Disinfo Rehab

Usually, when I'm reading my stack of local newsweeklies, I can blast through the Bay Guardian in 15 minutes or less since I either a) know what they're going to say in advance or b) already read the news they're reporting elsewhere, earlier, sometimes you see something so ridiculous, you have to call BS on it.

Such was the case in this week's rant-a-torial on the front page (supplemented with a repetitive blog posting) that starts out as a "hey I complain too much, I love owls, life in SF is lovely" piece, and concludes with a scathing "frak you" barb aimed at the SF Weekly, accusing the paper of "hating" San Francisco, because one piece by columnist Matt Smith a few weeks ago.

Oh, wait, let me correct that. In the print edition they wonder "do the folks at the SF Weekly even like San Francisco" whereas online they say that he hates San Francisco. All because some of his views are not completely 100% in lock step with the Guardian.

Ok, I get it. If you're not with us, you're against us. Kinda sounds like the line of logic pumped out by Mayor Newsom's PR flacks at anyone that is not in 100% lock step with the Mayor. Which, I think is something they've been criticizing lately, no?

Blah, blah, blah. There's just one hitch - many times it's the Bay Guardian that has pumped out insult after poser hipster insult at parts of the city that are declared "not cool" by the BG staff. Westsiders apparently don't vote the correct way so it's ok to trash them. Sounds really pro-San Francisco to me.

That's why you can read a long, sonorous pieces about some Burning Man thing affecting .02% of the population (almost 4000 words worth!) but you'd be hard pressed to see similar coverage on a consistent basis of an issue, such as the myriad of problems facing MUNI - something every San Franciscan is affected by.

Hell, even when a progressive Supervisor holds a really good, uncensored meeting of MUNI management with the public (a contrast with Jr. high school theater productions of late), there's nothing in the paper about it. Who's the SF hater now?

I complain a lot, I understand: I shouldn't let the Guardian piss me off, I should relax and go chill out with the N-Owls. I guess I'm just sick of people on the left and the right in this town picking on various parts of Our Fair City. San Francisco, for all its flaws, is a nice place to live, and it's big and strong enough to take more than one POV. At least, those of us from here know that.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If you wanted to see "political theater" in action, Junior High School Drama Department style, all you had to do was watch the co-production between the Offfice of the Mayor, the San Francisco Party Party, the Bay Guardian, the SF People's Organization, and the cast of city-paid extras. Unlike past Political Theater productions by such talented director/producers as say, Willie Brown or any of the Burtons, this was a strictly amateur production.

Watching the reaction of Mayor Newsom's administration to what was easily one of the most unimportant referendums on the ballot last year was the basis for last week's production. A strictly advisory measure asking the Mayor to respond to questions from the Board of Supervisors was passed by a slim majority of voters last year. Mind you, there is nothing in the law that forces the Mayor to actually do anything to comply with it.

Thus, if it is opinion of the Mayor, his esteemed staff, and allies that the referendum is bogus, then they should say so and ignore it. It's not like the police are going to break down Mayor Newsom's door and put him in jail for not answering questions, right? Instead, the Mayor's team gave this wild idea credibility by trying to meet it halfway, and the media feeding frenzy that has followed hasn't made anyone look very good.

Watching the defensive reaction to the appearance of a couple of goofballs in chicken costumes I began to wonder - is El Alcade so inept that he needs a staff 20 deep to "protect" him from a bunch of Burning Man doofuses?

Last time I checked, Mayor Newsom is an adult, he's the Mayor, he's a smart guy, and I would think a couple of silly protestors would be no big deal for him to handle should anything "happen." And of course, nothing "happened" except the aforementioned goofs sitting in the audience, occasionally entertaining small children. (Oh, except for one shout out to the costumed critters by one of the Mayor's panelists that raise a few minor hackles - but other than that, no one really gave a hoot, so to speak about said chickens).

Frankly, the Mayor and the fair citizens of Our City would have been better served if he'd taken a stroll down any major street and talked to people in various coffee shops along say, Clement Street, or at Irving and 9th, backed up by a staffer and a bodyguard. Not only would it have been cheaper to "produce," it would probably have been more fun for all involved! Not to mention a lot easier to control.

