Journalism And The Internet

"So John McCain doesn't use e-mail or look at websites," wrote Naomi Lakritz in last Sunday's Province ("It's good to see there are folks out there holding out against the web," July 20 2008, reprinted from the Calgary Herald).

Just as a brief aside, I hate it when people start a column or letter with the word "so." It always makes me think of Boris Badunov. "So moose und squirrel zink zey can stop me, do zey?"

Lakritz goes on to kvetch about the Internet for a while, and it occurred to me, not for the first time, that journalists as a general rule STILL seem to be surprisingly clueless about the modern realities of the Internet. And they tend to write stories assuming that we the public are as ignorant as they are. I have no particular explanation for why, exactly, journalists as a class should be more naive about the web than the general public (I would certainly welcome any insights from others). I simply wish to defend the claim.

Lakritz writes:

McCain does not spend half his life deleting newsletters from various organizations that have added him to their mailing list without his permission -- newsletters that say "click here if you no longer want to subscribe."

Then when you click "here," while grumbling that you never subscribed in the first place, nothing happens. And the annoying newsletters just keep coming.

Before the word "Luddite" forms on anyone's lips at this point...

Actually, Ms. Lakritz, "Luddite" wasn't the word that came to mind.

Mostly, I was wondering how it's still possible for anyone over the age of twelve NOT to know that you never reply to spam! I think most of us understand that the point of spam isn't just to get people to buy things, it's also to harvest email addresses, which can then be sold to other spammers. Replying to them only tells them that they've got a live one.

Personally, I think the problem of spam tends to be overplayed. I got my very first email address all the way back in 1994 -- a Hotmail address that I signed up for from a public library terminal (ironically, a twelve-year-old boy taught me how to use it). I still use that same address today, and I receive...oh, maybe ten pieces of spam a week. This, despite the fact that this is the email I use specifically for 'unsafe' uses, like when a website requires you to post your address.

Know how I cut down on spam? I DON'T OPEN IT! If I don't know the sender, or if I don't know exactly what the subject refers to, I just delete. So when I see a journalist devote column inches to complaining about all the emails she gets from "sexy Russian ladies" (is zat you, Natasha?), I tend to flit blithely past the word "Luddite" all the way to "idiot."

Meanwhile, the Vancouver Sun website boasts of the blogs maintained by its columnists, which turn out to be little more than online versions of their latest columns. Does anyone want to lay odds on how many of these reporters would have the foggiest clue about how to set up their own blog? For the record, it's not difficult.

Nor is this the only way journalists display a surprising lack of understanding of cyberspace. When they write about file-sharing for example, they frequently show that they don't understand the difference between a website and an application. When they write about online predators, they'll cite websites like Facebook, which have safeguards up the wazoo, and ignore applications like mIRC, which allow anyone to talk to anyone, with complete privacy and total anonymity. When the police set up stings by going online posing as kids, they're not using Facebook, they're using mIRC. Why don't journalists know that?

Let me remind you quickly of an earlier point: I've had email since 1994. The Internet has been around for a while now. But journalists still write about it as though it were new. Every time I see one of those "Are Your Kids Safe Online" stories (and they run them every couple of months; journalists are nothing if not effective recyclers), I always think the same thing:

"Why hasn't it occurred to journalists yet that a lot of the parents of these kids grew up chatting online themselves?

But where the Internet is concerned, that's journalists for you.

Douglas Todd on perfection

Last Saturday, Douglas Todd wrote a column on the subject of perfection. I know I already wrote about last Saturday's Sun, but this was worth going back for.

Todd is anything but a hack or a crank. He's one of the most respected religion journalists in Canada, and therefore the world.* But I've been reading him for probably about 15 years, and I've never been much of a fan.

Todd is an example of what I like to call 'life-goes-on' journalism. He doesn't seem to believe that a journalist should ever offer a point-of-view, or perspective, or expertise; he simply lays out the range of opinions on a topic in a non-judgmental manner, evaluating nothing, analyzing nothing, and finally wrapping everything up with some completely banal observation like: "One thing for sure...life goes on." Reading him, I often find myself seized with the urge to grab him by the lapels and scream "FOR GOD'S SAKE, DRAW A CONCLUSION!" **

It's as though he buys into the notion of providing 'balance' with the ideal of 'letting people make up their own mind.' He doesn't seem to understand that by doing so, he actually eliminates the tools people need to make a choice. With no basis for choosing one side or the other, people are forced to simply affirm what they already believed anyway.

