hey all,
I happened upon a news story today that got me thinking, this really, really sounds like a story. It also occurred there are tons and tons of these stories. Please post one and join me in meditating on how access to information and the rate of cultural change have an accelerating effect on one another, thereby destabilizing the ground we stand on as writers. Or join me in a drink, whatever you're up for.
https://gma.yahoo.com/former-cfo-food-stamps-controversial-viral-video-c...
This one has it all. A powerful figure falling from grace thanks to the amplifying affect technology has had on his own hubris, his ego. A clash of cultures and of values. Perhaps some personal betrayal. Families sticking it out.
That's brutal.
I feel like he had it coming. I mean if you leave a million dollars on the table in stock options and go out and terrorize some poor lady you can't reasonably think that ends well. Even if her several times boss's boss's said some bad stuff.
I haven't seen the video itself. Attacking an entry-level wage-worker (instead of just talking to them, trying to educate them / seeing what they know about their own company) is surely tasteless, bound to offend on principle regardless of the issue. It's not surprising he got flak; the bad part is how long its effects lasted.
If the video was really so well-publicized, i.e. deemed news-worthy, why aren't all the outlets who initially "reported" on it following up? How are the effects of their reportage not a "part of the story" which they were all too happy to distribute? The answer would seem to be that many of those involved in click-baiting internet "journalism" (as well as rebloggers & twitter activists) lack much sense of accountability or responsibility. They just ride whatever wave comes along, then jump on the next one, then the next one.
Am I overstating this? I worry that my view of internet media is a bit too harsh at times, but it just as often feels perfectly correct and appropriate.
What I understand to be the unedited video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg-jzlWcc0E
Most of the people reporting about it seemed pumped he got fired. Even ones that you would assume are pro-gay rights and are pro-gay rights in the rest of the article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/adam-smith-chick-fil-a-drive-bully_n_1735357.html
Heck, that's not nearly as bad as I imagined. It's not really all that "purposeful" (in Smith's own words), but it could've been way worse. Is that the sort of thing which should bar someone from being employed? Didn't feel that way to me.
HuffPo can be pretty—I don't know—loose with the news anyway. They have the straight-news sections, but the rest is basically a blog. There was one video article I saw in which the "anchor" gives a story that some porno was dowloaded from a torrent site to an IP address located in Vatican City. She Skypes with an actress from one of the movies and asks her if this means that the Catholic Church is really just a bunch of hypocrites (or something hyperbolic and speculative like that). It was quite distasteful, not because I can't handle the suggestion a priest might have watched an (illegally downloaded?) adult film, rather because it was just a ridiculous, exaggeratory presentation. On top of which, there are people who work in the Vatican who aren't Bishops & Cardinals. On top of which, I think you can still fake IP addresses. Could've been a prank.
I think I've finally hit the point on this one where I just want to watch both sides destroy each other and themselves over this. And I hope it's bloody. Let 'em all burn. I mean really, off the top of my head: fucking Iran is racing to get nukes, ISIS is running amok, raping, killing, burning people alive, we're getting entangled in Russia and Ukraine's dispute, we've passed 18 trillion in debt... and THIS is the most important thing in the world?
::high-to-low whislting sound effect followed by plane-crash-explosion noise::
...
Have we strayed completely from the OP?
When was the last time Iran started a war? Started being the key word. Americans and their respective politicians have some major cojones when it comes to policing the rest of the world's nuclear programs.
And ISIS? Fuck, man, what do they total thirty thousand soldiers? And that's considered on the high end of the estimates. Over twenty times as many people live in my county. Not to say rape and murder aren't bad, but I'd like to stack ISIS's numbers up against several major US cities.
Yes, the Chick-fil-A thing as well as priests watching porn are some First World problems media hype garbage, but all the same, as to your other points, don't believe the narratives, my man. At least not wholly.
If the news routinely exaggerates, it has direct implications on to what degree we should trust the narratives, in general and specifically those mentioned by Thuggish. And all of it is relevant to the OP. On what ground can writers stand? Some say we should only "write what we know", and this feeling can be intensified by the glut of information sources & competing views of supposedly identical events. Why do so many writers write low-key tales of urban pitter-patter, dislocation and ennui? Because it's what they know, because they actually don't know much about ISIS or Ukraine or human trafficking or whatever "big" issue they might attempt to tackle.
