Kyle Brady: Blog » MSM

“Mainstream Media’s Death – Pending” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:20:27 +0000

TIME, along with it’s weekly brethren, typically has historically had more journalistic integrity per paragraph than any newspaper does per page – this is common knowledge, and it was assumed by many that they would weather the perfect storm of media collapse better than most. This, apparently, was an incorrect assumption.

Go check it out.

Michael Jackson: Time to Move On [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:05:39 +0000

Last week, Michael Jackson died. The “King of Pop” may have been unintentionally murdered by his doctor the victim of unintentional manslaughter, but the larger story is that the Internet essentially broke due to his death. More importantly, the metaphorical presses of the media stopped for days on end, and are only just beginning to recover – a full week after the initial event. For most people, his death was just the passing of a former celebrity turned modern eccentricity, but for a small minority it was earth shattering. It was for this highly emotional minority that the entirety of the American news media, both on and offline, mainstream and non, decided to have round-the-clock dedicated coverage.

It was highly embarrassing to see the media fawn over Michael Jackson’s death as if he were a beloved icon, when the very same groups loved to crucify his every odd move and decision. Even more embarrassing was that they decided constant coverage was an appropriate reaction so such a small-scale event, shunning crucial events in both North Korea and Iran for chasing a dead celebrity’s body around the state of California. No major media outlet was an exception: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NPR, and The BBC all had similar amounts, and depth, of coverage – FOX News too, if they can be included as a news source.

While the death of a former celebrity, possibly the world’s most popular, is sad and marks the end of an era, such 24/7 coverage was both unnecessary and unproductive. Iran had large protests in the streets over an election (which still remains in dispute), and North Korea was brandishing words of war against the Western World – was this not news? Additionally, America’s politicians are in a highly agitated state of fact versus rhetoric over “healthcare reform” – something the general population knows little, if anything, about.

In a culture that gets most of its news via media infotainment, the level of gossip on these networks is already absurdly high – Michael Jackson managed to eclipse every other event in both America and the world. Due to such an eclipse, American citizens tuned into the so-called news at record levels, only to receive unintelligent and garbled fodder pieces instead of intellectual stimulation. FOX News’ usual ranting rhetoric would have been preferable to the “MJ Watch”, since it would have at least elucidated the important issues – even if the facts and spin were entirely incorrect.

This week is no better in the media: Michael Jackson is beginning to fade, as there is nothing left to talk about, but South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford has taken his place as the nonsense sensationalized news piece du jour. True, he disappeared completely from his office for days to have an affair with a woman in Argentina. Yes, it was possibly achieved using government funds, and his previous trysts may have involved improper uses of state money as well. He should be forced to resign, and fade from the political life completely – potentially even prosecuted for his misuse of funds. But he is not deserving of constant coverage and attention. Such public scrutiny may destroy his career, but rumors are he is already considering his future as an author thanks to his new-found celebrity.

When will the American media learn? Or the news media at large? What entertains or attracts a large viewership is not part of the definition of “news story” – it shouldn’t be difficult to discern what is truly important versus what is pandering fluff, and yet the 24/7 news cycle is continuing to produce larger quantities of unimportant pieces. The only places to find in-depth coverage of politics or otherwise ignored issues are blogs, and even then they cater to audiences that are already interested in such topics – previously ignorant individuals are not being informed by Politico, DailyKos, or Donklephant.

The American political culture continues to split even further into argumentative factions, prohibiting even the most basic of legislation from being passed, and the majority of America is too concerned with the daily life of C-list celebrities to even notice. This is not what should be happening, and it is contributing to our potential future decline.

It’s time to let the Michael Jacksons and Mark Sanfords of the country fade into the background, permanently, so the real issues can be addressed, however briefly.

“Iran techRising” [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:44:25 +0000

I was part of a podcast earlier this week that was just published about the Iran "situation" with Michael Sean Wright and Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins, for nicefishfilms / Thinking Out Loud called "Iran techRising".

The podcast can also be found as a series of videos - the sound quality on me gets bad about 20m in for some reason, though.

American Media Coverage of Iran: Possible Blackout? [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:05:00 +0000

As is probably obvious to most Americans at this point, Iran has had a Presidential election, pitting incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against a “revolutionary” named Mir-Hossein Mousavi – initial results said Mousavi won the election, but later results claimed Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, with suspiciously quick (in comparison to previous elections) verification by the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader according to their political structure. There have been protests-turned-riots by a large number of the people since the events of June 13, 2009 – the ‘net has been awash with criticisms, support of the protesters, and pictures/video showing the worsening situation. Despite the drama, American media has been strangely silent on the issue until yesterday (6/16/2009), and is only covering the issue with the slightest of attention and realism – labeling videos and pictures as “unverified”, using loaded wording in describing the situation, and a number of other shocking journalistic faux paux’s that questions the independence of such media institutions. Even CNN fell prey to this.

