The On-Demand Generation

Over the last couple of years I’ve come to realize that my children are growing up in a vastly different media world than the one in which I came of age. It’s not just the endless amount of content, it’s the on-demand availability of all that content. I’ve got to wonder how this is affecting their relationship with the world.

Between my parents generation and mine, the only real innovations of mass media were the color television set and UHF. When I was my son’s age (4) back in 1978, we had three networks, PBS some local channels and no VCR. If I wanted to watch Sesame Street, I could do so just once a day at the scheduled time. If I missed the Big Bird segment it was lost to the ether. If I wanted cartoons at noon, too bad, Gilligan’s Island was all that was on. This really wasn’t that long ago but the technology seems ancient.

My son has a list of twenty or so children’s programs he likes to watch and which we have saved on TiVo. Whenever he wants, click, click, it’s on. He misses something, we rewind. He gets bored, we change to one of the other sixty or so saved programs or any of the piles of DVDs. What the hell is this doing to his sense of the world? He already gets quite agitated if we happen not to have a saved version of the exact show and episode we wants.

O.k., disparage my parenting skills for letting my children watch television (we do spend a lot of non-media time with them too, I promise), but my family is hardly alone. We have a whole on-demand generation growing up. They (well, the privileged ones) will live in a world where whatever entertainment they want will be available immediately. There is a structure-less nature to on-demand. How will this affect their relationships with each other, with politics, with more static versions of culture (the novel, sculpture, painting, even live theatre)?

I wish I had an answer for that. But I guess, as one of the pioneering parents of the on-demand generation, I’ll have to do what all parents do – figure it out as I go.

Obama's Act II Begins

Is there a growing wave of criticism against Barack Obama? I’ve already pointed you toKarl Rove’s piece. Amba at Ambivablog directs us to other anti-Obama pieces here and here. Moderate blogger Michael van der Galien at PoliGazette as dubbed the man a fake and has posted countless anti-Obama commentaries in recent weeks. Even Obama supporters are starting to get worried. Why the negativity?

Sure, some of it is just Republicans calibrating their opinions for the upcoming general election. But, as the above links show, this is much more than a Karl Rove attack agenda. This is something in the zeitgeist. And I think it goes straight to the roots of media and storytelling.

Despite what some want to believe, the media are not a monolithic force controlled by a central brain. If you want to look for biases, don’t look for ideological favoritism, look for inescapable narrative structures. Compelling storytelling demands conflict (so we get lots of shouting), it demands surprise (so we get trumped up “gotcha” stories), it demands emotion (so we get overplayed tragedies) and it demands story arcs, which is where Obama comes in.

In Act I, Obama is the intrepid tyro, an unblemished do-gooder believing in impossible dreams. He rises up from obscurity to capture the hearts and minds of his people. Along the way he does noble battle against the forces of darkness and is positioned to become a great man.

In Act II, the hero always stumbles. His brilliant talents are revealed to have corresponding weaknesses. The adulation he’s received goes to his head. Members of his movement turn against him out of disillusionment or greed. Now the struggle is not just against outer forces but inner ones as well.

We see this in just about every conventional narrative. We see it in politics. We see it in sports (Dallas QB Tony Romo could tell Obama a thing or two about media love turned media suspicion). We see it throughout our religious stories and ancient parables. The media, as storytellers, simply can’t escape these classic structures. Act I can only go on for so long. Eventually Act II must begin.

Detailed criticism of Obama has been a long time coming. He played out Act I as well as any politician can in our 24-hour storytelling news cycle. Now the heat is on and now we see if Hillary (who’s been stuck in her own Act II for months) can thwart the ambitions of America’s newest star. Or, if she fails, can John McCain, who’s had about five three-act plays in his life, prove the stronger narrative. Only one thing is for sure: the media will not be able to escape the lure of storytelling’s classic structures.

All the Tabloid News That's Fit to Print

The culture of rumor-journalism has gotten so prevalent that The New York Times is now conforming to the journalistic standards of Star Magazine. The Times’ “story” that John McCain may have had an affair during the 2000 campaign is based on nothing more than concerns some anonymous staffers had.

Concerns from anonymous sources? Really? That is tabloid level reporting. Hopefully this will wash right through the news cycle with more responsible journalists admitting that concerns from anonymous sources about a possible affair does not merit a news story. But I have serious doubts that the rest of the mainstream media will be so mature. This is going to be a thorn for McCain and that’s a shame.

