Disinformation.com 359
The site's left-of-center-pieces -- with generous links to other POVs -- vary wildly in quality and usefulness, but you can find some real gems on disinfo.com. Taken together, the stories on this important, possibly even landmark site are a sharp indictment of the humorless and tepid way the popular media screen out opinion and commentary that's different, provocative or original.
We know too well that most mainstream media -- TV networks, major newspapers and newsmagazines, commercial news web sites -- have been corporatized, homogenized and mass-marketed by profit-obsessed corporate execs from Disney and General Electric. They could as well be -- and simultaneously are -- selling them park tickets and light bulbs as ideas and opinions. Newspapers have grown stupefyingly boring, their commentary relegated to snoozy op-ed pages. Cable TV, once the great hope, is becoming a nightmare of fragmentation, eternal argument and dogmatic fanaticism. Except for slight variations -- Fox News' interesting right-wing tilt, for example -- most mainstream news organizations stock to a militantly moderate point of view, veering a wee bit to the right or a tad to the left but never much further.
The target audience of most major media, from your daily paper to Time and CNN, is the appliance-and-car acquiring middle class, who seem to like their politics tepid and lite, the way AOL users like their Net. With media so firmly in the grip of market research, it's tough to know what they might cover if they were left to their own imaginations.
"Disinformation" is, to say the least, different. It was launched in l996 by Richard Metzger, now edited by Alex Burns. It's arguably one of the best-designed and most interesting alternative news and underground culture sites online. Apart from its own content, the site provides a subculture search engine which directs a reader to sites and relevant links. The site's political bias is clearly leftish, but its links are refreshingly open-minded, incorporating ideas, opinions and responses far beyond traditional definitions of "progressive." In fact, Disinformation is really, in many ways, a dogma killer. Despite the editors' viewpoint, readers get drawn into all sorts of opinions and debates any time they pursue a story or essay.
Apart from the excitement generated by a website that circulates about alternative ideas -- ideas the Net helps to keep alive -- Disinformation is beautifully designed. There's a Disinformation store, of course, offering T-shirts and books. There's easy access to stories by popularity and topic -- from activism and aliens to media, mind control, spirituality and technology. For all the ballyhoo and media hype about sites like Slate, with its heavy Microsoft subsidy, Disinformation really seems to get the fusion between interactivity and ideas. It's an exciting place to browse.
From the beginning, the Net was meant to open up information and give voice to different kinds of people and points of view. The Web, with its hyperlinking, took that idea still further. But in the past few years, that notion seems to have grown tired, in between the copyright wars, the dot.com era and the so-called Net slump. It seemed that corporate America -- Yahoo, MSN and AOL -- was devouring the Web whole. That's why sites like Disinformation are so important. They are the real heart of the Web.
Weird timing... (Score:2, Interesting)
How about this? [cnn.com]
Re:Weird timing... (Score:2, Interesting)
This story mentions airdropping of leaflets, and I know they were doing a lot of that in Afghanistan itself.
So my question is:
Who the hell is going to clean up this mess?!?!
If *I* were to suddenly drop thousands of pieces of paper over a US city, I'd be picked up and fined HEAVILY for littering. Why the hell is it ok for the US to litter over other countries?
Despite being a US citizen, I think it's high time NATO or the UN [or whoever] gets around to fining the US for this littering of our planet! And for the many other stupid-ass things this country keeps doing.
Then again, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong [apologies to Denis Miller]
Ender
Re:Weird timing... (Score:2)
Re:Weird timing... (Score:2)
Re:Weird timing... (Score:2, Interesting)
PsyOps on the enemies is routine, but since our policies our so fucking sick we need to PsyOp our allies and friends too so that they won't object.
In my (small, quite harmless European) country, our foreign minister got a nastygram from the US embassy telling him that the USA is displeased with him. He hasn't given enough support for the US "War on Terrorism".
Hey, fuck you guys! You're becoming more and more like the old Soviet Union!
Re:Weird timing... (Score:2)
The US seems to be drifting to the extreme fundamentalist Christian right. This is causing to become increasingly concerned
with a belligerent America Foreign Policy.
Two years ago it was unusual to see a BBC news report examining (questioning) US foreign policy, today it's almost daily. Stomping around like an angry giant is likely to have a counter effect.
And before somebody goes of half cocked, and marks this down as a troll, remmember the destiny of all free people [not just countries] are inexplicitaly linked. We share a common self interest, so when your friends tell you to reconsider, you should SERIOUSLY reconsider. Because being the worlds only super power does not last forever (Consider British, Roman, Greek Empires, to name a few) Your enemies you make today may just consider you fair game for a very long time, after the issue is settled.
