"Tell Me No Lie"
As a journalist, filmmaker, and media critic, I ask why consumers tolerate experts promoting lies when the truth is known.
Indeed, there are things with which you are familiar, and some “expert” writers who have a background as shallow as what they learned in school and left it at that keep repeating a falsehood that only reinforces the lie or the myth.
As an example. The lie that gangster Bugsy Seigel created Las Vegas.
Due to lies in the film “Bugsy” and the glamorization of the mob, people believe that this punk of a killer had the brilliance to create Las Vegas. Imagine that. This thug from Murder Inc., out of the streets of Brooklyn, had the business brilliance of a supernova to take a stretch of land in the middle of nowhere and create a mecca for gaming and entertainment.
On its face, one should question if that was possible, let alone believe the lie. And it is a lie. I am not going into the real story of The Flamingo Hotel except to say he had nothing to do with it. He rode other’s coattails — people already creating that early era of Las Vegas. Through the work of “professional” documentarians and historians, the public believes Benjamin Seigel used his acumen for killing and running rackets and turned that into the level of Harvard Business School thinking. Warren Beatty continued the lie in “Bugsy,” so those with initials like Ph.D. after their name believed him. The myth endured.
Television experts and critics claim the original “Star Trek” was canceled due to low ratings. That, too, is a lie. The show had some impressive ratings, but due to all the network’s headaches with its creator/producer, Gene Roddenberry, they moved the show to a horrible time slot and sunk the series. It imploded. “Star Trek” was rumored to have a small budget, but it was the most expensive television show of its time.
Scholars like to point out the inner revelations of being one with nature as described by Henry David Thoreau in his book, “Life in the Woods.” Spiritual discovery! Nothing but nature as a companion! Solitude! In reality, he had visitors all the time. He was a whopping two miles away from Concord, MA, which was settled 200 years earlier.
Yet, editors perpetuate such lies, destroying their credibility and the credibility of their publications.
Why? Are they lazy? Do they not care? Do they have no respect for their readers and subscribers? Are they not doing a disservice to those who read and presume they are reading the truth?
Consumers encounter this laziness online with articles like “The Greatest 25 TV Shows of All Time.” According to who? And how far back is “all time?” The 1930's? Did someone look at thousands of episodes and rank the shows based on an objective scale of what makes a TV show significant? Of course, we realize it’s clickbait to fill your monitor with ads and track your Internet cookies. But putting one’s name on such a sham still takes a lot of nerve.
Perhaps we don’t care when lying is relegated to things only found on a “Jeopardy” board. These things don’t make any difference if they are a lie or not to a publisher or writer.
Imagine if someone printed a recipe for chocolate cake calling for five cups of sugar instead of two. Or they wrote instructions for replacing brakes and omitted to put the slider bolt back on once you’ve replaced the pads. Whether it is a subjective lie about how much sugar to put in the cake or one of omission to ensure your brakes are safe, these lies have consequences.
This flexible approach to the truth makes room for prejudicial beliefs, such as a Texas student worksheet, titled “The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View.” Students were asked to list the bad and good aspects of being a slave. The claim and assignment were so outrageous it caught the attention of elected officials who could not let the assignment stand, surmising some slaves were living the high life compared to their homeland. Or, more recently, there is the “both sides” argument with white supremacy. Although it was an opinion, society quickly jumped on that belief as a lie. But what if a writer took it as fact? Would we be as upset as those who jumped on the course material?
When we say a lie is being perpetuated, it is based on a set of facts. A professor of history writes that Max Quizbanger was the first President of the United States. Do we let that stand? Of course not. We would be in disbelief and let everyone know on Facebook that this professor is an idiot. Why aren’t we as angry when we read something with less societal impact, let the publisher, editor, or writer know it, and demand better?
Should we be less motivated to correct a lie when we feel the subject is trivial? It may all come down to the reader’s passion for the subject.
