aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Monday, August 13, 2007
People don’t like TV news
Cory Bergman works in TV news:
This has been a running theory of mine, and I’m glad to see a study that backs it up, at least partially. Technology convenience isn’t the only reason people are watching less TV news — it’s because they don’t like TV news. For example, 39 percent of people who get their news primarily from the internet say they have an “unfavorable” opinion of network news compared to 29 percent of the entire sample. Cable news comes in at 38 percent (compared to 25 percent) and local news is 32 (compared to 22). Probably the most telling statistic in all of this is the question of whether TV “cares about the people they report on.” A whopping 68 percent of internet users say TV doesn’t care compared to 53 percent for the entire sample. [...]
Now, before my TV news friends and co-workers disown me, I’ll point out that there are exceptions to the rule - but many of the worst offenders are dragging us all down with their plummeting credibility. TV newsrooms that “get it” are focused on meaningful community enterprise coverage with smart, respectful storytelling and a ban on breathlessness. And close coordination with the web, of course. There’s room for two thriving news platforms here - TV and the web - but TV has to get more “real.”
School Boards say use Social Networks in schools
While the Attorneys General are off demonizing social network sites, the National Schools Board Association has been collecting data on all of the good things that teenagers are doing with the sites, including learning about colleges, talking about homework, engaging in collaborative projects, and otherwise operating as active learners. To combat the myths generated by mass hysteria, they highlight that only .08% (note the point, this is less than 1%) of students have met someone in person through an online interaction without their parents’ permission. In short, they argue that not only is the Internet not nearly as dangerous as the public seems to believe, but it’s actually quite helpful for students and teachers should be encouraged to support their students in using it. They offer recommendations for how schools should directly engage with these sites and the practices of their students. [...]
Michelangelo Signorile on Merv Griffin’s Dangerous Closet:
Griffin never acknowledged he was gay, though it became widely known in Hollywood, even as Eva Gabor played his beard. Yet, it was nothing discussed in the media and, apparently, in many of his own circles, particularly straight political circles. Though he’d quietly led a gay life—and had his pool parties filled with hot young men in years past, as well as a parade of boyfriends—that was viewed as “private” information that was not discussed in mixed company. I had interviewed many gay men who’d known Griffin as gay, as well as men who told stories about how his closet had him doing horrendous things—and how he was threatened by openly gay people. [...]
Griffin’s closet had him engaging in workplace sexual harassment, something that, as I showed in my 1993 book Queer in America, is common among closeted powerful men, who often are simply seeking outlets for sex. That was not only focused on in the Denny Terrio lawsuit against Griffin but also was something that several Hollywood gay men told me about, offering first hand experience, while I was researching Queer in America back in the early 90s and some of this (though, for legal reasons not all) is reported on in the book.
Finally, Griffin’s closet had him firing gay men who’d actually made it up through the ranks of his own company, simply because they were openly gay. There is a story in Queer in America about a man identified as “The Mogul” who did just that. I can now reveal that The Mogul is Merv Griffin. Open homosexuality is a threat to the closeted, and powerful people in the closet like Merv Griffin will often do whatever it takes to squash those who are open and who might advocate that all among the powerful should come out.
Happy Birthday Alfred Hitchcock
ISPs: put up or shut up!
promise us imply they’ll guarantee high speeds - read the fine print, “Actual throughput speed will vary based on network and Internet congestion among other factors.” - but if we all tried to use it to the fullest the networks would break down.
BBC’s controversial iPlayer P2P video client is drawing the ire of Internet service providers in UK, many of them including Tiscali and Carphone Warehouse threatening to either use traffic shaping or boycott the service all together. Their reasons: BBC’s web video service could bring down their networks.
Their arguments sound hollow — on one hand they urge subscribers to sign-up for faster download plans, and pay premium prices. And yet, they complain when subscribers finally find an application that puts their web speed to work.
The reason the broadband ISPs in UK are bemoaning the BBC iPlayer is because it can cost up to $2 billion to upgrade the networks, and they don’t seem to want to spend that money. And that would eat into their gigantic profit margins.
This is a situation not unique to United Kingdom. Here in the US it is a much-debated issue as well. Every so often someone or the other comes up with a report that talks about enormous strain web video puts on the network, only to be refuted later. And if web video does put strain on their infrastructure, upgrading the network should be viewed as cost of doing business.
I’d regulate the advertising so that they can’t
promise imply what they can’t deliver! And if the Internet is truly 2-way, I want uploads that are just as fast as downloads.
RELATED: The U.S. was once the broadband leader. Robertr X. Cringely says The U.S. is unlikely to ever regain its broadband leadership. And Paul Krugman had a terrific column on why the US fell behind in broadband access.