Category: The Media

Capitalizing on popularity

Posted on by Brian Lee

I recently saw a trailer for a new Fox’s cartoon that made me irrationally irritated.  And by new I of course mean the television version of the 2004 movie “Napoleon Dynamite.”

Now, it’s not that I dislike the movie. To be honest, I haven’t seen the movie all the way through.  I have seen enough bits and pieces to understand the cultural references but I doubt I’ll ever sit down and watch it in its entirety. It’s just one of those movies where it isn’t necessary for me.

My annoyance stems from the movie being eight years old!  If this show came out in 2005 when all the “Vote for Pedro” shirts were popular and everyone doing terrible job impersonating Jon Heder then I wouldn’t have an issue.

I will never hate on someone trying to capitalize on their cultural niche. But you have to move fast.  It doesn’t make sense to wait because you’ll lose the momentum, which is the reason people take interest in sequels, endorsements, merchandise, etc.  I mean come on, think about those kids from the Jersey Shore.  Eight years from now, do you believe anyone is buying Snooki perfume or the Situation’s workout DVD? It’s doubtful.  So I hope they put their name on everything and jump on any spinoff offered! Make that money while you can!

It just doesn’t make sense for a “Napoleon Dynamite” show in 2012. But maybe I am wrong.  Maybe there is a huge nerd following that’s been waiting for years to have Napoleon and crew back in their lives.  I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

Who cares about Asian carp?

Posted on by Brian Lee

I’m really sick of the recurring stories about Asian carp. Reporters and editors preach so much about publishing stories that matter to/affect their readers, but the Asian carp is not one of them. If it did, reporters would explain why higher in the story.

Take this story from The Capital Times, titled “Fears become reality as invasive Asian carp detected in two Wisconsin Rivers.” Who is fearing the Asian carp? Not the vast majority of readers, I suspect.

In fact, it isn’t until the seventh paragraph that the writer says “… carp destroy and disturb the natural habitat of waterways because of their ability to eat a significant amount of plankton daily.”

At this point, the writer fails to explain how destroyed waterways directly impact the reader. As it stands, the article just sounds like another whiny environmental piece, and most people nowadays are immune to those types of stories, it seems.

Note: I don’t mean to single-out The Capital Times. Other newspapers, such as the Wisconsin State Journal and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, are guilty as well.

AP Stylebook updates

Posted on by Brian Lee

I’m getting fed up with the AP Stylebook. I thought it was dumb to write “Web site,” but I did it anyway, feeling like I was in the minority. In fact, publications such as Time and Sports Illustrated used “website” instead.

Then the folks behind the AP Stylebook finally relented in 2010 and changed it to “website.” This week, they announced they were converting “e-mail” to “email.”

This reminds me of the late 1990s when the Oxford-English Dictionary added the word “trekker” to describe “Star Trek” fans, even though for years they were known as “trekkies.” Why just make up a new word? In the case of the AP, why force people to write “Web site” and “e-mail” when everyone had previously used “website” and “email”????

The Oxford-English Dictionary eventually dropped “trekker” and added “trekkies.” And now we see the AP Stylebook coming to its senses. Next time, just get it correct the first time.