Professional sports broadcasters and writers will say quarterback Tom Brady is the GOAT — greatest of all time. However, on paper, quarterback Aaron Rodgers is the GOAT for nearly every statistical comparison. But Brady’s six Superbowl wins trump Rodgers’ single victory. That single “fact” does not erase the fact that Brady was outperformed. That is the truth.
Our definition of GOAT may be different. To some, it’s based on direct comparison; to others, it’s an emotional appeal. This is an opinion since Brady’s performance is not as good as other players. The claim is permitted since he helped take his team to victory more than someone else. That is their justification for declaring Brady the GOAT, even though it is not based on fact. Can we have two separate truths and two separate lies based on people’s definitions of what the truth is? Sure. Can there be more than one set of facts to base a conclusion of what a lie is and what is not? No. Facts can be twisted to create someone’s truths, such as in “political spin” cases and the danger of not knowing which aspect of truth-telling any writer is using.
“It’s OK if Bugsy Seigel didn’t create Las Vegas — people think he did, and no one cares, so why check?”
I am sure there are things you read and hear you know are lies. It could be about a hobby or your profession. And yet, the people allowed to spread untruths are never called out, fired, demoted, censured, or compelled to apologize when they get it wrong. And these are “professionals” with highly-vaulted degrees who know their stuff.
(Unless it’s some plagiarism scandal — but that’s about copying and not questioning the truth of the material.)
Platforms and publishers make it difficult to reach their writers and editors. In the past, publications used to list an email address. Not so much anymore. You must find a social media account where your message will be buried in their feed or locate a work email. Even comment boxes are rare. Why? Because they don’t want people correcting them. They don’t want to answer to their readers. They have no courage to stand up and say, “You know, I goofed on that. I checked it out, and you’re right — I appreciate the heads up.” Occasionally, there may be a comment box, but not as much as there used to be.
The public must hold these experts accountable. I know we are all busy trying to remember to keep a mask on our faces. But if you run across something you know needs to be corrected, leave a comment or see if you can contact the columnist or author.
Lies do no one any good. Without correction, real history is erased, no matter how trivial.
© 2020 by Kevin S. Birnbaum
“L&O” “d’oh, d’oh!”
(This is full of spoilers. Please don’t read it until you watch the episode.)
I’ve become a Law & Order-O’phile since the show began in 1990. Before streaming came along, I watched all the marathons and still watch them on networks that show nothing but reruns. The show has been consistent in its stories, casting, and twists. When it went off the air, I mourned. “There goes one of the greats,” I lamented. And when I learned of its return, it was like the best Christmas gift ever, be it actually on Christmas or in February.
After the episode ended, I thought if this was the first “L&O” I’d have seen, it would have been the last.
Director Jean de Segonzac directed 12 “L&O” episodes in 2007. “L&O: Organized Crime” three episodes, 48 episodes of “L&O: SVU: going back to 1999, 32 episodes of “L&O: Criminal Intent” dating back to 2001, as well as Wolf’s hit shows “Chicago P.D.,” “Chicago Fire” and “Chicago Med.” In other words, show creator Dick Wolf likes the guy — a lot.
Now, I’m not saying that directing essentially a bunch of people walking around offices and sitting at desks is easy to direct. However, I feel that his director of photography or cinematographer had called many of the shots for his successful ventures. Still, they were unavailable for this iPhone-looking and edited student project. None is listed in the credits. Perhaps there was a DP, but he/she decided not to have their name in the final cut.
The whole production looked rushed. Just hurry up and shoot. Considering this was a monumental return to one of the most successful franchises in TV history, time would be taken, as in a feature film, for reaction shots, close-ups, skillful editing, and the like. Instead, it looked like a perpetual two or medium shot in washed-out skin tones and universal lighting. The usual warmth of the DA’s offices set with maybe two light sources, casting shadows on an actor’s face; anything that could add some depth, bringing alive a room, was gone.
