Morals

"Won't somebody please think of the children?" Helen Lovejoy shouted this anytime a moral cause was taken up in early episodes of The Simpsons. It was meant as a satirical jab at those who may be perceived to take the world too seriously. It also worked as a message to those parents and others who complained about the content of the show damaging society's moral fabric.

Living in Beijing, one might assume I don't have time to keep up with television or pop culture. Well, I am a creature of habit and obsession so to shut myself off from my stories would be unacceptable. I try to achieve a balance. Considering the recent rises in pollution, staying inside and watching movies doesn't seem like such a horrible idea.

(Aside: the pollution leaks through the windows. There is nowhere to hide!) (Second aside: Terminator 3 is on HBO at the moment. I forgot how unforgivably bad it is.)

I'm a binge watcher. The beauty and danger of DVD and Netflix is we have access to full seasons of television at our fingertips preventing the expansion of our social lives. I missed the boat, initially, on Breaking Bad but caught up through the first two seasons in maybe a week. Since then I've been hooked. I used to watch The Sopranos by season. I plowed through The Wire and Lost several episodes per sitting. It's the viewing equivalent of novelistic storytelling.

"The Edge...there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
                                                           - Hunter S. Thompson

About a month ago I started watching Sons of Anarchy. I'm not far in, and I like it well enough, but I started thinking about the potential moral rebuking coming from viewers who believe it to be polluting the future generation. Through (very) brief searching I found two sites that provided slightly differing methods of telling parents that Sons of Anarchy is not appropriate for children.

One is quick and to the point. It goes into detail about the summary of the show and then explains in a paragraph the events that may be questionable for people under the age of 18. It does this without standing on a pedestal of outrage that such a show exists but simply acknowledges that children probably shouldn't watch a show about violent, promiscuous bikers who sell guns.

Common Sense Media paints a different picture. In the interest of fairness, the site does not gloss over the details and actually does more than the radical Simpsons haters of decades past. The problem is the site doesn't use common sense in its analysis. It's obvious that this show is not intended for children but I think they are making an error in suggesting the show "glamorizes the lifestyle of some very unlikable outlaw bikers." If you watch SOA and get a hankering to join a bike gang, there are a few more things wrong with your psychology than enjoying a television show.

If a show is inherently violent does that mean it is glamorizing it? The setting of Sons of Anarchy and the subject matter dictate that this will not be a pleasant undertaking for those involved. It is a motorcycle gang and the show does a decent job of displaying the moral conundrums and diversity the characters are involved with. There is a depth of character at work here that isn't explored at all in Common Sense Media's explanation of the show. Jax, the focal point, is not an all-the-way bad person. The show does not work in black-and-white generalities -- at least not when it comes to SAMCRO.

(So far, by season two, the rivals SAMCRO face are generic plot devices designed to provide conflict. It'd be nice if characters like Darby had a little more depth so the conflict provided a little more overall resonance and was more challenging for the viewer.)

I take issue with the assertion that the show does not feature positive role models. Or, rather, I take issue with the idea that this is important when judging a television show.

First of all, it's more complicated than simply defining positive and negative on these characters. Jax himself is struggling with the notion of becoming a father and leaving a legacy for his son. The early parts of the series focus on Jax's relationship with his deceased father through a found journal. While Common Sense Media may be right about some characters being thinly drawn, Jax is going through a fascinating series of trials and revelations. His perception of his father and the gang is evolving because of these journals. Because of his father, Jax is part of Sons of Anarchy. Does he want his son to go through the same thing? Jax isn't exactly the moral compass of the show because it doesn't deign to have one. Instead, he's a direct criticism of the lifestyle and the backwards thinking it can instill on its members. He doesn't want to kill, though he does. And make no mistake, Jax loves being part of SAMCRO because it is a family. Like with The Sopranos, and many stories about gangs, one of the overarching themes is the importance of trust and family. This is tested fairly early and regularly.

Secondly, when can we all just agree that television is not an appropriate substitute for parenting and babysitting? I think Common Sense Media has an altruistic motive and they definitely open their message up for discussion, which I congratulate. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the site doesn't seem to be on a soapbox of family values, as they do mention the high quality of The Sopranos in comparison to SOA.

Context is important. Some stories are unpleasant but that doesn't mean they aren't worth telling. Sons of Anarchy is not a perfect show as many characters are paper-thin space-fillers. When I was young, if I ended up watching something that featured violence, sexuality, strong language, etc. my parents explained the nature of it to me. They were sure to put it in the proper context so I didn't get the wrong ideas. Kids are impressionable, sure, and it is up to parents to put what they watch into proper context.

I'll continue to watch Sons, and while it will occasionally rub me the wrong way I know enough not to look to the television shows I watch as a guide on how to live my own life.

I do want a motorcycle, though. This is not a new development.

For another look into motorcycle gangs, check out Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson.

Folly at a midnight movie

At the midnight showing of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas last night in Fredericton, embarrassment seemed inevitable. Obviously, like most others in attendance, I was a bit shy from interaction unlike my normal self and this played into my brief and slightly humourous downfall.

