by George Takei
And what do people who call “Photoshop,” even if correct, actually get out of it? Do they feel informative? Useful? Validated? They are in fact none of these. Annoying perhaps, condescending most certainly. On occasion a fan will link over to snopes.org, a site that has somehow become the definitive spot for debunking claims, urban legends, and Internet rumors. But Snopes itself is run by a retired couple out of California (according to Wikipedia) and as far as I know, nobody stops to ask whether that site has been vetted properly. It is ironic to me that someone can dismiss something on the Internet by referring to something else on the Internet.
For that matter, why in this day and age does anyone expect that the Internet is there to present us with complete reality? We understand that movies, books and theater are laden with fiction, and that our disbelief is to be suspended in order for us to enjoy ourselves. The Internet is a place of both fact and fiction, akin to television in some ways, but we still haven’t figured out how to tune our brains properly to that. Perhaps this is the magic behind the Infomercial — it appears to be “informative” but really is a bunch of malarkey (thank you, Joe Biden, for resurrecting that fine word). We’re all supposed to be savvy enough to understand this, but obviously there are enough dupes out there to believe anything they are fed.
Now, I can understand the outcry if a “news” organization put out a photoshopped image and expected everyone to accept it at face value. But even our “news” these days often comes packaged with strong biases. The media is starting to understand that people will “buy” what they want to hear. That explains the growing popularity of MSNBC among liberals and FOX News among conservatives. They are the “Infonewtials” of the modern era.
When it comes to pure laughs, however, maybe the Internet should be put through a less arduous screening, and we should be able to have a good chuckle about something without someone else throwing a wet blanket over it all. I say, save the debunking for important facts and rumors, not for images and memes meant to entertain.
The Internet is, after all, a place where mistakes, like mutations, may be propagated into reality. Recently, I shared an article posted by huffingtonpost.com about a woman in Louisiana who claimed she’d been set on fire by three men, who later scrawled “KKK” on her car. It was truly a horrific story, and I expressed my outrage that such an attack could still occur today. A special “prayer” page had been set up online for the victim, and I included a link to that. Unfortunately, the entire thing turned out to be a tragic fabrication. Evidence soon indicated that the woman in fact had set herself on fire and invented her attackers. Upon learning this, I posted a “retraction” of my earlier post, and expressed pity for the woman who clearly was in need of a “different kind of help” now.
This was a keen lesson in how fake stories can become real in a matter of seconds, but was also an indication of how the Internet ultimately corrects itself. Yes, I took some flak for posting my original outrage. But again, I wonder whether it’s fair or realistic to hold someone like me, a private citizen, to a standard of journalistic fact checking. Should I be expected to couch all of my posts with caveats and disclaimers? Should I refrain from sharing anything that might later turn out not to be true? I’ve given significant thought to this, and concluded that it’s better to participate and own up to my own errors than it is to self-censor.
There’s another way in which the Internet creates and propagates new things and ideas, even things that are plainly mistakes. Here’s an example. When I first started posting online, on occasion I would post a story or anecdote in which the victim turns the tables and “burns” the oppressor back, giving him his due as it were. Fans love a good “got him good” story, and share these liberally with their friends. We all want justice in the world, and examples of wrongdoers getting their comeuppances resonate strongly with all of us. I recall one example in particular:
If your eyesight is anything like mine, you can’t read the above note left by a co-worker on the office refrigerator, so I figured I’d include the text here for your benefit.
DEAR FOOD PILFERERS,
IT’S BEEN APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH SINCE MY DELICIOUS BROWNIES STARTED RANDOMLY DISAPPEARING, EVEN THOUGH MY NAME WAS CLEARLY AND PROMINENTLY WRITTEN ON THE TUB. I REALLY HOPE YOU ENJOYED THEM AS MUCH AS I WAS UNABLE TO, AS MY 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER MADE THEM FOR ME WITH THE HELP OF MY HUSBAND.
OBVIOUSLY, MY PREVIOUS FRIDGE NOTES FELL ON DEAF EARS, SO I DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO TAKE A BIT MORE OF A DIRECT APPROACH. SO, I LEFT AN ANONYMOUS TIP WITH HR, SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROMINENCE OF DRUG USE IN THE COMPANY AND THE POTENTIAL LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT WERE POSSIBLE...YADDA,YADDA YADDA. THAT IS THE REASON WE ALL HAD TO TAKE A RANDOM DRUG TEST YESTERDAY.
OH... I FORGOT TO MENTION... FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS I HAVE BEEN LACING THE BROWNIES WITH MARIJUANA. NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF EFFECTS, BUT JUST ENOUGH TO SHOW UP ON A DRUG SCREEN.
CHECK. MATE.
I came to understand that this type of story is properly acknowledged with the comment “OWNED,” as in “she owned him good.” Urbandictionary.com defines it this way:
TOTAL AND UNDENIABLE DOMINANCE OF A PERSON, GROUP OF PEOPLE OR SITUATION AS TO MAKE THEM/IT AKIN TO ONE’S BITCH.
It really is a colorful word and covers so much of life’s obvious inequities.