Having contrasting detective styles is something you found on “NYPD Blue,” but not on “L&O.” And if there were any, it was handled mildly. There isn’t time to properly develop characterizations. There is no more of a plot-driven series other than “Dragnet.” Not this time around. Detectives Bernard and Cosgrove (played by Anthony Anderson and Jeffrey Donovan, respectively) verbally duke it out after a contrived moment just so we can see them have a difference of opinion on old-school cops versus modern cops and race. If the show has a historian, writer/creator Dick Wolf (who probably is the recipient of more money minted for him by NBC than Johnny Carson), and perennial Wolf producer Rick Eid who has produced four Wolf productions, didn’t listen. The tired “old cop vs. new cop” discussion goes back to 2004 when Det. Lennie Briscoe was on the scene. This time, it’s flat in your face. The scene was supposed to show us our detective’s differences since it didn’t add anything to the plot.
Some scenes did not add anything to the plot. This can only be attributed to lazy writing and a gutless showrunner who didn’t have the balls to point this out to Dick Wolf. Worse yet, Wolf himself should’ve re-written most of this. Someone should have!
Case in point, we see at the beginning of the show the “ripped from the headlines” topic of the week: Bill Cosby gets out of jail for his rapes. He’s on a talk show saying he’s innocent, etc. Then, he gets shot in front of his house. Our Detectives show up, and we cut to the commercial. The whole open scene of the bastard on the talk show, in old “L&O,” wouldn’t be taking up valuable pages and a location. How it’s supposed to work is our cops show up and say to someone, “What have we got?” And then a cop says, “You’re not going to believe this.” The Detectives see it’s the dead comic, which would go like this: “That’s Bob Bobby, the famous comedian!” “Didn’t he just get kicked out of prison for raping 40 women?” “Yeah — I guess he got heckled to death.” What would even be better is for the Detectives to meet for the first time at the crime scene. (This way, we see them learn about each other through the episode.)
The other scenes that make no sense involve returning A.D.A. Jamie Ross, still played by Carey Lowell. It was her screw-up that got the comic released from prison, and it’s information that doesn’t mean a damned thing. It’s a big nothing. The story isn’t about how people in the court system can screw up, it’s about a homicide and do you prosecute a rape victim. It has no place in the script and makes me think it had a more significant bearing on the story early on but got edged out by other things and should have been removed.
The new Assistant District Attorney, Nolan Price, played by Hugh Dancy, is a eunuch. Price has no charisma, no air of leadership, certainly no gravitas, and has no place being there. He’s p**** whipped by Cosgrove, and there’s no follow-up scene of him berating the 27th Precinct (I’m presuming it’s still the 27th Precinct)—Lt. Kate Dixon, played by Camryn Manheim. McCoy or Cutter would have lambasted Lt. Van Buren of old, and it would have been interesting to see how she handled it. As it is, her character is lighter than helium, and Price’s assistant, Samantha Maroun’s character, played by Odelya Halevi, is paper-thin. And as much as I love Sam Waterston, he can barely talk.
I suppose there have been other episodes of “L&O” where the murderer confessed after being found guilty. In any case, it happened here. A shoddy “I shot him FIVES TIMES in self-defense as I lay in wait for him,” including easily impeachable false testimony from the victim’s wife, is proven true after being found guilty as she screams to the other rape victims, “I did it for you!” Well, there’s jury validation like I’ve never heard before. Not to mention tossing an appeal right out the window.
“L&O” was always famous for its twist endings. The twist here is there was none, and there were plenty of missed opportunities. The whole thing could have been a set-up between the shooter and the wife. Maybe instead of one, 10 of the 40 rape victims shot and knifed him — who do you prosecute without reasonable doubt for any of them? The wife killed him and framed one of the rape victims. Perhaps he was killed by Jamie Ross, ending her career! (That would have been gutsy, no one would see it coming, and would be worthy of “L&O”. Then her scenes would have made sense.) Or better yet! Ross and the killer work something out where the killer would get off! Then, you have a scene with McCoy and Ross instead of McCoy just glaring at her from the back of the courtroom.