A cheerleader for disinformation.com? (Score:5, Funny)
-russ
Re:A cheerleader for disinformation.com? (Score:2)
Now, where'd I put my torch and my pitchfork?
disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:5, Informative)
fair.org is more a kind of media watchdog. I like their work. You might too.
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
(The obvious retort, of course, is that it's only because the right is so unfair...)
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't belive everything you read!
Read as much as you can from independent sources. somewhere between the lines there should be the real objective news, neither left, righ, pro or against.
Seldom have I found any piece of news that does not try to influence the way you think, by emphasising some aspects while neglecting others.
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2)
I've spent a lot of time studying rhetorical theory, which basically assumes that EVERYTHING, from the New York Times to the ingredients on a can of Pork & Beans, is intended to influence and persuade.
There is no real independent media. There are only news outlets that have different (not more objective) agendas.
I'm not complaining, just pointing it out as being interesting.
AIM also (Score:2)
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2)
I'm sorry, that's completely at variance with what I've seen of the "mainstream media." The mainstream media heavily push a left-leaning, technophobic nanny state with oppressive taxation to pay for the government handouts.
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2, Informative)
WTF? Yes FoxNews and Rush are Conservatives, but I wouldn't call them mainstream as NBC, ABC, or CBS beats them out in ratings. Yes, Rush has a large radio audience, but it's pretty much accepted that TV is the medium of choice now. "slightly differently oppressive taxation"? Does this even mean anything? Does this mean I will go tax toads, or something? A little clearer, please.
"And remember, one side wants access to abortion facilities, the other side wants access to firearms. "
How in the hell can you compare these 2 issues? 1 is in the Bill of Rights, the other was declared legal by the Supreme Court. And you make it seem like the issues are mutually exclusive, when they have nothing to do with each other.
"I like politics, but man, I start to see the hypocritical crap both "sides" are throwing around, and it gets me grumpy."
As oppposed to your crap, which makes no sense, has no connection to what you are trying to complain about, and in the end you are grumpy why? Because you don't even understand what they are talking about? Just go and re-read you paragraph about "1 side wants abortion and 1 side wants guns" and think about it for a while- I have never heard a dumber comparison of ideas.
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2)
The analysis of the media as mediocre middle of the road is one of the few things I've heard out of Katz's mouth that seems spot-on. Middle of the road != Left (and != Right either).
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:disinfo.com is nice, but... (Score:2, Informative)
If you want non-partisan scrutiny of the media and politics, check out Spinsanity [spinsanity.org], a watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric from both sides. [Disclosure: I co-edit the site.]
Katz is right that the Internet is making it possible for people outside the mediasphere to scrutinize the media and culture, but he should look more in the direction of the political weblogs. Beyond the celebrity journalist bloggers, there's a new breed of critics coming up and having an impact. Will Vehrs' Punditwatch [blogspot.com] just got picked up on FoxNews.com [foxnews.com], and we just signed a distribution agreement with Salon.com [salon.com]. Both are unimaginable without the Internet.
Daily Howler, too! (Score:3, Interesting)
too much for my place of work (Score:3, Interesting)
"Access to this web page is restricted at this time.
Reason: The Websense category "Alternative Journals" is filtered.
URL: http://www.disinfo.com/"
I guess some how what I would have read there would have made me a worse employee? I am glad they saved my eyes from seeing that!
Re:too much for my place of work (Score:2)
Cool.....but a litle off center.... (Score:3, Insightful)
AND it is yet even more of a shame when a whole bunch of conspiracy seeking, alien hunting, govermentphobes start giving, us good truth seekers a bad name....
Wheres the tin foil hat when you sighn up to their site, I thought that wsa a requirment.
Re:Cool.....but a litle off center.... (Score:2)
blog (Score:1)
Jon keeps talking about the corporatized net, and the failure of democracy on the net, but I think Blogger and related self-publishing tools are providing millions of people the opportunity to easily get their opinions and information on the net.
Re:blog (Score:1)
Take a look at this article [techreview.com].
The Net is populated with the "Average Joe" (Score:1)
There are areas for information and areas for pop culture. Now that's why we have Google [google.com], to separate the truly informative stuff from the drivel.
What we need is... (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps we could get a waiver for Farscape, though. Production values aren't everything...
Re:What we need is... (Score:2)
It's called a power switch. You guys should try it sometime. The testing isn't fully complete, but initial results are looking good....
If you liked Disinfo, try these-- (Score:2, Informative)
Indymedia.org
WhatReallyHappened.
All interesting media, culture, and commerce critique websites.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Jon Katz would've posted Disinfo, but dog bless him anyway.
Indymedia and WRH are crap (Score:2, Informative)
WRH is another anti-Semitic junk site that would blame everything on the Mossad and "international bankers" if they could. Not a single useful reference to be found.