Clinton Helped Make Her Own Raw Deal

I’m no Hillary Clinton fan, but I’ve started to question if she’s gotten a raw deal from the media. An excellent article in the most recent edition of The New Yorker makes the case that she has, but that it’s as much due to Clinton’s messaging mistakes as it is to media bias. She reveled too much and too long in her tough image and insider experience while Barack Obama easily positioned himself as likable and fresh.

The implications of Obama’s and Clinton’s respective meta-narratives for their press coverage have been profound. For Clinton, the inability to change the story line meant that any vaguely negative maneuver was interpreted in the darkest possible light, for it reinforced a preexisting supposition. For Obama, however, any criticism could be fended off as a manifestation of grubby old politics. And any act he committed that could be perceived as nefarious created cognitive dissonance

Name recognition is generally a boon for a candidate. But Clinton has much more than name recognition. She has character recognition, and that’s not so beneficial. Public figures do better when they hide their inner workings, but Clinton seems to have no hood, the mechanizations of her ambition and the faulty wirings of her insecurities clearly visible. Combine this with a lingering sexism that demands powerful women be masculine and then makes fun of them when they are, and it’s surprising we ever bought into the idea that she was a “sure thing” for the nomination.

She may yet win this race but there is no doubt that the campaign has gone very poorly. Her failure to close that hood or at least add some more horsepower to the old inner workings made it all too easy for the media and many voters to see her exactly as they’ve always seen her. The major media shouldn’t be so lazy but it’s unsurprising that they are. The voters are, I think, far more blameless. Clinton and her campaign have certainly done enough to warrant scorn and Barack Obama has presented a compelling enough case for himself.

So, it really comes down to a very odd situation: Yes, Clinton has gotten a raw deal, but it’s her fault for not seeing this coming and doing more early on to prevent it.

Courts to MSNBC: Let Kucinich Debate -- UPDATED

Without getting into whether the courts should be telling media organizations how to conduct their business, this is a good thing. I thoroughly dislike the way networks try to play kingmaker by permitting and denying certain candidates the right to participate in televised debates. I understand that they can’t give a podium to every Tom, Dick and Jane but they should invite any candidate with a functional national organization.

Elections, particularly primary elections, are about finding the best candidate for the job. They are not about choosing between the two or three candidates with the best poll numbers. Networks sabotage the democratic system when they close off their debates. The people, not the media pollsters, should decide who is an who isn’t viable. A candidate with low poll numbers will never have a chance to climb higher if they are pushed out of the debates. And yet, the networks egotistically remove candidates from contention, denying voters the right to hear all views.

Kucinich, while hardly in the mainstream, is still a U.S. Congressman and has supporters across the nation. He deserves a spot in the debates just like the equally out-of-the-mainstream and low-polling Ron Paul deserves a spot in the Republican debates. MSNBC should be ashamed that this issue went to the courts.

UPDATE - January 16th. Yeah, nevermind. The Nevada Supreme Court has sided with MSNBC, ruling that the lower court's decision was a violation of the network's First Amendment rights. From a legal standpoint, that's the right ruling I think. But from a political standpoint, I still think Kucinich should be allowed to debate.

Signs of the Time

What says more about modern America? The Virginia Tech tragedy itself or our reactions to it?

Imus Done in by Media Mobsters

At first the Don Imus imbroglio amused me. Then it irritated me. Now I’m mad. CBS and MSNBC have both fired Imus for his bigoted comments. Sure, they have the right to fire whomever they choose. But that doesn’t make their decision anything more than a sad commentary on the failings of modern society and modern media in particular.

Imus has been a so-called shock jock for a long time and has uttered an uncountable number of insensitive remarks over the years. CBS and NBC knew who he was and what he was likely to say. Yet this mildly racist, undeniably sexist comment gets him axed? Why? The answer is simple: the media needed the next sensationalistic story. Once that story was running nonstop, advertisers got scared and pulled away. CBS is just following its advertisers who are following the media who are following the immature, irresponsible, narrow-minded ideology that far too often masquerades as journalism these days.

Not only is this a complete overreaction to the crime committed, but it sets a horrible example. First, Imus’ quick and seemingly sincere apologies are being completely ignored. The lesson? It’s best not to speak at all than risk saying something you regret – your apologies will not be accepted.