The episode ends with our DAs walking down the steps before the courthouse, baring their souls, and Price looking at the words on top of the building. Why is this ending memorable? It’s memorable to me because, at the end of one of the most significant murder trials of the decade, there isn’t one reporter or camera truck. None. Just a couple of stragglers walking around. There are no cameras in the DA’s faces or a press conference on one part of the steps where McCoy can make a statement or the defense attorney saying they will appeal. I think they ran out of money — somehow.
What’s happened is after 20 years as a first-run show and over a decade of binge-able streaming, the fans know this show better than Dick Wolf. Wolf has spent the last decade with his Chicago and FBI shows. “SVU” is in Mariska Harigtay’s capable hands, and “Organized Crime” is a new focus. He didn’t have time to secure the original “L&O”’s legacy in 2022 and handed it off to Eid. Instead of “L&O” or “dun, dun,” we’ve got “L&O” “d’oh, d’oh!”
"Fourth and Financial Goal: The Year in Review"
The players are on the field, and the ball is on the goal line – the only question is whose?
In the game of Growth vs. Non-Growth, each team plays offense and defense, battling it out at council meetings, at the polls, and where they live—literally.
Both Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low City Councils have been met with vociferous opposition to growth in its various incarnations.
In Show Low, residents have been chiefly opposed to population growth in their neighborhoods, whether that growth becomes several incarnations of affordable housing developments, apartments, or new subdivisions. Conversely, commercial growth and annexation are well accepted.
Quite the contrary in Pinetop-Lakeside, as nearly all official efforts for growth within town limits are opposed, holding to the belief that commercial development is their number one pariah.
Throughout the past year, both pro and con growth advocates have had their hands full, either defending their turf or convincing turf holders that change is inevitable.
For example, the ground was finally broken for the Show Low Bluff 3,000-home planned unit development on Penrod Rd, near the Show Low Airport. The project was so expansive that it had to form its own community facilities district. Nearly every month, Show Low Community Developer Ed Muder had first or final plat approvals for some projects or others on the agenda. Torreon, Bison Ridge, and new kids on the literal block kept expanding.
Developments in or around Highway 260 have been selling lots like Tomorrow's stock returns Show Low Main Street. The city has adopted a new downtown master plan that won a State award. The City also approved tax incentives for a new auto mall to move car dealers off the Deuce of Clubs into a more central location. Additionally, national chain stores have moved into the old Wal-Mart location to revitalize that center.
Additionally, Show Low Lake is now officially part of the City, and its waters are held in reserve in case the Coconino Aquifer hits a dry spell. However unlikely that may be, State legislators are working on ways to tap into that bazillion-gallon treasure.
Having access to Show Low Lake was an essential step for the City. The Council had also started land swaps to acquire more property closer to downtown, facilitating aspects of its new master plan.
Pinetop-Lakeside has turned its Main Street organization into a business recruitment wing for the Town. Close to $100,000 has been spent on a retail survey and impact fee consultations. In a few months, the Village 8 theaters will receive a State award, significantly impacting the Town's sales tax revenues. The Town's new ball field complex will open in April 2006, and its industrial park lots are sold out.
The business-driven Business Advisory Group has actively tried to keep the tourism pulse alive.
On the other hand, don't try to move into the neighborhood unless you have a champagne budget. Residents have fought attempts for additional housing developments or ordinances that would attract tourism-based businesses to help their economy. Most of those residents are retired and don't want to see any changes now that they live here. Of course, they were considered the interlopers by those native to the Town.
The election of freshmen Council people Luke Smith and Barbara Teague was considered a significant victory for those who favor keeping things the way they are, and that remains to be seen.
However, town officials have bigger plans to annex what is known as the "Wagon Wheel" with a possible prize in construction and sales tax revenues. The Town has nowhere else to expand where money can be gained. (Not to mention a touch of perhaps justified paranoia of "Show Low Creep" along Highway 260 to Pinetop-Lakeside's shores.)