I started noticing, however, that some of my fans, largely young males between the ages of 18 and 25, would comment with the word “PWNED” instead of “OWNED.” It occurred too frequently for it to be a coincidental error. Curious, I asked some of my younger friends what that meant. Apparently, the term originated in the online game World of Warcraft, which I’m told accounted for a measurable drop in total U.S. productivity after it premiered. In that game, a map designer had created a typo with the word “owned” and spelled it instead as “pwned.” When the computer defeated a player, instead of saying so-and-so has been “owned” it said, “has been pwned.”
And thus was born a new word, and a fine example of the phenomenon of error replication. If a mistake occurs with regularity, it might well become the norm. If enough people believe and propagate the error, it could become gospel. Another example is the term zOMG. I saw this also occur with regularity in my comments, and I had to ask why. Apparently, people mistakenly hit the “z” key instead of the shift key when typing OMG, causing a common error. Enough people did this, and soon it became “it’s own thing.”
Perhaps this is the real reason the Doubters of the world have their work cut out for them. The Internet is a place where original fiction quickly becomes fact, where mistakes become the norm, and where attribution is nearly impossible.
Betty White is a victim — or perhaps a beneficiary — of this phenomenon. A popular Internet meme, which I also reposted, has her complaining:
Now, according to snopes.com (you see what I did there?), Betty White likely never said this. At least one web administrator source claims that Ms. White wrote him an email, protesting that these were not her words and that she was upset with the attribution. The Doubters postulate that the joke actually belongs to a comedian named Sheng Wang. But here’s the thing: It sounds like something Betty White would say, and we all wish she really had said it because it makes her all the more “Betty Whitish” to us. People simply are likely to continue to share this and laugh about it until it becomes its own reality.
One of our greatest presidents said it best, in fact:
Use The Source
I don’t come up with most of my own images. Nearly all of them come straight from fans, who post them on my wall or send them to me as email attachments through my website. I’ll flip through something on the order of a hundred posts — and as many emails — every morning, generally from the day before.
Fans don’t always understand that it may be days, weeks or even months before I’ll repost something they’ve shared, even if I really like it. Indeed, it’s rare that I’ll see something and repost it right away. For starter
s, there’s usually a backlog of things I’ve been meaning to share. So for something to jump the line, it needs to be particularly compelling.
I’m also admittedly something of a meme hoarder. I’ve been downloading funny images for nearly two years. Many of them aren’t even funny any more, having been beaten to death by so many likes and shares and LOL comments. But I keep them around anyway, tucked away in my virtual chest of funnies. On occasion I’ll go back and find a gem or two that makes sense within a particular context or news event, or tickles my fancy because I’m in a mood. Holiday related memes in particular might sit for a whole year before they get hauled out again, like last year’s Christmas tree ornaments or Brad’s Easter Bunny ears.
I’m also a morning person — a very early morning person — and as a consequence I’m usually up at the crack of dawn reviewing fan submissions. Nobody else would ever see them if I shared them right away. So if something makes me laugh or think, I’ll download it and give it a file name that will help me remember what it is later. Or at least that’s the idea. Often the naming helps not a whit. I’m looking at a file name “FunnyFromBradGandalf” and have no recollection whatsoever of it, if it’s from Brad Gandalf, or if this means Brad found something funny about Gandalf.
It’s further apparent to me that the vast majority of these images don’t belong to the fans who sent them. They are typically images they found on some other site, or had some other friend send to them. So the best that I can say at any time is “From a fan” — if I even remember that it came from a fan, and not one of my interns as they surfed the Net. Truth be told, by the time I get around to posting the image, I have really no idea where it came from, unless some kind of credit appears as a mark on the image itself. Often certain humor sites add their Facebook URL or website to the image to try and preserve some kind of ownership or claim over it, but as is typically the case, even those sites are at best borrowers of the image.
I commend sites and comics that come up with original content. One of my favorites is Rick Polito, who writes film summaries for a newspaper. Here are some of my favorites of Rick’s:
Photo Credit: Rick Polito. Used with Permission.
I also really like a Facebook page called “Beware of Images”—which also apparently takes the time to create some original, thought-provoking memes like this one:
Or frankly hilarious ones like these:
Photo Credit: Sergio Toporek. Used with Permission.
Photo Credit: Mariel Clayton. Used with Permission.
But these are the exceptions. Most content on the Internet appears to have oozed forth from some primordial and undifferentiated goop. This makes identifying the original source of an image on the Internet damned near impossible. Even in the drafting of this book, when I wanted to use a particularly funny image, I have had my interns move heaven and earth to try and find out who really owned it, verify that as best as they could, and then get written permission to put it in the book. But after all this, I am dubious of many claims of ownership and rights to license.
Despite my best efforts to give proper attribution, fans and page administrators of other sites have taken issue with me. For example, on occasion I will read comments and a fan will simply write words like “9gag” or “Reddit” in the comment stream. I am not a user of sites beyond the ones I post on (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and on rare occasion Google+). So I had to ask around about what these sites were, and then I paid them a quick visit.
