Webjunk, by Seth

tanshoesandpinkshoelaces:

richardrushfield:

GATSBY FOR KIDS

America’s internet is overflowing with a bunch of images from the set of Baz Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby film, now shooting in Australia, with Leo DiCaprio as JG, Tobey Maguire (as Nick I think?) and Carey Mulligan as Daisy.

The pictures show two things:

1. Luhrmann and company are of course unimpeachable when it comes to creating exquisite period details.

2. Our young actors today, even the finest of them, are just too much of lightweights to carry off historical roles.   We are not capable anymore of portraying a time when people didn’t act like pouty teens well into their 50’s.

That is not a slam on their acting abilities.  Today’s actors are far more versatile and technically capable than actors of the golden age.  But it’s just who this generation is, who we are.  We can’t just put on maturity anymore than we could put tusks and be convincing wooly mammoths.   

Maybe it’s just that we favor actors with baby faces, but I don’t think so.

Leo DiCaprio is now 37 years old, but even in suit and tie he still carries himself like he’s a child playing dress up.  Even in J. Edgar, where he was pretty good (though the film wasn’t) it was never far from your mind - could this child really be running a whole government agency?  Because he was playing a psycho running a government agency he could kind of get away with it there.

Here is what Cary Grant looked like when he made Suspicion at age 36.

Jimmy Stewart was 37 when he made It’s a Wonderful Life and he looked like this:

Carey Mulligan is 26.    When Lauren Bacall was 25 she looked like this:

I mean, I guess we can still do rock opera versions and stuff like that.  But when it comes to authenticy period adaptations, it’s time we accepted that our minds can no longer grasp what it meant to be people who got dressed up just to come to the dinner table.  

Pretty much.

So proud to live in the Inauthentic Era.

(via devilduck)

The Candy Hierarchy (via nevver)

Move Caramellos down, Nestle Crunch up, add peanut butter M&Ms. Otherwise, stick to this and you’ll be fine.

Calvin and Hobbes

(via nevver)

Everything I know I learned from…

First-hand Accounts of Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds

(via nevver)

 Never Forget.

langer:

occupyhistory:

The front page of the New York Times on May 4, 1970, reporting the killing of four students at Kent State by members of the Ohio National Guard.

Accusations of media bias are nothing new. Both sides of the political spectrum complain that mainstream journalists misrepresent them. Occupy Wall Street is no exception. The right says the media’s “liberal bias” makes its coverage too sympathetic; the left says the media undermines and underreports the protests.

Let’s look at the lede from the New York Times’ top national story on Thursday, “Cities Begin Cracking Down on ‘Occupy’ Protests.” 

OAKLAND, Calif. — After weeks of cautiously accepting the teeming round-the-clock protests spawned by Occupy Wall Street, several cities have come to the end of their patience and others appear to be not far behind.

This is an excellent example of how journalists, in an effort to appear neutral, can dilute their reporting to the point of incoherence. Cities cannot “come to the end of their patience” because they’re not people. Mayors and local officials can come to the end of their patience. So can cops. But cities?

43% of Americans agree with the views of Occupy Wall Street, as reported by the latest CBS/New York Times poll. In Oakland, a progressive city, that percentage is likely higher. But the lede above suggests that a significant majority of Oakland residents are losing patience with the protest. 

This fake-neutral language pervades the article. The protests “resulted” in a “life-threatening injury,” “violence broke out.” Throughout are passive constructions, missing subjects. It reminds one of the purposely vague answers people give on exams they didn’t study for. 

The article’s biggest flaw is that it buries its most newsworthy fact. The “life-threatening injury” mentioned above was suffered by Scott Olsen, an Iraq war veteran. He doesn’t appear until the 24th paragraph:

In Oakland, where one protester — Scott Olsen, an Iraq war veteran — was in critical condition at a local hospital after being struck in the head with a projectile during the chaotic street battle on Tuesday, city officials defended their actions, saying that the police used tear gas after being pelted with rocks.

Apart from being some pretty gruesome prose, this paragraph is misleading. It doesn’t quote testimony from protesters who claim that a police projectile hit Olsen, or refer to video that appears to show that the police attacked first. Instead, the reader is left to assume that Olsen was the victim of “a chaotic street battle.” How the chaos began, and who its instigators were, isn’t discussed.

It’s worth noting that forty-one years ago, the New York Times held its reporters to a higher standard. In their front page coverage of the Kent State killings in 1970, the journalist provides a remarkably evenhanded account. After giving the National Guard’s side of the story—“the guardsmen had been forced to shoot after a sniper opened fire against the troops”—the article continues:

This reporter, who was with the group of students, did not see any indication of sniper fire, nor was the sound of any gunfire audible before the Guard volley. Students, conceding that rocks had been thrown, heatedly denied that there was any sniper.

In other words: it’s a journalist’s responsibility to verify official claims, not merely to repeat them. Imagine a reporter contradicting the Oakland police department’s version of events with his own testimony, and the testimony of the people he took the time to interview.

As Walter Lippmann put it, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and shame the devil.”

Ooh hi yes let’s reblog this into the stratosphere please.

Journalism!

youngmanhattanite:

raptoravatar:

abloodymess:

oldtobegin:

bainard:

irritablevowel:

Washington Post Uses Picture Of Oakland Riot Cop Petting Kitten

Seriously.

FUCK this revisionist bullshit. Thrice.

THOSE SHITTY HIPPIES LEFT A POOR INNOCENT CAT, GOOD THING WE’VE GOT COPS TO PET THE CATS IN PHOTOS AND THEN LEAVE THEM THERE

Those kids were getting ready to have themselves a feline California cheeseburger!

There’s “Controlling The Narrative” and then there’s “Sucker Punching The Narrative, Binding It With Zip Ties And Kidnapping It To A Remote Location Where It Is Systematically Brainwashed, Tarted Up And Threatened With The Death Of It’s Family If It Doesn’t Comply.”

Washington Post, you just made the list.

I think I saw this before on a freshman-year journalism-school midterm. (To get a 100%, make sure to circle the headline with a quizzical look on your face.)

savageinasuit:

“Calvin & Hobbes explain causes of Occupy Wallstreet, 20 years ago”

(punchline and image via reddit)

My story for every C&H strip: this is how I learned the words “exorbitant” and “subsidized.” Also who even knows what, politically?

(via dceiver)