A Modest Construct

Tag: media

Desktop Linux revisited

Tux

About 2 years ago I wrote a piece called Five things that Desktop Linux really needs, attempting to air out my five biggest grievances with Desktop Linux. If you follow FOSS news, every year is heralded as “The Year of the Linux Desktop,” although such a thing clearly hasn’t happened yet. Now, two years later, I thought it would be interesting to revisit those five problems and see what kind of progress has been made in two years.

Read the full article »

Unbiased journalism?

I understand that news companies are attempting to give an unbiased view of the news, even when they clearly aren’t (“We report, You decide” my ass, FNC).

But I agree very much with Jon Stewart’s view of the media as feckless and overly corporate—not everything, as he says, should be reported as a Pepsi v. Coke sort of news item. Sometimes it is the job of journalists to call stupid or crooked people to task.

As an illustration, let’s take this recent puff piece on MSNBC Arian Campo-Flores.

In the rapturous eyes of his flock, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is, in fact, the second coming of Christ. As the head of the Growing in Grace International Ministry, he presides over a sprawling organization that includes more than 300 congregations in two dozen countries, from Argentina to Australia. He counts more than 100,000 followers and claims to reach millions more through a 24-hour TV channel, a radio show and several Web sites. He is supported by the generosity of his devotees, who have launched some 450 businesses to pour cash into Growing in Grace’s coffers. Though de Jesus’ followers worship him, others denounce him as a charlatan. Everyone, however, agrees on one thing: his teachings are incendiary.

If it weren’t for the fact that de Jesus was claiming to be a reincarnated Christ, you might read most of this paragraph as a simple description of a charismatic preacher. But then comes that line, “others denounce him as a charlatan.” Why do they do this?

A native of Puerto Rico, de Jesus, 60, spent his youth drifting from the Roman Catholics to the Pentecostals to the Baptists. Then one night in 1973, he says, he awoke to a vision of two hulking men at his bedside who announced the arrival of the Lord, who, says de Jesus, “came to me and integrated with me.” In the early years after founding Growing in Grace in Miami in 1986, de Jesus didn’t claim to be Christ. Instead, he worked as a pastor spreading his doctrine: that under a new covenant with God, there is no sin and no Satan, and people are predestined to be saved. But as his following expanded, his claims did, too. In 1998, de Jesus avowed that he was the reincarnation of the Apostle Paul. Two years ago at Growing in Grace’s world convention in Venezuela, he declared himself Christ. And just last week, he called himself the Antichrist and revealed a “666″ tattooed on his forearm. His explanation: that, as the second coming of Christ, he rejects the continued worship of Jesus of Nazareth.

Emphasis mine. So, an aimless Puerto Rican claims that the Lord (or perhaps just someone named Jesus) with two burly bodyguards “integrated” with him one night in 1973. Is it just me, or does it sound like this guy is repressing something?

In all seriousness, it’s clear that in fact de Jesus is a charlatan: he’s not even competent enough to make the same crazy claim consistently—he’s Paul one minute, Christ the next, and then apparently an Antichrist, for some wholly strange reason. He’s either a poor liar, or he’s a wackjob in the most severe sense. Remember the last time we had an “I’m Jesus!” cult leader with a large following? It ended in a large fire and a lot of death.

Clearly, de Jesus has nothing new or interesting to say, besides being charismatic and preying on the gullibility and general ignorance of over 100′000 people.

All members of Growing in Grace are expected to tithe—which, along with offerings, yielded $1.4 million for headquarters last year. One of the first orders of business at every service is the collection of money (credit cards accepted). Those who have pledged their businesses to de Jesus donate much more. Alvaro Albarracín, a savvy, successful businessman given the title Entrepreneur of Entrepreneurs by de Jesus, is an example. Over the course of Albarracín’s 14 years in the church, he estimates that he’s given roughly $2.5 million. Such funds help underwrite a lavish lifestyle for de Jesus, including diamond-encrusted gold rings and fancy cars.

It should come as no surprise, then, that de Jesus milks his stupid constituency for their money to fund an opulent lifestyle for himself. Like any evangelist selling his snake-oil as holy water, I would trust him about as far as I could through his pudgy, lying ass. But after telling us about his “doctrine” and his crooked finances with a straight face, what does the author of the article say? “Some observers call Growing in Grace a cult.”

Not “Growing in Grace is a cult,” or anything like that. “Some observers…” as in “It’s one side of the story, but it would be equally valid to say that de Jesus really is the incarnation of Christ.”

What kind of tripe is being fed to us? This sort of sugar-coated journalism is why I hate watching the morning news with its “human interest” stories. In my mind, there’s very little difference between “Look, the dog thinks it’s people!” and “Look, the Puerto Rican thinks he’s a god!”

