Did Noah St. John Choke?

© David Cannon/Getty Images

(Be sure and read the comments at the end of this post.)

Noah St. John is an author of self-help books. Following the Masters (golf tournament), he published a blog entry on the Huffington Post titled Why Did Kenny Perry Choke on the Masters? In this post, Mr. St. John claimed that Kenny Perry, who was two shots ahead with two holes to play, might have won the tournament had he only given himself permission to succeed, a topic Mr. St. John writes about.

I found that suggestion to be a bit shameless, as Mr. St. John was simply using Mr. Perry's loss as an opportunity to sell product. I posted a comment on Monday saying as much, however, comments are moderated and my effort was rejected. But on Tuesday morning, the original blog post had been rewritten, giving more sympathy to Kenny Perry and explaining what Perry could have done to be successful rather than offering him a book.

Did I cause a Huffington Post article to be rewritten? Did Mr. St. John choke on his first attempt and take a mulligan (golfing term for a do over)?

Upon seeing the rewrite, I posted this comment, which may also be rejected.

Yesterday I posted a comment that was critical of Mr. St. John for using Kenny Perry's loss as an opportunity to hawk his book. That comment was not published, however, the original article has been rewritten, making it more favorable to Kenny Perry and giving more advice on how to be successful. Also, Mr. St. John no longer offers Mr. Perry a free copy.

I still think Mr. St. John knows nothing about golf. He says "he suddenly could not hit shots that any pro can hit on a Thursday." The facts are that Tiger also finished bogey-bogey. Why not claim that Tiger choked? The winner, Angel Cabrera hit his first drive of the playoff behind a tree. His second shot bounced off another tree before landing back in the fairway. So why don't we say that Angel choked? Kenny Perry's final put of the Masters made it to the hole. If it had been a half-inch to the right, he and Angel would have gone to the third playoff hole, for the first time in Masters history. That is not the putt of one who chokes.

In fairness to Mr. St. John, the "he suddenly could not hit shots" reference was misattributed. St. John actually said "he let it slip away like so much fairway bunker sand." If you are curious about what a real sports writer says about Kenny Perry, try Perry is the master of class by Dan Wetzel.

Update: I was thrilled to get a comment (see below) from Nina of www.successclinic.com. Here is the email reply I sent her.

Dear Nina,

Thanks for answering my question about the rewrite. I really didn't think I had anything to do with it, but one never knows. When I read the first article, there was already one comment up and it was favorable to Kenny Perry.

What annoyed me and motivated me to comment and blog was that the first version of the article appeared to be an ad for a book. I have no problems with ads for books (I love books) but I thought I was reading a sports article. Never before have I encountered "product placement" in a Huffington Post article. You may disagree that the article was an ad, but that was my perception.

As to Kenny Perry, everyone saw that he lost a lead on the last two holes and lost a 3-way playoff, however, it was very close. To claim to understand the cause of a bad golf shot (after so many excellent ones) is going out on a limb. If Mr. Perry had turned in a miserable fourth round or had three putted from three feet (as others have done), you might have had more of a case to say that he choked. What is wonderful about Mr. Perry's story is the big picture, the fact that he does not live or die by what happens in a golf tournament, which is not really that important in the scheme of things. By many accounts, he is an excellent golf-pro, a wonderful father and husband, and a strong contributor to his community.

Thanks again for commenting on my blog.

Regards,
David Renaud

I checked the St. John post just now and saw that my second comment has been rejected, as was my first. Normally, the Huffington Post is a place for exchange of ideas and different points of view. Not in this case, which suggests that criticism is not welcomed. On the other hand, I received a very nice email reply from Nina, which I appreciated.

More update: Noah St. John has also provided a second comment to this post, which I also appreciate.

Beck the Tea Bagger

If you watch Comedy Central or MSNBC, it is not necessary to watch Fox (or for that matter Rush), as Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, and Maddow keep you up on all the "good" parts. However, sometimes it is fun to go right to the source. Glenn Beck, high school graduate and Fox weekday show host, popped up on my radar after his infamous "I just love my country" crying spell. On Friday, Beck put on an hour-long special report on how our country got to "where it is" today, with the hint that "where it is" is either "off the rails" or "heading towards fascism".

