Needed: A “Remove Recent Incident” Button on Google

Remember when weather radar reports used to reference “ground clutter” near the antennae— the clump of color that looked like it was rain, but wasn’t? We seem to have that same problem in search engine results for items that pop high in the news—  ground clutter focused on recent events that stop us from having a clear view of a subject.

Last night I read this story broken by the New York Times: Sergeant’s Wife Kept a Blog on the Travails of Army Life. My first inclination was to go find that blog and see the unselfconscious primary text. I started off with the direct approach— a search for “Karilyn Bales blog”. That returned a list of stories referencing the NYT account of her blog.

Next I moved to some more Google-ninja approaches, including a search for a unique phrase from the original text (“Quincy slept in our bed last night.”) and one that attempted to remove the phrase “New York Times” from that query. Nothing seems to be working.

I regularly ran into the same problem when I ran the blog GoogObits in the early-mid 2000s. When a person dies, search results for their name and/or accomplishments tend to focus on the fact of their passing rather than the accomplishments and stuffing of their life.

Google Advanced Search has a “last update” method for searching based on some time period stretching back to a certain time period (week/ month/ year/ etc.), but it does not allow you to exclude the most recent time period.

This may already exist, but I just don’t know about it. Any ideas?

Revisiting Trut in Light of Jason Russell, This American Life, and Mike Daisey

In 1997, long before Stephen Colbert ever had a show on cable, I wrote an essay for Emigre Magazine wherein I coined the term “trut”, which is the mutable concoction of facts employed for an ulterior purpose. Vote it up on Urban Dictionary, plz.

Editor Rudy Van der Lans was putting together Emgire 41, “The Magazine Issue” and he asked me to write something about my favorite magazine. At the time, I loved the tabloids. Now, of course, pretty much everything is the tabloids, and I’ve graduated to the best news aggregator (and LJ blog) in the world, Oh No They Didn’t.

In light of yesterday’s wackiness re: Jason Russell’s meltdown, Mike Daisey’s “lies”, and This American Life’s self-flogging,  and I went looking for a copy of this essay (which I also published in my 2003 book, Economics) and I couldn’t find it. Then I remembered I removed the complete text of most my poems from the Internet last year so as to stimulate massive book sales.

So, um, ya. Anyway.

I think that there are some thoughts here that are relevant to today. Namely:

  • People believe want they want to believe
  • You don’t have to be telling the truth in order to be right
  • Trut-makers don’t really care what anyone else thinks

And so it goes. Here’s the complete text:

TRUT: The Star, The Globe, and the Missing H in the New Veracity

My favorite magazines are Star and Globe and I’m not going to hide it anymore. With bright retail colors and big pictures of beautiful people doing marvelous things, the tabloids are where I go for pure graphic love. It’s good to revel in love like yellow flowers nestled in a red meadow.

But the real gold of the tabloids is trut. Trut is the mutable concoction of facts employed for an ulterior purpose. Trut consists of exactly 4/5 of the stuff of truth. Four out of five letters lined up as a reasonable facsimile of truth.

Here at the end of the millennium, consumers of communications are adept at trading in these fractional representations of the truth. Everyone prepares particular versions of the truth for different people. We all in turn take everyone else’s trut and calibrate it to our own understandings. The missing H doesn’t bother us a bit. With 4/5 of the truth and some sense, people manage to get along.

The Rise of Trut

Imperfect truth is not new. White lies and misinformation have been around as long as families and war. What is new is the widespread acceptance of customized falsehood.

In 1974 when Nixon lost his job, the country fell under what I call the tyranny of the smoking gun. After that, whenever there was a scandal, the question was “What did he know and when did he know it?” This red-handed attitude came with the rise of investigative journalism. The problem is that this system plays right into the hands of those in power. As long as they can hide the weapon, they can get away with whatever they want, no matter how much of the evidence points to them.