American media, however slanted, is typically independent of the federal government and its wishes, often acting as a counterbalance to the government itself. However, the media occasionally subjects themselves to the will of the feds, and there's even a recent example: the media blackout of military coffins returning to the United States after foreign deaths during the Bush Administration. The ban was eventually leaked, and then lifted, but the fact remains that it existed within the last decade. The reasons for such a ban were the usual litany of patriotism, national security, and withholding fuel from terrorists. Who’s to say this couldn’t have happened in regards to the ongoing Iran election protests?

If there was a federal gag order to American mainstream media on the recent Iranian events, there would have to be good reasons – and many can be easily imagined.

The Evil You Know

Prior to the election, President Obama was concerned with Iran’s growing nuclear threat/program and alarming political choices, and this election could swing that issue in either direction. Replacing the current figurehead with an unknown could be highly dangerous, no matter how the “revolutionary” has presented himself to the world. Perhaps keeping Ahmadinejad in power, so long as he either wins or pretends to win, is a better decision for our future – small strides have been made since the change of power in America, and this progress could be quickly erased by a new leader wishing to start over. Or, maybe more relevant to modern political times, is the example of Afghanistan - America helped initiate a change in power many years ago, for a leadership that was deemed favorable to our interests. Only to have that same ruling body become a significant problem for our current military interests, and an abject lesson in political power struggles.

Becoming the Villain

Speaking in favor of a specific side in the election drama could backfire, depending on who succeeds – supporting the challenger for democracy is all well and good, until he is disposed of, leaving an angry and encouraged longtime enemy in his wake. Interfering with the elections, or even discussing them via what may be seen as national media organizations, could give an already skeptical leader a figure to vilify, prompting further ignorance of the international regulatory action. Even worse would be the reaction of Iran’s allies to such actions, making an already politically polarized region moreso.

Accelerated Middle Eastern Destabilization

If Iran collapses into civil war, or whatever the presiding political force of Iran would wish to call it, lines will be drawn – countries will take sides for and against the rebellion, not only creating further international animosity, but would provide just-another-in-a-long-list-of-reasons for countries that hate each other to fight. An arena already fraught with disaster, chaos, and unstable regimes does not need more reasons to launch all out war with each other.

New Foreign Policy

The most logical and politically charged reason for a mainstream media gag order could be the new Administration’s Foreign Policy. After the last eight years, America needs an image makeover – President Obama knows this. He has spent considerable amounts of time stating positions on international issues, as well as making it clear that we are not interested in imperialist military action wherever our whims take us – this was the basic premise of the recent speech in Cairo, Egypt. To vocally participate in a Middle Eastern country’s political drama, which could potentially be a surprising revolution, would be to undo what has already begun. Further, if military action, or even sanctions, were imposed on Iran based on America’s official position, most of the world would likely discount our future words and actions as disingenuous, creating an unsavory situation for the entire country. President Obama actually recognized this point in a comment on Iran yesterday.

Conclusion

There is no official, or even unofficial, word on a mainstream media gag order, but the actions of the media organizations may very well speak for themselves. Such a gag order is not necessarily un-American or even unintelligent, since the mere words of pundits could easily be interpreted by unfriendly countries as an official position, or the will of the people – creating a string of problems, both political and militaristic in nature, that would likely push America further into a hole that is increasingly difficult to climb out of.

--- --- ---

Update (6/17/2009 1:00am PST): Reprinted at The Inquisitr with permission.

The Obama Condition [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:05:23 +0000

President Barack Obama is in a unique position: large portions of the country love him, smaller (but still large) portions hate him for nonsensical reasons, and the remainder see him as at least marginally favorable. The majority of the mainstream media, especially network television, is rather biased in his favor - and yet not a week goes by without someone asking if our current President is living up to his promises, saving the country, or ushering in a new era of terrorists (here's looking at you, FOX News).

What the networks, pundits, and hate-spewing detractors need to remember is this: Barack Obama has been President for a few days short of six months. To reiterate: six months.

For some reason, the media seems more prone to a constant "historical perspective" analysis for Obama than any other President, providing instantaneous commentary on almost any of his actions, as if they happened a significant number of years ago, and the repercussions could be easily seen. Obviously this isn't true.

Having been in Office for half a year, only so much can be accomplished. Regardless of campaign promises and expectations, some issues take time to address - especially when other, unforeseen, events get in the way. Critics love to point out that "don't ask, don't tell" in the military has yet to be addressed, or that he hasn't passed any legislation on healthcare yet. Despite achieving more in his short existence as President than our previous figurehead did in his entire second term, Obama receives untold flak for not having completed all his line-items yet, something that could be referred to as "The Obama Condition".