The teaser for the show also sucked me in. Beck insisted that the show be watched in its entirety, as to do otherwise would risk hearing things "out of context" and those decontexted snippets might seem extreme or give you the wrong idea, whatever that could be.

As it turned out, the content of the show was not nearly as interesting as the formula. Beck had four guests, each the author of a book that had changed the way he thought about the world. All of the authors were friendly witnesses and they had a grand time talking about Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, the progressive movement in the early 20th century, and the great depression of the 30s. The big takeaway was that fascism has two preconditions: fear and hunger. Once we were properly schooled in history-a-la-Beck, we were admonished that "history repeats itself." No attempt (zero, nada) was made to compare the circumstances of the 21st century with the circumstances preceding the rise of 20th century fascist regimes. It was up to the viewer to connect the dots. Beck also insisted that the viewer go out and buy the books, giving the show the feel of an infomercial.

The show concluded with a speech by Thomas Paine, who is normally unable to give speeches due to being dead for 200 years, however, an (old looking) actor filled in. Beck claims Paine as an ancestor but he may have been just joshing us. Paine the actor's purpose was to rouse the rabble to participate in some tax day tea bagging, you know, Boston Tea Party-like behavior to protest all the outrageous spending of taxpayer dollars by our federal government.

Did he say tea bagging? I first learned about tea bagging when watching one of my favorite movies, John Water's Pecker. Let's just say that if you look up and open your mouth and a guy sets his nut sack on your tongue, you have just been tea bagged.

Do the tax day tea bagging people not know what they are saying? I think not. Rachel Maddow is giggling so hard over this that I am amazed she hasn't fallen off her chair.

Just as Olbermann always refers to Rush as "Rush the comedian", I shall forever refer to Beck as "Beck the Tea Bagger".

Have You No Shame, Sir?

©Comedy Central/Gavin Bond ©CNBC Photo

This week, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been showing clips of Jim Cramer, the host of a financial entertainment show on CNBC called Mad Money. Stewart was making fun of the fact that Cramer gets it wrong sometimes and zeroed in on his recommendations on Bear Stearns. On Thursday night, these two faced off on The Daily Show.

It wasn't funny, which is a problem because The Daily Show is supposed to be funny. First of all, the premise that Cramer should be chastised for giving bad advice is absurd. No one can predict the stock market reliably, much less individual stocks. Second, Stewart was acting like Chris Matthews, that is, he was asking long questions and then turning it into a multiple choice by giving the answers himself. He was getting all serious on us. Not funny. Third, Stewart was showing clips from 2006 of Cramer talking about borderline illegal activities of hedge fund traders. These clips were a bit obscure and not funny. If Stewart has an issue with them, why didn't he bring it up two years ago. Finally, Cramer was not himself and was not funny. He sat there like a contrite little boy and said CNBC could do better. Not funny.

The show I was hoping for would have Cramer trading punches with Stewart. He could have shown clips of Stewart's lapses, you know, other times when Stewart is not funny. Times when he does impersonations, badly. Times when he is a star-struck sycophant during a celebrity interview/movie promotion. Times when he says something and the audience goes "ewwwwwwwwwww".

I can credit The Daily Show for the opening, which admitted that the whole Cramer vs. Stewart thing was about ratings. That was funny.

Fortunately for Comedy Central, The Daily Show is just a warm-up for the highly-awarded The Colbert Report and the hilarious and talented Stephen Colbert.

Update: The NYT TV Decoder's The Comedian as Media Critic provides a good summary of what happened. Alessandra Stanley's Economic Meltdown Not a Laughing Matter says "Mostly, the much-hyped Thursday night showdown between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the mercurial host of “Mad Money” on CNBC, felt like a Senate subcommittee hearing," which is similar to my take on it. The Huffington Post scored a big win for Stewart. The comments that follow these blogs show overwhelming support for and thanks to Stewart for revealing that CNBC may simply be PR for the companies they cover, that they help to spread rumors, and that they give bad advice. As to who really won, I like the Huffington Post's Tim Berry's call.

