BREAKING: Area Blogger Not Kidnapped By Aliens

We here at DHMBIB have been remiss about posting recently. In fact, we see that it's been 9 weeks since our last post. That was not our intention. It's just that we got caught up in other life events, like job-related things, moving-related things, blah-blah-blah-related things. And as such.

We are back, and we'll try to make it worth your while for occasionally stopping by and checking us out.

With regard to our "Best CDs of 2007" project, we plan to condense the remaining posts into more-easily-writeablereadable nuggets. And we are also planning on doing some nice, arbitrary "end of the year" stuff.

Thank you for your patronage.

Eds.

continue reading...

collapse...

BREAKING: "Big-Time" Blog Posts Photo Of Two People With The Same Name, Makes Obvious And Unfunny Jokes

[image courtesy WireImage via TMZ]

So, TMZ [disclosure -- Ed.] posted this photo today, and the accompanying write-up made every obvious and unfunny joke that is already spinning through your brain, because Larry King is responsible for the post, obvs.

Disappointed at the lack of original wit at "my" company, I decided to open this photo up to a "Caption This" contest amongst my many faithful readers.

However, you cannot use any of these phrases / jokes in your efforts, because they are so obvious that even Wolf Blitzer has already thought of them:

* "glamorous"
* "The Duchess of York" / "The Dutchess of [Josh] Duhamel"
* my humps / "lovely lady lumps"
* "Fergalicious"
* "Sarah Ferguson" / "Stacy Ferguson" / "garwsh, ya mean they're both named 'Fergie'???"
* "flossy, flossy"
* "London Bridge"

Also, no tranny jokes -- Anderson Cooper already went there, too.

Now, I'm not a completely bad guy. Because I've declared so many jokes off limits, I'll give you a few more things I thought of that might help you out:

* "T-to-the-A-to-the-S-T-E-Y, girl you're TASTEY!"
* "D-to-the-E-to-the-L-I-C-I-O-U-S"
* anything having to do with Candie's; and
* anything having to do with Weight Watchers

[thank you! we'll be here all week! -- Ed.]

* * * * *

You may also get a few ideas from Fergie's [the singer -- Ed.] new video, "Big Girls Don't Cry". [or, you may just enjoy seeing Fergie in her undies. or, you may just enjoy seeing what it would look like if Fergie quit the Black Eyed Peas and joined Good Charlotte, or maybe Korn -- Ed.] Anyway, this is the song Fergie performed on American Idol on 18 April, and it's one of my favorite songs from Fergie's outstanding [no, really -- Ed.] CD, The Dutchess.



And because I haven't had one in a while, it's also my Video Of The Day.

ciaobaby

continue reading...

collapse...

This Is Why We Don't Love American Newsweeklies [27 March 2007 Edition]

[image mashup courtesy Eat The Press]

[disclosure, blah, blah, blah -- Ed.]

Time has joined Newsweek in determining that Americans who are retired or go to the dentist can't handle the truth. Or, perhaps, would rather read about Paris Hilton than, yaknow, things that might be like, all bad-news and shit.

Read all about it after the jump...

The image montage above shows covers from Time US and three other international editions of Time. One of these things is not like the others, eh???

What do Time editors from around the globe think their readers need to know? The cover story everywhere else is that Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders [mostly] in "the tribal regions" of Pakistan have succeeded in creating their own virtual "non-state" "state" free of control from either the Pakistani or Afghan governments. "Remote, tribal and deeply conservative, the border region is less a part of either country than a world unto itself, a lawless frontier so beyond the control of the West and its allies that it has earned a name of its own: Talibanistan." It's a very interesting -- and disturbing -- story, and you can read about it on US Time's website -- but not in US Time magazine -- here.

Sadly, this is not the first time our newsweekly overlords have determined we in the US just can't handle the truth. Back in September, Newsweek did the same thing with a related story and cover that postulated that the NATO allies were "Losing Afghanistan". Here's that cover montage fun:


[image courtesy Wonkette]

Here are Wonkette, Gawker, and TruthOut on the "Losing Afghanistan" cover story...story.

Then, Newsweek did it again in October, with an international story about the effects of global warming that was, well, apparently not hot enough to make the US mag. Here's that cover montage fun:


[image courtesy Wonkette]

Here is Wonkette on the Global Warming story.

Oh, and just because they wanted to be dicks, apparently, Newsweek did it yet again in October with a story about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

Rachel Sklar wants you to know that she's had enough of this bullshit.

Why does the American media think the big depressing stories need to back-burnered in favor of stories about celebrity and "social controversy"? Sadly, I think we all know the answer to that question.