Re:Indymedia and WRH are crap (Score:2)
We all know the government does that stuff. That's what we pay them to do. They handle all the nastiness required to keep a massive nation like the U.S. from collapsing into financial, social, and international ruin, so that we can sit around here and chat about websites and Linux and other "News that matters."
Yeah, yeah, hooray for the left and all that. Government sucks, legal pot, etc., etc. What's so new and interesting about that?
AdBusters.com no more (Score:1)
Re:AdBusters.com no more (Score:1)
Try Adbusters.org, and note that Adbusters.com links to the main site.
Irony dept.: A magazine that has an article entitled "Resistance" about the recent anti-corporate globalization actions around the world has a full-page ad on the back cover... for the U.S. Army.
Re:AdBusters.com no more (Score:2)
It's adbusters.org [adbusters.org], not ".com". And it hasn't gone away.
Er, make that Adbusters.org (Score:2)
. . . ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: . . . (the lameness filter sucks) (Score:1, Insightful)
We know too well that most mainstream media -- TV networks, major newspapers and newsmagazines, commercial news web sites -- have been corporatized, homogenized and mass-marketed... stupefyingly boring... Cable TV, once the great hope, is becoming a nightmare of fragmentation, eternal argument and dogmatic fanaticism.
This paragraph is inherently contradictory. On the one hand we have unacceptable media which homogenized, on the other unacceptable media which is too fragmented (never mind that cable TV channels usually follow a theme rigorously, which isn't fragmented at all, imho). On the one hand, the commentary is too boring, yet on the other it's too argumentative and fanatical. Katz can't decide which he likes less or why. What he does know is he found something likely to rile people up that kind of agrees with his left-of-center politics and that he has a column to write. So here we are. Filtering Katz stories is almost enough to make one log in to Slashdot.
agreeing as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I'm gonna get an Offtopic for this, but as Gir would say, "I love this show."
Re:Petty Revenge, not Journalism (Score:2)
A competent humorist could have written a very funny and engaging opinion-based indictment of same.
That Jon Katz prominently applauds an article which is neither makes me wonder what his own values actually are.
Oh Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you want to know about? Type it into the search box. Check your results. Read the ones that are interesting. Alter your criteria. Try it again.
Use their links to read newspapers from all around the world. Use babelfish to translate a German page to English.
I have all of the information I could possibly need at my fingertips through a combination of Google, Lexis-Nexis and sites like Everything2 and the Guerilla News Network. I have opposing viewpoints, case studies, major media coverage, independent media coverage, essays and fiction based upon pretty much every major event in the last twenty years. Going back a bit, the completeness level goes down for all but the most major of events, but nonetheless.
The Internet allows anyone to put anything up. Google allows you to find it. Your brain allows you to parse, to judge, and to collate it.
The third part of that equation is the important one.
If you're still using major media to define your worldview, you haven't understood a thing about what the internet has done (nevermind what it was supposed to do or what it should do in the future). I check in with major media sites because they tend to be well laid out. When I actually want the information, all of it, that's when MSN and CNN can kiss my ass good-bye, because they do not and never have provided anything more than sound bites.
Which is pretty much what Disinfo does, except with a snotty, leftist bent that doesn't do much more than pre-emptively derail most of the discussion that occurs.
The heart of the web? No. Just another meta. The heart of the web is that anybody with access to a PC and 20 minutes to learn can put a basic webpage up that will be indexed by Google so that somebody like me can stumble across it.
Google and the WayBack machine are the killer apps of the net. The provider of the content (Disinfo or whomever) don't matter. That's just branding.
And, hey, wasn't the 'Net going to take us away from all that? Or is it acceptable in the case of clearly lefty-biased sites?
Re:Oh Bah (Score:1)
Opposing Viewpoints (Score:1, Flamebait)
Of course, I probably shouldn't be saying that here, the site most known for modding down anything that goes against the party line. :-)
Re:Opposing Viewpoints (Score:2)
No. I deny that I will take an opposing view to your belief that I'll oppose your view.
what's wrong with cheerleaders ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what's wrong with cheerleaders ? (Score:2)
Kintanon
Rah rah rah for the same old thing.... (Score:2)
yeesh (Score:4, Interesting)
Katz writing a decent article??? (Score:2)
Then when I went to check it out, no-wrap was on so I couldn't read it!
Oh well, Katz, keep it up. If the rest of the story is anything like the intro paragraph, congratulations. You've made at least one
Next.. (Score:2)
Lets see now, you like this site because it gives an opinionated, stinted, and rebellious view of the world, and in the same breath you'll raise a fist to the corporate shambling of AOL and the like who happen to provide content that massive numbers of people enjoy reading.
