jtotheizzoe: sciencecenter: I think this would make an excellent single-serving tumblr. (SMBC) “The female human melodic vocalization delivery vehicle known as ‘Taylor Swift’ continues to make questionable choices in potential mates, although she has recently made it known that she has excluded, excluded, excluded a fellow member of her vocalization pack previously in the running for genetic reproduction via a widely-heard mourning/mating call. Like, ever.” I support this plan.
Pop-upView Separately

jtotheizzoe:

sciencecenter:

I think this would make an excellent single-serving tumblr.

(SMBC)

“The female human melodic vocalization delivery vehicle known as ‘Taylor Swift’ continues to make questionable choices in potential mates, although she has recently made it known that she has excluded, excluded, excluded a fellow member of her vocalization pack previously in the running for genetic reproduction via a widely-heard mourning/mating call. Like, ever.”

I support this plan.

Source: sciencecenter

futurejournalismproject: Unemployed Reporter Porter Via CT.com Jon Campbell, who briefly made Hartford a more interesting place with his presence and reporting for the Advocate, has entered the homebrew game with his signature Unemployed Reporter Porter (pictured). “Porter style beers were first popularized in the nineteenth century by merchant sailors and manual dock laborers,” the label reads. “Unemployed Reporter is crafted in the same tradition, honoring a profession likewise doomed to decline and irrelevance.” For this new class of “expendables,” the label goes on, “we’ve included chocolate and roasted barley malts that are as dark and bitter as the future of American journalism, and a high alcohol content designed to numb the pain of a slow, inexorable march toward obsolescence. While Unemployed Reporter is especially delicious as a breakfast beer, it’s still smooth enough to be enjoyed all day, every day. And let’s be honest: what else do you have going on?” FJP: Give it up for Jon. Brewing up the best out of a difficult situation. Here he is on Twitter. Image: Brewing it dark and bitter. Select to embiggen. THIS IS AMAZING. Also, I want it to be available to buy.
Pop-upView Separately

futurejournalismproject:

Unemployed Reporter Porter

Via CT.com

Jon Campbell, who briefly made Hartford a more interesting place with his presence and reporting for the Advocate, has entered the homebrew game with his signature Unemployed Reporter Porter (pictured).

“Porter style beers were first popularized in the nineteenth century by merchant sailors and manual dock laborers,” the label reads. “Unemployed Reporter is crafted in the same tradition, honoring a profession likewise doomed to decline and irrelevance.”

For this new class of “expendables,” the label goes on, “we’ve included chocolate and roasted barley malts that are as dark and bitter as the future of American journalism, and a high alcohol content designed to numb the pain of a slow, inexorable march toward obsolescence. While Unemployed Reporter is especially delicious as a breakfast beer, it’s still smooth enough to be enjoyed all day, every day. And let’s be honest: what else do you have going on?”

FJP: Give it up for Jon. Brewing up the best out of a difficult situation. Here he is on Twitter.

Image: Brewing it dark and bitter. Select to embiggen.

THIS IS AMAZING. Also, I want it to be available to buy.

In fact, that’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, “A plague on both their houses.” On almost every issue, it’s, “Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree” — as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?

Barack Obama in an exclusive interview with The New Republic, (which was redesigned and relaunched today). Worth the read. (via futurejournalismproject)

This interview came out a few days ago, and if you haven’t read it yet you are doing yourself a considerable disservice. It’s pretty phenomenal.