It turns out there are whole humor sites out there where fans generate memes and share them with one another, and on some vote them up or down. To quote Betty White, “It seems like an awful waste of time.” I’m sure these sites have their avid followings, but I already have my hands full looking through my own wall posts from fans without having to look at more. I figure if something is particularly funny on “Reddit” someone will probably post it to my wall, and I can get it there. Nor does it bother me that some other page posted it first. Being “first” in the Internet is like being the first runner to round the curve in a race. People may notice you momentarily, but then you’re just another runner with the pack, trying to make it to the finish line.
Speaking of being “first,” I’ve also noticed that many of my posts will begin their comment streams with some fan posting the word “FIRST!” There are a number of amusing things about this. There’s no prize for being first, so I’m not exactly sure what the point of the comment is. I sometime wonder if there are people out there who sit watching their screen for one of my posts, just so they can claim to be first. I suppose it’s the same mentality that causes people to camp out for iPhones or concert tickets.
Moreover, the poster can never really be sure they are first, because they are competing for that position with tens of thousands of other readers. Someone can probably type “lol” faster than “FIRST!” making the “FIRST!” look rather foolish sitting there in second place for all the world to see. And in any case, the “FIRST!” commenters subject themselves to significant ridicule even if they manage to be first, with sneering responses such as “Wow, Walter, you’re first. Do you want a friggin’ cookie? Loser.”
I’ve had some fun with this “FIRST!” phenomenon, readying myself to type “FIRST!” in the comment box as soon as my post appears. I know, it’s cheating, but it’s to underscore the silliness of the process. I once got over 50 likes just for posting my own “FIRST!” comment (yes, I actually go back and look to see who’s paying attention). Now, the other day, I actually tried this ruse but came in second. That got me steamed, looking at my “First” declaration squeezed sadly into second place by some hack. Then I remembered that it was my page. I simply clicked “hide” on the comment above mine.
Problem solved, I’m still the winner!
But back to the question of sources. As I noted earlier in this book, time and again, I’ve fought a battle between the need to get something out quickly (to remain topical) and the need to verify something’s authenticity (to remain credible). I rely on my fans to provide me with content, and I have no real idea where they get their information or their images.
Newsrooms face this problem every day of their existence from listener tips, but I tend to face it most during disasters and elections. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, I took it upon myself, somewhat naively, to try and provide information and resources about the storm. I encouraged fans to send in photos of storm damage, thinking that this might help motivate other fans to donate money to relief efforts out of sympathy. Similarly, I encouraged fans to send me election-related stories, particularly if they were in long polling lines or their machines did not record their votes accurately.
The problem, of course, was that some of the photos I began to receive were obviously fabricated — “shopped” as it were, or taken from another storm while claiming to be current. Some of the information I received was quite apparently inaccurate or misleading. Twice on Election Day I had to take down posts that listed “hotline” numbers which actually were partisan in nature. “Storm coverage” photos showing sharks swimming inland in New Jersey were dubious. Reports of power outages and power plant explosions couldn’t be verified.
There really isn’t a good answer to getting sources right, particularly since my outfit here consists of me, Brad and our interns. We can’t spend our time fact checking everything that pushes past our emails or my wall. And realistically speaking, I can’t be expected to provide credit, let alone obtain permission, with respect to each image, meme or quote I put up on my page. In this sense Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest run smack into copyright laws that no one has figured out how, or even whether, to enforce.
Perhaps the best solution is to simply not take our “Internet” sources or information too seriously. During Hurricane Sandy, many of my fans were spending their energy imploring me not to post pictures that may not have been taken that day or may have been “shopped.” Out of exasperation, I posted this image, but emphasized that due to the high number
of fake images out there, I had verified it first with Fox News:
Now, to be fair and balanced, on election night, I also posted: “MSNBC called the election for Obama, but that was back in October.”
Epic Fail, Epic Win
I appreciate failure. Failure means that an attempt was made, and a lesson can be learned. As long as we’re alive after the effort, there is a chance for success the next time around. As a friend sometimes says to me, “That which does not kill us pisses the hell out of us.”
A “fail” can be small or big. We appreciate the special kind of humor that small fails can bring: a sign advertising a ham special for Hanukkah; autocorrects that turn innocuous texts from family members into erotic messages; a Facebook profile of a woman next to Leonard Nimoy, with the caption “Biggest Star Wars fan ever!” The small failures bring us together because each of us experiences them regularly and can relate. They are reminders of our own tendency to make mistakes while hoping no one else sees them.
When failures happen to famous people, they remind us that we’re all human, and that we shouldn’t take failure as an indictment of who we are, or who we might become.
“Epic” fails speak to us on a somewhat different level. By epic, I mean something with grand scope and grand design. “Grand” of course is all in the mind of the dreamer; something can be epic even if the dreamer is no hero. To be epic is an attempt, even by the common person, to achieve or experience the inconceivable. We recognize when others have pushed their own limits and, as a consequence, rendered their choices and actions epic. Thus, a rafting trip with friends down a river can be epic, especially if it is their first time paddling. An all night bender can turn epic for all its unexpected twists and turns, especially if someone winds up sharing a jail cell with a transvestite hooker.
