how to be the parent of successful daughters… it is now on indefinite hold.

The media never ceases to amaze me.

Emily Sander was a 18- year old student at Butler Community College in Kansas who went missing. She has unfortunately been found, murdered. The man suspected of killing her, Israel Mireles, is on the run with his girlfriend who is seven months pregnant.

In the course of this investigation, it was discovered the Emily went by the name Zoey Zane on Internet porn sites, and was an adult model. Her family was unaware of this, and sadly had to learn of this fact this way.

And this is where my beef with the media comes in to play. In a news piece from the 28th, about her autopsy which has confirmed her identity, I stumbled across this gem of a paragraph:

Sander’s case drew wide attention after it was revealed that she appeared on a popular adult Web site under the name Zoey Zane. In some photographs, she appears merely scantily clad in lingerie or cowgirl outfits. Other pictures, some of which require viewers to pay for, are more explicit, showing her nude, fondling herself and posing with other women.

Where do I even begin?  Why was this much detail necessary?  It wasn’t.  They couldn’t have just said “Also known as Zoey Zane, the name she used for her online adult modeling, Ms. Sander…”  But, no, “sex sells”, so they felt the need to include description that in no way aids in the hunt for the killer, and does nothing but to make things rougher for an already grieving family.

This story is about a woman whose life was tragically ended, and the hunt for the man the police suspect of doing it.  This detailed information of what she did for money is just sensationalist and irresponsible.  Get your focus back where it belongs and stop trying to draw in people for the wrong reasons.

If you would like to read more information, you can visit her former website at ZoeyZane.com, it is 100% work safe and is completely dedicated to finding Mr. Mireles.

Okay, look, there are certain things I really never want to hear about ANYONE, let alone a senator.

For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, Larry Craig, a Republican senator from Idaho, was snapped up in a sting operation in the Minneapolis Airport attempting to stop gay men from hooking up in the bathroom. Apparently Senator Craig made some of the signs of wanting to pick-up the undercover officer in the stall next to him. He opted to please guilty to make it go away, but now it has come back to haunt him… and us.

See, the audio of his questioning (transcript here) by the police has been released to the public and it is being played on every media source you can think of. Over… and over… and over.

There is no denying this is a noteworthy story that deserves to be followed, but could cut the damned audio? Especially the following highlight.

DK: Okay. Did you do anything with your feet?

CRAIG: Positioned them, I don’t know. I don’t know at the time. I’m fairly wide guy.

OFFICER: I understand.

CRAIG: I had to spread my legs.

OFFICER: Okay.

CRAIG: When I lower my pants so they won’t slide.

OFFICER: Okay.

I understand how it plays into the facts of the case, but really, do we have to hear it on EVERY news broadcast? No.

Okay, maybe not good things, but things still end. CBS has yanked the craptastic Pirate Master with five episodes unaired. The remaining episodes will be burned off on the CBS website over the next five Tuesdays.

I talked about this suck-fest when it first aired, and I did catch it here and there afterwards; it got no better. I think the format is what tanked it. With only one challenge per episode, there were long periods of nothing but talking that amounted to nothing. It also didn’t help that the host had the personality of a stale biscuit… heck, I can’t even remember his name, he was that boring.

You know if you can’t keep a reality series going in the middle of summer, when the airwaves are devoid of fresh programming, you have some serious problems.

In a more shocking turn of events, the Weekly World News has called it quits after 28 years of publication. Not even three weeks ago I was in Wal-Mart with my Mother, laughed about “babies alive on the Titanic” being the headline, and wondered how in the world this rag stayed in print. Gee, guess I got my answer.

For those three of you who have not heard of this pillar of the “news” community… well, I have included one of their most famous covers for you to enjoy. “BAT CHILD FOUND IN CAVE” is the first time I really remember ever noticing the magazine, and, oddly, most people also point to that cover as the one they remember.

I think the idea of writing real news was beyond them, though they always claimed all their stories were researched. My suspicion is they were researched with out-patients of a mental hospital, but what do I know?