Already, our first black President has had a significant impact on the country: navigating an economic crisis with some measure of success, initiated the beginning-of-the-end for our Iraqi involvement, refocused our military efforts to Afghanistan, encouraged a reinvigoration of scientific progress, and helped to reform our American image in the grand worldview. Portions of the bank bailout have been repaid, with the federal government making a profit from the loans - just a few months ago most Americans were wondering if the money would even come back at all, let alone with interest.

This is not to say that Obama has had unchallenged success, because he hasn't: the auto industry bailout was largely a failure, the polarization of angry Republicans has only strengthened, and many position appointments have turned out to be in bad faith. Perhaps, though, the fact that the "core" Republicans are becoming angrier and less coherent can be seen as a success, as a sort of validation of his progress so far - many of their ideas have already been proven to be intellectual failures by the aftermath of the previous administration.

He has only begun his Presidency, and achieved much, but still receives an overly critical analysis of his every action. These very actions have inexorably moved us forward as a country, a net-positive vector on the chart of national progress. He is not infallible, nor is he a political super-savior who will singlehandedly smite widespread corruption, nepotism, and the Congressional version of Newton's First Law of Physics. But he's intelligent and capable, so let's give him a chance - an honest chance.

Former President George W. Bush didn't turn America into a war-mongering nation overnight, nor did President Bill Clinton achieve a federal budget surplus within the first few months of his Presidency. There are many issues to address, all of which need to be handled carefully and expertly, but most of these items are not even recognized by the mainstream media, or even Congress itself.

If the 24/7 news cycle's political feedback begins to influence Obama's confidence and decisions, the house of cards that is our country will quickly collapse upon itself. More importantly, the people of America need to recognize that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News are more interested in viewership than a realistic political view (especially FOX News) - we, the people, need to keep the political faith instead of passing instant criticism, and put some trust in our President. After all, the election was won by a significant voter majority.

President Barack Obama has three and a half more years to achieve greatness, and the cornerstones have been laid. Only time will tell if the foundation will be strong enough to support the growing weight of his policies...

Let the mortar dry before we test its strength.

Tom Green Takes on The World [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:45:41 +0000

With all the news of "old media" failing, Tom Green has apparently decided it's time for him to take over.

After 4chan's /b/ getting riled up recently about Tom Green, and a few misguided Anons trying to start memes over him (or was Tom trying to amuse to them?), he has reached out an olive branch - perhaps in response to getting raided recently in his chat room on his live broadcast.

It seems he wants to use the raiding power and nerd dominance of /b/ for his own purposes:

I am extending an olive branch to /b/. Guys and gals at /b/... Help me fight the good fight. Lets take on the man.

Although he does know what he's talking about, and has obviously visited the board more than a few times:

Find the haters. Search. Destroy. Fail. Lulz. :)

I think this is going to appeal to alot of /b/tards, since it not only incorporates making someone miserable, but an offbeat weirdo comedian as well. It's a case of like-attracting-like if there ever was one.

Tom's goals aren't exactly clear, but it looks like he first wants to make himself visible in the public eye again, while simultaneously taking on all of the mainstream media and big networks in an attempt to ... get his live broadcast on a network? Tom's message back to me helps make things more clear. He's not interested in "taking on the media", but rather distributing attention and wealth to those who deserve it, and not the networks. Apply the concepts of music piracy, and how it doesn't actually effect the artists that much, to TV shows, and you'll get the basic point.

I agree that things could/should/would be done alot different, if the networks didn't have such absolute control, but there's a line- shows like "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" just simply wouldn't be the same if they were done on an independent budget. However, I think the world would be alot better off with less network-controlled brainwash crap (American Idol or Survivor, anyone?)... the talkshow-type programs should leave the networks first, since they're easier to produce, followed by the more scripted/planned shows. For example, Conan O'Brien could easily flourish in an online/independent format, as well as "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia", a cheap-to-produce comedy/sitcom.

I'm not sure this is the tipping point, yet, even though Tom seems to think so... but I think it's coming. Between independent content creators/publishers and sites like Hulu that allow a more user-oriented viewing experience, change is coming.

And it's not just Barack Obama that's bringing it.