In contrast, you have someone like Peter McKnight, another Sun columnist, and one I have tremendous respect for (lest anyone claim that I hate all journalists equally). A few weeks ago, he wrote a review of Ben Stein's anti-Darwin 'documentary' "Expelled." McKnight pretty much dismissed it as a cheap piece of propaganda, and provided analysis to demonstrate why. I found it indescribably refreshing that a journalist would actually call a spade a spade.

You would think that a dishonest documentary about evolution would be right up the alley of the Sun's Religion/Ethics reporter. But there's no way in hell Todd could ever have written a piece like this. He would have been too busy saying something like: "Although some consider "Expelled" a cheap piece of propaganda, others disagree. But one thing we do know...life goes on."

But, back to Todd's column on perfection, from Saturday July 12. As usual, he lays out several contrasting views on whether humans are perfectable, or not; whether perfection should be striven for, or not; whether Jesus was perfect, or not...and so on.

I couldn't help wondering: how is it possible to discuss ANY of these subjects without first considering what exactly you mean by 'perfect' in the first place? What does it mean to speak of a perfect human, or a perfect life, or a perfect God?

It seems to me that 'perfect' means nothing more than a complete adherence to a preestablished set of standards. If you think about it, merely by using the word 'perfect' to describe something (or 'imperfect,' for that matter) you are automatically claiming the existence of such a standard. Where do these standards come from? Wouldn't that be a more interesting vein for an essay like this to mine? Especially when you consider what this would mean for those who call God perfect!

That has some pretty serious implications to the question of morality, which has always been pretty tightly intertwined with the concept of perfection, and it also raises the dirty little secret of the Christian concept of morality -- namely, that it doesn't actually have one. If you look at what Christian doctrine states, you find that it doesn't believe in morality so much as obedience; to be perfectly good is to adhere completely to God's standards. If, on the other hand, you look at what actual Christians -- as opposed to mere doctrine -- believe about morality, you find yourself quickly discovering something more humanistic than theistic. Surely, that in itself would be a worthy discussion.

Many Christians would probably agree with the idea that God sets the standards for our behaviour. But, as stated earlier, they also say that God IS perfect, which leads to an odd little contradiction that doesn't really get a lot of attention: you cannot say that God both defines good and is good. If we say God defines good, than 'good' becomes completely meaningless; after all, if I get to decide what constitutes a 'right' answer on a test, would anybody be impressed if I got a perfect score?

On the other hand, if we say God IS good, it just raises the question again: If there is a standard of perfection that God Himself can be judged by, where does this standard come from?

I can't help but think that these are all far more interesting fruits than any Todd managed to pick.

Todd's blog carries the header "Award winning spirituality and ethics columnist Douglas Todd talks about everything we're told not to discuss in polite company: Religion, morality, politics, sex, death, God, love, meaning and all the things that matter." Would that his column were as controversial as this makes it sound! It takes extraordinary skill to make these topics boring.

But, that's Douglas Todd for you.

----------


*OK, OK, I actually have no real basis for suggesting that Canada's religious writers are the best in the world. But it was fun to write. ;)

**There is one exception to this rule. Although after 15 years I have little sense of what opinions Todd personally holds about anything, I do know he doesn't like atheists one bit. It's a petty point, but I've always been pissed off by a column he wrote many years ago, in which he actually said "Some of my best friends are atheists." Gosh! Guess there's some good ones after all. Thankya, Massah!

What's a little sexism between friends?

Re: The Vancouver Sun, Tuesday July 15:

OK, I know that it's only the Arts section, but glancing through this story made me think "You have GOT to be kidding!"

Sealed in a kiss discusses a study of kissing from an evolutionary perspective. And while I'm the first to jump in and defend scientists, especially evolutionary scientists, the study really sort of proves that science has its share of flakes and nitwits.

Here's what caught my eye: Susan Hughes, an assistant professor of psychology at Albright College in Pennsylvania, is quoted as saying, "We found that females place more importance on kissing to screen for potential mates, while men, especially with short-term partners, use kissing to increase their chances of having sex." So far, so good. That meshes pretty well with my own impressions of male/female sexual politics. But then she went further.