95.7 FM employs bastards. They organized this wonderful event and invited 10 people from the packed crowd to stand at the front like a firing squad execution to answer trivia questions about the film. I was the final contestant on the stage after much prodding from Horatio, Veda, et al.

However they asked each of us randomly after appearing to start chronologically from left to right. Imagine the stress of knowing the death blow is imminent but it could strike all around you first. This was the trivia - and mind altered - equivalent.

Question 1: Who directed the film?

Easy answer. Terry Gilliam. The contestant didn't know and was given a consolation prize.

Question 2: What hotel was the police convention at?

Little trickier. But I knew it was the Flamingo. Contestant numero dos also swung and missed and got sent packing.

The woman from 95.7 FM looked down the row at me and said "it's looking pretty good for you on the end now isn't it?"

Being the idiot that I am I decided to wade in this great fortune by smiling and giving her the thumbs up. Had I stood still, ignored her attention perhaps they would have continued along the beaten path. But no, instead I got cocky.

So the big bald bastard she works with got the idea, and it was clear in his eyes that his intentions were to eliminate me swiftly. He wanted to wipe the smug look off my face. It was as though he were thinking "oh so you think you know Fear and Loathing huh? You gonzo wannabe hack? Well you get question number 3 then since you think you're so good."

Question 3: What kind of dessert does Dr. Gonzo order at the diner?

Shit.

"Oh man," I said.

"Oh man," the bald bastard replied in a mocking tone.

After an asinine back and forth where I felt like a lobotomy patient being encouraged by equally stupid individuals, I said "pie."

"Yes, but what kind of pie?"

Fucker.

"Um, banana cream?"

"Oh so sorry," he said. He wasn't.

It was lemon pie...lemon. The smug Mr. Clean with tats handed me a card from Jumbo video promising a free rental with a paid rental. Great. An offer to save money if only I actively spend some first. That makes sense.

Question 4: Who wrote the book?

Somehow, the person on stage didn't know and received a resounding chorus of boos. She deserved it. It's not a bad thing to go see the movie in theatres if you have never heard of Thompson, that's fine. But why take part in a trivia contest about Fear and Loathing if you have no proper frame of reference to what the hell is going on? That person probably would have said lemon...

Semi-joking, I started complaining about the coupon Butterbean gave me when I said "yeah, and it's only good until...six days ago." They gave me an expired coupon.

"Why not just punch you in the stomach?" Isaac said.

I'll have my revenge on this one. The hosts from the radio station said next month they'd be showing Ghostbusters on March 20*. First of all, next month is February so there's that. Second, I know Ghostbusters like the back of my hand. I'm going to step up to the plate and show Stay Puft who to call when it comes to film trivia...

...lame? Yes. Somewhat pathetic? Sure. But hey, pride is a silly thing in general anyway.

*Horatio has updated me on the status of the next midnight movie. Apparently, they did intend to say February 20. It is next month and good old Faustus and I are going to be somewhere between Tennessee and Pennsylvania on our return trip. You've cornered me again world!

#174: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas (1998)
Written and Directed by Terry Gilliam
Based on the book by Hunter S. Thompson
Starring Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, Christina Ricci, Gary Busey, Tobey Maguire, a trunk full of narcotics.

As a student journalist it's no surprise that I am a follower and fan of Hunter S. Thompson. His fame is almost stereotypical among twenty-somethings who have a vested interest in writing, especially journalism. He represents the ideals of both creativity and telling a true-to-life story. His work is also very self-indulgent by traditional journalistic standards but that's the point. Dr. Gonzo and his specific brand of writing (GONZO!) ignores tradition and no one has or ever will do it better.

Even if the good doctor hadn't blown his brain out with a shotgun, he wouldn't be the same guy or writer as he was in the past. In fact, his columns for Page 2 on ESPN -- while amusing -- didn't quite meet the standards of his old writing.

I don't want to be an elitist. I hate it when fans of a musician or a director or a writer arbitrarily dismiss new material. The line "I liked [insert artist name here] before he/she/they were famous" is the most arrogant and self-serving line that can be uttered, especially because it is rarely followed up with any concrete argument. I was never a fan of Sugar Ray, but I'll tell you one thing, the song Fly prevented them from ever being respectable. Every single they released from there on out was exactly the same light and fluffy style. Considering Sugar Ray started with songs like Mean Machine, this change makes sense when you don't like how they progressed. Back up your arguments.

Thompson's downfall in his writing isn't as easily pinpointed and I don't even really dislike his Hey Rube columns. I discovered Thompson after his glory years because I wasn't exactly alive when he was pounding back every drug known to man. Like Mr. Lahey was the liquor, Thompson was the drugs (oversimplified...well aware).

No, I'm not a historian of his legacy and I haven't read all his work but I recognize what he represents in the world of journalism and in a way he has hurt it as well as helped. He is a cartoon character as characterized in Gilliam's film. He was a drug-addled freak who could have paved the way for a new style of writing. Instead, anyone who tries to write a stream of consciousness style is dubbed a Hunter Thompson wannabe.

