Posts Tagged ‘ media ’

The Internet Has Ruined “I Don’t Own a TV”

rupauls-drag-raceRemember the good old days when you could bow out of any entertainment-related conversation just by saying “I don’t own a TV”?

Yeah, the internet ruined that one.

I’m put in mind of this by an Onion article  – “Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn’t Own a Television” — that one of my Tuesday night X-Rated Trivia teammates shared, in large part because we’re constantly getting hammered on the RuPaul’s Drag Race questions.

If you miss one of those in a gay bar, obviously, the immediate and universal reaction is “Ohmigawd don’t you watch RuPaul?”

And you know what? We tried the “we don’t own a TV” thing. We really did. It’s been my default out on pop culture questions practically since birth, and suddenly it failed me: “Uh, you guys know it’s online, right?”

Well fuck.

Look, we tried to be polite. We go out of our way not to be the “I’d just rather be reading Proust” asshole from the Onion article. But if you’re going to force the point, yeah, we don’t know the RuPaul questions because the show is shit, TV in general is shit, and we really would rather be reading Proust, or for that matter reading The Onion.

Sorry. We tried to give you the “pity the poor culturally benighted Luddites” angle, but no. You had to push, and now you’re stuck with the “quietly resent those effete intellectuals” role.

Well, okay, probably not “effete.” It is a gay bar. They don’t really hold that against you.

But seriously. The internet ruined my best out. Now I have to actually tell you that I think your show is stupid and I won’t bother watching it even when it’s easily accessible.

No hard feelings?

“Hard,” hur hur hur.

Research Spending is Not “Government Waste” — and the WSJ Should Know Better

18002-WSJ-Logo.180x180The Wall Street Journal has an editorial page that is famously divorced from the reality the rest of the paper covers. But even I was surprised to find not one but two editorials in it today claiming that the sequester was an opportunity to look at wasteful government programs — and primarily citing academic and scientific research as examples of that waste.

This has become a bit of a theme in right-wing media and talking points lately, even among our elected representatives that don’t believe science is “lies from the pit of hell,” and it should alarm you.

A few weeks back I mentioned Eric Cantor’s complaint that the government was paying people to play World of Warcraft. It wasn’t, and the program he was talking about was a medical research study at North Carolina State University that looked at ways to increase cognitive test performance in seniors.

But these are the windmills conservatives have decided to tilt at post-sequestration. Kimberley Strassel (a regular WSJ columnist) and Tom Coburn (the froth-speckled Senator from Oklahoma) both rapped the federal government in the WSJ today for wasting, among other things:

  • $141,000 spent by the EPA “to fund a Chinese study on swine manure.”
  • $325,000 from the NSF for “building a robotic squirrel.”
  • $181,000 “studying how cocaine affects the reproductive habits of Japanese quail.”

There is a real problem with listing these like they were purchases at a shopping market. We did not run the government cart down an aisle of Hammacher Schlemmer-like frivolities: “Oh, what the hell, throw the pig poop study and the robot squirrel in there. We’ll use ‘em for something some day.”

pigsResearch grants fund discoveries that we actively benefit from. Not a fan of Chinese research into swine manure? That’s too bad; the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – one of the top scientific journals in the world — published a paper on that very topic last month. Both Chinese and American scientists worked on that study, and the results are immediately relevant for farm, food safety, and public health practices. The specific grant Ms. Strassel objects to is funding research for treatment of waste in open manure pits, and if she doesn’t see any benefit to that I invite her to drive through Iowa with the windows down any summer she likes.

The robotic squirrel was designed for use in a study of rattlesnake predation methods and prey behaviors. It’s essentially a solution to the basic problem of researching animals in the wild: they don’t go where you tell them to robot-squirreland they don’t do the behaviors you’re studying when you want them to. A lifelike robot squirrel, heated to the body temperature of a real squirrel and equipped to raise its tail in the “signaling” method real squirrels use, lets researchers prompt rattlesnakes into behaving on cue, when the cameras are in place to record them. And yes, Ms. Strassel, the behavior of rattlesnakes — and predators of our Western ecosystems in general – is of interest to a number of U.S. industries, with farming and ranching at the head of the list.

