Archive for the ‘Rants’ Category

3
Mar

Video blogging wastes my time (and yours)

   Posted by: rew   in Rants, Tech

“Good writing is partly a matter of character. Instead of doing what’s easy for you, do what’s easy for your reader.” - Michael Covington (slide 8, “The unselfish perspective”)

It seems the collective heart of the social media crowd has been stolen away by video blogging, which appears to them more or less The Ultimate Tool. I can see why some might think that. But I hate it, and you should, too.

With some great bloggers, like Jeff Atwood and Steve Yegge and Marc Andreesson and even Mark Cuban (who’s a great blogger w/o being a particularly good writer), I know what they do. Their ability to blog intensely interesting pieces is just part of the unfair measure of talent they’ve been given in a field other than their primary one.

But there are lots of people making lots of social media noise whose actual profession I cannot figure out. I enjoy reading Chris Brogan, Andrew Chen, Kevin Lim, etc. - I just can’t for the life of me figure out what they get paid to do, and by whom. (OK, I think Kevin’s a grad student, but the others - no idea).

And they’re the tip of the iceberg. There’s apparently a semi-closed system of maybe a hundred or more of nearly-A-level social media butterflies out there blogging and twitting and flickring and who-knows-what-else-ing each other, all while getting more and more excited about the “possibilities”. But possibilities for what?

My impression is that right now it’s sort of a blogorrheic derby, to see who can output the fastest, most nearly stream-of-consciousness flow of stuff, to “make people think” and “examine the issues in social media”. Right. Make noise, get attention. I have a 3-year-old. Some of this is not unfamiliar to me.

That brings us to video blogging. When someone sits down to write a blog, unless they’re just compulsive, they have to at least be aware of the idea of editing or re-reading before posting. They may not do it much, but at least the idea’s there. Most people, even in the blogosphere, still seem to at least recognize the notion that ‘better’ writing is something different than ‘first draft’ writing.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case with video blogging, where immediacy seems to be one of the Primary Virtues, and where editing, even cutting out sections altogether, is verboten.

Most video is like bad writing: lazy, self-indulgent, flabby, poorly arranged, flaccid and pointless. Bad writing used to be much easier to make than bad video. But suddenly it’s vastly easier to produce video than to write. After all, you only have to manage to get the button pushed to make video; you don’t even have to type words. But good video production is much harder than it looks. It’s tempting to confuse visual quality with content quality.

When I’m reading a great post, I don’t have to read through 47 lines of “um…um…um…um…” that were auto-generated while the author was gathering his thoughts. But when I’m watching (heaven help me) a video, all those stay in. Each little 3-second pause, or 2-second nervous laugh, or irrelevant aside that seemed funny at the time, but, well, you had to be there, is left in, and then you and I and every other poor sap trying to extract value from it has to sit through them.

Look, it’s no accident that Scoble, the human content cataract, has moved so eagerly from written blogging (which at least allowed him the *opportunity* to gather and edit his thoughts before publishing) to twitter/pownce (which actively discourages either gathering OR editing of thoughts) to audio (which lets you just conveniently babble) to video (which is just audio with more let’s-face-it-do-we-really-need-to-see-that video of the mugs of the babblers).

Just click, chatter for a while, and upload! Woot! I’m adding content, I’m creating value, I’m re-conceptualizing our paradigms! Except I’m not. What I’m doing is blowing out 20 minute chunks of crap with an occasional nugget of goodness buried inside. Then I’m asking thousands or millions of people who want the nuggets to go spend 20 minutes each to find it, rather than doing the work once, digging out the nuggets, cutting out the extraneous and self-indulgent stuff, properly framing the remaining pieces so that the nuggets are presented in a reasonably fair way, and saving (18 minutes) X (however many viewers) = a lot of time.

It gets worse with every shiny new VC-backed way for people to put up endless video streams of the minutiae of their lives. Think about this: how many live-action 24×7 streams of video can you watch? The answer is 1. Only one. And you can only do that by expending an exactly equivalent stretch of your own life.

And here we come to the fatal flaw of web video (and audio; let’s not forget audio, though it seems to be passing away as passe so quickly that it’s barely worth mentioning): you can’t scan or compress it very much.

Now, you have to understand, I read fast. Not as in “fast for a trained speed reader”, but much faster than an average reader. That includes many of you who think that you’re fast readers, but are really only high-functioning average ones. But while I read pretty fast, I scan like a demon. If it’s in text that I don’t need to absorb in detail, I can move through it at a scorching pace, and generally catch and either slow down and “zoom in” on, or revisit later, most of the important stuff. And it makes yummy things like Google Reader a veritable buffet of information and knowledge and (mostly) reading pleasure.