The Best Albums of 2006

Another year is drawing to a close, and that means its time for my annual meme, in which I select the top ten albums (in no particular order) that came out in 2006. This year, I’m also going to look at some of the albums I think were particularly disappointing (not merely bad, which is far too easy).

2006 was not a particularly impressive year for music—I can’t recall a single release that really blew me away as in past years. I suppose it’s still likely that I’ll find an undiscovered album, or listen to one that grows on me in such a way as to become my favorite (it wasn’t until this year that I really learned to appreciate Ulver’s Blood Inside for instance). I had to really work to come up with just ten albums I thought were really worthy of a “best-of” list. Then, too, I was rather conservative in my finding new music this year, so perhaps that has something to do with it.

It could be worse, however: I could be the sort of hack who includes goddamn Justin Timberlake on a Top 50 list. Not even that, but one who ranks Timberlake ahead of acts like Danielson or The Decemberists.

So, without further ado, here are the albums (remember that these are in no particular order).

Read the full article »

…And the Great Cold Death of YouTube

YouTube is no stranger to the news recently. One of the media darlings of the Web 2.0 wave, it is one of those phenomenons that offered nothing more than infrastructure and an iffy interface, but managed to become a brand-name behemoth because of user content. Now it faces two problems: first, how the hell do you turn a free lunch into a profitable cafeteria? Second, how do you deal with the issue that much of the users’ content isn’t really their own content at all?

On May 24, lawyers for Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Pictures convinced a federal judge in San Francisco to issue a subpoena requiring YouTube to turn over details about a user who uploaded dialog from the movie studio’s “Twin Towers,” according to a copy of the document.

YouTube promptly handed over the data to Paramount, which on June 16 sued the creator of the 12-minute clip, New York City-based filmmaker Chris Moukarbel, for copyright infringement, in federal court in Washington.

That YouTube chose to turn over the data, rather than simply remove the offending video from its site — as it did Friday when it agreed to take down 30,000 videos at the request of a group of Japanese media companies — came as a surprise to copyright experts.

And now YouTube is safely(?) within the investment portfolio of Google, whose own video service failed to make even a dent in YouTube’s market share, as it were.

Here’s the rub: I’ve no doubt that Google will take considerably better care to hide user privacy than YouTube was in the above case. But, as Google’s concessions to China prove, they aren’t afraid to put their stock price above the quality or completeness of their service. I would not be surprised if Google did make every effort to remove videos which offend copyrights. It would also, then, not surprise me if YouTube’s traffic dried up like a puddle in the desert sun.

I don’t mean to make it sound as though YouTube is little more than a horde of lawless bandits, wickedly profiting from the theft of intellectual property, but that that whole point of the service—sharing videos—had little respect for the vagaries of copyright law. If User A thought last night’s Daily Show clip was hilarious and wants to show User B, he’s not going to care very much about whether or not he has “express written consent” to distribute it. We’re in an era where remixable and quickly distributable content is the norm, not an outlier—as much as it irks labels and studios, the old rules don’t apply. The **AA (MPAA and RIAA) likes to make YouTube users and movie downloaders out to be vicious, conniving, motherless bastards robbing the poverty-stricken organizations of their last pennies. Like just about everything that comes out of the **AA, this is crap.

But I digress. The MPAA is like the crotchety old man in everyone’s neighborhood who hobbles out onto his stoop to wave his newspaper threateningly at kids whose football rolled into his lawn. My point is that, like Napster, an organization under the watchful and stringent (not to mention myopic) eye of this incontinent, senile fool will never take off with users. Control tends to scare off originality. YouTube as we know it—the place for online video, the trendy go-to destination for all things audiovisual—will cease to exist, and will morph into one of two things.

  1. It will become a place for media creators and media creators only—a little like DeviantArt, but for video. I see two problems with this: one, video quality is complete crap once it’s been processed into an FLV file. Like Google Video, though, future versions of YouTube may store a high-quality AVI for download as well. Even if YouTube does turn into a thriving community for video auteurs and filmmakers in training, it won’t have anything in common with the near-complete compendium of broadcasted material that YouTube is today, and thus will enjoy only a limited traffic stream, and consequently a limited revenue stream, as well.
  2. It will become little more than Google’s search engine for copylefted and public domain video—with maybe a smattering of ‘illegal’ works up there as well. In that case, it would require a significant effort to properly name and tag these videos (as good as Google’s search is, it can’t search full motion videos, AFAIK), which wouldn’t be done by a community, because it wouldn’t exist anymore.

In either case, the users find somewhere else to engage in their “piracy” and Google’s left with the problem of monetizing a service with little desirable content and nobody to look at it. Hell, YouTube has a hard enough time monetizing their current setup, and they’re one of the most popular sites on the internet!

Personally, I don’t think the YouTube saga can ever end well. It’s one more casualty in the swath of **AA’s scythe, doomed by its own publicity, and the zeal of stupid, stupid media companies.