Take the example of a guy named Ronald Reagan. He managed to stay unimpeached by keeping one step removed from the smoking gun. He and his lackeys committed some of the most heinous acts of cunning ever performed against the United States Constitution. They cut a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini to keep hold of the Tehran Embassy hostages until Reagan had beaten poor Jimmy Carter. They financed a sickening war in Nicaragua by selling crack cocaine to U.S. minorities. They took the traditional Washington sport of white-collar robbery to obscene heights with the Savings & Loan Scandal and the subsequent Resolution Trust Corporation bailout. And on and on. He got away with everything, and we all know it.

What Trut Hath Wrought

This is not just an American phenomenon. Governments all over the world are regularly shown to be run by corrupted phreaks who do everything from rob us blind to fondle our children to kill us outright. Each of these governments is invariably propped up by newspapers, TV, and other media that proclaim that the Government is full of a bunch of good guys looking out for us. Trut is the direct product of the chafing that occurs when popular perception of reality doesn’t jibe with the dominant version of reality. Instead of trying to prove the existence of an absent gun, trut looks at the plainly visible and encourages logical conclusions.

The media often tries to ameliorate lost credibility with the use of irony and satire. NBC gives us Saturday Night Live, where they make fun of the power but “never go too far”, as George Bush (#41) once said approvingly, standing next to Dana Carvey at a White House press conference. Irony and satire are lazy and defeatist. Trut-making is earnest and probing.

Trut can be a violent phenomenon. One of the most advanced cases of a society trying to bring the dominant trut closer to the facts was the Los Angeles Rebellion of 1992. The citizens of LA knew that the Rodney King verdict delivered in Simi Valley was severely flawed. There was an overpoweringly widespread feeling that no amount of op/ed page copy or letters to the editor could change. So they took to the streets and let the world in on their trut: cops shouldn’t get away with beating the shit out of people for no good reason.

The rebellion marked a turning point in the rise of trut. The Simi Valley jurors had a smoking gun (amateur videotape) and still refused to convict because they were holding on to their own trut. Their trut was that the cops are good. And that African-Americans—- even pummeled, prostate African-Americans surrounded by a dozen hyped up cops—- are a threat. And the tyranny of the smoking gun went down in flames.

Back To The Tabloids

I’m not saying that tabloids are radical revolutionaries leading the way to a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But they are trailblazers in the methodology of trut. Instead of making up constrictive rules for themselves that only impede their ability to discover reality, they accept official dishonesty and embrace it.

Tabloids like Star and Globe are leading practitioners in a new standard for honesty, and they don’t deserve to be held out with two fingers like a stinky rag. The tabloids diligently seek out the 80% of the facts that are discernible even when people like Reagan are doing their best to hide the H on them. They make up the rest through careful analysis of what they discovered. Then they present the result as if it were Gospel.

The point is that this isn’t thin air. The quotes are completely made up but they seem to represent something true. The quotes end up being what the person would have said had they been honest and if they had actually spoken to the reporter who wrote the story.

Trut is like people—- there are a lot of mean ones out there. Tabloids use the underhanded method of vague attribution. Of course whatever tabloids say a person said, only serves to buttress the trut laid out in the article. It also tends to expose the position from which a trut has sprung. A good example from the Globe article called “X-Files Gillian Anderson Red-Hot Lover—- at 15.” The article profiles Ralph Wallace, a former boyfriend of the actress. They wrap up the story this way: “but he says he’ll always have a warm spot for Gillian and loves watching her as Agent Dana Scully on the X-Files.”

He never said that. I know Ralph Wallace. Ralph Wallace is a friend of mine. Ralph Wallace has produced a number of my verse dramas here in Chicago. Ralph Wallace does not like the X-Files that much. Globe only said he said that because it serves the article’s trut, which is that Gillian Anderson has a nutty-goofy background, and she’s really-really a nutty wild girl, and that is just one more reason why everyone in the world should watch her show on Fox Network. This is the trut according to Gillian Anderson’s agent & Rupert Murdoch, and that warm spot is going to be in their jeans when they read the overnight Nielsens. Trut everywhere.