So, why do I include these two stories in the same post? Well, I am sure it is a coincidence they happened on the same day, but my hope would be it is an indicator of improving tastes of the general USA consumer market, but somehow I doubt that. One only needs to look at the box office tallies from this summer’s movie to see we still love our schlock.

It also doesn’t help I can’t escape the news today of Lindsay Lohan being charged with DUI and possession of cocaine. Yep… two pinnacles of stupidity gone… eight million to go.

You have to be kidding me. This is news? People are “outraged” that Elizabeth Hurley put her 5-year old son in a pink bikini as a joke for her children’s swimwear line. Outraged? Really… they’re “outraged”? Let’s go to Dictionary.com for the definition shall we?

out·rage /ˈaʊtreɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[out-reyj] noun, verb, -raged, -rag·ing. –noun

1.	an act of wanton cruelty or violence; any gross violation of law or decency.

2.	anything that strongly offends, insults, or affronts the feelings.

3.	a powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice: Outrage seized the entire nation at the news of the attempted assassination.

–verb (used with object)

4.	to subject to grievous violence or indignity.

5.	to anger or offend; make resentful; shock: I am outraged by his whole attitude.

6.	to offend against (right, decency, feelings, etc.) grossly or shamelessly: Such conduct outrages our normal sense of decency.

7.

to rape.

Really, a mother having fun with their child, playing dress-up, something every child has done, invokes this strong of an emotion in you? I particularly enjoy this bit from the above linked “news” article:

A source told Britain’s News Of The World newspaper, “It’s an outrage Liz made her son do this. He’s not old enough to make that sort of decision. Imagine the teasing he could suffer at school. Why would any parent do this to their child?”

On behalf of the entire sane world, may I just say “Get a freakin’ life!”? And this goes to all the media outlets that reported this non-story also. You had no more important stories to allocate your resources to? Seriously… nothing more important going on than people being “outraged” over a little boy dressing up a bikini? That was the sum total of the news today in the world?

And I especially like your “sources” being anonymous. True, it is an old tradition in journalism to keep your sources protected when asked to, but there is a point where this privilege gets abused, and this is one of those cases. I would have killed to have heard that conversation!

Reporter “Do you care to comment on the hoopla over Liz Hurley putting her son in a bikini?”

Source “Yes, but you must name me as an anonymous source.”

Reporter “You’re kidding, right?”

Source “No, this is deadly serious, Liz will put a hit out on me! You must treat me with the same care that you do a government snitch!”

*thud*

*thud*

That’s the sound of my head on the keyboard.

*thud*

*thud*

All the crap going on in the world and not only are people “outraged” over something this trivial… it’s news worthy.

*thud*

*thud*

Yesterday I made a post about finding the source of a blog story, and how it just kept leading me further and further back. I mentioned the last place I could find the picture/story was a site named Desire To Inspire. Well, due to backtracks, Jo from that site left me a comment detailing the whole sordid tale of the endlessly stolen picture and story:

The original post was mine. The image is a scanned one from Vogue Living Australia. The actual joinery company is named in the comments. Unicraft Joinery, Hamilton, Victoria here in Australia. No website unfortunately. My blog partner Kim and I always try to cite our sources. If there is not an actual link then the image is a scanned one from a print source hence no link. In the last few weeks of our short 4 month history we are not even scanning. Everything has a link or is original material submitted by readers.

It has been a strange experience following this image as it travelled through the blogosphere knowing full well that it was my scan. There was no way else it could appear as there is no actual link. Slowly but surely all reference was lost until it landed in your lap and the hunt began. We have tracked our little world travelling staircase’s progress through Technorati but only its appearances where we have been cited as source. Other clues have turned up through our site counter. Why else would 800 people turn up from a Spanish website? A short scroll back and yes there it is our most famous stolen image.

Quoting the source is very important to us for just this reason and also one of the reasons why we are no longer scanning images. It has illustrated beautifully though the “Chinese whispers” effect of the blog world. If you are interested in tracking it to the very end then the Vogue Living is the Before+After Autumn/Winter 2007 issue. The Unicraft Joinery address can of course be found by googling.

Thanks for posting this. Glad there is someone else who finds this epic journey strangely fascinating.

P.S. I have amended the original post to acknowledge this is a scan and to point out that the manufacturer is in the comments section.

