Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 03, 2009, 12:44:49 AM
(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/pghcoder/Q2jatHSA2Pxt00Id7e1TcHwabIX6pZnWxm6WAopUBF5gocrKSC3ohWzNYwLH/image001.jpg)
(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/pghcoder/kFsFQKqYrX3KCwPjgl9geBOPfAXFBK5OzCKwaYbOMeswMtEImKwbyJhkGcBV/image002.jpg)
(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/pghcoder/B0UuQ2LsSz3rIX9LPLIz4SHsEd8l8jLnzsmV0JUBVVx8HyD80J3IsIZ5mKf5/image008.jpg)
(http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/pghcoder/SNVK1Jn6GR4moVjjq1mf4zthWDhGC7wK8AT4dsT47H67YwOQ0udRaEZiew3e/image009.jpg)
Enki just gave me an idea (I hate to fucking admit it, but the truth is the truth).
A project to discredit the media, not because it's biased, but because it's
dumb.
Anyone interested? I think this one could go places.
interested.
how would we do that?
Quote from: Gramulus on September 03, 2009, 01:53:19 AM
interested.
how would we do that?
Still working on that part, I'm afraid. I'm open to suggestions.
Maybe something along the lines of adbusters or culture jamming.
brainstorm,brainstorm...
attacking the media itself is a tall order
faking a study about media accuracy is kind of cute in that it's self-reflexive. Like a headline that reads "80% OF HEADLINES LIE"
but that's still within the media, you know? It's like running an anti-commerical TV commercial.
I'm not sure whether or not drawing attention to the dumbness of the media will get people to stop consuming it. The Adbusters crew has been trying to "bring the factory of images to a shuddering halt" for years, and all they've succeeded in is creating a weird counterculture brand identity. Essentially another consumer choice like being vegan or "green". The problem is that it's ineffectual to attack the same channel you're using. (example: if you create a really tight anti-twitter meme, and people tweet about it like crazy, you fail)
"GASM" implies something we can all do... so perhaps a project where we write to our local papers / news stations on behalf of some cause. GASM command can provide publicity kits that will make it a simple print-n-mail project.
a good start is to crystalize the idea of the media being dumb. Can we boil that down into a memorable sound bite or image?
because then we can repackage it in numerous forms
food for thought
Great idea! i will be brain storming some ideas! :fnord:
An idea has struck me!
...ow
Okay, so what if we took down ad posters (you know the type, advertising anything from Sham-Wow to Mormonism), scanned them, and photoshopped them to completely subvert the meaning? For example, take the Shaw-Wow ad and (without changing the layout or overall look) replace the ad-text with how efficient sham-wows are at cleaning up hooker blood (http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/vince-shlomi-arrested-and-mug-shot/)?
Or how about editing those Scientology posters with information about how their leader is a 5 foot 2 inch psychopath who beats up fucking everyone? Needless to say, you would then replace the "subvertisement" back wherever you found it.
What do you guys think?
The first thing that came to mind was how Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in the 1990's.
But I don't think that's the idea here is it.
To me, Enki's images are cute.. but they're not an example of the media being dumb - they're examples of people in the media being dumb or just making mistakes. Whatever.
Some examples of how the media appears dumb to me:
- Falling into feedback loops of insecurity - "everyone else is reporting on this so...."
- Giving false equality even when one side is obviously playing them
- Trying to break a story too quickly and giving either false information or no information at all - filler
- Following predictable patterns that everyone they give a voice to can manipulate
- Is institutionally blind with regards the internet
Each of those areas of dumbness above is also a potential weakness.
What Cram said about adbusters was spot-on I think, there's absolutely no leverage to be had in pointing out stupidity after the fact. Otherwise Jon Stewart would be president by now.
Yet would it be different if we could intentionally mislead them a few times by using easily demonstrable tricks and techniques, document the premeditation, at the same time enabling anybody else to join in? If it would force the media to become less dumb in those ways, would that be worth it?
