Bruce Springsteen and an American coda

Ronald Radosh has a good article in The American Interest on Bruce Springsteen's Seeger Sessions. The Boss, who has already experimented with a different sort of sound in The Ghost of Tom Joad, now goes retro once again, back to the age of Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie. Radosh likes the result. He quotes LA Times staff writer Ann Powers: "It was a history lesson you could dance to."

Radosh doesn't approve so much of the liberal politics of these songs. "Springsteen is entitled to his views, and he has made them clear," he writes. "But do his audiences really believe that the United States should pull its troops out of Iraq immediately? Do they believe, as Seeger used to, that the singing of left-wing and antiwar songs has the power to change American foreign policy?" Let us hope so, for the political message of many of these songs adds an extra source of vibrancy.

The trajectory of ideas

What will the Big Ideas of the 21st century be, and will their impact be positive or negative? So far, it seems like the trend toward fundamentalism in religion is dominating ideologies today at the expense of democracy and human rights. Does the history of past movements offer any hope for the future?

Here's a discussion of this "trajectory of ideas" in the US.

In defense of newspapers

A fascinating article in the German website Sign and Sight addresses the future of newspapers. Mathias Dopfner, who heads the Axel Springer publishing powerhouse, says that newspapers exercise an important function in peoples' lives, and while their format may change from paper to electronic paper, their purpose of conveying news will ensure that they will continue to find readers. And the dreaded Internet? "The Internet is not the new newspaper," Dopfner says. "It is a genuinely new medium. Not just a new transfer medium, but a new creative medium, too. According to (early 20th-century Nurnberger Zeitung editor-in-chief Wolfgang) Riepl this means that the Internet will establish itself alongside the media already on offer, not replace them."
Yes, this speech was delivered by someone whose business hinges upon producing newspapers. That said, he makes some compelling points.

FICTION FORMULA

well, here's a formula for success as a fiction-writer...

(1) First, amass social capital that connects you to the power structure (publishing houses, movie producers, etc.), if you don't already have it. This is not at all easy.

(2) THEN, craft work that you believe in THAT ALSO fits the values of your contacts.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be writing before we have the social capital. You need to write to hone your abilities, so that when you get the social capital, you have something to say. If you write good enough stuff, then you may already have something readymade for the contacts, once they materialize.

But writers are given to daydream & fantasy. And there is no greater delusional fantasy than the idea that you can write, in your solitary world, and then find a market for your work.

I've tried it. It doesn't work. You write on the side, while you build a career in a more meritocratic field, that involves human contacts -- such a field allows you to build social capital.

Then, if you can get the social capital to connect you to the power (publishing houses, movie producers), you take your old writings or make new ones, and try to get your work distributed.

But it is delusion to think you can write in isolation/seclusion and succeed. Practically, it's impossible, due to lack of connections -- and it also probably degrades your work to write in isolation, because social contacts and life experience are the material from which great fiction is woven.

Of course, this theory is written out of the struggle of time I used to write -- which didnt yield anything. So who knows?

THoughts?

Free Software

Liberty, I was wondering you could help me understand the "Free Software" movement, which is explained at http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html and other sources.

I understand that they want open source codes. I don't understand the economics about allowing copies and derivative works to be distributed for free.

I'm not interested in critiquing this movement (yet), so much as learning and understanding their point of view.

Since you're the computer programmer / philosopher, I was wondering if you could help me out on this one.

TEAM BABY

Michael Eisner (formerly of Disney) bought TEAM BABY, which makes DVDs aimed at 6month old to 5 year old children; the DVDs feature college sports teams, with jerseys & fight songs -- meant to instill loyalty at the tots. http://www.teambabyentertainment.com/

The founder tried it on his then 1-year-old son, Auden: "One year later, Scheinman said, Auden could recognize the Michigan Wolverines and could do the Texas 'Hook 'em Horns' sign. " (Goo Goo Team! Eisner to Sell Tykes on College Sports; By Lorenza Muñoz; LA TIMES, June 26, 2006, p. C1)

What's next, subliminal car advertisement messages in Sesame Street?

The Internet alternative

For a thoughtful critique of the Internet alternative, read this article from Christianity Today.

CENTRALIZATION OF MEDIA CONTENT

Relevant to the question of media ownership is the following quotation:

"In a sense, Spelling represented one of the final ties to a time when independent producers could amass enormous wealth by developing popular hits, during an era when the major networks were prevented from supplying their own programming — federal rules that have since been rescinded."

--Obituary for AARON SPELLING / 1923-2006
TV Mogul Spun Fluff Into Gold
By Brian Lowry, June 24, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-spelling24jun24,0,568231.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I'm interested in learning more about which federal rules created the division, and when and how they were rescinded. Perhaps this change in the law has something to do with quality of original programming being lower now (at least in my opinion) than in the '80s.

