A Little Q&A

Last night, CNN held it's much-hyped YouTube debate. According to CNN, the debate was a "historical" forum which gave citizens "uncut" and "unfiltered" access to the candidates. According to me, CNN's description is hogwash.

CNN would like you to believe that this debate was a departure from televised debates in the past because of one fundamental difference: instead of being asked by a moderator, the questions featured in the debate were submitted by voters in the form of YouTube videos. At first glance, this looks very high-tech, shiny, hip, and revolutionary. Unfortunately, the assertion that this new addition to the television debate format changes the way television debates work in any meaningful way is plainly false. There is absolutely no difference in substance (although there is a difference in style) between the voter-submitted YouTube videos used in last nights debate and the voter-submitted written questions that have been the mainstay of televised debates for years. In both cases, the questions originate from ordinary citizens; presenting the questions in video form does nothing to make the debate more of a conversation with the American people.

And in both cases, the conversation with the American people is an illusion. Ultimately, the questions that get played or read on television have to pass through television producers who select the questions that they want asked. In all likelihood, the content of the debate would change very little if the producers wrote all the questions themselves.

But that doesn't really matter. Debates shouldn't be judged based on where the questions originate or how stylishly they're presented. They should be about candidates having rational discussions about the issues at hand in order to give voters a clear idea of what their individual positions are. I don't care if it's Jim Lehrer or your next-door neighbor Bernie asking Barrack Obama what his plan for Iraq is; I care about what Barrack Obama's plan is. Debates are about the answers, not the questions.

In that sense, the YouTube debate can be seen as a step backward for reasoned political discussion in America. As soon as the debate was over, an article on CNN.com boasted that,

"The lights and cameras were focused on the eight candidates, but it was the personal, heartfelt and, at times, comical nature of the user questions that stole the spotlight."

The title of the article?

"Questions, not answers, highlight YouTube debate"

Apparently, CNN believes that a good debate is one in which the issues are raised in an entertaining fashion, not one in which the candidates are able to examine those issues thoroughly. I don't want to be mean, but that's pretty dang stupid. Many people have accused television of watering down politics in this country, but very rarely has a television station been so open about the fact. If CNN wants to hold a truly groundbreaking debate, they should try giving the candidates more than a paltry thirty-seconds-to-a-minute to answer questions, and eliminate fluffy queries like "who was your favorite teacher and why?"

There are many things wrong with television debates, but I've never considered un-entertaining questions to be one of them. Nor is a lack of "conversation" between the people and the candidates the primary flaw in our political system. What we need is more in-depth public discourse on the issues facing our country, and CNN's YouTube debate did less than nothing to deliver this.

Why all the YouTube hype is just hype.

Google paid over a billion dollars for it. TIME adorned the cover of their "person of the year" issue with it's shiny video interface. And I think it's just another internet novelty that will seem like a big fat waste of money to certain corporate officers in about a year or so. If you've read the title of this article, you know that I'm talking about the ever-so-popular youtube.com site, a place where every cocob0y222 and katg3rl9 can post grainy videos of themselves talking about themselves, while thinking to themselves that other people actually care. And while countless commentators trip over each other to be the first to proclaim the advent of a glorious new age of media in which Mom, Dad, Dick, Jane, and Spot gather around their 15" LCD display to watch 320x240 flash videos created by the Hendersons down the street, I'd like to recognize YouTube for what it actually is: a poor quality (albeit free) distribution system for amateur videos that carries a high risk of copyright infringement lawsuits, and no risk of usurping the mainstream media.

First of all, I'm not completely "dissing" YouTube. YouTube is an absolutely wonderful place to find great videos like the "Numa Numa Dance", "The Evolution of Dance", and "KItty cat dancing!!!!!!!!!! yeeea". However, I think that only a true dullard would argue that YouTube is encroaching on the traditional media's turf. How many people skip American Idol to watch a 10 second clip of mnkyj4m111 from Wisconsin stuffing mentos into a bottle of diet coke? Many people may find the user-made videos on YouTube to be amusing, but in the end they're pretty much the same as the videos that your annoying friend (you know who he/she is) used to forward to you way back in '01.