Whatever moves the most copies. Sigh.

*****

Take a look back at that first montage above. The international editions feature a story about "Talibanistan". The US edition features a story titled "Why We Should Teach The Bible In Public School".

Maybe one of these things really is like the other things after all.

continue reading...

collapse...

On The Internet, Nobody Knows You're A Dog, btw [21 March 2007 Edition]

This is one of my favorite truisms jokes about the Internet. It first appeared in the 5 July 1993 issue of The New Yorker. [wait -- "the Internet" has been around since 1993??? -- Ed.]

[Thanks to this site for the pic, which helpfully also has a magnified screen grab of the monitor (scroll down).]

And now, thanks to an interesting -- and, alas, long-overdue -- decision announced today by Gawker Managing Editor Choire Sicha, now on the Internet, everyone will know whether "this is Balk, btw" or that is "Rhymes with Memily".

Regular readers of Gawker [DHMBIB raises hand!], Gawker Media's [GM] flagship blog about media and New York -- or any of GM's blogs -- are familiar with GM's signature unsigned "royal 'We' " style of posting in the third-person-plural. Even though most GM sites have multiple editors and contributors, this anonyfiction has allowed each site to present its snarky opinions as if they were those of "the site" instead of the individual contributors. It also has encouraged GM's active commenter community to play a game of speculating who authored any particular post -- a game encouraged along by Gawker Editor Alex Balk's occasional interjections of "[this is Balk, btw]".

But in an out-of-the-blue post this morning, Gawker Managing Editor Choire Sicha announced that henceforth -- or at least until the policy is changed -- Gawker's posts will be bylined.

GM clearly does not have a corporate policy on this. Most of their sites are not bylined, and there is precedent for going the other way. Back in the "1.0" days of Wonkette [GM's politics-and-DC blog], only posts not written by founding editor Ana Marie Cox were bylined -- all others were supposed to be understood to be hers. Even though AMC's signature style -- who can forget the glory days of the "ass-fucking" and "Butterstick" tags??? [not related, you Last-Tango-In-Paris-thinking pervs!!! -- Ed.] -- could not be mistaken, AMC's policy was to let her readers know when someone else was posting on her site.

[Ana Marie Cox is still so revered by regular Wonkette readers that she is still listed as "Wonkette Emerita" on the site, even though her contract with Time (hey! blogging about disclosures!) surely limits her ability to post there...unless she's writing about "ass-fucking" or "Butterstick"...or both -- Ed.]

After AMC left Wonkette barely a year ago, the new editors of "Wonkette 2.0" -- David Lat and Alex Pareene -- announced as their first editorial decision that they were elminating bylines. Since then, all posts on Wonkette -- even those written by "guest editors" -- have gone "un-bylined", thus being attributed instead to "Wonkette". Wonkette's policy remains in place to this day. [N.B.: David Lat left Wonkette last summer. Alex has since been joined by Ken Layne from another part of the GW corporate family for "Wonkette 3.0" -- Ed.]

Contrast that with this interesting editorial judgment over at GM's music blog, Idolator. Several months ago, quite famously, Idolator editors Brian Raftery and Maura Johnston called out the anonymous author of the music blog Gerard vs. Bear for refusing to identify him[?]self. Like Wonkette's editors, Brian and Maura do not byline their posts, but they do identify themselves as editors. Their beef with "Gerard" was that "he" would not even identify himself -- making it impossible for readers to make editorial judgments about potential conflicts-of-interest in his posts -- even though "Gerard" 's [75% -- "75%", because "Gerard" does also post "his" own opinions about music matters] raison-d'etre appeared to be calling out other music bloggers on conflicts-of-interest. [Sadly, such conflicts are notorious in the world of music blogs. This public spat is what led us to make our own disclosures when we started DHMBIB 2.0 back in December 2006 -- Ed.]

So, while Idolator is calling on "Gerard" to identify himself -- without identifying themselves, post-wise, Wonkette has gone one way, and Gawker has now gone the other way. Now, one can make an argument either way about whether posts should be individually bylined for conflicts-of-interest purposes, or whether group-blog opinions -- and, consequently, conflicts-of-interest -- should be attributed to all editors of a site.

All of this is very "inside baseball", as either Brian or Maura [see how difficult this is??? -- Ed.] Idolator would say, and I probably wouldn't be writing about this, except for Sicha's curious pronouncement today, and GM's own conflicted history about this.

So, I wonder -- what prompted Sicha's change-of-heart today?

GM commenter "Chief Wahoo" speculated -- jokingly, I hope and assume -- in the announcing post that this change related to "Gawker" nominating GM boss Nick Denton in their "Worst Bosses" "contest".

