City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies

from the restoring-sanity dept

It's been pretty amusing watching various journalism outfits issue official "rules" to their journalists about this weekend's "Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive" put on by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. NPR specifically banned journalists from participating while the Washington Post similarly warned reporters, that they could "observe," but "cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause." Yes, how dare reporters be seen supporting sanity!

Now, as a bunch of folks have sent in, the much smaller Washington City Paper has issued an amusing satirical memo to its own staff, mocking the leaked memos from those other news organizations:

1. You may attend the rallies in a non-participatory fashion.
2. However, because the rallies are comic events, you may not laugh.
3. The act of not laughing, though, can be just as politically loaded as the act of laughing. Therefore, staffers are advised to politely chuckle, in a non-genuine manner, after each joke.
4. To avoid any perception of bias, please make sure to chuckle at all jokes, whether or not you find them funny. As journalists, we must make sure to not allow our personal views of "humorous" or "non-humorous" to affect our public demeanor.
5. Likewise, it could be devastating to our impartial reputation if our staffers were seen laughing at something that was not intended as a joke, thereby appearing to mock the entire event. If we are lucky, the comedians will have a drummer on hand whose rim-shots may be used as a cue for when to politely chuckle.
6. If no non-verbal cues for laughter are available, please observe audience members around you. If they are laughing, imitate their laughter with a non-genuine polite chuckle. If they are not laughing, remain stone-faced. Whatever you do, do not apply your own personal cognitive skills to determining the humorousness of any particular clip. Such an approach exposes us to charges of bias.
7. On the other hand, a situation could arise where partisan foes of the Comedy Central hosts laugh at them in a derisive manner unrelated to the timing of their on-stage jokes. In this case, your failure to join in the mockery could potentially be interpreted as a sign that you disagree with the derision--an equally distasteful indication of bias. Please follow the above guidelines and also chuckle politely, but not genuinely, at any instances of counter-comedy.
8. In our experience, public appearances by comedy figures also draw audiences whose members frequently make jokes amongst themselves. These attempts at humor might not necessarily fit into the rational example of protesters versus counter-protesters outlined in the guidelines above. However, you could nonetheless indicate a great deal about your personal biases via your decision as to whether or not you laugh along when the person next to you riffs about, say, marginal tax rates. Please make sure to follow the above guidelines and respond via polite, non-genuine, mild guffaws to the jibes of amateur comics in the audience.
9. We're also aware that the large crowds expected at the rallies could produce a cacophonous din, one in which you are unable to discern which jokes are being made by audience members, counter-protestors, or the day's main attractions--and, worse still, where observers may think you are laughing at an anti-Republican joke when you are actually laughing at an anti-Democrat joke. To protect our cherished reputation against such a danger, I have arranged for each of you to be issued a pair of earplugs. Should the event grow too raucous, please insert these earplugs immediately. Once you have inserted the earplugs, please chuckle politely, and non-genuinely, every 74 seconds, to maintain the appearance of non-biased and appropriate responses to the event.
10. You are free to laugh heartily and genuinely at any jokes that target the terrorists.

Separately, it should be noted that the Washington City Paper was kind enough to publish this memo itself. The similar memos from NPR and the Washington Post were, instead, published by competing outfits that had the memos "leaked." Kinda makes you wonder why those news outfits leak internal emails for others to report, rather than reporting on such things themselves...

Filed Under: jon stewart, journalism, policies, rallies, stephen colbert
Companies: washington city paper

Hulu Loses The Daily Show And Colbert

from the building-community dept

For a while now Comedy Central's two most popular shows, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report have been available for streaming online on both Hulu and on the Comedy Central websites for each program. I'd always wondered why Viacom had allowed those two shows on Hulu, seeing as Hulu is basically owned by Viacom's competitors -- and those two shows are some of the most popular on Hulu. Over those two years, though, Viacom has also built up its own online sites -- actually building some (weak, but still some) aspects of community around both sites. Apparently, it realized it had all the leverage, and Hulu wasn't willing to pony up. So Viacom is pulling both shows from Hulu next week. This is a pretty big loss for Hulu, though the company is trying to shrug it off. But it does suggest yet another potential problem with Hulu's business model. For all the crap we give Viacom over things like its YouTube lawsuit, the company has worked hard to try to build community around these particular shows -- but other shows that are relying on Hulu can't do that as easily.