Getting to the point where they want to give us a voice is a
long troll.. I think the third item above would be the easiest to pull off - monitor the AP wire, or as close to, then when a story breaks which has sketchy/speculative details cross-reference a few bogus blogs to each other, make up some stupid but juicy fact for the media to soak up.. backdating if applicable, link wikipedia articles to them as cited sources. Some "breaking news" stories run for an hour or more with scant information - that's more than enough time for even one person to customise some content on the various locations and tweet the link to CNN or whatever.
Making bogus blogs is a bit of groundwork. But we can share the passwords here, and livejournal is a treasure trove of content (e.g. something mundane like gardening (http://community.livejournal.com/myhappyhome)), the blogs can be blank (all entries private) until everything is ready to go. I'm guessing I could do one in a few hours with backdated entries, how many would we need for each round? 2-3? I'm guessing they couldn't be used more than once.. cause the media ain't that dumb. Is it?
I would expect this would only work a few times before they became more cautious - doesn't matter as long as we present our "the media is dumb - look - we did XYZ and here's how" first - by inspiring copycats, they would be bound to be more inventive than anything we could come up with.
I have been a trainee in televisions, radios and newspapers, and I can tell you that those guys fucking want scandals. You can throw them any information without it even being true, and a lot of them will publish it without even checking, especialy if it sounds like a good scandal. You can provide them with some photoshopped images and there is a pretty good chance that they will fall for it.
Quote from: DALEKK on September 03, 2009, 06:55:13 AM
I have been a trainee in televisions, radios and newspapers, and I can tell you that those guys fucking want scandals. You can throw them any information without it even being true, and a lot of them will publish it without even checking, especialy if it sounds like a good scandal. You can provide them with some photoshopped images and there is a pretty good chance that they will fall for it.
A scandal? What about the rumour that Glenn Beck murdered and raped a young girl in 1990? He hasn't denied it... probably because he can't.
How do you actually go about subverting a media which is already autosubversive? Leading on Fuck-ups [your own or someone elses] is such a staple of contemporary media output that you either have to go for a seriously conspiratorial approach - and good luck with that - or get lost in the rest of the quick laugh/raised eyebrows dross that constitutes "news" output . . .
here is an exemplar piece of shit thrown by MediaMonkey in the Guardian a couple of days ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2009/sep/01/express-ant-dec-headline-error
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/Daily-Express-Ant-and-Dec-001.jpg)
I found the explanation of how it happened to be much more interesting than the headline - but thats just me . .
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 03, 2009, 06:12:52 AM
To me, Enki's images are cute.. but they're not an example of the media being dumb - they're examples of people in the media being dumb or just making mistakes. Whatever.
The first two are, but the last two are definitely just really really dumb headlines.
The first thing that this made me think of however, is that youtube-trolling-paradox. Meaning, (supposedly) it is impossible to make a comment on a (reasonably popular) youtube video that is
so dumb that nobody will take it seriously because they see it's just being dumb on purpose. The lesson here being, there's probably always somebody dumber than you can be on purpose (one example that comes to mind is a story I heard about a black guy complaining that the computer industry was being racist and keeping the black population down, because the white man made computers too complicated for black people to understand ...)
Anyway, making extra-super-dumb news articles, well it's gonna be a load of fun, but I'm afraid we're gonna hit that paradox.
This ^
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
The first two are, but the last two are definitely just really really dumb headlines.
Could be to meet the 4am deadline, maybe the reporter felt like fucking up on purpose, maybe it was April 1st, or the Daily Mail. I guess my point is - it's not evidence of systematic stupidity.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
Anyway, making extra-super-dumb news articles, well it's gonna be a load of fun, but I'm afraid we're gonna hit that paradox.
I wasn't talking about making dumb articles for the lulz, but rather demonstrating the process by which forms of news media are not just dumb, but predictably and dangerously stupid... and if we inspire copy-cats, that would create the situation where they have to adapt. If that makes them just a little bit less dumb, that's an unusual victory.
Okay, dumb idea. Thought it was worth floating.
I still think you can work with this. Just needs the right angle.
Quote from: Gramulus on September 03, 2009, 03:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
Okay, dumb idea. Thought it was worth floating.
why do you say that?