But what happens when I see a blog entry in Google Reader that consists of “Hey, this is great, watch this” and an embedded video (or worse, a link to a video)? What are my choices? For many of the various sucky video services on the web, it’s not even readily apparent how long this piece of crap is going to be before I start.

Apparently, it’s the purpose in life of a lot of the chuckleheads who write these players to keep you from skipping even one second of the Blessed Incarnation of Video that is this particular video. These brain-dead Flash-based players that can’t even do basic things like FF and REW usably. Pausing, while iffy, at least works more than not. But fast-forwarding or skipping to specific points in the video? Right. So it’s either press play and stare for however long it drags on and hope that somewhere in there is a payoff, or skip it.

So most of the time, I skip video posts to written blogs, and ignore “vblogs” entirely. And the more people post video instead of taking the time to write the #*&$#*&% essay so I can read it (quickly) or scan it (ridiculously quickly) and get what I need, the more I ignore them.

What’s needed is for people to compress and edit and excise and eliminate and then post it. Just like with your blog. Don’t make me watch what wasn’t useful. Only show me what was good. Cut it down to size. Then re-arrange it so it’s better organized. Then cut it down some more.

Do the hard work once, at your end, on behalf of every consumer of it. Don’t make your many viewers each duplicate the work or spend the time that you should have invested once for everybody. Don’t think that because you’re slamming out hours of video and audio that you’re adding any value to the world or the lives of those trying to pan through your stream of nonsense for the elusive golden nugget.

I may be in the minority. I suspect that I am, at least amongst a populace with a demonstrated affinity for “less reading, more video”. But I’m guessing that my view is more common among influencers or any people whose time is more valuable than pretty much any other commodity (note: I’m not claiming here to be an influencer, only that I suspect that we share this view of reading vs. video).

And that’s the thing video abuses: my time, and yours.

Kids, if you’re standing in what our British cousins might call a “queue” - one of those setups where you’re waiting your turn in a more-or-less ordered straggling pile of people ahead of you - you are not “on line” or “online”. You are “in line”, as in “in line with the people ahead of you” or “in a line at the ticket counter”. You may be “online”, for instance, if you brought your iPhone, but you’re not standing “online”.

When it’s your turn, you are not “next on line”; you are “next in line”. It doesn’t matter that (1) all your friends say it this way, (2) you’ve never heard of “in line”, (3) you don’t get what the difference is, or (4) you don’t care. It’s still wrong, and you’re wrong if you talk that way.

One day, long ages hence, the language may have become so permanently mutilated that “online” will be the correct way to say “waiting in a queue arranged linearly”. But that day is not today, nor will it be tomorrow, and if I have anything to say about it, will be never.

I wonder sometimes where this abomination comes from. I don’t know, really, but I have a couple of guesses which do not exclude one another. The correct term — “in line”, in case you forgot — comes from the simple fact that you are, in fact, in a line with the people in front of and behind you. Even if that line curves or turns back (as around crowd-control barriers at an airport), it’s still a continuous line from front to back. It’s not a metaphorical line, it’s a real one, made up of people.

Now, to say that you’re “on line”, assuming that it’s not just completely stupid (let’s don’t rule that out, but perhaps there’s a quasi-sensible origin somewhere), must have originally meant something to the first bonehead to use the phrase to mean “standing in a line”. My current theories are these:

  1. In some elementary schools, I have seen actual lines painted along corridors or in lunchrooms, presumably to give the little blighters a physical reference for what standing “in line” might look like. In their case, they would actually be “on line” when standing “in line”, and I suspect that careless or worn-out teachers quickly abandoned the pretext of a semantic difference, and just took to screeching, “Billy, get back on line before I put you in double-secret timeout for another 15 seconds!”
  2. Some person whose grasp of the art of speech was only the barest, whilst grasping for the complicated phrase “in line” to indicate that they were currently “in a line”, stumbled upon the phrase “on line”, and since it had in their confused mental state a vaguely good association (after all, the cool kids are all online these days), they chose it as the best they could do and just went with it.
  3. Others, either linguistically careless or semantically clueless, heard this usage and managed to go so far as to invent a metaphoric line on the floor on which all of the people “in line” were standing, thus making the “on line” a harmless, perhaps even clever, variation. Seeking novelty over clarity, or just not caring enough to say anything right in the first place, they, too, just went with it.

Hence, perhaps, is the language further debased.

I welcome other theories, or better yet, reasonably well-supported evidence, indicating how “on line” came to muscle out its correct cousin and perch now insolently atop the pile of juvenile misolinguism.