The second horrible lesson is summed up in the statements of Les Moonves, the president of CBS who said: "There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

So that’s how it is now? Instead of teaching our youth to stand up to adversity and shrug off the idiots of the world, we’re telling them that they must be protected from all slights less their poor fragile egos will crumple and die. The women Imus insulted are incredibly talented, college-educated women who had the strength to pull off a Cinderella basketball season. We don’t need to protect them from the likes of Don Imus. Please. That’s horribly insulting to these young women.

Really, I couldn’t care less about Imus. I’ve rarely listened to him and consider him no better than a more political, less scatological Howard Stern. His comments were abhorrent. I have not the slightest desire to stand near the man. But I can’t stay silent. Just because I don’t care for the man doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call a wrong a wrong.

Imus is being unfairly punished by a nauseatingly righteous bunch of media mobsters and their cohorts. What’s worse is that those leading the pitchfork-and-torches charge are ostensibly from the left. If liberals no longer have the stomach to stand up for free speech (even when that speech is insulting or idiotic), then who will?

The whole thing makes me sick. My apologies for the rant. Some events simply demand an outraged blog post.

The Challenge of YouTube

I’ve been wondering when some big media company was going to sue YouTube. Now, Viacom is seeking $1 billion for what it considers YouTube’s willful copyright infringement of everything from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to Sponge Bob Square Pants.

Anytime I visit YouTube, I’m amazed at the breadth of content available from the site. Ostensibly, YouTube is for sharing homemade videos. But much of the site is comprised of clips extracted from professionally produced material. And that’s the problem.

As thrilling as it is to see an obscure recording of a 40s musician playing live, that clip is owned by a company and the artist is possibly owed royalties for any re-airing. But YouTube allows users to circumvent commerce – even subverts it. This may be liberating for the user but is it fair or sustainable?

Our system of entertainment is profit-oriented. If content producers cannot profit from their work, there will be no work. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d like more choices than the conspiracy theory documentaries and college-students-being-stupid video clips that make-up much of the user-generated content on YouTube. I like my network television and studio movies and I’m not ashamed to say so.

That said, I’m not convinced YouTube is significantly affecting entertainment profits—not currently at least. Their success has much more to do with the streaming-video innovations they’ve made than it does with all the Jon Stewart uploads. Viacom has a lot to prove if they want to win their case.

Most likely, the lawsuit will serve as a kind of warning shot, a notice to YouTube that they’re being monitored closely. As music downloads have proven, once a technology exists, it’s impossible to stop people from using it. Networks and studios will have to wage a two-front war: one against the sites illegally posting their content and one inside their own companies where these new technologies must be harnessed and used to create an advantage.

Many networks have already made agreements with YouTube to carry free content. But this is just the beginning. Creating a workable profit stream is the next challenge. And I’m sure YouTube will play along – after all, if there wasn’t lots of money to be made, why did Google buy the company?

Clinton and Libby Have Little in Common

The entire case reminded me of Ken Starr and Paula Jones. President Clinton got into trouble for failing to tell the truth under oath as you know, just as Libby has. Interesting to see how the left in both cases handled it. Right?

That’s Bill O’Reilly, commenting on the Scooter Libby guilty verdict. He goes on to say Libby got what he deserved, but I gotta call him out on the little spin job above.

Clinton lied under oath about a matter that was of no direct relevance to the case at hand, namely the Whitewater land deal. Libby lied under oath specifically about the case at hand. That is a significant difference. Clinton was stupid to lie but it’s not too hard to view the Monica Lewinsky questioning as a form of entrapment. Libby was entrapped only by his own attempts to weasel out of culpability.

So, no, it’s not interesting to see how the left handled both cases. The cases are not particularly similar and the left’s reactions are not a sign of hypocrisy. That’s not to say that the left hasn’t overplayed Libby’s trial and the whole Plame affair (they have). But let’s keep a little perspective.

Coulter, Cheney-haters and the Mock Outrage

To get my take on Ann Coluter's latest stupidities as well as my view of leftists who think Cheney's death in Afghanistan would have been a good thing, read my post at Donklephant.

Olbermann is Not the Cure (The Debate Continues)

When I wrote about Keith Olbermann’s recent commentary concerning the Bush administration, I received a lot of “yeah, but” reaction (I also received some “you’re an idiot” reactions, but I expected that given I was criticizing one of the left’s beloved pundits). What was interesting was how many people were of the opinion that, sure, Olbermann can be over-the-top but that was ok because 1) he isn’t nearly as bad as Limbaugh or O’Reilly and/or 2) his attacks are necessary to restore the balance of things.