But Eat The Press editor Rachel Sklar has a different idea.

Sklar posits that this is all a CYA thing for...wait for it...Sicha himself! As Sklar notes, Sicha used to work for GM, left GM to work for the New York Observer, and has recently returned. Any anonyposts about the NYO are thus automatically questionable. Plus, there's that whole "you're real journalists not just snarkers" thing GM has to deal with. Can you imagine the outcry that would result -- from sites like Gawker -- if CBS [for example] were to read its news with an unidentified "voice" instead of with "Katie Couric"?

What's my opinion about all this? Well, I respect and appreciate bloggers taking personal responsibility for their posts. I can understand why group-blog sites would want all of their posts to be "of the site", but I have greater respect for the notion of standing proud for one's words.

I applaud Sicha's decision -- even though either he or his bloggers were not taking [unsigned] it [unsigned] seriously [unsigned] by the end of the day.

I'm also curious -- will this be the new GM policy for all GM sites??? Or does this only apply to sites that might be, yaknow, conflicted about something???

*****

This post marks the debut of a new "feature" for DHMBIB. Future posts tagged "On The Internet, Nobody Knows You're A Dog" will focus on topics such as "you can't believe everything you see on the Internet" or "one of these things is not like the others", for example.

continue reading...

collapse...

BREAKING: Boring Old Newsmagazine Makes Sweet Escape Back To The Future, Sheds No Tears About Cribbing Boring Old Iconography

[disclosure, blah, blah, blah -- Ed.]

Have you seen the first issue of Time after its much-balleyhood redesign?

I won't bore you with discussions of white space and font sizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze [go here or here if you want to see that kind of stuff]. And, of course, there's no need to digress to discuss the HI-larious cover story, which contains such awesome bits as:

" A generation ago, fresh off the second biggest electoral landslide in American history, Ronald Reagan surveyed the wreckage that had been the opposition and declared victory. Standing before 1,700 true believers at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he proclaimed, "The tide of history is moving irresistibly in our direction. Why? Because the other side is virtually bankrupt of ideas. It has nothing more to say, nothing to add to the debate. It has spent its intellectual capital." "

[and]

" "Compassionate conservatism, for all its virtues, does not even try to address itself to parents. A conservative agenda that did so would not only cement a relationship with these voters, it would also appeal to many with similar worries who do not share the strong cultural predilections that have drawn middle- and lower-middle-class parents to vote for Republicans." [says Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center] "

No, I'm more interested in this surely-not-photoshopped awesome cover image of Ronald Reagan shedding a lone tear.

I think I've seen this iconography somewhere before.

I think it's awesome that the folks at Time wanted to fictionally demonstrate that "Reagan would be sad if he knew his party had no new ideas, had brought the world to the brink of an apocalyptic World War III, and was maybe about to nominate a possibly-closeted-gay liberal as their new standard bearer" in the "a photoshopped picture is worth 1000 10,000 words" kind of way. I wonder where they got this idea from?

Maybe they were inspired by Gwen Stefani shedding a tear after realizing that Fergie had displaced her as the new dance-pop-R&B queen:


[image courtesy gwenstefani.com]

Or maybe they were inspired by Elmo shedding a tear because The Black Parade's dealing-with-cancer theme touched him at the core of his soul:


[image courtesy stereogum.com]

Or maybe they were inspired by Lil Wayne's non-photoshopped non-tears he has never actually shed over anything:


[image courtesy cashmoney-records.com]

Or maybe they were inspired by this widely-distributed 9/11-themed image:


[image courtesy angelfire.com; seriously, who still hosts their site on Angelfire??? -- Ed.]

Or maybe they were inspired by this eTrade Super Bowl commercial from 2001 -- widely considered to be one of the Top Ten Super Bowl Ads of all time:


[video courtesy filefront.com]

[Wouldn't it be not-in-the-"rain-on-your-wedding-day"-kind-but-the-real-kind ironic if this really were the inspiration for the Time cover??? -- Ed.]

Or maybe they were inspired by "the original" -- the classic 1970's-era anti-pollution PSA starring totally non-"Indian" actor Espera De Corti, a/k/a "Iron Eyes Cody" [his parents were Sicilian, but he was born in the United States] [hey, he could run for President if he hadn't died 8 years ago -- Ed.]:


[video courtesy youtube.com]

[seriously, DHMBIB recommends that all readers check out these two videos -- Ed.]

*****

Okay, Time, I know a picture is worth 1000 words -- even if it is completely fake. But the "shedding a single tear" meme jumped the shark a long time ago. And after the eTrade monkey did it, it became a complete joke.