The whole "it won't change the world tomorrow, so why bother" thing reflected in most of the last page.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2009, 03:03:27 PM
I still think you can work with this. Just needs the right angle.
Yeah, I mentioned that. I can see potential here, but I'm not sure how to go about it, as I implied earlier...which is why I found the responses so puzzling.
Perhaps I presented it badly. I posted the pics as the source of the idea, and everyone seems to have taken it as "let's use these pics to bring The Machine down".
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 03, 2009, 01:28:24 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
The first two are, but the last two are definitely just really really dumb headlines.
Could be to meet the 4am deadline, maybe the reporter felt like fucking up on purpose, maybe it was April 1st, or the Daily Mail. I guess my point is - it's not evidence of systematic stupidity.
ok then, whatever. from your reaction, I took you were disagreeing with these particular
examples of media stupidity. I dont have much interest in establishing
whether the media is dumb or not, but take it as a given (And I think a lot of other people with me).
if you disagree with that, fine, but dont go doing it in someone else's thread killing of a potentially cool project before it's even taken form.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
Anyway, making extra-super-dumb news articles, well it's gonna be a load of fun, but I'm afraid we're gonna hit that paradox.
I wasn't talking about making dumb articles for the lulz, but rather demonstrating the process by which forms of news media are not just dumb, but predictably and dangerously stupid... and if we inspire copy-cats, that would create the situation where they have to adapt. If that makes them just a little bit less dumb, that's an unusual victory.
[/quote]
Yeah but I wasnt talking about whatever you're talking about, so shut it.
Not everything is about you, your opinion or your worldview, Fictionpuss.
(still isn't)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 05:07:18 PMYeah, I mentioned that. I can see potential here, but I'm not sure how to go about it, as I implied earlier...which is why I found the responses so puzzling.
Perhaps I presented it badly. I posted the pics as the source of the idea, and everyone seems to have taken it as "let's use these pics to bring The Machine down".
So, how do we best showcase Dumb?
- satire? "haha look at them dumb medias", or rather kind of like Cain's blog does sometimes
- hyperbole? I think it can be said the Onion already does this (at least in part of their articles)
- debunking? like http://www.badscience.net/
(tired, that's all i can come up with now)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 05:04:55 PM
Quote from: Gramulus on September 03, 2009, 03:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
Okay, dumb idea. Thought it was worth floating.
why do you say that?
The whole "it won't change the world tomorrow, so why bother" thing reflected in most of the last page.
if you're referring to my posts -- my intent was to explore the different approaches we could take, pointing to angles which might be dead ends
not shooting stuff down; brainstorming, developing ideas
Quote from: Gramulus on September 03, 2009, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 05:04:55 PM
Quote from: Gramulus on September 03, 2009, 03:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
Okay, dumb idea. Thought it was worth floating.
why do you say that?
The whole "it won't change the world tomorrow, so why bother" thing reflected in most of the last page.
if you're referring to my posts -- my intent was to explore the different approaches we could take, pointing to angles which might be dead ends
not shooting stuff down; brainstorming, developing ideas
No, I wasn't referring to you. I misinterpreted 000 (sorry about that, trip), and I made the mistake of reading Fictionpuss's posts. Carry on.
you read a fictionpuss post (http://www.oliverwillis.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nelsonmuntz.gif) ha ha
Quote from: fomenter on September 03, 2009, 06:43:52 PM
you read a fictionpuss post (http://www.oliverwillis.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nelsonmuntz.gif) ha ha
I was getting in my quota of dumb. :sad:
I like this idea and think it can definitely be developed into something... must ponder it.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on September 03, 2009, 08:45:04 PM
I like this idea and think it can definitely be developed into something... must ponder it.
That's what's driving me nuts...this is the diseased underbelly of the beast. We have to be able to think of SOMETHING.
This idea is most exciting!
Whaddaboot out-and-out stealing from joey skaggs on this one?
we could create a [false but partially verifiable] back-story about "X"
and feed it to small-time media outlets; then sending their output to slightly larger
media-outlets, and so on.
i think to really capture the "DUMB" of the media, though, it has to be Self-Referential-
it would have to be a story about how a group of social deviants pulled one over on
XYZ Media Entertainment, which had such and such ramification...
maybe?
