Thursday, March 08, 2007
Weekly Roundup
When I first read the New York Times article about the death of Captain America, my first reaction was to write a satirical open letter to the Public Editor of the New York Times:
But then I realized that it would just be another in a string of recent blog posts attempting to wring humor out of a narrative heedlessly combining fiction and reality. For instance, just yesterday, I wrote about the auction of Star Wars and Dr. Who memorabilia as if those items had more than simply iconic power for film buffs, under the conceit that the fictional characters existed outside of the imagination. A variant of this idea overlays fictional constructs on real-life figures, such as the suggestion that Warren Buffett should create a Willy Wonka-style contest to pick a successor. Even the mention of the obituary of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. contained a gratuitous pop-culture reference to a fictional country from a Dilbert cartoon.
At best, these quips are good for a quick chuckle, but the approach has already begun to wear thin. Were I to go ahead with the Captain America post as originally conceived, it would cement the impression of this blog as a lightweight diversion with a formulaic approach. Considering the death of Jean Baudrillard, who "argued that mass media and modern consumerist society had built up such a complex structure of symbols and simulated experience that it was no longer possible to comprehend reality as it might actually exist" (Reuters, 3/8/07), I should consider at least a temporary moratorium on such blog posts as a sign of respect and to make a tiny contribution to the idea of regaining some semblance of authenticity in communications.
At least the suggestion that Microsoft operates a windowless private jet works slightly better on the level of both parody and critique, by creating a conceptual blend between the intuitive action of flying and the theoretical aspects of a software program. While it's sometimes hard to describe what's wrong with software, putting it into concrete terms can serve to illuminate the original idea.
Finally, in what was perhaps the most controversial blog entry of the week, I made an oblique connection between the increased risk of schizophrenia by the children of older fathers and the advanced age of the Biblical patriarch Abraham. This carries the unfortunate implication of an increased risk of mental illness in the families of both Hagar and Isaac, which by ignoring the basic theology of an all-powerful G-d, risks offending adherents of the world's major religions. Nor does the theology-based suggestion advance the rational discussion of the treatment and prevention of mental illness from a scientific perspective. In fact, the post could have negative clinical repercussions if it were to convince a male reader to father children at an advanced age in emulation of the Patriarchs, despite the empirical evidence concerning the all-too-real risks. In short, the blog entry was ill-consided and potentially damaging to public health. Although I respect the author's right to publish such nonsense about schizophrenia, it is my fundamental right as a reader to protest its inclusion in a family blog and to voice my strenuous objections.
Also, here's a bit of advice: Be careful about lying to the reader. The post about the "lying game" may serve to demonstrate what was good about the movie "Breach," but it nonetheless sows doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether you're a trustworthy source. In their economic model of the blogosphere (see InformationWeek coverage), Yale researchers Dina Mayzlin and Hema Yoganarasimhan write: "We assume that a blogger must be truth-telling in its posting of a news story. That is, a blogger who simply manufactures a story or makes up a sale will be severely punished by other bloggers and the audience."
Ivan, you've already admitted to lying to your audience at least once. Who's to say that you're not going to do it again? Keep it up, and people will most certainly go elsewhere for small-business consulting tips, sporadic coverage of the financial services market, and links to other references about blogging. My advice is that you stick to writing about your résumé. Or talking dogs. That dog "Ratt" you keep mentioning seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Let's hear what she has to say, and stop monopolizing the conversation with your readers.
Sincerely,
Ivan Schneider
Dear Mr. Calame,In the fictional letter, I would complain about the paper's bias in covering the superhero registration act, as well as paper's unwillingness to address the question of why Captain America was never promoted to the rank of Major despite decades of faithful service.
While I am pleased that The New York Times has finally woken up to the biggest story of the year – government registration requirements for superheroes – I am nevertheless extremely disappointed with several aspects of the paper's coverage.
...
But then I realized that it would just be another in a string of recent blog posts attempting to wring humor out of a narrative heedlessly combining fiction and reality. For instance, just yesterday, I wrote about the auction of Star Wars and Dr. Who memorabilia as if those items had more than simply iconic power for film buffs, under the conceit that the fictional characters existed outside of the imagination. A variant of this idea overlays fictional constructs on real-life figures, such as the suggestion that Warren Buffett should create a Willy Wonka-style contest to pick a successor. Even the mention of the obituary of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. contained a gratuitous pop-culture reference to a fictional country from a Dilbert cartoon.
At best, these quips are good for a quick chuckle, but the approach has already begun to wear thin. Were I to go ahead with the Captain America post as originally conceived, it would cement the impression of this blog as a lightweight diversion with a formulaic approach. Considering the death of Jean Baudrillard, who "argued that mass media and modern consumerist society had built up such a complex structure of symbols and simulated experience that it was no longer possible to comprehend reality as it might actually exist" (Reuters, 3/8/07), I should consider at least a temporary moratorium on such blog posts as a sign of respect and to make a tiny contribution to the idea of regaining some semblance of authenticity in communications.
At least the suggestion that Microsoft operates a windowless private jet works slightly better on the level of both parody and critique, by creating a conceptual blend between the intuitive action of flying and the theoretical aspects of a software program. While it's sometimes hard to describe what's wrong with software, putting it into concrete terms can serve to illuminate the original idea.
Finally, in what was perhaps the most controversial blog entry of the week, I made an oblique connection between the increased risk of schizophrenia by the children of older fathers and the advanced age of the Biblical patriarch Abraham. This carries the unfortunate implication of an increased risk of mental illness in the families of both Hagar and Isaac, which by ignoring the basic theology of an all-powerful G-d, risks offending adherents of the world's major religions. Nor does the theology-based suggestion advance the rational discussion of the treatment and prevention of mental illness from a scientific perspective. In fact, the post could have negative clinical repercussions if it were to convince a male reader to father children at an advanced age in emulation of the Patriarchs, despite the empirical evidence concerning the all-too-real risks. In short, the blog entry was ill-consided and potentially damaging to public health. Although I respect the author's right to publish such nonsense about schizophrenia, it is my fundamental right as a reader to protest its inclusion in a family blog and to voice my strenuous objections.
Also, here's a bit of advice: Be careful about lying to the reader. The post about the "lying game" may serve to demonstrate what was good about the movie "Breach," but it nonetheless sows doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether you're a trustworthy source. In their economic model of the blogosphere (see InformationWeek coverage), Yale researchers Dina Mayzlin and Hema Yoganarasimhan write: "We assume that a blogger must be truth-telling in its posting of a news story. That is, a blogger who simply manufactures a story or makes up a sale will be severely punished by other bloggers and the audience."
Ivan, you've already admitted to lying to your audience at least once. Who's to say that you're not going to do it again? Keep it up, and people will most certainly go elsewhere for small-business consulting tips, sporadic coverage of the financial services market, and links to other references about blogging. My advice is that you stick to writing about your résumé. Or talking dogs. That dog "Ratt" you keep mentioning seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Let's hear what she has to say, and stop monopolizing the conversation with your readers.
Sincerely,
Ivan Schneider
Labels: NYT, talking dogs, weekly roundup
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