[Sort of like Time magazine, I s'pose -- Ed.]

continue reading...

collapse...

META: What Is A Live Blog?

Recently, I posted two entries that I labeled as "live blog" entries:

Liveblogging The 2007 Grammys

Live-Blogging The 2007 Oscars: The During

Put simply, a "live blog" is typically a blog of a live event -- such as an awards ceremony or a speech -- that is updated in real time as the event unfolds. Construed most strictly, a "live blog" post should end when the event ends. Many live-bloggers adhere very strictly to this idea of live blogging.

I have taken the editorial liberty with my live blog posts to go back after the fact and make changes to already-published entries. I have always noted that I have done this, but I rarely highlight specific entries that have been changed [or even added]. Does this mean I'm not really "live-blogging"???

Live-blogging is difficult -- much more difficult than creating a traditional blog post. Events unfold dynamically and quickly, and there is usually no time to step back and "add something that I forgot to add" or take a big-picture view of the event being blogged. Also, the mere fact that the blogger is adding to the post makes it very easy to miss new developments in the event.

I am not a fast or completely-accurate typist -- and my accuracy declines as I attempt to type even faster. My brain works faster than my fingers, and I find that in the heat of the battle I make a lot of spelling and grammatical errors, and I substitute words from my head with different words on the screen that I did not intend. When I have time to review my posts, which might be during the event or at the completion of the event, I see many errors I wish to correct. I consider these kinds of corrections harmless, and I don't hesitate to make them.

Live-blogs have two potential audiences. The first audience is composed of readers who "tune in" to follow the live blog in "real time". This audience is constantly "refreshing" the blog to see new entries. This audience probably wouldn't care very much if the blogger went back and changed -- or didn't change -- a few spelling errors.

The second audience is composed of casual blog readers who will read the live blog as just another post on the blog, perhaps the next day, the next week, or six months later. This audience obviously also wouldn't care very much if the blogger had "gone back" to correct errors. Indeed, this audience's opinion of the blog would suffer if it appeared riddled with obvious spelling and grammatical errors.

But I have acknowledged that my edits of my "live blogs" go even further. I not only go back and fix spelling errors, I go back and add new content. Sometimes, this is something that popped into my head a few minutes after the appropriate "time" to write it had passed. Sometimes, though, this is "supplemental" information to which I did not have access at the time. Frequently, this includes links to external sites, or photos and video clips from the event that might not be widely available until the next day. Given enough technology, the blogger can have access to these things in real time, and thus blog them in real time. But I don't have this technology yet.

I add these things because I think they make my blog post more enjoyable, and the reading experience a better one for my audience. The "live blog" audience may object to this because it brings into question the whole label of "live blogging". The more casual audience may also be bothered by this -- for the same reason -- but I believe the extra context adds extra value both for the casual audience and for the live audience who may return for a second look.

I will continue my practice of "updating" my live blog posts unless I hear overwhelming objections to the contrary. I acknowledge that I should probably clarify what I am doing -- and when I am doing it -- and I pledge to make that clearer. This will include making it clear that I may add content after-the-fact, and that "live blog" readers are encouraged to check back the next day for additional information.

I hope you enjoy my blog. Please keep reading, and please feel free to leave me feedback in the comments or at my contact addresses above.

ciaobaby

continue reading...

collapse...

META: Breaking: Blogger Googling Results In Loud Echo In Bloggosphere

I'm sorry this couldn't be more timely, but I was busy on other matters for most of Wednesday, and when I finally got free, my "google" went down until mid-day Thursday.

If you've ever heard the old adage that, "in the future, we'll all be doing each others' laundry writing each others' blogs", or you believe that "there are two things you don't want to see being made -- sausage and legislation blogs", you may not want to read this post.

On Tuesday 2.6, American Idol aired an audition show from San Antonio. One of the contestants shown on television was Akron Watson. Watson was shown on the air receiving one of the coveted "golden tickets" to Hollywood.

I watched that show and took some notes about it during the broadcast [sadly, I have neither a TiVo (or similar DVR device) nor a VCR (VeeCeeWhaa???)]. After the show, I worked up a blog post about the show.

Inspired by earlier work done by Eric at deathbycamera, I googled several of the contestants looking for MySpace pages, YouTube videos, etc. etc. One of the hits I received was this story on the Pegasus News site about Watson's invitiation to Hollywood having been revoked just days before he was scheduled to leave. As you can see on this page, the story originally appeared online on 1.31. No one -- no one -- had picked up on it before Watson's appearance on the 2.6 airdate of his audition. In my post, I linked to this story [with attribution] and questioned why Watson's ticket had been torn up. My post went up at 10:39 PM PST on 2.6 [1:39 AM EST on 2.7]. [N.B.: The Pegasus News article was updated at 9:17 PM CST (10:17 PM EST) 2.6, after Idol aired in the Eastern and Central time zones and after I had already found and cached the page, to reflect the fact that Idol aired Watson's audition in spite of the fact that he had already been uninvited.]