Filed Under: colbert, daily show, jon stewart, online video, stephen colbert
Companies: hulu, viacom

Colbert Takes On Ridiculous Restrictions Over Talking About The Olympics

from the I'd-sue-you dept

On last night's Colbert Report, Stephen brought on his brother, Ed Colbert, an international copyright lawyer to discuss the totally ridiculous restrictions on what he can and cannot say concerning his Olympics coverage, to avoid getting sued by either NBC or the Olympics, leading Colbert to dub his reports the "Vancouverage of the quadrennial cold weather competition" to avoid saying things like Vancouver, Olympics or even winter games, as those are all on the forbidden list. Watch here (probably US only, tragically):

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Vancouverage 2010 - Ed Colbert
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Separately, if you watch the following segment on TV or online, I noticed that Comedy Central had to change the online coverage as compared to what was shown on TV last night. Last night, there were video clips from NBC's coverage of the opening ceremonies. I don't know if this was licensed or if Viacom/Comedy Central realized that those clips were fair use. But if you watch the online version, everywhere that Colbert showed a clip on the live version, there was, instead, a still photo -- such as when he discusses the dancers from the opening ceremony and the lighting of the torch. I'm guessing that there's some sort of licensing issue that explains why the online version of Colbert left those clips out, even though that seems ridiculous. Separately, if you look carefully in that same clip, you might catch a glimpse of occasional Techdirt contributor Blaise Alleyne who is seen laughing in the audience at one of Colbert's jokes...

Filed Under: copyright, ed colbert, olympics, stephen colbert, trademark

Author Sherman Alexie's Rants On Colbert Against Ebooks, Piracy And 'Open Source Culture'

from the you-said-what-now? dept

On last night's Colbert Report, author Sherman Alexie spent most of the interview ranting against digital books and how "piracy" was destroying the book business. The whole thing was odd not just because of how uninformed it was, but also because he seemed to contradict himself multiple times. I haven't read any of Alexie's books, but if his logic is so twisted, it's difficult to think that his books are worth reading: He starts out by insisting that he won't put his book on the Kindle or any digital book format because he's afraid of piracy -- but that makes no sense at all. By not giving readers what they want, he's actually encouraging more piracy. There are probably plenty of people actively willing to buy ebook versions of his book, and his response is that because of piracy, he won't offer it to them. How does this help? Those people now have more incentive to actually go and download an unauthorized copy of the book (and Alexie is fooling himself if he thinks they don't exist). How can not giving people what they're asking for and are willing to pay for be a smart business model?

He compares the book business to the music business, saying:

"When the music industry went digital, somewhere between 75 and 95% of music is pirated. Nobody makes money off their music any more. Everything is about live shows now."

First of all, it wasn't the industry that went digital. Music went online way before the industry even realized it, and one of the main reasons that the piracy rates are as high as they are (and his numbers are industry figures that aren't reliable at all) was because the industry held back for so long in giving people what they wanted: which is exactly what Alexie is now doing!

As for his claim that no one makes money off their music any more, that's obviously silly. He admits that they now make their money from live shows (which is making money off their music). And then later in the interview, he points out that one of the parts he enjoyed most about being a published author was doing live performances and readings of his works. In other words, he already does what he claims happened to the music industry. So why is he so worried about piracy? That's not clear at all.

He also seems rather uninformed about how file sharing has helped some authors.

I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King or James Patterson or a really big best seller that when their books become completely digitized, how easy it's going to be to pirate them.

Where to start....? First, Alexie doesn't seem to understand how book file sharing happens. It's not because the industry digitizes the books, but because others digitize those books, and, yes, they're most likely already available on file sharing networks, whether those authors released them in ebook form or not. It's not the official ebook they're sharing in most cases anyway.

Second, as for the claim that it will harm the biggest name authors most of all, Alexie might want to talk to Paulo Coelho. Coelho is the guy who quietly set up operations to "pirate" his own book and saw the sales of his physical books increase massively. Oh, and the book he chose to offer up via BitTorrent, The Alchemist is one of the best selling books of all time. Stephen King and James Patterson, by the way, do not have any books on that list -- though, to be fair, if you combine all of their books, King has sold more than Coelho, and Patterson seems to be in a similar ballpark, probably selling slightly more than Coelho, but both have published many more books.

Then, really strangely, he attacks "open source culture":

With the "open source culture" on the internet, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away.