washingtonpoststyle: jaredbkeller: You’re All Using The Term ‘Throwing Shade’ Wrong and Need to Stop Immediately “The limits of my language,” wrote Ludwig Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, ”means the limits of my world.” I was exposed to this quote as a freshman in college, and I understood immediately what it meant: words, phrases, and idioms have very, very particular meanings. Every construction we employ in our daily conversations has a whole body of history behind it, and that history defines how we use different phrases and aphorisms, what they mean, and what they might mean to us in the future.I cite my single experience with Wittgenstein for only one reason, really (well, two, if you count wanting to sound like an insufferably pretentious asshole, which I do): to justify why I’m so put off by how people use the term ‘throwing shade’ online. ‘Throwing shade,’ as defined by the authoritative online repository for modern language of the Internet age (the Urban Dictionary), seems like a relatively straight-forward term: “to talk trash about a friend or acquaintance, to publicly denounce or disrespect,” or, more colloquially, “to hate on someone for acting a fool.” The phrase has been in use since at least the early 1980s, but the term has only really enjoyed a serious revival in the past year, peaking two weeks ago with the Gawker article “Watch Michelle Obama Throw World-Historical Shade at John Boehner” which captures Michelle Obama flashing a stink-eye at Speaker Boehner on Inauguration DayMany commenters noted that the use of the term was incorrect: While it is a lively term “throwing shade” is not appropriate here. In this instance Michelle is definitely interacting with an Enemy whom she chooses to ignore with prejudice because she is classy and wonderful and because John Boehner is not worth the energy it takes to turn one’s head. John Boehner is the Enemy of All the Free People of Middle Earth and Michelle has no other recourse than to ignore his Necromancerty. Throwing shade is a perfectly wonderful term of gay-vogue era that Gawker keeps desperately trying to revive with honorable intentions but incorrect usage My Twitter feed is now full of people who didn’t read into the comments field (pro tip: always read the comments field), have no idea what the term means, and use it interchangeably with ‘shit-talk’ or ‘hate on.’ But, as my gay and lesbian friends have pointed out to me, the proper use of the term requires a bit more understanding.  The origins of the term ‘throwing shade’ can be traced to LGBT ball culture in the 1980s. One of the earliest explanations of the phrase appears in Paris Is Burning, a 1990 documentary by Jennie Livingston that chronicles New York City ball culture during mid-to-late 1980s and the African America, latino, gay and transgender communities involved in it. Drag queen Dorian Corey explains the evolution of the term:  “If I’m a black queen, and you’re a black queen, we can’t call each other black queens. That’s not a read that is just a fact. So we talk about your ridiculous shape, your saggy face, your tacky clothes. then reading became a developed form where it became shade. Shade is, ‘I don’t tell you you’re ugly, but I don’t have to tell you because you know you’re ugly.’ And that’s shade.” ‘Throwing shade,’ then, is significantly more nuanced than conventional, aggressive shit-talking. Desson Howe was careful to draw out this distinction in his 1991 review of Paris is Burning for The Washington Post Corey explains other voguing terminology, such as “reading” and “throwing shade.” To read is to insult imaginatively — in opposition to the blunt gay-bashing taunts of the straight world. Reading is gay-to-gay sparring. Thus, when two black queens call each other “black queen,” says Corey, “that’s not a read, that’s just a fact.” Throwing shade is reading at a refined level; it’s the curve to the pitch. If someone says they won’t call you ugly because you already know, well, you just got thrown a shade. When enmity reaches fever point and pride is involved, it’s time for voguing. This is direct competition, when contenders take their fight to the ball floor: the equivalent of jousting, dueling or stepping outside the bar. You’ll notice that throwing shade is defined in opposition the directness and cruelty of gay-bashing. It’s more artfully executed, more dependent on constructing a veiled (or not-so-veiled) insult rather than relying on obvious crudities and innuendo. Throwing shade requires wielding your words like a rapier rather than a cudgel.So why the sudden resurgence? The second coming of ‘throwing shade’ is likely rooted in mainstreaming of gay culture, but it’s widespread usage is easily tied to the popularity of RuPaul’s Drag Race. The show, featuring renowned drag queen RuPaul, premiered on Logo in February 2009, coinciding almost perfectly with an uptick in search volume for ‘throwing shade’ (as noted above). But despite the show’s popularity, most outlets continue to conflate throwing shade with the basic act of shit-talking (as MSNBC did after Michelle Obama’s now-infamous eye-roll) Even The Daily Beast, in a fucking post describing ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race Dictionary’ in 2011, oversimplified the term: throwing shade (v.): the art of insulting (see also read) Example: “Oh, honey. I need to duck and cover because you all bitches be throwing beaucoup shade.”—RuPaul in Season 2 RuPaul explains it *much* better herself on Drag Race (the clip, available at The Daily Beast, won’t embed on Tumblr for some reason). You don’t need Wittgenstein to get your words right. if you’re thinking about ‘throwing shade,’ or even describing something as ‘throwing shade,’ heed RuPaul’s advice: Learn it. I HAVE LEGIT BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THIS SINCE THIS ARTICLE CAME OUT. Thank you, Tumblr.
Pop-upView Separately

washingtonpoststyle:

jaredbkeller:

You’re All Using The Term ‘Throwing Shade’ Wrong and Need to Stop Immediately

“The limits of my language,” wrote Ludwig Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, ”means the limits of my world.” I was exposed to this quote as a freshman in college, and I understood immediately what it meant: words, phrases, and idioms have very, very particular meanings. Every construction we employ in our daily conversations has a whole body of history behind it, and that history defines how we use different phrases and aphorisms, what they mean, and what they might mean to us in the future.

I cite my single experience with Wittgenstein for only one reason, really (well, two, if you count wanting to sound like an insufferably pretentious asshole, which I do): to justify why I’m so put off by how people use the term ‘throwing shade’ online.