Do you actually believe this rubbish? Do you honestly think your opinion matters in the slightest? Theres 6 billion of us out here. We can think for ourselves. Give us content, ditch the pretenious retorhic.
Re:Next.. (Score:2)
How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
After checking out the site... (Score:3, Informative)
I went and read "Death to all cheerleaders," and
it's utter garbage.
I'm sick of this type of satire. It's not necessarily funny or interesting to try to make people look dumb, especially when you're willing to make yourself look dumb to do so. Think Tom Greene. Think "The Daily Show." The death to cheerleaders could be a transcript of a Daily Show interview, it's that unoriginal.
It's easy to make fun of stuff. It's also pointless and boring unless there is some genuine insight to it.
Re:After checking out the site... (Score:2)
Well, you get the picture.
Re:After checking out the site... (Score:2)
Re:After checking out the site... (Score:2)
"Cheerleaders": teenage bimbos whose job consists in shaking their ass and tits in a sexually suggestive manner in front of horny frustrated teenage boys and equally frustrated middle-aged teachers.
"Christian": of a religion that shuns sexuality represses desires.
"Christian cheerleaders": division by zero.
Re:After checking out the site... (Score:2)
Are you a horny frustrated teenage boy or an equally frustrated middle-aged teacher?
Oops. Thing I figured it out.
-l
Re:After checking out the site... (Score:2)
You Are Being Lied To. (Score:2, Interesting)
it is a dead tree distillation of much of the best content of disinfo.com. there is something that is both offensive to, and confirming of the pet conspiracy theories of, just about anyone.
The Net is not a way to promote free expression (Score:5, Insightful)
The net has never succeeded in promoting free expression of ideas. Instead it has founded enclaves of like-thinking people, who need to have their own point of view reinforced by others. Take Slashdot for example -- a community of people who have similar views about free software and intellectual property law. When was the last time a justification of Microsoft's tactics was posted to the front page, without an immediate rebuttal? Or a repudiation of the GPL? The readership here wouldn't stand for it, because that's not what they are here for ... not free expression, but validation.
Really, we shouldn't be surprised that the "mainstream" media is boring -- most people don't like to hear views that strongly conflict with their own. This is a consequence of the popularization of the internet, and Slashdot is an example of that in microcosm.
"Alternative media" sites like disinformation.com are no different. They have their own axioms (the media is lying; the police are out to get you; corporations will enslave the world), their own jargon, and their own orthodoxy. Read an "alternative paper" for a while and you'll see what I mean.
Re:The Net is not a way to promote free expression (Score:3, Insightful)
not true, it is about promoting free expression. The fact that like-thinking people have a tendancy to "gather" but that doesn't prevent someone else from creating a site with opposing view points.
I, like many people, have had my view points challenged on the net, but that only allows me to think about my view points, some times within a context I haven't thought of before. occasionally I have had my view points changed based on something that was pointed out to me on the web.
The net can't make people view opposing belief, but it gives people the opportunity to do so.
Re:The Net is not a way to promote free expression (Score:2)
So, you don't think the fact that huge corps like Microsoft, Disney, and Time-Warner/AOL directly influence what their paid journalists can say and not say? How many articles critical of Microsoft are you going to see on msn.com, despite the fact that they may be extremely popular(lots of people love to dis MS and AOL, for example)
I really can't think of any reason for MS, AOL, et. al. to be so interested in buying big media outlets other than the fact that they want to influence what people think. There are certainly other more profitable businesses to be in, and news is certainly not the area of expertise for tech companies like MS and AOL. They are in it to influence public opinion(and for free advertising). The bias generated by this arrangement is overwhelming. I personally cannot completely trust a site like msn.com to report fairly on issues like the Microsoft antitrust case, and thats just one example.
I agree most people are going to gravitate towards infomation sources that they agree with. Heck, the people here on
Re:The Net is not a way to promote free expression (Score:2)
Well, I don't see that it necessarily follows that media empires are owned mostly to influence public opinion. I think AOL, MS et al. see that computers are ready to become entertainment devices, and entertainment requires content, so it's a natural move for them to own the content. Even if the bias argument is accepted, MS and AOL are competitors, and would therefore balance each other's bias out, at least in theory.
While I believe that people don't like to be exposed to opposing viewpoints, I also believe that people can think critically, even when reading views that support their own. I have faith that the average person would read with skepticism a pro-MS article on MSNBC, the same way that Slashdotters make critical points in posts to otherwise pro-free-software articles. Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist ...
The net puts people's ideas on the web. (Score:2)
The problem isn't that the net is boring, or failing to give voice to the 10 million people. The problem is that people are boring, and the thought that if we had 10 million ideas, that one of them would be good enough to compromise on, is ridiculous.