The Mayor and his team weren't the only ones co-producing this Political Junior High Drama Department production, however. The Bay Guardian inexplicably devoted a front page cover story (the kind usually reserved for investigative pieces on PG&E), and then added to the dogpile with an editorial, and a cutesy piece of cover art (which bore a suspiciously close resemblance to this little chestnut from the SF PartyParty.)

If that wasn't enough, they also posted not one, but two blog postings to drive the point home. All over an advisory measure that has no force of law (or even a code that would indicate how such a "Question Time" would work.)

For a paper that supposedly does investigative reporting, uncovering the news the MSM does not, devoting this much space to a non-issue makes you begin to wonder just how credible the paper can claim to be on civic issues. At best, they seem more invested in the success of pranksters from the "SF PartyParty" (who were last seen devoting time and energy to the lost cause known as Alix Roenthal's Supervisorial bid) than they are in devoting precious column inches to covering an issue of more direct importance to the City (crime, poverty, MUNI, someting I don't know, etc.)

After a few hours of amateur hour, I took off. I posted some pictures at Flickr.com (you can also see them on the new Flickr Badge I have on this site in the right column as well).

All in all, the best minds of the city found a way to make a Himalayan mountain range out of a molehill. Judging by the endless coverage on blogs, newspapers, YouTube and elsewhere, I think that the Mayor's folks and the progressive folks might wanna take a "time-out" before planning any more political theater productions, since this last one was such a bomb.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today I was part of the masses who attended Macworld at the Moscone Center, and I was part of the assembled group that was amazed by the brilliant design of Apple's new iPhone. But once the effect of some very smartly organized presentations by Mr. Jobs and Co., and I thought about what I'd seen, I began to realize that most of what I'd seen had already been "reported" via various news sources, and debated and debacled by various industry "analysts" (the business equivalent of political pundits).

So why was I so impressed by what I'd heard?

After all, multiple outlets who cover Apple patents noted the application for a multi-touch display. Others kept talking about a possible widescreen iPod. There were several sourced reports that a Taiwanese firm had received the Big Order for an "iPhone" from App.e.

Endless discussion amongst industry analysts dissected rumors, reporting and more about Apple's "chances" with a cell phone offering, with many dismissing it as a foolish idea. One analyst dismissed the idea, suggesting that people simply glue a cell phone to an iPod Nano to get the same effect.

Blah blah blah.

In the end, a good portion of the rumor mongering ended up being true. Apple did develop a cell phone, Apple did merge it with a widescreen iPod, and Apple included many of the elements previously discussed.

What the pundits, the analysts, the chat-board regulars, and the talkers did not get, however, was the synthesis of all these disparate items on a checklist, into something far better, and greater than the sum of its parts. A quick look at the faux mock ups of potential iPhones by fanboys and fangirls bears this out.

So in the end, we were wowed by not information we'd heard before, but rather by the synthesis of all these ideas into something new and unique. Something no one could have predicted using a checklist, making it impossible to truly gauge the potential impact on Apple, the cell phone business, et al.

It is a lot like political punditry, really. High and mighty journalists, talkers, politickers, consultants and the like are all great at making up dry, long, checkbox lists of why a candidate or a cause or an idea can or cannot win. We are told these people "know what's best" and we're told to listen and do as they say.

Problem is, they can talk you to death about these points and speak with some authority - after all they do talk for a living. And yet, in the end they are usually not much more successful at really knowing what will happen next than all the tech analysts who seemed to "know" about the upcoming iPhone - and still don't' get it why they're gawking at the results just like the masses are.

The difference is that political folk are more adept at changing spots and denying they'd ever predicted otherwise. Perhaps Wall St. might learn a little bit from the politickers after all.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Happy 2007, everyone!

I thought I'd kick off the new year with a rather amusing email I received recently. Although I'd never heard of the "Bay Area Dems" (Dems as in Democrats) before, I got an email from the group's organizer, Mr. Randlett.

You might remember him from such groups as SFSOS (whose emails I get all the time - wait maybe that's how I'm on this other list!) and the many calm, polite and downright friendly emails his group sent out during the Daly/Black race.

Anyway, take a look at the graphic banner at the top of the email and see if you can't find the mistake:

It's one thing to make a typing mistake (I do it all the time!) but it is quite another to spend the time to make a graphical banner with such an obvious abuse of the pluralization rules regarding punctuation. Won't someone please think about the children?

Posted by Greg Dewar at 1:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)