***
i had an idea for cheaply jump-starting this tactic, not too long ago. newsprint paper
(usually needs some trimming to size) can run through a regular home/office printer,
with the proper patience. an easy way of doing this is double-sided removable tape and
normal paper.
then it's just print- cut- send and you have (at least) a moderate convincer of a clipped news article.
some readily found false leads would really add to the over-all convincingness of the whole piece.
or...?
I think this idea has some promise. Getting a handle on the most effective vector/angle to work it with will make or break it, tho (as Rog and others have pointed out).
I'll think about this a little.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 05:43:30 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 03, 2009, 01:28:24 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
The first two are, but the last two are definitely just really really dumb headlines.
Could be to meet the 4am deadline, maybe the reporter felt like fucking up on purpose, maybe it was April 1st, or the Daily Mail. I guess my point is - it's not evidence of systematic stupidity.
ok then, whatever. from your reaction,
Your kneejerk response, but whatever.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 05:43:30 PM
I took you were disagreeing with these particular examples of media stupidity. I dont have much interest in establishing whether the media is dumb or not, but take it as a given (And I think a lot of other people with me).
if you disagree with that, fine, but dont go doing it in someone else's thread killing of a potentially cool project before it's even taken form.
Why would I disagree with that - did you even read my first post? I gave four bullet points showing different examples of the ways in which I perceive that the news media is systematically stupid.
I think this is a great project and I already spent 2-3 hours last night trying to come up with an idea and communicate it as clearly as I can. Obviously that wasn't enough time, but what makes you think I just go about trying to thread-jack peoples work?
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 05:43:30 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 03, 2009, 01:28:24 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 03, 2009, 11:10:27 AM
Anyway, making extra-super-dumb news articles, well it's gonna be a load of fun, but I'm afraid we're gonna hit that paradox.
I wasn't talking about making dumb articles for the lulz, but rather demonstrating the process by which forms of news media are not just dumb, but predictably and dangerously stupid... and if we inspire copy-cats, that would create the situation where they have to adapt. If that makes them just a little bit less dumb, that's an unusual victory.
Yeah but I wasnt talking about whatever you're talking about, so shut it.
Not everything is about you, your opinion or your worldview, Fictionpuss.
(still isn't)
What the fuck is your problem? You responded to my post, and I made the mistake of.. what.. assuming that you were talking about what I was talking about?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
I was getting in my quota of dumb. :sad:
And mocking people who are genuinely trying to contribute to your project idea because they think it rocks is smart?
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 04, 2009, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
I was getting in my quota of dumb. :sad:
And mocking people who are genuinely trying to contribute to your project idea because they think it rocks is smart?
That's not how you came off, FP.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 04, 2009, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
I was getting in my quota of dumb. :sad:
And mocking people who are genuinely trying to contribute to your project idea because they think it rocks is smart?
That's not how you came off, FP.
I find that baffling, but I guess I can't argue with consensus. Sorry for that then. Thread-jack over.
The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it. And, given the current media climate, that is hard. Very hard indeed. I've followed media analysts (professional and amateur) who have tracked stories from the tabloids over here for years. And the problem is they can veer well into David Icke territory and still not get called on their bullshit.
Some examples of media stupidity in the UK, for example: http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com/, http://5cc.blogspot.com/ and http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/. Take a long time, and check out the archives. If we want to push the media to a point of diminishing returns, we have to know where the limits of debate currently stand.
(Also, its worth considering that, in this online, networked world we now live in, controversy and and outrage may be more important than factual reporting. Ann Coulter's latest bout of Tourettes will get more coverage than the Baltimore Sun's indictments of the human costs of the drug war in the city. In short, making something crazy might just play into their hands, as it generates unique visitors and advertising revenue. Another angle could be the generation of a story that is entirely without importance or content. Not afactual, but utterly meaningless yet beautifully crafted, like an except of postmodernist text. On the appearance, it seems like actual reporting, but as you look at it again, the lack of meaning becomes more and more obvious. It would have to be done using buzzwords and article structures actual papers use....but its worth exploring).