So who's winning the Cramer vs. Stewart battle? Cramer and Stewart. Both are smart enough to keep it going as long as they can. And, along with them, Comedy Central, and NBC, and all the news media that cover them.

McCain's Tweets

Maureen Dowd's Stage of Fools piece in the NYT discusses the content of Senator John McCain's efforts on Twitter, focusing on his top ten lists of stimulus pork. As that ground has been plowed, I will confine my remarks to his tweet style.

First of all, I believe that Senator McCain is posting his own tweets because they don't appear everyday. If this task had been assigned to a staffer, I would expect to see more regular output. For example, he does not tweet on most weekends and he skips some weekdays, such as February 9. Also, when not pork listing, he maxes out at 3 or 4 tweets.

McCain uses tweets primarily for three things: a public day timer (e.g. "I am working in my office on Capitol Hill today."), a promo (e.g. "Watch my interview with Fox & Friends LIVE @ 8:15 am"), and to garner media attention by listing pork (e.g. "$95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio"). This last use subverts the whole concept of Twitter, which is micro blogging or the publishing of a tweet, a self-contained 140 character message (or less). By assembling a lengthy communication into successive tweets, he is exploiting Twitter's ability to stream messages into mobile devices in real time, but making the recipients read the message in a start/stop fashion. For example, on March 5, he started his list at 6:41am and ended it at 1:35pm. A list is more easily read from the archive once it is posted in entirety, which means that Senator McCain should be blogging, not Twittering.

Another style issue is prefacing, or sending a tweet to say you are about to send a tweet (e.g. "and the #1 project is..." ). To me, it's just getting around the 140 character limit.

The Twitter homepage states that a tweet is an answer to the question "What are you doing?", however, my experience with the Facebook status feature suggests that micro blogs are just as concerned with what people are thinking or feeling. We rarely get that from Senator McCain. On occasion, he might twitter something like "I appreciate Senator Byrd speaking in favor of my Constitutional point of order", but not very often.

Tweets (as I experience in Facebook) can also be funny. I am seeing no humor in Senator McCain's thumb jockeying. OK, Congress is serious business but he is using something called "Twitter." Throw us a bone every once in a while. Actually, the "Happy Birthday Joe Lieberman!!" tweet on Feb 24 was a little bit funny.

One cute thing McCain does is to start some tweets with ICYMI, which I have never seen before but assume means "in case you missed it". I find it cute because it's almost always unnecessary. In 159 updates, he has yet to utter a single LOL, ROFL, or WTF, which one might expect given his history of salty language.

In the final analysis, there is nothing really wrong with McCain's tweets. Hey, it's a free country. He is simply using a new technology, getting some media attention because of it, and possibly shedding a bit of his internet-illiterate image. But he has not embraced the spirit of micro blogging, which is more related to social interaction than public relations, at least this week.

Fairly Fairey

Today's Fresh Air with Terry Gross included a piece about Shepard Fairey and the issues surrounding his appropriation of a Mannie Garcia/AP photo as the starting point for his famous Obama Hope poster.



Fairey and the Associated Press are engaged in a lawsuit over the question of fair use; I will render a verdict on that later.

Photographers, particularly those that are trying to make a living at it, face rights issues because photography necessarily appropriates reality and reality is often owned. As a member of an organization of photography professionals, ASMP, we are advised to always obtain model and property releases so as to gain rights to content of our own images. Photojournalists, such as Mr. Garcia, need not do so because content from the public domain or otherwise newsworthy imagery is usually considered fair use.

Sometimes a misunderstanding or fear of fair use policy creates a chilling effect. For example, in 2005 I photographed The Gates by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, which is an art work consisting of the temporary installation of suspended orange fabric all over Central Park. The artists do not accept donations or sponsorships but collect revenue by selling product related to the exhibit. A few months later, I submitted a photo essay on The Gates to a photography website which rejected it for fear of litigation, in spite of the fact that images of The Gates were appearing in the national media.