7
Sep

Tribes

   Posted by: rew   in General, Politics, Rants

If you haven’t read Bill Whittle’s Tribes, you’re just wasting the life you could be living after being enlightened. It’s typical of the sort of article I would write if I was (1) smarter, (2) better, and (3) a much better writer (sort of like the Sistine Chapel is the sort of ceiling I would paint if I were a better painter).

Here’s to sheepdogs! Grrr…

13
Sep

Truth and the post-modern apathy

   Posted by: rew   in Politics, Rants

The past few weeks have been saturated with discussions of evidence, truths, half-truths, un-truths, and “my truth’s“.

Kerry once joked to the WaPo, “I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis.” The funny thing is, it’s not that funny. Kerry’s not “wishing I hadn’t said that,” or “wishing I’d been more circumspect on that occasion,” or especially, “admitting that I was was wrong then and have since come to my senses.” No, the problem that gives him pause is the fact that all the pajama-clad riff-raff can keep bringing stuff up.

On the matter of the memos, Dan Rather said:

“Until someone shows me definitive proof that they [the memos] are not [genuine], I don’t see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill.”

Well, sheesh, Dan, what would it take? What would you consider definitive”? What is the standard of proof required for you to admit what seems, well, rather obvious to most of us?

Bill in DC quotes Talk Left’s equivocation about whether or not the Boston Globe grossly misrepresented its conversation w/ Dr. Bouffard:

Without hearing a tape of the conversation between the reporter and the source, I don’t know that’s true.

I submit that if we did have a tape of the conversation to show up, the next thing they’d start on would be the tape’s validity. It’s first-hand personal, or nothing. And maybe not even that. No, the acid test would only be hearing the conversation for ourselves. Which would mean that ALL news is unreliable, insofar as what reporters do (in theory) is to tell other people, who weren’t there, what went on.

Mark Steyn points out the pitifully shameless double “standard of proof” for news stories:

…the ”60 Minutes” crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ”CYA” that Bush’s commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ”This was too hot not to push,” one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who’ve signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera — that’s way too cold to push; we’d want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry’s second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative — that meets ”basic standards” and we gotta get it out there right away.

The problem is that, for many people, the conclusions are fixed, and the evidence is as malleable as the arguments It’s post-modernism’s excuse for logic. Meaning only exists in the moment, in the speaker’s mind, or in the listener’s - “my truth” - not outside in the real world, or in any objective abstract framework of truth. And “my meaning” is “my truth”, and has just as much right to exist and “be true” as “your truth”, whatever “you mean”.

The total rejection of any objective truth absolutely requires an endless spiral of unendable arguments defending various, equally non-true, replacements for what we used to call “the truth”.

And while there’s certainly a preponderance of this on the left, at least in the MSM and among candidates, my own experience indicates that the problem is far more widespread. It stems from two things:

  1. lack of the tools (i.e., ability, training, and discipline) to reason rationally (i.e., according to the rules discovered, not made up, over 2 millenia ago)
  2. lack of interest in, or respect for, rational thinking as a “good” in the first place.

Look, properly prepared argumentation is hard, hard work. That’s why you see so little of it. And it’s why, when it shows up, it’s refreshing, bracing, like a splash of cold water that shocks, but then invigorates. But nowadays, it’s as though many people think words and “arguments” are so many little puzzles to be pushed around, trying to make a prettier picture of the available pieces than the opponent. Playing Tetris with the truth, so to speak, hoping to ride it out when the pieces start piling up in one place or another, find a way to drop a piece elsewhere that will undercut and remove the impact of the other pieces, and end up with the high score.

Is truth a game? Is everything just about who wins? Is there a larger meaning, a “right” that will still be “right” a generation, two, a century, many centuries from now? And does it matter to us, right now, whether we find it? Because if it does, then it’s time for us to straighten up, buckle down, and think, not feel our way to truth. Because the truth, as you know, is out there.

UPDATE: BlogsforBush has some related thoughts.

31
Jul

Michael Moore mis-repruhZENtin’?

   Posted by: rew   in Movies, Politics, Rants

Now, wait…that Paragon of Journalistic Integrity, that Towering Monolith of Truth and Veracity, that True Patriot just Asking Tough Questions, Michael Moore, is being sued for “misrepresentation of facts” in his recent movie. I’m stunned; misrepresentation of facts? In a Michael Moore movie? In Farenheit 9/11, of all places? No! NO! Not Mr. Moore!

The paper seeks “an apology” as well as “compensatory damages of exactly one dollar.” And I’m thinking, “Good luck!” But still, say it ain’t so, Michael! I’d just be so…so…shocked. All that journalistic integrity, all that careful reporting, now gone to waste.

But apparently, for the first time in his life, the uncontrollable gasbag has gone quiet. The article concludes by noting, “Moore could not be reached for comment.” I wonder when was the last time that happened?