(Cain already posted part of my points while I wrote this, but I'll post it anyway cause I think it still adds to the discussion)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on September 03, 2009, 08:45:04 PM
I like this idea and think it can definitely be developed into something... must ponder it.
That's what's driving me nuts...this is the diseased underbelly of the beast. We have to be able to think of SOMETHING.
The issue seems to be, that for some reason, simply being DUMB AS FUCK isn't really considered to be a failure anymore [by the general populace], possibly "since everybody is doing it".
:horrormirth:
So maybe, we should focus on re-education on this point? It sounds really stupid, but an elementary school level [online] pamphlet/flyer, with big letters and iconic pictures explaining "WHY BEING DUMB IS BAD", slowly and meticulously explaining why the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" is intended to be cynical and not a good thing. Not using the exact phrase of course, as "Ignorance" probably has too many syllables and they will confuse "bliss" for a shampoo brand or something.
Maybe using: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_English_ordered_wordlist
Or perhaps as Growth Spurt (who?!) suggested, pranking the media is a good angle. But it has to be something that showcases the media's dumb, as well as showing the dumb caused a bad thing.
Showing the media's dumb can be done by spinning an obviously retarded story that will be picked up by mainstream media in a way of which later can be said "those fuckers will publish
anything". A bit harder would be to make it
painfully obvious that this is a bad thing, in a really pound and drive the point home sense. Something that will not just make the media that picked it up lose its face (cause they publish false shit all the time and nobody cares even if it's exposed--
edit: what Cain said), but something that makes a lot of (non media) people waste a lot of time, or feel uncomfortable, just because this media published it.
Also, it needs to be free of any liberal or conservative bias (or any of the other typical two-man divide-and-cons), because otherwise the people that identify with the opposing bias will just point at their opponents. It needs to affect the christian, the gun-nut, the metropolitan, the black, the white, the businessman and the hipster student alike.
I like that.
Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it. And, given the current media climate, that is hard. Very hard indeed.
The only time I've seen that in recent memory was that twit on Fox, you know, with the "terrorist fist bump" thing.
idea: provide the tools and information for people to create their own media hoaxes
when people see how the media really works (even if only in theory), they'll realize how dumb the process is.
>make up a contraversial topic. pull some "soundbites" from "authorities"
>write a press kit which does all the work for the journalist
>send in stuff close to deadline so editors don't have time to research
>when your stuff makes the news, clip it out and include the clippings in your second-pass press kit
>the journalists see the clipping, they'll assume they don't have to do any fact checking because someone else already did.
imagine if the media reported on the high number of fake news stories
how would they cover their own process and people's perception of it?
classic double-bind
could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other?
-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2009, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
The problem, as I see it, is thinking of something so stupid it would bring irreparable shame on whoever printed it. And, given the current media climate, that is hard. Very hard indeed.
The only time I've seen that in recent memory was that twit on Fox, you know, with the "terrorist fist bump" thing.
Yeah, and that says a lot. Its dangerous, to embrace The Stupid in such high doses, and we may not end up going far enough.
thought this seemed relevant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8237558.stm)
Quote from: rong on September 04, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other?
-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved
well they are already pitted against eachother? unless you pick two that are on the "same side"?
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 04, 2009, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: rong on September 04, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
could the controversial topics be constructed in such a way as to pit different media networks against each other?
-they certainly like to make their competition look bad
-would get more media involved
well they are already pitted against eachother? unless you pick two that are on the "same side"?
yeah - i guess what i was trying to say was take advantage of the fact that media networks are enemies.
Quote from: rong on September 04, 2009, 05:33:10 PM
thought this seemed relevant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8237558.stm)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Idea for a specific angle: Science Reporting
Iason posted this comic in the Pics thread not too long ago:
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif)
Most of us are aware of just how buggered science reporting for the masses is. Individual experiment results are trumpeted as definite and 100% proof that science just discovered the next most awesomest thing evar (and then the stories are promptly forgotten), and important but boring-sounding or esoteric research gets sidelined in favor of stuff that's easier to spin into a sensationalist and catchy headline.
