Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

iPad

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Because I have a blog, I suppose I’m required to have an opinion on the new Apple iPad. For what it’s worth, I think it’s a game changer. Much like the iPod revolutionized how people listen to music, the new iPad will radically change how we read and percieve information.

We are at the crossroads between two types of textual media: Dead trees, which continue to have the advantage for long form presentation (try reading the New Yorker on a netbook — ick) and electronic devices, which are great for short snippets of contents, such as blog posts. The iPad will be fine at the latter, just like other devices like the iPhone, but will finally make it tenable to sit back and read something longer than a page on a portable device. The display (LCD backlit, and assuming Apple’s superiority in display quality) will be stunning, and the shape and size will be well suited for sitting back and reading — and more importantly, comprehending.

The implications of this are particularly interesting when you look at the current types of long form content: newspapers, magazine articles, and books. Each has a certain profile of timeliness, length, style, etc. There’s no reason that these categories need to continue. Could this be a new dawn for the short story? Could books (particularly non-fiction) be updated continuously, rather than every few years? There’s a lot there that’s going to happen.

The iPad has a lot else going for it — the price is great, it should be great for games and movies, etc, but to me that’s not the game changer. It’s how we interact with information that’s going to be new.

Sarah Palin and Fox News

Monday, January 11th, 2010

I assume this surprises absolutely nobody:

Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.
The network confirmed that Ms. Palin would appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multiyear deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Ye Gods, the Washington Post Sucks

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

The latest example is the “dean” of the Washington press corps claiming underwear bomber is somehow equivalent to 9/11:

Was Christmas Day 2009 the same kind of wake-up call for Barack Obama that Sept. 11, 2001, had been for George W. Bush?

Both presidents had had plenty of warnings in the form of threats and even incidents. But both were caught off guard: Bush reading to a classroom of youngsters; Obama on a family vacation in Hawaii.

Many have been looking for a similar shift of tone in his dealings with the dictators in Iran and North Korea and even in his tolerance for the politics-as-usual maneuverings of many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

The intellectual laziness of the national press is stunning, but even more amazing is that people take the results seriously.

Whew, Good Thing There’s No Global Warming Problem After All!

Saturday, December 5th, 2009

Here’s Proof!!

Oh wait, you mean all the raving on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and right-wing conspiracy sites has actually been bullshit? Really? Shocking!

Just another example of people who have no idea what they are talking about criticizing those who do.

The thing that bothers me most about this is that there are no doubt some people at Fox News and elsewhere who realize that this is all bullshit, and who understand that the effects of several degrees centigrade rise in global temperatures will have profound, unknown, and dangerous consequences, and that the longer we wait the more dangerous it will be. And the more they lie about the problem, the harder it will be for us to summon the collective will to make significant changes. But they persist in spite of this, all for better ratings. Bastards.

Update:
(more…)

Why the MSM Sucks

Friday, December 4th, 2009

The worst thing about the so-called “mainstream media” is not that it skews consistently to the right or left (I don’t think that, on average, it is particularly ideological, Fox News notwithstanding) but rather that is it so bad.

Bad, as in lazy, credulous, insipid, unchallenging, and overall just tragically mediocre.

Here’s an example. An economist from the Reuters news agency opines that a progressive tax structure, presumably as opposed to a flat tax rate, increases income inequality. Here’s the logic, with my thoughts in parentheses:

  1. If there’s inequality, then a greater share of income accrues to the rich. (Of course, this is axiomatic.)
  2. In such a case, all else being equal, tax revenues will increase because tax rates are higher for the rich in a progressive structure. (No shit.)
  3. Therefore, the government will prefer inequality. (As if government is both sentient and monolithic.)
  4. Therefore there will be more inequality. (Now government is omnipotent as well!)

Really, that’s the argument. For fun, you might try counting the logical fallacies in this line of thinking but it seems easier to just chalk this up to sheer ineptitude (or, I suppose, malevolence) on the part of the author.

Of course, it’s a logical fallacy itself to argue that just because the proponent of an argument is an idiot, the argument is false — but in this case the argument is actually false. In the past 40 years, income inequality has steadily risen while tax progressivity has fallen. So not only is this authors logic flawed, the conclusion is completely opposite the facts. My guess is that this came about as a cheap and lazy way to come up with a provokative and counterintuitive angle without doing any actual work, but this is of course speculation on my part.

And these fine folks from the fourth estate are the people we trust to keep us aware and informed.