-Ben
Re:The net puts people's ideas on the web. (Score:2)
The root of the problem is, however, that in any argument the tnedency is to go to an extreme to make a point rather than to express the moderate view that you really hold. Especially in a medium like a web log it's difficult to maintain a moderate stance, because doing give the appearance of weakness in your viewpoint. Take a stroll through threads in past slashdot articles, find one that's based on a moderate post, and watch how quickly it degenerates to extremes.
What about Slashdot? (Score:2)
Its regurgatated storied from these "bad" sites.
Not to mention the bias.
The fact is, everyone is human, everyone has a bias. News will always have a bias, unless news is delived from TWO people. Two people with opposite biases.
Sure, you can say money is the reason that information is bad. But the internet kills most of that idea, doesn't it?
The problem with indy media (Score:5, Insightful)
Now true, I will grant that the first aim of the mainstream media is to make money, and thus, they are going to select the news stories that will attract the highest viewership. Which means if they have to drop details to keep people falling asleep and candycoat issues without stretching the truth, they will do so. There does exist some indy media that is less worried on the profit and more worried on the truth, and will report in greater depth than typical newsblurbs. However, again, the target audience for these indy media are not the population at large, but generally intellicuals that want more information than the mainstream can give them. Then of course, there is the indy media that goes on as little information as possible to stretch the truth as decribed above.
As from MIB: "A person is smart; people are dumb", and all that the national media is doing is catering to people. Indy media, in most cases, is trying to cater to persons. The same thing with AOL; AOL and most big content creators cater towards people - independant sites (such as /.) cater towards persons, and just as with the media, some of these indy sites are good and details, while some are poor and over-the-top. That's what you get when you limit the scope of your audience and worry more on the content than about the profit.
Here lies Marty. He never scored. (Score:2)
Just what "award" has Marty's writing won, anyway? "Best Yellow Journalist, Mrs. Freckam's Third Period English Class?"
Though, I'd have been more impressed if the Daily News had actually run his article through an editor before publishing it, and sent it to the circular file then.
Jon Acheson
Re:Here lies Marty. He never scored. (Score:2)
Or his point being that because he is an enlightened atheist, he is better / smarter / more clever than the Cheerleaders for Christ?
Or his point being that he's so smart and funny that he doesn't need to display a modicum of respect to people who have consented to being interviewed by him?
Or his point being that a lack of capability in editing and writing can be overcome by being an asshole?
Er. Which point was it that ol' Marty had?
When you express your view through attacks, when your "interviewing style" consists of a 50/50 mixture of reductio ad absurdum and argumentum ad hominem with a little sprinkling of argumentum ad populos, and fail to show any respect to those whom you are meant to be writing about, and allow your own personal agenda to jump up and down all over whatever bit of journalistic integrity might have existed, then you deserve to be discounted. Your views? No. There are other people who can doubtless explain them more eloquently. It is possible to disqualify yourself as a spokesman, and that's what ol' Marty did.
-l
The Man supressing useful reptilian articles? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is interesting to see how the Internet's development has been hand-in-hand with the mass proliferation of inter-dimensional information. The reptilian phenomenon is of the astral or imaginal realm. The process of our coming to grips with the possible existence of reptilians, and fully comprehending the dimension of the mind, has the potential to trigger a larger awareness of our own multidimensionality, our spirituality and our relationship with Creation."
Yeah. I been thinkin that for years.
I just can't be bothered to sift through crap like this to possibly find something somewhere in there worth reading. Generally, when I hear something like:
"links are refreshingly open-minded, incorporating ideas, opinions and responses far beyond traditional definitions of 'progressive.'"
I consider it code for "they'll print any damn thing, even if it's silly, badly written, and completely devoid of usefulness." And sure enough, that's usually the correct assumption.
Some of this stuff, I'm sure, is ignored by the Man because it challenges the status quo. But for much of it, well, there's probably a good reason why it's never been picked up by the mainstream media: it sucks.
-brennan
Marty... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone actually follow the link, read, and then take Marty's work serious at all?
Initially, I read the header:
Marty Beckerman is an 18-year-old humor and opinion columnist living in tropical Anchorage, Alaska. His award-winning writing has appeared most frequently in The Anchorage Daily News, though occasionally manages to pop up in finer national publications.
and thought, wow this is interesting, a young adult doing some actual work as a columist and apparently being successful... But then I actually read part of the body of his work labeled You Just Can't Lose when Jesus is on Your Cheerleading Squad.
After reading the first page of his column, I stopped and returned to the top of the page to make sure I read this correctly:
Beckerman's first book, Death to All Cheerleaders: One Adolescent Journalist's Cheerful Diatribe Against Teenage Plasticity was published September 2000 on Infected Press.