Now, there are two ways to go about this: we can trawl through scientific publications that are geared towards a larger audience and find stuff that our obviously superior brains can sniff out as hyperbolic hogwash... or we can get in touch with real scientists and ask them for their stories of when their research has been misunderstood or flat-out misrepresented by the journalist who was writing the story or the editor who published it.
Either way, it's a fair bit of effort. However, I personally prefer the method in which we contact real scientists and get their stories, because I think this is something many of them feel strongly about.
The end result will be a campaign on our part to relate these anecdotes in a way that makes it clear that mainstream science reporting is always to be taken with a few grains of salt. It may only be a small step towards portraying the media as full of shit, but it's one that I, and I think many others on this forum, feel strongly about.
Quote from: Gramulus on September 04, 2009, 01:18:04 PM
idea: provide the tools and information for people to create their own media hoaxes
when people see how the media really works (even if only in theory), they'll realize how dumb the process is.
>make up a contraversial topic. pull some "soundbites" from "authorities"
>write a press kit which does all the work for the journalist
>send in stuff close to deadline so editors don't have time to research
>when your stuff makes the news, clip it out and include the clippings in your second-pass press kit
>the journalists see the clipping, they'll assume they don't have to do any fact checking because someone else already did.
imagine if the media reported on the high number of fake news stories
how would they cover their own process and people's perception of it?
classic double-bind
If there was a way to make generating a fake news story as easy as generating a demotivational poster or lolcat captioned image type thing, that might be something. The sheer volume of fake shit being sent to media might make them do a little more fact checking first? I don't really know how one would go about doing this, though, or if it's something within our capabilities. Something about automating postings to multiple blogs, automagically starting fake twitter rumors, etc when proper input is given. So the user would visit our website, enter a fake news article and a few fake blog posts, and the website would generate believable looking blogs with the entered post and start our twitter drones quoting sentences containing user-supplied keywords? I'm not saying that's feasible, just what came to my head.
what if we phrase this in the form of a press release? we might not need to actually generate the fake news or explain to people how we do it, the reporters will do our work for us.
even better if we include a 23 of some sort that people will go looking for as a marker of obviously fake news.
Shit, this is what the Free Press Gazette is supposed to be about. I wonder if my sis is ever going to finish the website?
had an idea for this, though it may be more appropriate as it's own GASM.
One point on which i think our "Culture" here in the USA and our Societal Standards reflect the Dumbosity® (especially in the media)
is the ultra-trivial non-issue of Gay Marriage.
In my personal discussions with people on the subject, every single instance of a "Traditional" stance on marriage (Dude + Chick = doinnitrite) has stemmed from one reasoning or another that seemed a complete non-issue to me. For The Religious Right, It's a sacred Union before god and Man on Man action just doesn't "do it" for them. But allowing gays to marry holds them legally accountable, which benefits Christians socially and allows them to view their own tradition of marriage in higher regard. It can be argued they do this already. "Christians" for "Traditional" Marriage certainly wouldn't suggest that Jews or Muslim's or even Atheists shouldn't be allowed to have a wholesome Male and Female marriage. That would just be insanity!
Still, I've heard many secular arguments that amount to little more than homophobia. The same counter-argument applies, as well as many others. I don't think i need to elaborate too much why i think homophobic arguments are moot.
so my idea:
Nonogamy
A sort of Anti-Marriage campaign. Satirical, but subtle, the Movement would functionally be an elaborate "Ban DHMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide)" type thing.
I imagine multiple facets that could contribute to the overall idea while making it less about Gay Marriage and more generalized as an Anti-Marriage campaign, hopefully making it more politically neutral and more unifying across demographic boundaries.
For example: There could be a Feminist Voice in the Nonogamist movement. Such reasons could include The sexist connotations of being subsumed by the husband, becoming property...one could go so far as to say (perhaps) that Marriage Tax Breaks are Sexist.