Puzzled about the lack of corroborating evidence of this story when I was ready to post my report -- I googled again, and found only the updated page [N.B.: my post reflected the updated title of the PN post] -- I began to wonder if this was some internet hoax. I went to bed wondering whether this story was on the level -- What is "Pegasus News"??? Would I have to "update" my blog??? -- or, if it were, when this explosive news would "filter" in to the entertainment websites.

I should not have been so naive.

Dear reader[s], it is at this point that I must refer you to my earlier disclosure. Take a moment to refresh yourself. Back? Okay, let's go...

On Wednesday 2.7, the entertainment bloggosphere was abuzz about the plight of Akron Watson, the contestant from the Dallas-Fort Worth area who had received the "golden ticket" on Tuesday's show but had been uninvited from Hollywood by the AI producers. Here are some representative post times -- and sources -- of some of these posts:

* RealityTVMagazine -- "10:33 PM 2.6" -- PN [note -- RealityTVMagazine.com uses TypePad for their blog; TypePad is centered in San Francisco; TypePad's website does not specify how the post time is determined or what time zone is used as the default time zone; RTVM's post did not appear in my post-post [ha ha!] google search]

[all dates below are Wednesday 2.7]

* TMZ -- 11:30 AM [EST?] -- PN via RTVM

* BestWeekEver -- 1:43 PM [EST?] -- PN via TMZ

* Stereogum -- 5:30 PM [CST?] -- TMZ

* Idolator -- time unknown -- RTVM [note: RTVM "reported this morning"]

* MollyGood -- time unknown -- TMZ

Okay, DHMBIB, we're getting tired of reading. What's your point?

My point is.... It's pretty clear to me that the big, "well-respected" entertainment sites [*cough* bloggers *cough*] RTVM and TMZ got this story the same way I did -- by googling with a search that looked something like this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22akron+watson%22&btnG=Google+Search

And the other sites [*cough* bloggers *cough*] got their stories by...reading other blogs.... If you regularly read any blogs, you should not be surprised to read that most bloggers' content is merely recycled from other blogs. Trust me -- I'm not hatin' on this method of creating content. Different blogs have different audiences, and the bloggers behind them blog what they blog because they believe their eyeballs meal-tickets readers want to know about this info, regardless whether it is "original news".

Okay, so we all write each others' blogs, and our readers don't want to know that.

[Go back and reread my disclosure.] But I am especially unimpressed with the work of TMZ here, which advertises itself as the "go-to" entertainment news blog:

" Named one of the year's 50 coolest websites by Time magazine [where is the disclosure??? -- Ed.], TMZ -- a joint venture between Telepictures Productions and AOL -- has enjoyed a meteoric rise to prominence by breaking [emphasis added -- Ed.] the biggest stories in entertainment. From Mel Gibson's DUI arrest and subsequent encounter with law enforcement to Michael Richards' ill-fated trip to the Laugh Factory to the breakup of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's marriage, TMZ dominates the entertainment news landscape by changing the way the public gets their news. Frequently referenced by the media, TMZ is one of the most-cited entertainment news sources, utilized by national network and local newsgathering organizations across the country. "

I was the second site to have this news online. Please think about that the next time you "learn" something from TMZ, BWE, USMag, etc.

"Timing" is "everything".

Thank you. Drive through.

continue reading...

collapse...

Disclosure

I recognize that any blog about a commercially-available product or service should disclose any potential conflicts-of-interest the author[s] may have. This does not necessarily mean the author must blog under her/his "real name", even though that in and of itself can help the reader quite a bit in making a judgment about potential conflicts. It's the conflicts themselves that are important. Idolator has been hammering this point home specifically in reference to the Gerard vs. Bear music blog, whose anonymous author ["Gerard"] refuses to identify her/himself and -- more importantly -- any potential conflicts [A&R rep for a label? Chief programmer for KROQ? Manager for My Chemical Romance? etc.] s/he may have.

Fair enough.

I own 80 shares of stock in Time Warner Inc. [NYSE:TWX] Even though Time Warner sold its music business to Edgar Bronfman, Jr., and most of my posts will be about music, there is of course the chance that I will blog something that has some relation to the TW empire.

Thank you for listening.

P.S. AOL is waaay cooler than MSN.

continue reading...

collapse...