How To Become Dumber In 20 Minutes Or Less

I have spent my entire life trying to become smarter. Today, I have learned definitively that not only can one become dumber, one can do so in 20 minutes!

Imagine the possibilities! What could you do if you were dumber? You could delay productive activity indefinitely while struggling to make sense of an infinite number of matters, NONE OF WHICH INVOLVE YOU.

By what marvelous magic, what wonderful wizardry, might this scarcely-imaginable state be attained, you ask?

The answer, my friends, is so simple that it will amaze you, and yet, so profound that I truly ought to charge a princely sum for sharing it.

You can become dumber simply by attending to Internet journalism.

I can hear your likely first response: "Pshaw! What does this fellow mean? How can journalism delivered via the Internet make people dumber? Is not the very enterprise of journalism devoted to making people smarter? And is not the Internet the greatest system for the dissemination of information in the history of the world? Pshaw and fiddlesticks!!"

Ah, but you misunderstand. When I say "Internet journalism," I do not mean journalism delivered via the Internet; I mean journalism made possible by the Internet, journalism that could not exist without the Internet, a type of journalism that cries out for its own name, so distinct is it from anything that has gone before.

And Internet journalism made me dumber today. Here is how it happened.

A Facebook friend posted a link to an article from Gawker, with the headline, "Django Unchained Actress Accosted by LAPD After Kissing White Husband." Please check it out - it's short.

I read it, and found it exasperatingly incomplete. It quotes an LAPD email:  "...a citizen made a 911 call complaining that a male and female were 'involved in indecent exposure inside a Silver Mercedes with the vehicle door open.' The responding sergeant and police officers believed Danièle Watts and Brian James Lucas fit their description..." But it doesn't say whether Watts and Lucas were in fact the subjects of the original complaint.

Were they in a silver Mercedes? Were they doing more than kissing? Gawker doesn't say. Neither does the account by Variety which Gawker uses as source material. (A primary characteristic of Internet jounalism, vs. journalism delivered via the Internet, is that it requires no actual reporting: it thrives on merely citing other media outlets, without caring those outlets' trustworthiness.) 

I googled Watts' name and saw that a long list of media had stories about the incident. I chose to read the Washington Post's because I trusted the Post most.

After reading it, I trust the Post less. (Take a look, it's short)

First, because WaPo early refers to Lucas, not as Watts' husband, but as her "partner." If that is accurate, then Gawker's headline - the headline, for crying out loud - is inaccurate. On the other hand, if Gawker got it wrong, then WaPo got it wrong. The net effect was that the two articles together left me confused me about a basic fact of the story.

Second, because of this:

Lucas told TMZ that the couple was “making out in a parked car” outside CBS television studios, where Watts had just had a meeting. 

...which presented me with two problems - a) the very phenomenon of The Washington Post citing TMZ, and b) the phrase "making out," which in my mind means more than the kissing stated in Gawker's HEADLINE. (Watts' FB post says "showing affection," which could mean anything.).

So I went to the TMZ story (go ahead, it's short), and the first thing I saw was that the headline refers to a "white BF." Yep, in TMZ, Lucas is neither Watts' husband nor partner, he's her boyfriend.

Then, while it says that the couple were making out, it does not say that Lucas told them that. So how did WaPo reach that conclusion?

And it was after I had spent some 20 minutes reading three articles that I realized I had become dumber.

Before reading them, I merely didn't know that either Watts or Lucas existed (I saw "Django Unchained," but did not pay enough attention to the credit to notice Watts' name). Now I don't know whether Lucas is Watts' husband, partner or boyfriend. I don't know whether or not they were in a silver Mercedes. I don't know whether they were merely kissing or making out. I don't know whether or not they were in fact the subjects of the 911 call. I read three articles, and do not know the basic facts of the story that they are all about.

And that, friends, is the absolute miracle of Internet journalism.

But wait, there's more! More articles, that is, as this story heads into its sixth day in the 24-hour news cycle:

I'm not reading any of them. I do not need to become one whit dumber.

The fast and the spurious

Kevin Clash, who has provided the voice for Sesame Street's beloved Elmo character for 20+ years, has resigned in the wake of sex allegations, the New York Times has reported.

The story, which first broke last Monday, has not been a big one, so don't feel bad if you've missed it. But it has been a fast-moving one.

Mon., Nov. 11 - an anonymous 24-year-old man accuses Clash of having had a sexual relationship with him when he was 16.

Tues., Nov. 12 - the accuser recants as part of a settlement for $125,000, saying through his attorney that "his sexual relationship with Mr. Clash was an adult consensual relationship."

Mon., Nov. 18 - the accuser, Sheldon Stephens, goes public to recant the recantation, saying that he was pressured into signing the settlement, that he was indeed 16 rather than 18 when he and Mr. Clash became intimate, and that he would give the $125,000 back to clear his name (from what?).

Today - a second man, Cecil Singleton, accuses Mr. Clash of having had sex with him when he was underage. Mr. Clash resigns.

The coverage of the story is interesting, if discouraging for those who view gossip sites like TMZ with disdain.

First, because non-traditional media are kicking mainstream media's butt. As of 12:27, the New York Times update on the story reads:

Mr. Clash was first accused last week of sexual improprieties by a 24-year-old man who later recanted. That man has remained anonymous.

Hey, Times - Mr. Stephens stopped being anonymous yesterday. Not only his name, but images of his face (and body - he's a model) are all over the place.

Second, because with all of the coverage being generated, no one seems to be asking an obvious question. It seems clear that Kevin Clash had a relationship with Sheldon Stephens. The accusation-recantation-recantation recantation sequence leaves it unclear whether Mr. Stephens was 16 or 18 at the time.

The overlooked question is, "What is the age of the consent?"

Mr. Stephens is said to be living in Pennsylvania; if he was living here when the relationship happened, then guess what? Both the accusation and the recantation could be true, because in Pennsylvania a 16-year-old can have an adult, consensual relationship - 16 is the age of consent. 

I find it astonishing that no one covering the story regarding legal actions seems to be asking whether or not Mr. Clash violated any laws.

So while the New York Times is showing itself to be slow, TMZ and other sites with the story so far are showing themselves to be sloppy.

The fact that I don't see anyone handling this story well so far makes me afraid to trust them for bigger, more complicated stories.

As it happens, I just watched this morning, this clip of Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show," with Fox News' Chris Wallace, in which Mr. Stewart says of the Times, "I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness." I have learned to take sensationalism as so much of a given that it doesn't bother me much. Laziness does.

What do you think? Is there some bad journalism going on here re the Kevin Clash story, or am I off my gourd?