What sort of crack addict book company would publish the crap this kid is writing... well Infected Press I guess, but the question was rather hypothetical, heh.
This kid is not a columnist, nor does this work represent that he is able to relay any sort of humor. Although, it appeared that he was attempting to do some sort of column with some investigative reporting included in order to back up... the... uh... opinions? or something I guess... that he had. The column started off ok, not of very high quality but decent enough to continue reading. But there are various points in the column when you can realize that this guy is actually just a jackass trying to rant a few loose viewpoints. Here, he starts off asking about the modesty in the cheerleader's dress, and then before the topic has even been finished he throws in an inflammable remark-type question that the guest responds to anyhow (Marty = MB, Guest = Rose):
MB: You dress more modestly?
Rose: Yes.
MB:
Rose: Right.
MB: They're like, knee-level instead of mid-thigh, or what?
Rose: No.
MB: By the way, how does Jesus tie into cheerleading again?
Where did this guy get his interviewing skills? Seems like he pulled them out of his ass. Note to self: Never pull interviewing skills out of Marty's ass, you can get better ones out of your own ass.
He then goes on to ask completely ridiculous questions in what apparently is supposed to be a semi-serious interview:
MB: Would you ever, like, consider taking one of the girls' pompoms and painting it green, and then setting it on fire so it would be like the Burning Bush or something?
Rose: No. We're not extremists.
MB: But that would be hilarious, wouldn't it?
Apparently, Rose thinks she is too good for my question.
This could maybe be classified under humor (section: lame) but what is it doing in an interview within an investigative opinion column? This is ridiculous.
The first page then ends with this portion of a second interview with the president of another Christian Cheerleading Organization:
"So obviously both cheerleading and religion have come under scrutiny and criticism over the years," I say. "How would you respond to people who might themselves say 'Death To All Cheerleaders And There Is No God?'"
"They would say what?" Coleman inquires.
"You heard me," I inform. "They would say cheerleading is worthless, and then go preach glorious Atheism."
"Anytime you get students involved in anything extracurricular, that's meaningful. You get them off the streets. Cheerleading is a character-builder, and there's a lot of positive things you can learn from athletics. As for faith, I think you have to walk the walk."
It's at this point in the conversation I realize I'm completely bored, and proceed to hang up the phone. Fuck walking.
You can finally sort of see where this kid is coming from: a place of no direction, morality, or ethics. He starts out with an inflammable question, hoping to get a repsonse he can poke at. But, when he is faced with some actual facts and serious views about life in the response, he cowers away and avoids all contact.
I gave this guy a tad of my attention, believing that he might have some serious views on things... boy was I wrong. Don't let this guy pull a fast one on you - don't read his column (and possibly any other columns). He is, simply put, a jackass not worth paying attention to.
Re:Marty... (Score:2)
no, he is a columnist, he just sucks.
It's important to remember just because some is a ci=olumnist(or reporter, or doctor, etc..)doesn't mean there any good. It doesn't mean they know more. we must stop putting people on a pedistal because of some title they have.
Re:Marty... (Score:2, Interesting)
Even worse:
Yes, this was another piece of J. Katz drivel, but he went out of his way to misrepresent matters even more that usual. Either that, or he just failed to research his material.
Our friend marty has his own website [martybeckerman.com], where one can read about the piece Katz mentioned. As for Marty's books, Marty was not published by some established press; he created his own "label" and "self-published". This is one step above claiming that I've published many articles because I've posted to slashdot [slashdot.org] and have my own website.[1]
Nice job, Job. Keep up that high-quality journalism for which we've all grown to love you.
-SK
[1] I do have respect for authors who choose to self-publish and share their work with the world. I'm working on a similar project of my own, but it would have been much more reponsible for Katz to say something like "Marty's self-published volume 'xxx' (Infected Press, 2000)".
Re:Marty... (Score:2)
Re:Marty... (Score:2)
If they like to cheer, and people like to watch them cheer, and the teams like to have them cheer, then what the fuck is wrong with cheering, exactly?
His viewpoint was certainly not valid, except in the context that anybodys opinion has to be valid, by virtue of it being valid to them. Can I call bullshit, yet?
How are they overly celebrated, exactly? I must have missed National Cheerleader Awareness day, but I guess that that around-the-clock-coverage of the Cheerleading World Finals on CNBC... oh, no, that didn't happen, either.
The belief that every action must contribute to some nebulous notion of "society" will do precious little other than guarantee that "society" progresses slower than it would if shepherded to a lesser degree.
-l
a bit juvenile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the 'Media Patrol' over at cursor.org [cursor.org] is much more my cup of tea - it draws a lot on the mainstream press (American and foreign) but does so in a way to point out the deeper issues and expose the spin that major media puts on things.