Initial Post on Media Populism

INTERNET POINTILLISM

Read what's on the Internet -- blogs, personal websites, etc. -- and you see that the average person out there has already come pretty close to matching the expertise of the media experts, in many cases. And in some cases, the bloggers know more than the experts. Access to the pages of big-name newspapers and magazines is guarded by gatekeepers who close ranks around their friends, relatives, like-minded people who share their viewpoints, and people who devote more time to style than to substance. Sports radio callers can tell you about middle relief pitchers' tendencies, and commentators on discussion forums can question football play-calling -- save for the jackasses who curse out the opposing team's players, the collective intelligence of the populus vastly exceeds that of the experts. While John Madden was telling a Super Bowl audience that the New England Patriots should sit on the ball at the end of regulation, against the Rams, plenty of members of the viewing audience (including many who have never played organized football) knew better. Most of the audience knew that it was better to try to win the game, then to play for overtime, against a team, the Rams, whose offense was heating up, at that stage in the game -- it was better to try and control the game's outcome then to play for a coin toss (to decide who gets the ball first in sudden death overtime). But Madden's error came as no surprise: the big-name media voices are always trying to convince you to avoid risk and embrace the establishment. And that is because they are part of the establishment, and the establishment is part of them.

Most of us know better, and we have more to say than the big-name media sources. The only problem now is most of us lack an audience. Everyone has a blog. But are people reading others' writings? Or have we reached the point where everyone is a potato farmer with surplus -- where everyone has too many potatoes to eat, and then tries to sell potatoes to a neighbor who also has a potato surplus? What if there is an oversupply of writers -- because writing is fun and expressive -- and an undersupply of readers? Does a tree make a noise, if its fall is documented on a blog that no one reads?

Free trade is predicated on specialization. The farmer with the potato surplus lives near someone with a tomato surplus, and so they exchange their goods with each other and with someone down the block who has a surplus of grapes. This depends on people making the effort not only to publish their own thoughts but also to seek out other individual voices, instead of relying on the major media outlets. And people are doing this -- because the major media outlets are too biased, in favor of their own interests. These outlets are all centrally owned by a few conglomerates that have vested interests on almost all matters of public interest. The major outlets are homogenized -- reflecting stale, predictable viewpoints. They try to play on the audience's emotions and prejudices, without even mixing in objectivity or self-awareness. The mainstream sources don't reflect segments of the population who have other primary careers outside of journalism, even though other primary careers provide invaluable perspective. The mainstream sources don't represent people with viewpoints that are less conventional but more interesting and innovative than that in the tryannical majority. Yet technology is a great equalizer. Computer hackers are taken by the government and brought in-house. And now movies can be made with videocameras and editing software. The smartest people among the major media outlets will take part in the great proliferation of voices -- they will find their next hit singers from obscure music websites. The smartest executives will listen to their audiences instead of trying to exploit them. They will ride the new wave of information, and recognize that they can't control it. The era of expert dominance in media is over. But don't take my word for it. Ask your neighbor.

CHUCK BOOMS

Chuck Booms is a Fox Sports Radio host (570 AM in Los Angeles). Today, June 17, 2006, he discussed pro golf. He said that the liberal media has anointed Tiger Woods as the greatest golfer of all time because Woods is a minority -- a similar argument to the one that Rush Limbaugh made about Donovan McNabb. (When a caller pointed out the similarity to Limbaugh's argument, Booms agreed and stated that Limbaugh had been correct.) Booms said that Phil Mickelson lacks sufficient media recognition, because he is white.

One caller from Massachusetts wished to disagree, but Booms preempted the caller, by calling him a liberal (by virtue of Massachusetts residency) and by saying that the caller (who plays golfs) "suck[s]" at golf (without any evidence of the caller's ability, either way; Booms admits that he himself doesn't play golf). Then Booms stated that Massachusetts need not be taken seriously due to its liberalism; Booms knocked Massachusetts because it previously elected a governor (Dukakis) who, in Booms' words, is not tall enough for amusement park rides.

Booms also criticized Chris Matthews as a "liberal Irish-Catholic," and -- when callers objected to his invoking ethnicity and religion in his critique -- he denied meaning to disparage Matthews by reference to enthnicity and religion.

A black caller from Booms' state of Ohio called, but Booms derided him as a liberal, even when the caller specifically disclaimed being a liberal.

Booms also took some friendly calls, including some from black callers.

