Jack of All Blogs » Andrew G.R.

TV Reporters Manipulated by Social Media

Andrew G.R. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:04:34 +0000

Beyond all of the usual modern techno-marvels that we’ve become accustomed to when watching the nightly news, the more recent advent of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have revolutionized the electronic media. Because rather than use these as tools to help provide better coverage, the media moguls at the major cable stations have chosen instead to use these instant audience inputs as a vehicle by which to superficially tailor their coverage, and the behavior of their reporters. So instead of richer content and context, we get what could almost pass for a soap opera.

Sure, we’re all saddened by the dramatic destruction that the recent earthquake in Haiti has caused. The human cost is graphically portrayed by the legions of TV camera crews that fan out daily across the remnants of Port au Prince. Under bright sunshine, the ruined white concrete infrastructure stands out in bold relief against a stunning bright blue sky. It seems that the ground not covered by sheet-wrapped corpses is occupied by the newly homeless, as they wait in seemingly endless queues for food and water. There’s no disputing that, from both a humanitarian and news perspective, we do indeed need to see these images. Actually, and largely as result of viewing such footage, the usually generous American public has responded to this disaster by donating beyond all expectations.

The media has always thrived, even before the Twitter age, on its’ claim to immediacy, to bringing us, the viewing public, the latest in what’s happening. And so they perennially try to scoop each other, competing for our nightly affections-and the profits that more sponsors bring them. We rightly or wrongly rely on reporters, who by the very nature of their profession, are supposed to give us a clear lens through which to see the world. Supposedly dispassionate, and free of all prejudice or bias, they are paid to observe and communicate. It’s a cold-blooded business, but they get paid damned well to do it.

Yet, the role that Twitter and other instant messaging vehicles played in the changing behavior of some cable reporters during the Haiti coverage is remarkable. I can understand how viewers can become upset by seeing such horror, especially in graphic detail. Many have, albeit unfairly, criticized on-site reporters for not becoming rescuers. As an example, and very much as a result of audience twittering, Anderson Cooper of CNN was no longer simply covering the Haiti story. He now became a part of it, as he was extensively taped carrying a small child through the rubble, to safety. And CNN played this rescue over and over in it’s promos.

Don’t get me wrong, hi-tech can, and is, often a great thing-especially in the TV news business. But, when instant comments from Twitter cause instant reactions from the media honchos, the result is at best cheap and at its worst just phony. Anderson Cooper as John Wayne? That’s even a stretch for TV.

The Underestimated Value of a Link

Andrew G.R. — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:16:55 +0000

Some people want a hug, I just want a link.

Many major media organizations are stingy when it comes to link love. I’ve had the good fortune of getting several of my blogs mentioned in the mainstream press. However, it is a rare day when they actually link to my Website. And boy does that piss me off.

It’s like an ice cream sundae without the ice cream; steak and potatoes without the meat. I appreciate the blog mention or using me for a quote, but when you leave out the link, you deflate my heart. I’m left to wonder what could have been. Where would traffic had gone if that little ol’ URL was included?

And why are these links left out? Because ‘journalists’ don’t want to do their jobs. They are too lazy to vet out the good links from the bad ones. (It’s really not that hard). The organizations that hire reporters set policies that do very little to help bloggers. Because the reality is, they acknowledge bloggers – the very people who have shaken the foundation of their industry – because they have to.

It might be enough for Oprah to simply mention your name, but that is not true of established media outlets. Sure, getting your blog out there on a TV show or in a newspaper helps – but it’s nothing compared to what a link would do.

Perhaps your experience has been different. Let us know in the comments section below.

But in the future, I will only lend my time to help the media if I am guaranteed a link.

My Name Is Everywhere

Andrew G.R. — Sun, 02 May 2010 21:00:59 +0000

Ever meet someone with the same name and get that warm fuzzy feeling? That doesn’t happen to me. In fact, I have the opposite reaction: I get pissed.

See, it’s not just my first name…it’s my last name too! Both are common. A quick Google search turns up the CEO of a major clothing company, an orthodontist in Tucson, a big-time radio exec — even a director of gay pornography. Well I’m none of those things…thankfully. I’m me.