Of course, an argument for the religious traditionalists (especially christian) could be that legal recognition of their rites is an inconsequential matter, and that true marriage is a bond between man and wife and god, yadda yadda...
An Atheist Voice in the movement that (of course) uses the same arguments as the religious traditionalists, plus the argument of "separation of church and state."
{etc...}
the sinker would be getting people to take it serious all the way to the end. Imagine if we actually did away with legal marriages. :lulz:
like i said, it may well be an idea better suited to it's own development, but it offer it here for consideration.
Makes me wonder.. if the church would frown upon a transgendered man (man to woman) marrying another man, would it have a problem with him/her marrying a transgendered woman, who ended up being a man?
I mean, would that even count as gay marriage? Or would it be a double whammy?
interesting proposition.
my gut tells me the church would say, "two wrongs don't make a right"
Quote from: rong on September 14, 2009, 05:55:11 AM
interesting proposition.
my gut tells me the church would say, "two rongs don't make a right"
Fixed.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 14, 2009, 05:50:58 AM
Makes me wonder.. if the church would frown upon a transgendered man (man to woman) marrying another man, would it have a problem with him/her marrying a transgendered woman, who ended up being a man?
I mean, would that even count as gay marriage? Or would it be a double whammy?
Technically, the biblical stance would have nothing against the marriage, per se- just against the transgender operation, and life choises that result from it. It counts as bodily desecration; somehow, circumcision isn't.
Quote from: Prat Fest on September 14, 2009, 07:50:45 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 14, 2009, 05:50:58 AM
Makes me wonder.. if the church would frown upon a transgendered man (man to woman) marrying another man, would it have a problem with him/her marrying a transgendered woman, who ended up being a man?
I mean, would that even count as gay marriage? Or would it be a double whammy?
Technically, the biblical stance would have nothing against the marriage, per se- just against the transgender operation, and life choises that result from it. It counts as bodily desecration; somehow, circumcision isn't.
Oh, boy.
<- was raised to be a pentecostal.
Quote from: Prat Fest on September 14, 2009, 08:09:05 PM
<- was raised to be a pentecostal.
That's fine. But if anyone starts that cut/uncut bullshit here, there's gonna be HELL TO PAY.
:argh!:
Quote from: GA on September 06, 2009, 07:18:45 AM
Quote from: Gramulus on September 04, 2009, 01:18:04 PM
idea: provide the tools and information for people to create their own media hoaxes
when people see how the media really works (even if only in theory), they'll realize how dumb the process is.
>make up a contraversial topic. pull some "soundbites" from "authorities"
>write a press kit which does all the work for the journalist
>send in stuff close to deadline so editors don't have time to research
>when your stuff makes the news, clip it out and include the clippings in your second-pass press kit
>the journalists see the clipping, they'll assume they don't have to do any fact checking because someone else already did.
imagine if the media reported on the high number of fake news stories
how would they cover their own process and people's perception of it?
classic double-bind
If there was a way to make generating a fake news story as easy as generating a demotivational poster or lolcat captioned image type thing, that might be something. The sheer volume of fake shit being sent to media might make them do a little more fact checking first? I don't really know how one would go about doing this, though, or if it's something within our capabilities. Something about automating postings to multiple blogs, automagically starting fake twitter rumors, etc when proper input is given. So the user would visit our website, enter a fake news article and a few fake blog posts, and the website would generate believable looking blogs with the entered post and start our twitter drones quoting sentences containing user-supplied keywords? I'm not saying that's feasible, just what came to my head.
Totally awesome motorcycle. If there is a way to autogenerate the standard press kit format via, say, a form and then automatically look for deadlines on media and spam their offices with submissions, then detecting whether they have used it in one of their online media, it would be totally automatable.
Quote from: fictionpuss
Makes me wonder.. if the church would frown upon a transgendered man (man to woman) marrying another man, would it have a problem with him/her marrying a transgendered woman, who ended up being a man?
I mean, would that even count as gay marriage? Or would it be a double whammy?
I read a headline somewhere stating that the Iranian government forced sex change operations on gay men, or something. This is (hopefully) an example of bad reporting and sensational headlines.