Spamming us with Offspring

After talking with a friend on Twitter the other day, it seems Channel 10 have gone batshit crazy plugging their new Secret Life of Us clone "Offspring" featuring the unfathomably annoying Asher Keddie, master of the annoying "pained yet knowing" expression. There's been extended promos for it, flash ads on the internet, themed station IDs and even those small "pop-up ads" during the Football. (Great use of chasing your core demographic there.)

Working at a "internet regulator" year or so ago, I was well versed with the Australian Communications and Media Authority and their jurisdiction regarding what constituted "spam" under the Federal Spam Act 2003. Under the act, it is illegal to:

"to send, or cause to be sent, unsolicited commercial electronic messages."

What sucks even more is that it's only limited to SMS, MMS, email and instant messaging services. I'm not the greatest proponent of government intervention but something has to be done about this. We can't just stop watching Channel 10 because the government will probably bail them out or allow them to be swallowed up by a media conglomerate with deeper pockets.

But lets say I view every commercial station for an equal duration - say each of them for two hours a day. Within those two hours of watching C10, I will have seen at least 38 minutes of ads; so a conservative estimate would mean I've seen about 35 minutes of advertising for fucking Offspring, which I steadfastly refuse to watch.

Fair enough that I choose to watch television or whatever. But advertising the same fucking thing over and over again is fucking annoying and is for the most part, unsolicited due to the ownership and production of the show by the network. I can only hope that the torrent of ads for this show means the test audiences thought it was fucking terrible beyond redemption and it's pulled after a couple of weeks. The end.

---

http://twitter.com/crushtor

We are not all journalists now

Now that the internet is promulgated with myriad options to self-publish, its becoming plainly apparent that self-styled bloggers - or glorified and over-opinionated people with a platform to air their views - consider themselves journalists. Here's something you can publish on your next blog: If you never went to some form of school in publishing, journalism or media and communication, you are not a journalist.

"But Tom," they'll whine, "I get press releases in my email! I am invited to industry events! I'm an insider god damn it!" Perhaps - maybe I'm disinclined to believe you if you're able to string a sentence together and work in the industry that the events are aimed at. If you're an IT professional - yeah, you do get invited to trade shows. If you work in retail - sure, product launches are a place to be. That doesn't make you a journalist, it makes you a wanker with access.

Wankers with access are just dudes who are privileged enough to "know a guy" or are invited to exclusive events due to the nature of their primary occupation. If that is the case, then you are not a journalist. Just like how my knowledge of CPR does not make me a doctor or my ability to trade foreign currency does not make me a stock broker. If your definition of verifying sources is "waiting for the next press release" then you are not a journalist. Becoming a journalist is hard work. You are just a dude with a website. Please cease and desist on debasing my profession.

Yours sincerely,

Crushtor

---

http://twitter.com/crushtor

Belief and Manipulation

"A definition is the start of an argument, not the end of one." - Neil Postman

Its a very cold world. The image of the outside of my skin, the feel of its contours and the sounds of its going on are just processed and filtered, inverted and diluted and end up being verisimilitudes in one way or another. Someone asked me in a round about way what the point of Facebook is. Facebook is a product of its medium. On the internet, communication and feedback isn't requisite to the spread of information. It changes the focus from "allowing" communication to happen to "insisting" that you do. This gives credence to the maxim that "you can't not communicate." Facebook is never silent. Even when you walk away, it is still communicating and insisting that you do every time you log on. Facebook is not a compendium of facts, or a fun-looking Wikipedia about non-famous people; it becomes an advertisement so people can make emotional value judgments about other people. It, like most things, renders irrelevant information relevant and vice versa.

For example, take the book "The Game" which purports that, using a swathe of bastardized NLP techniques and cocky attitude, any man can pick up any woman at any time. "The Game" does not teach people to become modern-day lotharios, it tells men to become walking sandwich boards to elicit emotional responses from others to achieve their goals - it teaches them to become walking bullshit-spouting advertisements. An advertisement tells you nothing about the product; it only claims certain abstract positions and forces you to react on an "emotional" level. If you want someone to buy your product or use your service, you must make them "feel good" about it. The world of modern-day advertising aims at just that. I can promise you abstracts, therefore I can promise the world. It is hard to refute an advertisement, since it doesn't set itself up to be challenged. Game rules, indeterminacies and double binds make sure of it.

Hey, I'm not one to make a case against it - if the shoe fits, wear it!

---

http://twitter.com/crushtor