Terry Gross also interviewed a lawyer, who reported that fair use law is based on various tests, whose application is open to interpretation.

My opinion is that Shepard Fairey's use of Mr. Garcia's image does constitute fair use. As a photojournalist, Mr. Garcia makes photographs that are expected to be factual and possibly newsworthy. He also enjoys the special privilege of preferred access, which is extended only to credentialed members of the press. Within the commercial world of news photography, Mr. Garcia has rights which obligate those who exploit his photographs to both pay him and credit his work.

But Mr. Fairey is not in the business of consuming or redistributing news photography, rather, he is an artist who creates new works of cultural and political significance based on news artifacts. Just as Mr. Garcia enjoys the privilege of access to Obama and the rights to Obama's image, Mr. Fairey should enjoy the privilege of fair use of these news artifacts. To do otherwise would limit free artistic expression and would tend to chill political commentary and parody.

Ironically, Mr. Fairey is being ripped off more than anyone. Obamicons are the new smiley face and I am assuming that Mr. Fairey is not profiting in anyway, nor is he being asked for permission.

Super Boooooooooooooooooowl

Super Bowl Sunday is, of course, the uniquely American holiday tradition that emerged in my lifetime, evolving into a cross between Halloween and Thanksgiving. Like Halloween, it is totally opt-in and allows participation with varying degrees of intensity. Like Thanksgiving, it is food-based but replacing extended family with friends. For the record, Clare and I had our own party with turkey hot dogs, deviled eggs (mmmmm), cole slaw, baked beans, and brownies.

The game was pretty good for a Super Bowl, but the best moments were the national anthem by Jennifer Hudson, making her first appearance since her family tragedy. The worst moment was when #92 of the Steelers mugged a Cardinal following a 4th quarter punt. John Madden, the dean of sportscasters, commented that he should have been ejected from the game. #92 is the same guy that set a Super Bowl record by returning an interception 100 yards for a touchdown on the last play of the first half. How quickly we go from hero to chump.

There were no great commercials this year but a few awful ones. The worst was by teleflora, a flower seller, in which a woman's happiness at receiving flowers in a box turns to horror when the flowers start spewing personal insults. Many commercials inflict cartoon physical violence on live action humans, but emotional abuse crosses the line in my book. The commercial was successful in that I do remember the name teleflora, however, the result will be a life long boycott.

The Budweiser horse ads were a little sad. In one, a horse tries to act like a dog my fetching a tree branch. His human oppressor is not impressed. In another, a horse escapes his barn and journeys to a distant circus to see his girlfriend. Chaos follows and you know it's going to end badly.

The most popular ad, as reported on my TV machine, was the Doritos crystal ball. A man believes it makes predictions and predicts free Doritos. After vandalizing a vending machine by throwing the ball and breaking the glass, the prediction comes true. Cut to a second man throwing the ball after predicting a job promotion. The ball hits his boss in the crotch... ut oh. People eat this stuff up.

The most inappropriate ad was by an internet job site, which showed small snippets of people being dissatisfied at work, over and over and over again. So the message is, in the middle of the worst recession in 60 years, find a new job if your boss/coworkers annoy you. Perhaps I missed the point. They were trying to be humorous, not realistic. But they failed because I don't even remember who ran the ad.

My favorite ad was the godaddy.com Danica Patrick shower ad, which was a take off on the American Pie webcam scene. The ad was riveting if you are a nerd and/or a huge Danica Patrick fan. (Advice to IndyCar... fire the other drivers and just have Danica drive around the track by herself.)

Coincidentally, my drenaud.com domain registration is expiring and I am transferring it from Network Solutions to Go Daddy. Was it Danica or their lower prices that motivated me?

Back when Walter Cronkite was America's news anchor, he ended a broadcast by reporting the previous day's Super Bowl score, and then added "an event which has no significance".