Two words ... (Score:2, Informative)
Their articles are so well written that many people actually take them seriously. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to disinfo at the moment, because it (disinfo) seems to have been slashdotted.
Wide Range? (Score:3, Funny)
its content ranges from "The X-Men" and "Space Mutation" to "The Matrix" to pieces on the Real Jesus and Radiohead.
That's a range? Basically sounds like Newberry Comics to me.
Re:Wide Range? (Score:2)
but where's the money? (Score:2)
Adcritic was great... but then it couldn't pay for the bandwidth and services it was offering because nobody wanted to help pay for it.
Will these sites and sites like these soon fold because, with added popularity or a decrease in popularity, the owners aren't able to afford to keep them live?
Where is the business plan that can turn fringe media into an effective business model? Last time I checked, the only business model that was able to effectively *sell* content online was the pr0n industry.
just another viewpoint getting in the way (Score:5, Insightful)
But we LIKE disinformation.com because the information they present is filtered, edited, spun, and content-stripped away until there's little left besides indoctrinary pablum fit for the lowest-common-denominator "independent thinker", John & Joanne Q. Public.
Oh yeah, sure. That's a HUGE improvent.
Granted, disinfo.com is much more of the category of "oh look at me, I'm a free-thinker not beholden to mass-media" club, or perhaps the "look I'm different like everyone else" category. IMO you're just sucking at a different tit, and fooling yourself that it's more 'significant' because it's not mainstream. Well, sorry, that only means its got fewer error-checking hurdles.
The 'real' web is what you make of it, not what someone shoves in your face as 'important'. I choose my content, and I find my own primary sources. I refuse to see ideolgue-flavored ranting as an example of the best the web can be, rather, it's an example of the crap that one has to wade through to GET to the good parts.
And by the way, in re Marty's rant about cheerleaders: maybe we will never know if there is a higher power, but it certainly IS relevant, or does he disagree with Pascal's logic in the matter?
Re:just another viewpoint getting in the way (Score:2)
Pascal's Wager is a bad argument for belief [update.uu.se]. There are a ton of resources out there debunking it, but my favorite is that, considering the possible consequences of belief in the wrong God, atheism may actually be a better bet than theism.
The Secular Web has an index [infidels.org] that provides a pretty thorough analysis.
-brennan
Re:...Pascal? gimme a break. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's my big problem with it, really; of course, logical deduction regarding faith coming from a Jansenist (anti-rationalist cult of the 17th century and thereabouts, to those of you who don't know) is ironic to the point of being funny...
/Brian
The one problem with this type of site... (Score:2, Interesting)
*growl*
-Sara
Reliable Truth on the Web? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the words of Mike Haggar, have my ears gone insane? All the Web has ever offered as it became popular are 10,000 different versions of the truth. As wrong as The Media can get things sometimes, it's simply fantasy to think that the Internet has it any better. In fact, it's probably worse because at least in the mainstream media their profile is high enough that when misinformation is caught, it is brought to light and reputations are tarnished. I know this has happened to some of the news shows on the tube. On the Web it's every man for himself and there is no penalty for misinformation. It always worries me when people say, "Guess what I read on the Internet..."
Death to All Cheerleaders (Score:5, Informative)
Beckerman was fired because he was a rude little bastard. He'd badmouth his bosses infront of god 'n everybody, he was rude to the copy editors, he would miss deadlines. He was just a bad employee, and using his death to cheerleaders piece as an excuse for why he was fired is just a ploy.
Re:Death to All Cheerleaders (Score:2)
What about Katz's AOL'ing of Slashdot?? Dumbing down the general tone of our discussion is all it is good for. This "Article" on disinfo is more suited to a Blogger than Slashdot. "Gee, look at this website..." is just Blogging.
Perhaps it could be considered an article, Katz does share with us some of his thoughts on Disinfo, making it something of an Op piece.
Then we come to some of the glaring errors in the Katz piece. The comment above shows that Katz either "constructed" this background from 1) The "About The Author" section in the front flap or web page, 2) Sending an e-mail. No fact checking, nothing resembling Journalism.
Disinfo carries enough oddball conspiracy theories, bizarre rumors, and outright (Wait for it) disinformation on their site to make them as reliable a news organization as The Onion. Disinfo makes Attrition.org look like a moderate monthly.
Which brings me to another point: Why has Katz so conspicuously avoided mention of any other site?? If this did not start off as a Blog for disinfo, but more an examination of freedom on the Net, why were more sites not mentioned?? Dis info is not the only site of it's kind, and many would argue, not the best either.
This article has the tone of my mother after stumbling onto Ralph Nader's homepage, "Ooooh! I'm reading something "strange"...."