"Women use kissing more as a mate assessment device, while men use it more as a means to an end," says Hughes. "This suggests females are more discriminating and males are more opportunistic."

Excuse me? How did this become a platform for moral judgments? She jumped for the 'men aren't as nice as women' argument pretty quickly. Notice how men are described as using kissing just as a means to an end? This woman must be a complete idiot not to realize that assessing mates is also an end. I think someone's got issues with men!

If evolutionary psychology tells us anything, it tells us that women are every bit as shallow as men where sex is concerned.

But what really bothers me isn't the scientist, but (big surprise) the journalist. Shouldn't a competent journalist have picked up on that odd little bit of prejudice, and brought it into focus? Maybe even made it the entire point of the article? Wouldn't a piece on the anti-male biases of a female scientist creeping into her work make an interesting story? One would think...unless the journalist in question, Jennifer Parks, has a few issues of her own.

But that's the Vancouver Sun for you.

Grrr, Brrr, and Purrr

Did anyone see the front page of Saturday's Vancouver Sun? They pulled off quite a trifecta. Three teasers, above the fold. From left to right, it was:

"Teen could face death penalty," about the confessed killer of Diana O'Brien (see previous post).

"Inside the U.N. gang," a look at gang activity in Vancouver.

"Back to the wild," a story about orphaned bear cubs raised in captivity being released.

In other words, respectively, stories designed to make you feel righteous anger, to make you afraid, and to make you go 'awwww.'

Or, as I like to put it, they've nailed the 'grrrr' factor, the 'brrrr' factor and the 'purrr' factor. All before we even unfold.

I HATE stories that manipulate, that try to control how I feel.

But that's the Vancouver Sun for you.

Sun and Province Exploit Dead Woman

You've probably heard about Diana O'Brien, the 22yr-old model found dead in her apartment building in China. Reading the Vancouver Sun today, I found myself wondering why this story was receiving so much attention.

If someone is found dead in a stairwell, especially if foul play is suspected, it's news. But it's not multi-day three-page-coverage news. So what's different about O'Brien?

Two things. The first can be summed up in a single word: Model. The second is where the story happened: China. "Model killed in China." It's a pairing of concepts that conjures lurid images of young white girls being menaced by dusky foreigners, and it is this dime-novel narrative that is driving the media coverage, and not the actual story. If a fifty-year-old man were killed in a botched robbery in Vancouver, let's face it...there wouldn't be a portfolio of sexy pictures for the papers to choose from.

Everything you need to know about the shitty level of journalism on display is right there in the headline of Wednesday's Vancouver Sun. "B.C. model killed in botched robbery, boyfriend believes."

"Boyfriend believes?" Can someone explain to me please, why the boyfriend's beliefs are considered worth reporting? It's not like he's on the scene. In fact, he's living on Salt Spring Island; why exactly is the Sun treating him as the clearinghouse of information between themselves and the authorities?

It's not hard to understand the answer. The authorities, as yet, are not giving a story that is sufficiently complete or interesting. So why not print the boyfriend's half-baked theories of what happened?

This happens to be a pet peeve of mine, just on general principle. I hate it when a tragedy happens, and the papers feel the need to quote the friends and families of the victims. It shouldn't be done. Partly because it's a ghoulish invasion of privacy, but mostly because these people all say exactly the same things, and none of it is newsworthy.

What's even sadder is, the Sun is actually being relatively responsible. The Province didn't even bother with the qualifier. "Model killed during botched robbery," they report, for all the world as if it were true. Don't get me wrong, it may be true. Or it may not.

Other examples of shoddy journalism pepper the stories of both papers. My eye was caught by this phrase, penned by Sun reporter Darah Hansen: "All [local modelling managers contacted] said they follow strict personal codes before placing a model -- some of them as young as 15 and 16 -- with an overseas agency." I challenge anyone to explain exactly what the phrase 'as young as 15 and 16' means.

The Province, for its part, feels the need to tell us that O'Brien was "pretty without her modelling makeup" and went to China eager to "further her budding career." At the risk of sounding callous, when you're 22 years old and still working crappy gigs in China, your modelling career is not on the upswing, and it's absurd to pretend otherwise just to give your narrative the Marilyn Monroe angle of a rising star cut down in her prime. It's repugnant to imply that this story is more important because the victim was young and pretty.

But, that's the Sun and Province for you.