A name is supposed to be uniquely yours. It’s not something that should be shared with thousands of undeserving strangers.

Naming a kid is tricky business. I would imagine every parent is faced with the difficulty of finding something they can see themselves yelling for the rest of this life time. And when they finally figure it out, there are other hurdles to clear:

- You can rule out the name of almost everyone you have ever known or met. Anyone who has made some sort of impression on you (be it good or bad) has claimed ownership on moniker. Most people we meet leave an indelible impression on us.

- To honor or not to honor. Different ‘rules’ apply to different religions, but many people are faced with the struggle of incorporating the names of loved ones into their child’s name.

- There is a generational desperation to deviate from the norm, meaning that most people can relate with the fact that I hate my name doppelgangers. In order to combat that, people have chosen “new” names. But after a while, these names become the ‘Johns” of today. Yell the name “Jayden” in any city park and you’ll see 10 kids turn back.

I guess there are some good points to having a common name. For instance, my ex-girlfriends probably get a kick out of thinking that I might be the gay director when they Google my name. It also means that when people finally do track me down, I know they’ve put some effort into it.

There are no winners in this name game. Just a bunch of us who are called the same thing. Sometimes I think about writing my name twins and asking them to make a change. Or perhaps getting us all together to see what we have in common. That means they probably hate me too!

16 Minutes of Fame

Andrew G.R. — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:05:52 +0000

Sorry Andy Warhol, you were wrong. You once said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” And maybe back in 1968 you were right. But the ambitious generation of the 21st century is clinging onto fame like my eighth grade girlfriend held on to me.

It’s not your fault, Andy. You made this statement before reality TV, before the advent of the Internet. Before this country decided it would allow talentless drones to suck on the teat of fame long after the milk ran dry.

There are too many “stars” on borrowed time to name. But a few that are irking me of late…

Jon and Kate. This absentee mother attempts to satiate her unrelenting ego by trotting out her iron-clad feet on Dancing With the Stars. Miraculously, America keeps her coming back for more. And the tabloids have some sort of bizarre love affair with the man who is single-handedly keeping the Ed hardy fashion line in business.

David After Dentist. It was funny, I admit it. But now it’s just retarded. I give David’s daddy credit for a good concept, but watching you attempt to squeeze every last cent out of your high son is kinda unsettling.

Kendra. You stripped for playboy and married an NFL star, all without revealing a single shred of silicone-less talent. Yet for some bizarre reason, educated women (like my wife!) find you “real.” Sorry, but being “real” shouldn’t get you to minute 16 of fame.

Everyone owns a camera and has access to an endless distribution channel. Shouldn’t that mean that there are MORE stars?

I wish Andy Warhol was right. Fifteen minutes seems like more than enough.

Why Don’t Black People Use Chatroulette?

Andrew G.R. — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:54:25 +0000

By now you’re probably tired of reading about Chatroulette.com, the video chat Website created by a Russian 17-year-old that randomly pairs strangers for a conversation via computer-to-computer connection. When you are set up with someone you do not wish to talk to, you simply hit “next” to get matched with another person.

The novel concept has been embraced by millions of users a month. On the site you will find men, women, children, men and more men. And for whatever bizarre reason, a rather large group of men have hijacked the site as their very own masturbation catalyst. They set the Web cam up to shoot below the waste and start stroking. These gross dudes are under the impression that users want to see their penises. Do they expect a hot girl or guy to be passing by and fall in love? These guys need a clue and a life. The voyeuristic world would be better place without all of these dicks.

I recently tested Chatroulette by clicking through 500 people to get an idea of the site’s demographics. While far from scientific, the results make the creeps look even creepier.

Several dozen of the people I was paired with were minors. A handful were couples. I came across maybe one or two attractive women of “legal” age. Those who wished to remain anonymous were shooting the cam to stream other media. Many people were alone and bored. And without a doubt, the majority of users on this Saturday morning were men. Pervert men. But there was one group completely absent: Blacks.

During my 500 “nexts,” I counted ONE African American. And to his credit, he kept it in his pants.

Late last year Facebook stated that approximately 11% of users are African American. Black Twitter users account for over 26% of all tweets. So why on earth is Chatroulette so lily white?

Any ideas?