Of course, I don't want to downplay the broad range of programming available on YouTube. What about the plethora of video blogs available for your viewing pleasure? Finally, the people who failed English 101 and can't find any real-life friends to talk to, can eloquently express their innermost thoughts via the magic of the Internet! Who doesn't want to watch some fat college student with his hat on backwards sitting in a dimly lit dorm, while offering gems of wisdom that go something like this:

"So... anyways... uh... I saw a movie today... and it had a black guy in it.... but anyways it was... like... pretty funny... but my girlfriend... was all like, no way!... but I still think it was a funny movie... also today... um... what? Shut up Chris! ... No! ... Shut up! ... You're so stupid! ......... that was Chris... he's like... my roomie.... "

And who could forget all the wonderful no budget sit-com wannabes that prove that no matter how bad the quality of mainstream comedy gets, there's always something worse just a few mouse-clicks away. Yes folks, with the advent of low-cost digital video, we're simply being deluged with high-quality content produced outside of the traditional studio system.

That isn't to say there's nothing good on YouTube. Far from it! There are millions of great videos on YouTube, namely the ones that people rip from proprietary sources such as DVD's and television. Remember that one great scene from that otherwise lousy movie you saw eight years ago? With thousands of users working around the clock ripping, encoding, and uploading copyrighted movie clips, there's a pretty good chance you can find it on YouTube. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with this: copyrighted material is, for the lack of a better word, COPYRIGHTED. And websites hosting copyrighted materials without a license to do so can get into a lot of trouble with the copyright holders. This is where YouTube ceases to be a good business and becomes a great big legal liability. Somewhere down the road, YouTube will be the target of a copyright infringement case that most experts are predicting to be "One Bad Mutha'". The question is really one of when rather than if.

But do I really hate YouTube? No. If you don't have server space of your own, YouTube offers a video hosting solution that may not deliver the best quality, but gets the job done. My point is that YouTube isn't the threat to the traditional media that (ironically enough) the traditional media is making it out to be. Maybe once everyone starts using the Internet2, massive computer monitors become inexpensive, and YouTube offers HD video hosting/streaming, the big broadcasting networks can raise their respective white flags. Until then, pixelated Flash-7 encoded videos aren't going to cut it as serious entertainment media.

LOL!

The first post on this blog was on the subject of Internet smiley faces and my hatred thereof. So, in the glorious tradition of defending the English language, I will now smite the second enemy of intelligent writing: the loathsome Internet acronym. You know what I'm talking about: lol, rotflol, afaik, btw, imho, and all of the other textual abominations that kids these days can't go one sentence without writing. I'm sorry if this offends 99.9% of the people on the Internet, but I simply can't respect any piece of writing that contains an Internet acronym. No matter who you are, if I see a single "lol" in something you write, I will automatically think of you as a bratty 12 year old girl who spends all of her time at the mall texting her stupid friends on her cell phone. You can be a 40 year old man with a beard who disembowels live deer for kicks, but as soon as that acronym shows up, you become a bratty pre-teen mall rat. Enough said.

A big problem with using acronyms is that it homogenizes everyone. When you say "lol", you're expressing your mirth in a way identical to everyone else. When you say "imho" you're providing a disclaimer for your writing with the exact same words as millions of other people. When you say "brb" you're excusing your absence with a phrase that has been used and re-used billions of times before by other people. Your personality is completely lost in translation. Everyone on the Internet with their sloppy writing, acronyms and smileys could all be the same person as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if your screen name is cl3verd4n8 or winn3th3p00h1004cre, if you write stuff using the same acronyms as everyone else on the Internet, you're interchangeable with everyone else on the Internet.