As for the first rationale, it matters little to me that Limbaugh and O’Reilly have been far more outrageous than has Olbermann. That’s a matter of degree not kind. I’ve never much gone for the “at least we’re not as bad as our enemy” defense. If something’s wrong, it’s wrong regardless of degree. Sure, Olbermann hasn’t walked down the path as far as has Limbaugh, but he’s still walking the path—and that’s what I criticize.

As for the second rationale, emulating the worst qualities of your opponent is not restoring the balance of things. That’s just dragging us deeper. Yes, politics is a nasty business and those who are uncomfortable getting their hands dirty shouldn’t play the game. But there’s a difference between playing politics and putting on the kinds of performances Olbermann put on in the clip I referenced.

He’s not trying to do the hard work of maintaining support for his side by harshly calling a foul a foul (although he calls a lot of fouls). Nor is he attempting to swing votes by doing the dirty work of smearing his opponents with half-truths and innuendo (although he does smear). What he’s doing is preaching directly and only to the proverbial choir.

Anyone who is not on the left would be completely turned off by Olbermann’s rant because it’s so over-the-top. He has no intention to change minds through either truth or trickery. His intent is to increase the outrage among those who are already angry. Just the way Limbaugh and O’Reilly do. These guys don’t add to the debate. They’re focused primarily on strengthening their side by keeping the anger burning. After all, angry people don’t base their opinions on considered thought or empirical evidence. They base their opinions and votes on raw emotion. And emotionally charged bases make it easy for the parties to eschew substance and ignore the rest of us.

A lot of people are upset at the Bush administration. They should be. I know I am. But fighting back doesn’t mean increasing the anger. There is only so much outrage a democracy can contain. Simply being a good little citizen and voting is not a very satisfactory outlet when you’re overly angry. People want to do more. But when it comes to “doing more,” angry people rarely help the situation.

Now, I’m not opposed to anger—that’s a normal human emotion. The problem comes when that anger is inflamed. These pundits exploit people’s anger to boost the intensity of their party’s side. No one’s mind is changed. No one is informed of newly relevant facts or given newly useful insights. They are simply given new reasons to become angrier.

In his rant, Olbermann may seem to be giving voice to the people (I’m sure Limbaugh’s listeners argue the same) but what I see is a guy turning up the heat at a time when we’re already overheated. There are more useful ways to fight back. There are ways to win converts rather than just energize those already on your side.

Forgive me if my opinion seems naïve or “amateurish” (as one person claimed). But Olbermann’s rants are not the cure. They’re just the same poison in a different vein.

The Left's Limbaugh

A surprising number of people have sent me links to this Keith Olbermann commentary that is one part defense of John Kerry and four parts skewering of President Bush. I suppose the fascination with this video is Olbermann’s seething outrage and rhetorical gymnastics. No one who sent this to me quite knew what to make of it, but they all kind of wanted to like it.

I will say up front that I don’t like Olbermann, just as I don’t like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (Olbermann's inverted doppelgangers on the right). At their best, they are harmless windbags, but at their worst they are the band leaders of partisan spite and anger. These newsmen/pundits are the manufacturers of outrage, the knives dividing America.

This commentary by Olbermann, which has a few good points, is rotten at its core. In about eleven minutes of commentary, Olbermann manages to touch upon every failing of the Bush administration and make them sound like a coordinated, well-executed attempt to destroy the Republic. He speaks quickly and plays loose with logic. In the moment, it all sounds splendidly rousing—as if it someone is finally putting into words all that is bothersome with the Bush presidency.

But the speech is ultimately hollow, hung upon careless hyperbole and overwrought angst. It is, like so much of what these newsmen/pundits say, fast food oratory—tasty but unfilling and unhealthy to ingest. Because, really, Olbermann doesn’t have a point outside of the basic “Bush is a lying incompetent” refrain repeated ad nauseam by his critics. The rest is window dressing meant to incite rather than inform.

And that’s the problem. Olbermann incites and then signs off, leaving sympathetic listeners filled with outrage but possessing no outlet. He doesn’t ask anything of his viewers except for them to be angry. And where does this anger go? Hard to know. But it is rare that anger is well-focused. And rarer still that it helps heal rifts or solve problems.

I’m sure there are those who are glad Olbermann is around—he really is the first leftwinger who can match the oratorical skills of the Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s. But he also matches their self-indulgence, their hubris, their false outrage and their divisiveness. Americans listen to these guys because they appear to be speaking a beautiful truth. But they are merely modern day sirens luring us onto the rocks.