Suckers

Probably the biggest news broken by the tabloids lately is a story the Star reported last August about presidential strategist Dick Morris. Here’s the lead from Richard Gooding’s article called Top Clinton Aide and the Sexy Call Girl: “President Clinton’s top political adviser has hired a call girl almost weekly for a year and after kinky sex has revealed the innermost secrets of the White House. While the illicit pair sprawl naked, the trusted aide takes frequent phone calls from the Oval Office and even holds the phone up to the call girl’s ear so she can eavesdrop on the president’s conversations—without Clinton ever knowing it.

“’He gets a kick out of me listening in’, Washington call girl Sherry Rowlands tells Star in an exclusive interview.”

So we’ve got a short married guy with a foot fetish next to a prostitute on one line and on the other line we’ve got the President of the United States next to the guy holding the freakin’ nuclear launch codes in a black suitcase. Now that’s a story.

First they lay out the bona fides of Ms. Rowlands: “She gave up a shot at modeling and acting to get married at 19, and had several children. But after 14 years the marriage broke up. Two years ago, she signed on with an escort service for the first time, aiming to make enough money to start a business cleaning homes and offices.”

So Star is broadcasting the fact up front that they are telling the story from the “trut” of Ms. Rowlands. After all, this is a popular magazine—- there are a lot more aspiring model/actresses, young mothers, divorcees, call girls, entrepreneurs, and cleaning ladies reading Star than there are Presidents of the United States. I think they hit a good part of their demographic right there.

Star also takes the time to lay out their own legitimacy. They run a profile on the “Star Reporter Who Investigated the Scandal.” He used to be a copy boy at the New York Times.

The amazing thing about this trut is how quickly its radical core of facts was absorbed into the dominant media. Network pundits and political strategists folded the story into the overwhelming tableau of hours and hours of uncut content provided by the President, his operatives, and the cozy TV execs whose hopes and dreams are all wrapped up in keeping the Executive Branch up and moving well, keeping the wars won.

The sad thing about trut is how it de-moralizes culture and boils down world visions to a cold calculus of individual loss and gain. It doesn’t really matter who plays footsie with whom or who’s carrying out genocide on whom or who stole the elections. As long as the Fed keeps interest rates low, or as long as the baby sleeps through the night, or as long as the stock market keeps rising, or as long as the cops don’t come for them, people will keep their mouths shut and go along with whatever’s handed down. And we can bundle up ourselves in tailor-fit coats of trut and steel ourselves against whatever comes next.

Some Thoughts on Rush Limbaugh and Advertising

I don’t have much unique to add to the amazing and effective campaign to muff up Rush Limbaugh after his heinous remarks of last week. It’s wonderful.

I have, however, listened to this person for many years (it’s the best way to figure out Republican political strategy) and I’m kind of obsessed with reverse-engineering facts and patterns. I’ve got some stuff on that:

  • Rush Limbaugh is a master pitchman. A huge amount of his advertising is “live reads” that he deftly bakes into the content of his show. One minute he’s ranting about a current hacking scandal and the next he’s extolling the virtues of backing up your files with Carbonite
  • The list of advertisers who have left are pretty much the only ones I’ve ever heard advertised on his show. These are long-time, huge volume advertisers
  • Developing new relationships like this is not a simple matter. It’s one thing to have companies place ready-made campaigns on your show. It’s another altogether to develop sophisticated content strategies that hide the ads in your unique content
  • Apparently today people heard Allstate commercials on the Rush show and they called out Allstate immediately. At first, Allstate said they didn’t know what people were talking about and that they didn’t advertise on his show. Then they issued a clarification saying their media buyer pumped commercials on the show. This sounds believable to me
  • I don’t know anything about radio ad sales, but it sounds like the Rush people dipped into a generic pool of ads to fill the empty space (some sort of high-quality remnant thingy?)
  • It would be cool if someone listened to every single Rush Limbaugh show and compiled/ tweeted the authoritative list of all commercials, including company name, general content, format, and contact info (Twitter/ Facebook/ corporate, etc.) for each. This would help keep the pressure on and get a better bead on the advertising industry in general– for the war next time

The Ballad of Tyler Hicks

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/22/multimedia/23tylerhicks_190.jpgTyler Hicks is one of the best war photographers in history. He has won the Pulitzer Prize and worked with some of the best, including C. J. Chivers and Dexter Filkins, trying to explain a world gone mad.