~Hammy
Re:Death to All Cheerleaders (Score:2)
one article in the book mentioned on the site (Score:2)
just a little too far left and conspiratory for me. i am sure this book is great of the masses of disaffected and mentally unstable loose in society, but if this is the ilk of what this site presents....
Oh I see (Score:2, Funny)
Urine Stain? (Score:2)
Would that make JonKatz, "the urine stain on the toliet seat of Slashdot"? Or would that be his choice of topics to write about? Wasn't there a poll to end the stupidity that is JonKatz on Slashdot. I want news for nerds, not essays from some clueless dork that would his dot com from his backslash.
Sexual frustration (Score:2, Insightful)
A "vast, alternative subculture?" (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the "information" being disseminated on disinfo.com, it sounds pretty useless to me. The X-Men, Space Mutation, The Matrix, Real Jesus, Radiohead? How does this qualify as an alternative culture? It's just the standard, blank-stare, low-IQ pop culture that the USA, and increasingly other parts of the world, are already swamped with. We need less of this tripe, not more.
Also, I'd like to point out that the net can itself be a source of disinformation, particularly if you are trying to do scientific research. The net is full of bullshit scientific claims, proofs, and experiments, to the point where it is much more productive to just go to the library and get the information from the best source: peer-reviewed journals. The net has a long way to come until it's truly a source of unbiased, variegated, and correct information.
Once again, Jon Katz takes aim and misses...
Heart of the Web (Score:3, Funny)
Good job, Jon - I guess you found it in the last 13 days.
Knee deep in irony (Score:2)
It never ceases to amaze me how few principles people actually stick to when moneys involved. Here is a site (and I was going to quote before it went down) based on the premise that popular media is being deceptive in order to make money. And the first thing that happens when I goto it is some little window pops up an advertisement for a @disinfo.com email address.
Of course, the background was black and the text that said "For only $39.95 a year" was about #010101. In fact, it took like 30 seconds for me to actually figure out what it said since it was a silly animated gif.
So this bastion of truth is trying to trick me into buying an email address using methods that surely wouldn't pass the FCC standards for commerical advertising (FCC has no standards for the net, but it does for TV). Right. Thanks again Jon.
You're off the deep end! (Score:2)
Disinformation does not play nice with others (Score:2, Interesting)
I have fairly personal expereience with the owners of this site as, at one time, ran a entertainment & news magazine ( of the dead tree variety ) called, oddly enough Disinformation Magazine here in Vancouver, Canada. We also ran a related website under the domain we registered, www.disinfo.org. We started up Jan 25, '99. the following Febuary, The Disinformation Company ( parent of dismagazine.com ) served us with a cease and desist order for the use of www.disinfo.org and the name Disinformation magazine. Upon doing some research and getting legal advice we found that we the trademark for which we were being hastled was only applied for in Canada, not granted. and only a month before we recived a cease and desist order. Since we had been publishing for a significant amount of time before the trademark was appied for, we could beat the order under with proof of prior use. It is under Canadian common law. But, since we were cash strapped, we came to a very one sided arangement with our tormenters. Disinformation payed us 500 US for our domain and after significant hasstles and delays, paid for the registration of www.dismagazine.com
We have since moved on to other, non profit things, but are pretty weary of these guys.
Katz did it 'cause he's mentioned in their book! (Score:2)
The good news is, slashdot is also mentioned a couple of times.
Quick review of the book: mostly tired old conspiracy theories. There are indeed some interesting articles. You just need a lot of tolerance to conspiracy gobblygook to get to them.
Like digging through manure to find truffles or something. Noam Chomsky's opener is pretty good. The wild ramblings about suicidal and megalomanical Howard Bloom entertained me. Most of the conspiracy bits like the one about JFK make you feel real ripped off.
Re:Cheerleaders, mmmm... (Score:1, Offtopic)
/Brian
Re:Cheerleaders, mmmm... (Score:1)
Hello? Katz "article" here? Remember, in the world according to Katz, it's the Jocks and Cheerleaders that fought the tribes of Nerd in High School? And those that weren't gunned down by the Columbine Freedom Fighters will go on to run the evil (corporations, government, WTO, Starbucks, copyright-enforcing agencies, censoriship factories, take your pick) and give the collective population of Slashdot wedgies just like in high school (on a hellmouth).
You see, Katz likes to generalize... they're not people, they're all Cheerleaders, and all perfect stereotypes... blonde, ditzy, and spending more time on their back than Michelangelo while he was paining the Sistine Chapel. That way, we can all feel so much more superior to them as we laugh our Professor Frinkel laughs...
For the record, I'm not a flamer, not a troll... I even like *some* of his articles, but I am getting more and more disillusioned with the buzzword-laden nerd media soup he's spoon feeding us. Ahh well... enough ranting.
Re:Please Disprove This Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
t_t_b