Just think about it this way: before you write an acronym in a post, comment, email, or any other Internet related piece of writing, ask yourself these questions: Would I write this in an actual letter? A letter to my grandma? A letter to my congressman? A letter to the editor? A letter to my pen-pal in Argentina? Would I write this in a book? A book report? An essay for school? Would I write this in a newspaper? In an advice column? In a comic strip? In a family newsletter? If the answer is no, than why on earth would you write it on the Internet? When you post something on the Internet, you're publishing a piece of work that can be potentially viewed by an audience of millions. Why would you lower your standard of writing just because it's going to be displayed on the Internet? And if you're sending a personal email, why should you write it any differently than you would write a real pen and paper letter? It just doesn't make any sense.

Of course, some people say that acronyms are necessary for IM purposes. Those are people who I like to call: "People Who Should Learn How to Type". But seriously, acronyms in IM's are semi-excusable. Because Instant Messaging is, for lack of a better word, instant, time is of the essence. In order to talk in real time, acronyms may be necessary, although discouraged. They may be the lowest form of communication on the planet, but if you're being attacked by a bear and need to tell s friend quickly, nothing gets the job done like ol' IBABAB (I'm Being Attacked By A Bear). In any other form of electronic communication, acronyms are unacceptable. Why do you need to communicate with the smallest amount of typing possible when you're sending an email to a friend, or commenting on a blog post? There's no time limit. You can spend all day writing if you wish. Just because you're writing something digitally doesn't mean you have to become a mindless Internet zombie, spewing tired acronyms, tacky smileys, and sentences with little or no punctuation.

This isn't just an angry rant. This a call to repentance. Many of you out there in the audience have been living in grammatical sin. It's time for you to invite decent English to come live in your heart, to turn from your poorly written ways, and to enjoy all the blessings of not sounding like a bratty pre-teen girl when you communicate.

Emoticons: The Phantom Menace

I hate emoticons.
This is no secret. They are a putrid blight upon our technologically driven society, undermining hundreds of years of progress in the development of the english language, and sending us back to the ancient world where man crudely expressed his thoughts with hieroglyphics. If I were to use one word to sum up what emoticons are I would simply state: "crutches". They are crutches that people use to prop up thier flimsy writing skills. Using an emoticon is like broadcasting to the world: "I CAN'T PROPERLY EXPRESS MY EMOTIONS THROUGH MY WORDS SO I DECIDED TO EXPRESS THEM USING THIS CRAPPY, LOW-RES SMILEY FACE!". Sometimes an emoticon is used after a piece of humerous writing. In which case all the humor that may have existed suddenly dies. To illustrate this let's look at a piece of writing by retired humor columnist Dave Barry:

"It's time once again for the Winter Olympics -- three magical weeks during which all of America will gather in front of the television set to watch American Idol.

But during the commercials, some of us will also tune in to the Winter Olympics, a quadrennial competition that answers, once and for all, questions that burn in the brains of every true sports fan, such as: (1) Who will claim ''bragging rights'' as the world's best in the individual, sprint and team Nordic Combined? (2) What, exactly, IS the Nordic Combined? (3) Who the heck are the ''Nordics,'' anyway?"

Now let's see that again, but this time with emoticons.

"It's time once again for the Winter Olympics -- three magical weeks during which all of America will gather in front of the television set to watch American Idol. ;)

But during the commercials, some of us will also tune in to the Winter Olympics :), a quadrennial competition that answers, once and for all, questions that burn in the brains of every true sports fan ;-), such as: (1) Who will claim ''bragging rights'' as the world's best in the individual, sprint and team Nordic Combined? (2) What, exactly, IS the Nordic Combined? (3) Who the heck are the ''Nordics,'' anyway? :D"

As you can see, they shoot the humor right out of the water.

So please... stop polluting the world wide web with the acidic evil of tacky smily faces.
If you don't, I'll have no choice but to send John McLaughlin to take you on, and take you OUT, foo.