Usage of 'throwing shade' and 'throw shade' on Twitter since December 28, 2012

‘Throwing shade,’ as defined by the authoritative online repository for modern language of the Internet age (the Urban Dictionary), seems like a relatively straight-forward term: “to talk trash about a friend or acquaintance, to publicly denounce or disrespect,” or, more colloquially, “to hate on someone for acting a fool.” The phrase has been in use since at least the early 1980s, but the term has only really enjoyed a serious revival in the past year, peaking two weeks ago with the Gawker article “Watch Michelle Obama Throw World-Historical Shade at John Boehner” which captures Michelle Obama flashing a stink-eye at Speaker Boehner on Inauguration Day

Google search volume for 'throwing shade,' January 2008 to January 2013.

Many commenters noted that the use of the term was incorrect:

While it is a lively term “throwing shade” is not appropriate here. In this instance Michelle is definitely interacting with an Enemy whom she chooses to ignore with prejudice because she is classy and wonderful and because John Boehner is not worth the energy it takes to turn one’s head. John Boehner is the Enemy of All the Free People of Middle Earth and Michelle has no other recourse than to ignore his Necromancerty.

Throwing shade is a perfectly wonderful term of gay-vogue era that Gawker keeps desperately trying to revive with honorable intentions but incorrect usage

My Twitter feed is now full of people who didn’t read into the comments field (pro tip: always read the comments field), have no idea what the term means, and use it interchangeably with ‘shit-talk’ or ‘hate on.’ But, as my gay and lesbian friends have pointed out to me, the proper use of the term requires a bit more understanding. 

The origins of the term ‘throwing shade’ can be traced to LGBT ball culture in the 1980s. One of the earliest explanations of the phrase appears in Paris Is Burning, a 1990 documentary by Jennie Livingston that chronicles New York City ball culture during mid-to-late 1980s and the African America, latino, gay and transgender communities involved in it. Drag queen Dorian Corey explains the evolution of the term: 

“If I’m a black queen, and you’re a black queen, we can’t call each other black queens. That’s not a read that is just a fact. So we talk about your ridiculous shape, your saggy face, your tacky clothes. then reading became a developed form where it became shade. Shade is, ‘I don’t tell you you’re ugly, but I don’t have to tell you because you know you’re ugly.’ And that’s shade.”

‘Throwing shade,’ then, is significantly more nuanced than conventional, aggressive shit-talking. Desson Howe was careful to draw out this distinction in his 1991 review of Paris is Burning for The Washington Post

Corey explains other voguing terminology, such as “reading” and “throwing shade.” To read is to insult imaginatively — in opposition to the blunt gay-bashing taunts of the straight world. Reading is gay-to-gay sparring. Thus, when two black queens call each other “black queen,” says Corey, “that’s not a read, that’s just a fact.”

Throwing shade is reading at a refined level; it’s the curve to the pitch. If someone says they won’t call you ugly because you already know, well, you just got thrown a shade. When enmity reaches fever point and pride is involved, it’s time for voguing. This is direct competition, when contenders take their fight to the ball floor: the equivalent of jousting, dueling or stepping outside the bar.

You’ll notice that throwing shade is defined in opposition the directness and cruelty of gay-bashing. It’s more artfully executed, more dependent on constructing a veiled (or not-so-veiled) insult rather than relying on obvious crudities and innuendo. Throwing shade requires wielding your words like a rapier rather than a cudgel.

So why the sudden resurgence? The second coming of ‘throwing shade’ is likely rooted in mainstreaming of gay culture, but it’s widespread usage is easily tied to the popularity of RuPaul’s Drag Race. The show, featuring renowned drag queen RuPaul, premiered on Logo in February 2009, coinciding almost perfectly with an uptick in search volume for ‘throwing shade’ (as noted above). But despite the show’s popularity, most outlets continue to conflate throwing shade with the basic act of shit-talking (as MSNBC did after Michelle Obama’s now-infamous eye-roll) Even The Daily Beast, in a fucking post describing ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race Dictionary’ in 2011, oversimplified the term:

throwing shade (v.): the art of insulting (see also read)
Example: “Oh, honey. I need to duck and cover because you all bitches be throwing beaucoup shade.”—RuPaul in Season 2

RuPaul explains it *much* better herself on Drag Race (the clip, available at The Daily Beast, won’t embed on Tumblr for some reason). You don’t need Wittgenstein to get your words right. if you’re thinking about ‘throwing shade,’ or even describing something as ‘throwing shade,’ heed RuPaul’s advice:

image

Learn it.

I HAVE LEGIT BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THIS SINCE THIS ARTICLE CAME OUT. Thank you, Tumblr.

Source: jaredbkeller

ShortFormBlog: The Curation Battle: The Verge vs. The Huffington Post

jimmydaly:

Here’s what happened. The Verge wrote this great feature and The Huffington Post “curated” it. Editor-in-Chief of The Verge was not pleased.

This is EXACTLY why I can’t stand HuffPo: for every solid bit of original journalism on the site, there’s a hundred “curated” pieces - not to mention posts by bloggers who are not paid. It’s some serious bullshit.