In March of last year, Hicks— along with colleagues Anthony Shadid, Lynsey Addario and Stephen Farrell—  was captured by Libyan forces, while covering the revolution in Libya for the New York Times. The article that the four of them wrote together explaining their ordeal, “4 Times Journalists Held Captive in Libya Faced Days of Brutality“, was a crushingly personal tale that also shed light on the story they were there to cover.

Last month Anthony Shadid died of an asthma attack while covering a story in Syria. This morning the New York Times published an article written by Hicks called, “Bearing Witness in Syria: A Correspondent’s Last Days“. I dare you to read it without crying. Hicks is a photographer, not a writer. It’s a hybrid document where he recounts the last days of his friend and colleague— ending with Shadid collapsing while Hicks was holding him up— and tries to tell the story they went there to get. Here’s a snip:

That evening I read a book while Anthony walked down the street to interview some fighters we had been with that day. A while later an activist returned to tell me that Anthony wanted me to follow him and to bring my cameras. I arrived back at the base where we had seen them prepare their weapons, and as is the custom I took off my shoes before entering. There I found a carpeted room full of the fighters, now familiar to us, singing and playing traditional music, some clapping as one sang.

Directly across from me, amid cigarette smoke and sitting among them, was Anthony with a huge smile on his face. This was exactly the kind of connection that made him most happy as a reporter; his great warmth and intelligence were part of what made him the most important journalist covering the Arab world.

He put his arms out and said gleefully, “Tyler, look at this!” I found a seat next to him. Always wanting to share the experience, he told me that when they started singing he immediately sent for me. They served a dessert of sweet cheese, doused in a sticky syrup. They ad-libbed to incorporate us into the lyrics of one of their songs, thanking us for coming to Syria to witness their struggle.

Read this article. Buy the newspaper in which it appears, and clip it out. Press it in a book or fold it into a novel on your bookshelf. And then, as time goes by, if you get nagged by doubts about the future of journalism, or want to debate about pay walls or Craigslist, pull this story out and read it again. And you will be reminded that the New York Times Company paid two friends to go find out what was happening with defectors from the Syrian Army in early 2012, and one of them died of a horse allergy, and the other one carried his body over the border between Syria and Turkey.

Some People Walking Around Paris

Recently I walked around Paris and sat in various cafes, taking pictures of people. Here are some of my faves:

Man with Ice Cream:

Man With Ice Cream on Street, Paris, February 2012

Woman Walking Toward “Butcher of Carpates” Graffiti:

"The Butcher of Carpates" Paris, February 2012

Cafe Waiter Surveys His Ken:

Cafe Waiter in Paris, February 2012

Man on Street With Glasses (these people love their scarves, btw):

Man on Street with Glasses, Paris, February 2012

And lastly, my current fave, Contemplative Man With Pipe:

Man on Street with Pipe, Paris, February 2012

Complete set of recent Paris photos.

Paris, in Macro

Last week my wife and I spent a few days in Paris. I took my camera and four lenses, including the new one– a macro lens that allows me to get crazy up-close– that she got me for my birthday. Here’s the whole set of pics I took there are some of the macro shots are ere below:

He walked through a park. There were flowers:

Flower, Paris, February 2012

Flower in a Park, Paris, February 2012

And holly:

Holly in a Park, Paris, February 2012

I also spied a teeny bird:

Bird in Park in Paris, February 2012

During walkabout, I tried to pick up details of what felt like Paris to me. The foot of a statue across the street from Sorbonne:

Foot of a Statue on the Rue de Ecoles Across from the Sorbonne, Paris, February 2012

A sidewalk post with paint worn down from the automatic touches of pedestrians waiting for the light to turn:

Sidewalk Post, Paris, February 2012

Paris, February 2012

And a small sticker from a local spraycan artist:

Adem 1 Spraycan Artist Sticker, Paris, February 2012

I love my macro lens. Next up, tomorrow: Paris people!