As you read truncated versions of stories we ran this past year, you will see other faces of coming growth and the growth that sprung up. Many are excited about this, but others are not so excited.
The growth battles on this financial gridiron have been civil at times and less than orderly at other times. Local governments have either tried to accommodate their constituents or deflected criticisms and plowed ahead with plans they feel are right for their community.
The year has identified the players and which team they're on. It's been a good game, and hopefully, everyone will win.
The players are on the field, and the ball is on the goal line – the only question is whose?
In the game of Growth vs. Non-Growth, each team plays offense and defense, battling it out at council meetings, at the polls, and where they live—literally.
Both Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low City Councils have been met with vociferous opposition to growth in its various incarnations.
In Show Low, residents have been chiefly opposed to population growth in their neighborhoods, whether that growth becomes several incarnations of affordable housing developments, apartments, or new subdivisions. Conversely, commercial growth and annexation are well accepted.
Quite the contrary in Pinetop-Lakeside, as nearly all official efforts for growth within town limits are opposed, holding to the belief that commercial development is their number one pariah.
Throughout the past year, both pro and con growth advocates have had their hands full, either defending their turf or convincing turf holders that change is inevitable.
For example, the ground was finally broken for the Show Low Bluff 3,000-home planned unit development on Penrod Rd, near the Show Low Airport. The project was so expansive that it had to form its own community facilities district. Nearly every month, Show Low Community Developer Ed Muder had first or final plat approvals for some projects or others on the agenda. Torreon, Bison Ridge, and new kids on the literal block kept expanding.
Developments in or around Highway 260 have been selling lots like Tomorrow's stock returns Show Low Main Street. The city has adopted a new downtown master plan that won a State award. The City also approved tax incentives for a new auto mall to move car dealers off the Deuce of Clubs into a more central location. Additionally, national chain stores have moved into the old Wal-Mart location to revitalize that center.
Additionally, Show Low Lake is now officially part of the City, and its waters are held in reserve in case the Coconino Aquifer hits a dry spell. However unlikely that may be, State legislators are working on ways to tap into that bazillion-gallon treasure.
Having access to Show Low Lake was an essential step for the City. The Council had also started land swaps to acquire more property closer to downtown, facilitating aspects of its new master plan.
Pinetop-Lakeside has turned its Main Street organization into a business recruitment wing for the Town. Close to $100,000 has been spent on a retail survey and impact fee consultations. In a few months, the Village 8 theaters will receive a State award, significantly impacting the Town's sales tax revenues. The Town's new ball field complex will open in April 2006, and its industrial park lots are sold out.
The business-driven Business Advisory Group has actively tried to keep the tourism pulse alive.
On the other hand, don't try to move into the neighborhood unless you have a champagne budget. Residents have fought attempts for additional housing developments or ordinances that would attract tourism-based businesses to help their economy. Most of those residents are retired and don't want to see any changes now that they live here. Of course, they were considered the interlopers by those native to the Town.
The election of freshmen Council people Luke Smith and Barbara Teague was considered a significant victory for those who favor keeping things the way they are, and that remains to be seen.
However, town officials have bigger plans to annex what is known as the "Wagon Wheel" with a possible prize in construction and sales tax revenues. The Town has nowhere else to expand where money can be gained. (Not to mention a touch of perhaps justified paranoia of "Show Low Creep" along Highway 260 to Pinetop-Lakeside's shores.)
As you read truncated versions of stories we ran this past year, you will see other faces of coming growth and the growth that sprung up. Many are excited about this, but others are not so excited.
The growth battles on this financial gridiron have been civil at times and less than orderly at other times. Local governments have either tried to accommodate their constituents or deflected criticisms and plowed ahead with plans they feel are right for their community.
The year has identified the players and which team they're on. It's been a good game, and hopefully, everyone will win.