Source: jimmydaly

The good news, young writers, is that your life does not have to be extraordinarily interesting, because there are billions of people in the world who do have interesting lives, and you have the privilege of telling their stories. Even the most productive journalist could not write 1% of humanity’s freely available interesting stories in the course of an entire career. Your friends, and neighbors, and community members, and people across town, and across your country, and across the world far and wide are all brimming with stories to tell. Stories of love, and war, and crime, and peril, and redemption. The average inmate at your local jail probably has a far more interesting life story than Susan Shapiro or you or I do, no matter how many of our ex-boyfriends and girlfriends we call for comment. All of the compelling stories you could ever hope to be offered are already freely available. All you have to do is to look outside of yourself, and listen, and write them down.

Journalism Is Not Narcissism - Gawker (via goldman)

I want to show this to every aspiring writer I know - not just aspiring journalists, but everyone who wants to make a living putting words on paper and is tempted to make all those words about themselves.

(via thepoliticalnotebook)

Source: Gawker

imwithkanye: Here Is What Happens When You Cast Lindsay Lohan In Your Movie | NYT Lindsay Lohan moves through the Chateau Marmont as if she owns the place, but in a debtor-prison kind of way. She’ll soon owe the hotel $46,000. Heads turn subtly as she slinks toward a table to meet a young producer and an old director. The actress’s mother, Dina Lohan, sits at the next table. Mom sweeps blond hair behind her ear and tries to eavesdrop. A few tables away, a distinguished-looking middle-aged man patiently waits for the actress. He has a stack of presents for her. Lohan sits down, smiles and skips the small talk. “Hi, how are you? I won’t play Cynthia. I want to play Tara, the lead.” Braxton Pope and Paul Schrader nod happily. They’d been tipped off by her agent that this was how it was going to go. They tell her that sounds like a great idea. #LongRead. Stop what you’re doing and read this article. It’s one of the most compelling pieces of entertainment journalism I’ve read in a long time. 
Pop-upView Separately

imwithkanye:

Here Is What Happens When You Cast Lindsay Lohan In Your Movie | NYT

Lindsay Lohan moves through the Chateau Marmont as if she owns the place, but in a debtor-prison kind of way. She’ll soon owe the hotel $46,000. Heads turn subtly as she slinks toward a table to meet a young producer and an old director. The actress’s mother, Dina Lohan, sits at the next table. Mom sweeps blond hair behind her ear and tries to eavesdrop. A few tables away, a distinguished-looking middle-aged man patiently waits for the actress. He has a stack of presents for her.

Lohan sits down, smiles and skips the small talk.

“Hi, how are you? I won’t play Cynthia. I want to play Tara, the lead.” Braxton Pope and Paul Schrader nod happily. They’d been tipped off by her agent that this was how it was going to go. They tell her that sounds like a great idea.

#LongRead. Stop what you’re doing and read this article. It’s one of the most compelling pieces of entertainment journalism I’ve read in a long time. 

There was no Lennay Kekua.

Lennay Kekua did not meet Manti Te’o after the Stanford game in 2009. Lennay Kekua did not attend Stanford. Lennay Kekua never visited Manti Te’o in Hawaii. Lennay Kekua was not in a car accident. Lennay Kekua did not talk to Manti Te’o every night on the telephone. She was not diagnosed with cancer, did not spend time in the hospital, did not engage in a lengthy battle with leukemia. She never had a bone marrow transplant. She was not released from the hospital on Sept. 10, nor did Brian Te’o congratulate her for this over the telephone. She did not insist that Manti Te’o play in the Michigan State or Michigan games, and did not request he send white flowers to her funeral. Her favorite color was not white. Her brother, Koa, did not inform Manti Te’o that she was dead.

Koa did not exist. Her funeral did not take place in Carson, Calif., and her casket was not closed at 9 a.m. exactly. She was not laid to rest.

In a bizarre investigative report, Deadspin discovers that the dead girlfriend of Notre Dame football star Manti Te’o was a fabrication.

As (mis)reported by ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, CBS, The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times and The South Bend Tribune among others, the Notre Dame football star carried a heavy heart throughout the 2012 football season when both his grandmother and Lennay Kekua, his girlfriend, died hours apart on the same September day.

Kekua, supposedly, due to complications from leukemia.

Turns out, Lennay Kekua is a fiction. Te’o, who says he met Kekua online, claims he is the victim of an Internet scam.

For the news organizations reporting on — and building up — the sad tale, let’s bring you back to newsroom 101 and the importance of fact checking: Just because one outlet reports it doesn’t make it true.

Read the piece though. A bizarre tale.

For more, ESPN does a follow-up.

(via futurejournalismproject)

Holy SHIT this is crazy.