--- --- ---

Update (3/12/2009 5:40pm PST): I sent Tom a message after writing this and got a response back. Details above have been edited to reflect his clarifications:

Thanks Kyle. I read your blog. Let me be a bit more clear. No this is not about getting my show on a network. This is about becoming the network. And giving all of you the opportunity to do the same. Most shows on TV cost a million dollars an episode to produce if not more. Why? Because the network has massive costs and overheard. Indy broadcasters don't have that. SO we don't need 50 million viewers. We can do really well with 1 million viewers. But if 50 indy broadcasters suddenly had a million viewers each, then this is going to cut into the TV ratings. SO the big biys are trying to keep The Channel down. They don't want this to work. All independent thinking rebels online should unite! Lets go after the big guys! Just like I get bigger lulz watching somebody prank CSPAN on the phone, then when they prank here. Because they really don't get it. I do get it. We have to go after the people that don't get it. This is about creating a business model for independent artists that works. Then we can all take our slice of the media, and end TV networks as we know it. All the networks control is the talent. But this is because they control the money. If the talent can go directly to the consumer, because of the ability to do so on the internet, then the big networks will eventually become obsolete. Just like musicians can now go directly to the consumer, this will end the big record companies as we know it. So here is the deal. We need to all collectively support people online who are doing non conventional independent stuff. You wonder why AOL Time Warner is attacking this website in the blogs online? TMZ etc? Because they don't want this web show to work. We get double the ratings of TMZ.com on our video downloads. People are downloading 40 million videos a month. They don't even come to tomgreen.com to do so. They are downloading and watching through embedded files all over the internet. This is the reason why Alexa has TMZ ahead of us, when really more people are watching video on The Channel. Alexa doesn't account for embedded downloads... This is our biggest viewership. Lets go after the big boys. We have them running scared!! If this works, others will copy. And they will lose control of the content. Then They will lose control of the media. This is happening fast now. Sorry if I am not being totally clear. The main point is this. Any blogger who works for the big broadcasters or media outlets who is trash talking little guys like me, well, they deserve to be schooled. They should do their research and stop stomping on the little guy when he is down. Ahhhhhhhh! Charge!!!! All skateboarders and rappers and punk rockers charge!!! Because at the end of the day! We don't give a FUCK!!!! This is the FU generation! So FUCK OFF!!!! TG

The Mediaocalypse: Not Government Propaganda [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:18:44 +0000

"News programs are cutting costs and not investigating stories but depending on government sources or even running government produced propaganda as news."

--- --- --- ---

In yet another sign of the mediaocalypse, the networks are no longer "vetting" their informants and "experts", let alone the stories themselves. While this is definitely an issue, in terms of informational validity, I would be careful of assuming they are spewing government-based propaganda instead of "real" news.

To most people in America, reporting the news falsely would be a huge deal... if they knew about it. However, it's the sad truth that many Americans don't realize when the "news" they're reading/watching/hearing is based off of false information, or that opinions are being reported as facts. And this would be an even larger issue, were we actually living in a country such as China or Russia.

But this is America. While the news networks may be stupid enough to run unchecked stories, they certainly know better than to report propaganda. Additionally, the U.S. Government is not a large producer of news-based propaganda, with the only potential exceptions being conflict-/war-related. Even George W. Bush didn't censor the news, for the most part, despite it's penchant for berating and contradicting the President himself.

If this isn't evidence for non-propaganda, I don't know what is. So while it amounts to career suicide for these networks to act as they currently are, I believe they are far from reporting government propaganda.

Now, if only China had such "problems." Maybe their general population would recognize that their medals won in Women's Gymnastics this past summer are largely suspect...

Non-MSM != Unreliable [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:03:53 +0000

"Fewer people are reading newspapers and watching TV evening news and depending for news on nontraditional sources, leading to viewing only what one wants to hear."

--- --- ---

While I agree that fewer people are using "traditional" sources for news, I believe that calling sources other than TV-based news and newspapers unreliable or extremely biased amounts to libel. If an individual wishes to know only what they want to hear, they can do so in any format: FOX News on TV for southern state bible-belt rednecks; Newsweek, a weekly magazine, for a decidedly anti-Republican, anti-war, strongly liberal audience; or a blog-based network such as "Creationism.org" for the uneducated religious fanatics in all of us.

With very little effort, it is possible to be more informed, on any number of issues, than one would be from viewing MSM, and with just a little more effort, it can be largely unbiased as well. For the "older" generations this may be more difficult, but for those who have grown up with computers and the Internet, finding reliable sources for everyday (or not so everyday) news, in an attempt to shun MSM, is a trivial task.

Just because the media's formats and ownerships are changing hands doesn't mean that the other mediums are any less valuable, despite the failing newspapers and MSM publications saying so in their final hours of discontent and anger. In fact, as these old-world enterprises continue to fail on an epic, and highly entertaining, level, the value of alternative news sources increases. While those aging 35+, on average, have yet to accept that blogs and publications run by "unknowns" can have high value, the younger generations have helped to create a burgeoning network of instant-value media delivered through the Internet.

But be careful. You might accidentally find a blog by a former FOX News pundit.