Especially in school.

STU has taught us the fundamentals of writing for a newspaper. From writing leads to nut-graphs to pyramid style, etc. we have learned it. One thing the school never encouraged and likely never will is breaking convention. Or if we tried to break convention our professors cringed or started to tell us to try to write the story by the formula we had been trained with. Creativity has very little place in the news medium, or so our professors would have us believe.

But what gets attention? What is praised? Take a look at This American Life from NPR. These stories are long format, one per hour-long episode in fact. Compare that with a network newscast where every story is around the standard length of two minutes or less and you have differences. Sure, most people have wavering attention spans but the more time you have to tell a story the more in depth you can go with it.

Hunter S. Thompson wasn't quite the print equivalent to This American Life but he wasn't a run of the mill reporter either. He broke boundaries, supposedly but how many journalists have applied his style?

Robin Esrock writes a column called Gonzo Travel for Brave New Traveler. It's pretty decent especially if you like reading about adventure. It's not quite the same and I think using the word gonzo in the title is a cheap contrivance to draw in Hunter Thompson enthusiasts. But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to bring in readers, so I don't really hold that against him. (His website is called modern gonzo as well...so hey, he loves HST as well. Glad the legacy didn't go to waste)

Stream of consciousness journalism is definitely a valid form of reporting but it can't be called gonzo if it's going to exist in mainstream publications (which it likely won't anyway, so it may be silly to even throw this out there). The connotations with prolific drug use and the word gonzo prevents it from being taken seriously.

And whether you agree with recreational drug use or you abhor it, Hunter S. Thompson told some amazing stories and wrote with a tenacity and enthusiasm that isn't present in the world of journalism today. Now that is something we do need more of. Stop trying to fit the mould and write the way that feels right to you. It will only help the global journalistic community.

If anyone has a link to an archive of all his work that would be great. Also if you have examples of writers that do take the unconventional approach and do it well...let me know, I would greatly appreciate it.

* Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is playing in Fredericton, NB at Empire Theatres on Friday January 23 at midnight.
** I recommend the following: The Rum Diary, Great Shark Hunt, Screwjack and Hell's Angels.

Myths of journalism

"Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
- Hunter S. Thompson


I'm quickly learning that journalists are not exactly the revered and respected societal group that I once thought.

The reason I became interested in the vocation was to pursue the truth, an honourable goal. Sadly, it all seems to be about the quick hits of pseudo-information that passes as news.

Because of the value placed on ad revenue and getting the story first instead of getting it right, the news industry is in shambles...and that is not news. As someone in the business, albeit on the entry level, I am becoming more disenchanted with it every day.

Myth: The truth matters above all else.
Fact: The truth only matters if you get it first, and even then getting a story expediently, right or not is always preferred. A retraction, while messy, can always be printed and in most cases will go unnoticed anyway.

Myth: Balance is required.
Truth: The story is only as good as its sources. If one side of a story doesn't talk or is late getting back to a reporter, chances are the story will run as is. Who's fault is this? The reporter is working on a deadline and needs to file but the story will read like a one-sided editorial. In a medical story for instance, if you interview a patient who claims to be cured of an incurable disease from a naturopathic doctor, the reporter should ideally have a response from the medical community.

It's still a human interest story regardless, but since naturopathy isn't exactly recognized my the majority of M.D.'s it could be interpreted as 100% fact.

I wrote a story like this and couldn't get an M.D. on the line, not even a specialist until after the story went to print. I even pushed the story off a week to try further to get someone on the phone. When my call was finally returned it was the day the paper ran with the story. I was pleased with it, but it could have been better and more balanced


Myth: Journalists are noble creatures
Truth: Reporting in many cases is just a job

This is the worst realization I have ever come to and it's why I'm not as excited about my career path as I was a year ago. Much of what I write is mundane and of little interest to me but I tough it out anyway so I can collect a paycheck. I am ashamed to say that money is part of my motivation, or even on some days my primary motivation.

Investigative journalism is a dirty job, and if you're going to go that route in a community newspaper, chances are you'll piss off someone you care about. My values and my dedication align more with my friends and relationships than my job. I will not sacrifice friendships to get a story. If that means I end up writing fluffy feature pieces almost exclusively, so be it.

There seems to be little trust of journalists or newspapers now. With characters like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, why should the everyman trust what's written? Well I don't think the writer should be given carte blanche, but the cold shoulder is not the answer either. Question everything, but understand that the journalist has a job to do and when the whole story isn't there, try to ask why that is. Some blame should land on the writer, but not all...in some cases anyway.

Like with anything, you can find both good and bad in the world of professional journalism, you just need to dig. The worst part about it now is that there are very few in the mainstream that break convention, bend the rules and keep it interesting. Did Gonzo die with Hunter S. Thompson?

I'll rant on the news aesthetic a different time.