YouReport

  There’s a new watchdog in town, and it’s you.  Yes, you, with your video-capturing cell phone.  Who would’ve guessed that Time’s Person of the Year would also be leading the pack in news journalism?  When news happens, you are there, quick to draw your cell-cam and capture for the world events that may otherwise go unnoticed.  When Saddam was hanged, you were there.  When Kramer’s career went down in flames, you were there.  When an Iranian-American student was unjustly tasered in the UCLA library, you were there.  When news happens, you are there, ensnaring the events that shape our world in your tangled web of grainy video and garbled sound. 

  Of course, in the days following the execution of Saddam Hussein, cell phone video of the hanging swept across the web like a California brushfire. The video has been condemned as much for its existence as for its content, which shows the taunting of the former dictator on the gallows and a post-mortem clip reveals a gruesome, gaping wound on his neck.  Authorities are now calling for the prosecution of the man who captured the footage, in a classic case of “shooting the messenger.”  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at a press conference on Monday in Ramallah, said that she hopes those responsible for the video will be punished. “We were disappointed that there was not greater dignity give to the accused under these circumstances,” she said.  Let me remind you that, if not for the fear of terrorist attacks, the hanging would’ve happened in a soccer stadium in front of at least 10,000 cheering fans.  “I hope that those who are responsible for the way that came out will indeed be punished,” Rice said.

  I think that video, which I haven’t seen, was a good thing—not because I enjoy the macabre, but because it immediately subverts any conspiracy theories that would have immediately began to swirl.  “Saddam is alive and well in Acapulco,” or “The execution was actually staged by the Baathist Saddam loyalists, who released him, and now he’s living in Bahrain with Michael Jackson,” or “That fat guy in a ski mask was really Elvis Presley.”  The cell phone video eventually made public the hanging that was originally going to be public.

  The Hussein video may be the highest-profile among a recent rash of phone-captured news, but it is certainly not alone.  It’s quite possible that racist tirade unleashed by Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer) wouldn’t have been the news story it was if it hadn’t been captured on an audience member’s cell phone. 

  Week after week, we are seeing more of these videos make their way to television news, and they are almost always shocking.  And while most people don’t carry around a video camera at all times, most people do have cell phones.  According to a recent study by InfoTrends and The Yankee Group, about 70 percent of Americans have cell phones, and about a fourth of those have video capability.  Of the estimated 55.5 million cell phone users with video, one-third claim they use it at least once a week. 

  Overall, that’s almost 6 percent of Americans who use their cell phone video recorders once a week, and that number will only rise as video-capable phones fall into more hands.  We certainly haven’t seen the end of this trend. 

  Keep those phones handy, and when news happens, you’ll be there.

 -From Pulse
   January 18, 2007

Read more...

Person Of The Year

  First, let me congratulate you on your recognition as Time magazine’s Person of the Year. 

  Now, let me say that I think it’s bunk.  You didn’t do anything to deserve it, short of creating a MySpace page and uploading a 42-second video clip of your cousin taking a softball in the crotch.  Oh, and your little blog—no one reads it.  You deserve to be Person of the Year like K-Fed deserves a Grammy.  Like Andy Dick deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.  Like Britney Spears deserves Mother of the Year.  Pardon my candor, but you don’t deserve it anymore than I do.

  Shame on the editorial staff at Time for copping out, and shame on them for stroking our already-over-inflated egos, as if we aren’t already self-important enough.  It is a cheap ploy designed to sell a few more copies of their much-awaited Person of the Year issue—a designation that once meant something. 

  Charles Lindbergh was the first person to receive the honor, when it was called “Man of the Year,” in 1927—the year he became the first person to ever fly solo and non-stop across the Atlantic.  (Let me again remind you that you won it this year, for sitting on your couch with a can of Pringles, and watching Futurama reruns on Cartoon Network.  Good job.) 

  I mean, really.  Time’s Person of the Year is a distinction that has been given to every U.S. president since Harry Truman, except for Gerald Ford.  Dozens of world leaders and humanitarians—names like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  Rudy Giuliani was acknowledged in the months after the attacks of 9/11.  People of influence.  Last year, Bill and Melinda Gates shared the honor with Bono.  This year, my neighbor Kenny shared it with, well, everyone else.

  This isn’t the first time that Time has named a large group “Person of the Year.”  For example, in 1966 it was given to everyone 25 and under.  That decision is defensible, considering the role played by American youth in the civil rights movement, the sexual revolution, and the anti-war movement. 

  Sometimes objects are named Person of the Year.  In 1982 it was the computer.  In 1988 it was “Endangered Earth.”  The fact that Time can’t find a person to crown Person of the Year either speaks to the deficiencies of their editorial staff or to those of mankind.  I certainly hope it’s the former.

  There has been a lot of talk in this debate about Adolf Hitler, who was named Person of the Year in 1938.  It’s important to remember that it’s not about being the best person; it’s about wielding the most influence over the year’s events.  With that in mind, perhaps al-Qaeda would have been a more suitable group to choose.  Or, as Time did in 1950, it could have gone to the American fighting-man, our men and women of the services.  And they could have done it with few objections.

  At some point over the next couple of weeks, you may find yourself staring at your own reflection in the foil-gilded cover of Time.  It’s a cheap ploy designed to sell magazines.  As you consider whether or not you want to give Time’s editorial staff that satisfaction, you may want to consider this: Paris Hilton could be looking at the same thing.

-From Pulse
   December 28, 2006

Read more...