Blogger attacks traditional media; loses
2.11.2006 at 08:30:30 AM
John C. Dvorak is a rather popular blogger. Some may call him A-list, though I'm not sure what the criteria for that honor is. His blog is located at Dvorak.org. The reason you may know his name is not because of his blog though; it is because of his being a tech columnist for PC magazine and a regular participant of the incredibly popular podcast, This Week in Tech.
Dvorak is a hard hitter. He tells things like he sees them with no filter on his thoughts. Normally, this is a very good thing. His personality is what keeps TWiTs on track. In an hour long podcast with sometimes 6-7 people talking, it's good to have somebody to say "Alright, enough. On to the next topic."
He is also a very critical man, but yesterday on his blog, he made a rather (to use his own term) boneheaded move. The media loves ridiculous celebrity scandals, so you have all probably heard that Britney Spears was photographed driving with her baby on her lap. That is what Dvorak blogged about. But his intention wasn't to say she's a bad mother or to tell media to give it a rest and talk about something important. No, his intention was to say it never happened. He produced evidence in one of the photographs that it was faked and went on a long spiel about how bad it is that so many media outlets are being duped by this false story. And when blog readers pointed out that Britney apologized for it, he even questioned that in the blog entry's comments. The entry is located here, but in case it gets edited or deleted, I've copied and pasted the entire entry here:
As you can see, he is calling out the media on this story. "Pathetic indictment" is a rather strong phrase. The problem is that with a few seconds on Google, one can find plenty of evidence to back up this story. I posted that evidence as a comment on his blog, perhaps in a rude manner (I'll admit that). His comments are moderated though and it seems they've (several people blog and moderate on Dvorak.org) chosen not to post them for now.
So I've decided to just post here what I would call the most compelling piece of evidence on this case, the video of Britney admitting the story is true on Access Hollywood, which was put on the web the day before Dvorak posted his blog.
Dvorak is a hard hitter. He tells things like he sees them with no filter on his thoughts. Normally, this is a very good thing. His personality is what keeps TWiTs on track. In an hour long podcast with sometimes 6-7 people talking, it's good to have somebody to say "Alright, enough. On to the next topic."
He is also a very critical man, but yesterday on his blog, he made a rather (to use his own term) boneheaded move. The media loves ridiculous celebrity scandals, so you have all probably heard that Britney Spears was photographed driving with her baby on her lap. That is what Dvorak blogged about. But his intention wasn't to say she's a bad mother or to tell media to give it a rest and talk about something important. No, his intention was to say it never happened. He produced evidence in one of the photographs that it was faked and went on a long spiel about how bad it is that so many media outlets are being duped by this false story. And when blog readers pointed out that Britney apologized for it, he even questioned that in the blog entry's comments. The entry is located here, but in case it gets edited or deleted, I've copied and pasted the entire entry here:
Only photo in wide distribution. Where is the passenger side door to this car???
Note hand grip to passenger side door (A). See the red no parking curb (B). Note pavement (C). Does this make sense to yo uif she is driving?
At least one of the pictures supposedly showing Britney Spears driving around with a baby in her lap clearly show the right (passenger side) door to be open and the car likely parked or part of a Photoshop job.
This entire story appears to be created out of nothing. Only a scant few of the reports have any of the pictures. X17, the Canadian picture agency (with the photos) tells a warped story, the Britney quotes about the incident may be part of a fabrication too. The problem I have it is that the news media outlets just went with this defamation with what looks like no evidence or reporting at all.
Even the Jon Stewart Show, which is cynical about these things, ran one of the pics to ridicule the woman.
The media as a whole used the incidents to run pics of Britney.
run down of reports:
Times of India. No picture of her driving with baby. Instead this newspaper runs hot photos of her on stage.
MSNBC. No pic here either, instead a pic of her and husband in a runway stock shot
Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel No pic whatsoever, but a nice cynical headline, Mother of the Year.
USA Today, no pics here either, just as pic of smiling Britney and the caption, What was she thinking?
Mirror (UK) Shows a pretty pic of Britney standing around.
You can go through a hundred sites and this is the typical way of handling it. Moan and groan then run some hot pics of Britney.
Sky runs a pic of Britney and the baby, but never ntoices that something is weird about the picture.
Then there is this article in the Ledger which discusses the whole incident with X17's owner and the photogrpaher who took the picture George Spaly. Listen to this explanation:
Britney asked George not to take pictures of her and the baby at the Starbuck's and he agreed. In fact, on this particular afternoon at 1 p.m., it was so quiet that another bodyguard following in a car behind Britney's left shortly after arriving at the Starbuck's.
***
Once Britney and her bodyguards had their drinks, she reportedly switched seats with one bodyguard and drove off with Sean Preston plopped in her lap.
She had her right hand on the wheel and her other hand apparently holding her kid. That's when George started shooting. He kept a respectable distance.
How does this explain the picture of her seated with the bodyguard on the phone and the door open?
Again the only picture that accompanies the artilce is a sultry stock shot of Spears.
The National Enquirer Online, normally a buyer of such photos, mentions the incident in passing and ask readers what they think of it. There is a stock photo of Britney's smiling face.
X17 problems, MSNBC had a story about Britney's previous run ins with X17 here.
And let's not forget the hoax regarding this woman last February when she supposed posed nude for Playboy and did not.
There may be other more conclusive photos, but the one above is not it. And I'd be suspicious of Photoshop at work to make any of these pics look better. The message here is that running stories like this with photos that do not prove anything along with quotes from the PR machine which are massaged to death; then running the item as news with hot pics of Britney to get attention is a pathetic indictment of the newspaper business in the information age.
As you can see, he is calling out the media on this story. "Pathetic indictment" is a rather strong phrase. The problem is that with a few seconds on Google, one can find plenty of evidence to back up this story. I posted that evidence as a comment on his blog, perhaps in a rude manner (I'll admit that). His comments are moderated though and it seems they've (several people blog and moderate on Dvorak.org) chosen not to post them for now.
So I've decided to just post here what I would call the most compelling piece of evidence on this case, the video of Britney admitting the story is true on Access Hollywood, which was put on the web the day before Dvorak posted his blog.
I plead guilty -- of not watching Access Hollywood. None of this distracts from my point that article after article showed Britney onstage in some sexy outfit (Time od India -- the worst) which had little to do with the topic at hand.