Booms argued that white athletes don't get sufficient recognition. He stated that two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash lacks enough media uproar. (Apparently, Booms does not count the MVP award, which is voted on by the media, as noteworthy publicity.) Booms stated that Nash should be compared to Magic Johnson, but the media fails to make this comparison, because Nash is white. Then Booms argued that actually the standard-bearer for point guards should not be Magic but rather Pete Maravich, or John Stockton. Booms stated that, like Nash, Maravich and Stockton lack proper media recognition, because they are white.

On the golf issue, Booms argued that Jack Nicklaus is the greatest of all time because he won 18 career majors, as compared to Woods' current total of 9. Booms disparaged Woods' performance this week, when Woods was +12 and missed the cut at the US Open, after an extended leave of absence from golf due to the illness and passing of Woods' father. Booms stated that Woods should have been motivated by his father's death, comparing Woods unfavorably with Brett Favre, who had a career night on Monday Night Football the day after his father's passing.

Booms also said that the Massachusetts caller would soon be upset because conservative Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be elected President of the United States.

Booms and callers debated whether white people or black people had shown more humanity or color-blindness in responding to recent hurricanes (Katrina and those in Florida).

Surprisingly, there is little on Booms in the Internet, including the blog world. Booms' national radio spot is clear proof of the types of thinking that still persists in many minds -- and it is important that people be aware that people like him are receiving media airtime even in an area like sports radio.

Sports radio itself is not just about sports -- as hosts often chime in on other topics, such as commenting on current TV shows and movies. Soon after September 11, New York area sports radio host Mike Francesa (on WFAN's Mike and the Mad Dog program) opined that Jews lack allegiance to the US, because in his mind if the US went to war with Israel, Jews would not side with the United States. Francesa's remarks received no media attention. Booms views have not received media attention.

Defenders of Booms might say that his antics are tongue-in-cheek, merely trying to get a rise out of people with outrageous opinions. After all, apparently Booms is a former standup comedian. But this is too generous a viewpoint -- Booms' radio act hits nerves, and not in a comic fashion.

The public should be aware of the true realities of what voices are out there. Conservatives who criticize black leaders for invoking the race card should themselves look within, towards other conservatives who invoke the race card when it suits their purposes.

Booms' argument about Tiger is a straw man; the media has never anointed Tiger as the best golfer ever on the basis of his entire career. Booms' unsubstantiated critique of the Massachusetts caller's golf game ("You suck at golf"), when Booms does not play golf, says it all. Teddy Roosevelt, a hero of modern conservatives (see, e.g., http://www.republicansource.com/03-3000.htm), in his Man in the Arena speech, remarked:

"It is not the critic that counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or the doer of deeds could have them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the Arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but he who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails while daring greatly, knows that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls, who know neither victory nor defeat."

Booms could find this quotation on the Right Wing News website (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/success.php). Perhaps, instead of critiquing successful minority athletes, Booms and Rush Limbaugh should spend thieir time trying to understand their own philosophy. They might learn something.

I thought the book was better than the movie. However, I did not like Dan Brown's reducing masterpieces such as the Mona Lisa and Isaac Newton's tomb to mere clues in a code. The movie will cause no change in those who are secure enough in their Catholic faith, but the number of such faithful is ever shrinking in secular America. It is also understandable why the movie is so popular in Europe, which is the one region of the world that may just be less religious than the East and West Coasts of the United States.

It looks like Brown is just getting started in the movie industry. His first work, Angels and Demons, could get the film treatment as well...

Saw screenplay of DA VINCI CODE at bookstore today ... Interesting to read before having seen movie or read novel -- was gripping (got about 10 pages in)...

The book had separate intros by Ron Howard (director) & Akiva Goldsmith (screenwriter) among others ... Goldsmith adapted it from the novel, of course - said he had read novel before he was approached by Howard (for whom he also wrote screenplay for A BEAUTIFUL MIND)... At first Goldsmith wasnt sure if it'd make a good movie, b/c novel had too much dialogue & backstory ... Then he reread it a couple of times & wrote a spec script -- which Howard says was so good it could've started a bidding war, even without the novel ... Then Goldsmith rewrote the script a ton bunch of times, and -- contrary to normal convention-- Howard allowed Goldsmith on the set, to contribute... They rehearsed it with Goldsmith there, before shooting -- and they revised parts of it this way (as a group), with Goldsmith having the final say, I think...

They had cartoonists sketch out the storyboard beforehand to help Howard shoot it, as well...

Then after they filmed, they edited it, to be different from Goldsmith's final shooting script ...

I didnt know that much about the process before reading about it.

This is not to say anything about the novel/script itself as a product... I'm more interested in teh controversy ... see, e.g., http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/NEWS01/605050341 (Steve Munsey's crusade against the book)