This prompted me to email Jo and get more details. She also shared with me scans of the original source material

So, no question in my mind they were the originators of this blog post, and as Jo explained to me in an email, it has snowballed all over the net with very few people giving them the credit as the original scanners of the picture. She also explained their reason for not linking the manufacturer… no website! So all good on their end, and I have even added them to my blogroll as their site is interesting and full of good ideas.Just remember, if you want to talk about something they’ve shown… cite them as the source! This goes to all bloggers, it is just proper etiquette to cite the source of your info. The trail of breadcrumbs I had to follow yesterday was ridiculous and plain rude to Jo and Kim. They scanned the picture, they started the story, they get credit. Style Dash, a professional blog with paid writers, has no excuse for their laziness in this. None. True, they weren’t the first to do this in this particular case, but it still doesn’t excuse their sloppiness, and seeing as they are “professional”, it just compounds their crime.

I was on TVSquad.com, and at the bottom they have RSS feeds from their sister sites, one of them being StyleDash.com. While not my normal cup of tea, I saw one that said “Stylish Storage Idea“, seeing as I always need more storage, I looked.

They didn’t have much information beyond the picture and saying it was a great idea, so I went to where they got the story from on ProductDose.com. Well… they got the news from somewhere else…

Swissmiss.com thought it was a great idea also… but they weren’t the source, they got it from…

SmartStuff.se, which seems to be a site all about new inventions and they found it at…

Bem Legaus!, a blog in what appears to be Spanish. Hmm… still not the source! He got it from…

DesireToInspire.com. Oh no! No linkage here! Has my hunt come to an end?!? Nope… photo credit shows they got it from Vogue Living Australia. Once I got there though, I couldn’t find any information. The silly thing? I don’t even have those types of stairs! I just got mildly interested, and then it became a game following the links!

I can understand personal blogs not doing the due diligence and going all the way back to the source, but a professional blog such as Style Dash? Just seems sloppy to me and the way for a writer to fill their quota of articles. And yes, this oddly ties into my never ending battle on sloppy journalism. How did they know this was a real product without finding the manufacturer’s website, or at least listing how to contact them?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

My friend Nikki sent me this news story today.

Female high school teacher fired for relationship with student
The Associated Press

MULVANE, Kan. | Spectators burst into applause as the Mulvane School Board voted unanimously to fire a female high school teacher over an inappropriate relationship with an 18-year-old female student.

Tiffany Garrison, 25, had submitted her resignation from Mulvane High School well before Wednesday night’s special school board meeting, but it was not scheduled to take effect until the end of the school year.

Garrison was suspended with pay April 9 when the district started investigating the relationship. Officials in the south-central Kansas district officials have said the relationship did not involve any illegal activity such as alcohol use or anything of a sexual nature.

About 60 people attended the special board meeting, which ended with the vote to fire Garrison for reasons that included insubordination and maintaining a relationship with a student. Garrison, who did not attend the meeting, has 15 days to appeal the dismissal and request a hearing.

The girl’s parents attended the meeting and said they were “elated and relieved” by the board’s decision.

As the board was in executive session discussing the matter, the girl’s mother read the crowd a letter she had sent to board members demanding Garrison’s dismissal.

The letter said e-mails between Garrison and the girl suggested that their relationship involved more than “pure friendship” and that it involved some physical contact.

“Ms. Garrison should have never allowed the relationship to escalate past the point of teacher and student,” the letters said.

“At the present time, we feel the only appropriate and acceptable action by the Mulvane school board is to fire Ms. Garrison.”

The parents said Garrison moved out of the area after the relationship was exposed.

Now, anyone who has read my blog for more than a month or two knows of my “fondness” for student/teacher relationships. They are… oddly intriguing. Wrong, yes. Intriguing none-the-less. And of course the fact it was a lesbian situation makes it all the more intriguing to the media. Bless them, they do love their sapphic laden stories.

So, why is this even remotely funny? Remember when I talked about the April 11th episode of South Park? Ms. Garrison, formerly Mr. Garrison, discovered she was a lesbian… and is a school teacher. Oh the jokes I would love to make here.