Now, beyond this just being flat out wrong about what "open source" means or what "open source culture" is, what's the most bizarre thing about this statement is who it's coming from. Alexie is most well-known for his writing about modern Native American life -- and Native Americans aren't exactly known for their strong believe in artistic ownership. In fact, much of the understanding of so-called "gift economies," which are sometimes (though not always accurately) used to describe the open source world are actually based on Native American gift giving culture of tribes in the Pacific Northwest, which is where Alexie is from.

Colbert actually does a good job pushing back on this, in his usual self-mocking manner, pointing out that sharing helps get the word out there, and the only reason he's so famous is because of how easily his content is shared via TV. Without that, he notes, he'd have to just go door to door shouting at people. To which Alexie responds: "I'm a fan of door to door shouting at people." Good luck with that.

Filed Under: ebooks, open source, piracy, sherman alexie, stephen colbert

Is Someone Playing A Joke? Why Would Penguin Force Colbert To Take Down Lessig's Remix?

from the something's-not-right dept

Last night, Larry Lessig went on The Colbert Report to talk up his latest book Remix. While I think Remix is an important book and Lessig is a brilliant commentator on these issues, I was a little disappointed by the performance, but I'm willing to chalk it up to the fact that appearing opposite Colbert is incredibly difficult (almost impossible), and Colbert is the best at throwing interviewees off their game. Of course, pretty much everything Colbert does is satire, and included in the video was the joking suggestion that no one take the video and remix it. Colbert, of course, has been one of the champions of getting folks to remix videos for him. So, obviously, the idea was to get more folks to remix.

However, just a little while ago, some folks started noticing a message at the top of Colbertnation.com saying:

Lawrence Lessig's REMIX has been removed at the request of Penguin Publishers.

At this point, it's unclear what exactly has been removed. The video of the interview is still online, so that's not what's been removed. Some are wondering if Colbert originally posted a downloadable copy of the book itself that has been removed. Many folks have noticed that Remix is not available for download, despite promises that it would be. Apparently, the free version of the book has been delayed until May, which is pretty lame, itself. And, then, of course, there's the possibility that the "removal" notice itself is just a Colbert joke -- though, it almost seems too subtle for Colbert's style of humor. If anyone has more info on what happened here, it would be great to know. Update: Adam Green, who works with Lessig and was at the taping stopped by to say, indeed, that it was a joke. If so, it's a bit odd, since they never even bothered to make clear what it was that was taken down.

Filed Under: copyright, larry lessig, remix, stephen colbert
Companies: penguin publishing

Stephen Colbert Takes On MLB's Attempt To Bully Little Leaguers With Trademarks

from the trademark-isn't-ownership dept

For years, we've covered Major League Baseball's ridiculous attempts to falsely claim that it has ownership of different aspects of the sport. It's been on the losing side of court battles, repeatedly, but it just keeps pushing its luck. Earlier this year, we noted that MLB was bullying the Cape Cod League, which is considered the preeminent league where the best amateur kids get to compete against each other prior to the annual draft. The problem? The Cape Cod League had the temerity to buy uniforms from local providers, and to use (in just a few cases) names similar to major league teams, such as the Chatham A's and the Harwich Mariners. Of course, no one's going to confuse a team of amateur college players with the major league teams, but MLB demanded both a licensing fee and that the teams be required to buy from a much more expensive uniform supplier approved by MLB.

It appears that this was just the beginning. MLB is doing the same to an even younger group of kids: Little Leaguers in suburban Chicago -- where the teams have similar names, but very different logos (further clarifying the lack of connection). I'm sure taking away the names they recognize will really get those kids interested in the sport. This is, as per MLB's standards, incredibly shortsighted. MLB should be doing anything to build up fans -- and one way to do that is to get kids to really identify with major league teams and players -- and that means letting them use real names. I played Little League at that age, and kids are excited to play on teams with names similar to Major League teams. It certainly doesn't take away from MLB in any way.

Of course, now that the Little Leaguers are involved, this story caught the attention of Stephen Colbert, who decided to give his own, unique, spin on the story (if you're in an RSS reader, click through to see the video): Some great lines from Colbert: "Those kids put trademarked names on their jerseys without paying. You know what we call that in this country? Theft!... You see, they don't want this kind of criminality sullying the good things about baseball. These kids aren't just stealing team names, they're ripping off all kinds of stuff from the majors. Where do these kids get the idea of using a mitt? Or wearing a cup?" He then goes on to take it to the logical extreme, explaining why the press should stop mentioned Major League Baseball altogether to avoid infringing.

Filed Under: baseball, stephen colbert, trademark
Companies: major league baseball