Japanese_Quail

And the quail study is directly aimed at producing long-term public health benefits. We already know cocaine use is associated with risky sexual behaviors; the researchers behind the study are looking for the neurochemical reasons why, with an eye toward more effective treatment and therapy for addiction down the road. “Research that eventually helps us cure problems” is pretty much what the NIH is supposed to spend money on. And yes — they do use animals for that research instead of people, sometimes even animals with furren-sounding names like “Japanese quail.” But please, Senator, just trust us when we say that’s how science works.

There is plenty of government waste out there, at every level. I grew up with the joke “What’s orange and seats three? A Cook County snowplow — but only if they’re all cousins.” Periodically examining the budget for waste is a worthwhile endeavor.

But the willingness of a major newspaper like The Wall Street Journal – which routinely reports on breakthroughs made by research programs just like the examples above — to include these expenditures as “government waste” gives you a good idea how divorced from reality right-wing commentary has become.

It’s always a trip down the most privileged rabbit hole in the world to read the WSJ editorial page, but their arc toward the more radically anti-science depths of the Republican party philosophy is fairly alarming.

Modern Things I Just Don’t Fucking Get: TED Talks

ted_logoWell, we can add to the list of things I just don’t get (which currently includes shower gel and those reusable paper towel things, plus a bunch of other stuff I haven’t thought to write about yet I’m sure) — those perennially-forwarded, eighteen-minute TED talks.

I’ve watched a handful. I’ve even enjoyed a couple by speakers I like, talking on subjects I’m interested in, and therein lies the problem, really. There’s no meaningful content or challenge in these things. They’re just a little over fifteen minutes of feel-good talk on comfortable subjects for you.

It’s about the intellectual engagement of a post on your favorite web forum, dressed up in the trappings of a Serious Business Conference (powerpoint, audience of rich white guys in collared shirts, etc.) to lend it artificial authority.

And that’s okay, to a point. There’s nothing really wrong with some pop-learning. I guess the titular “modern thing I just don’t fucking get” isn’t so much the talks themselves as the moral and intellectual weight people seem to give them. TED talks get discussed pretty seriously on your social media of choice, and I’m not sure there’s actually that much meat for discussion in there.

People say a lot of stupid shit in TED talks! The content is almost always biased and agenda-driven, rarely based on any hard data or peer-evaluated science, and occasionally just flat-out wrong. Even at their best they are, by virtue of the time limit, a very shallow summary of the topic at hand.

So watch ‘em, I guess, if that’s your thing. I’ve enjoyed a couple here and there. But they’re light entertainment at most, and I definitely do not get the aura of Big, Serious Ideas that surrounds them — or the $6,000 sticker price to get into the TED conference.

I Can’t Tell Whether Jezebel Does This Shit on Purpose or Not

Somedays I just don’t know. Failed and insensitive attempt at humor? Deliberate trolling to generate controversy, and thereby page views? Pure lazy editing on the part of an understaffed copy room, with no one around to say “maybe let’s cut the Christ bit in the piece about Jews”? There’s honestly no way to tell.

jezebel-jewish-women-chrissake

But hey, it gives me a post for the day. Can’t complain too much.

On an unrelated note, have you submitted a romantic story for our February story contest yet? There’s still time!

Planned Parenthood Moves Away from “Pro-Choice” Label. Good.

The video dropped about a week ago, so I’m not sure why the reaction took so long, but there seems to be a stir today about an animated short from Planned Parenthood:

According to their text, the video, titled “Not in Her Shoes,” is Planned Parenthood’s attempt to “help people talk about abortion without feeling boxed in by the pro-life vs. pro-choice labels.” For those that can’t watch online*, the core of the argument is in these paragraphs:

Pro-choice? Pro-life? The truth is these labels limit the conversation and simply don’t reflect how people actually feel about abortion.

A majority of Americans believe abortion should remain safe and legal. Many just don’t use the words pro-choice. They don’t necessarily identify as pro-life either. Truth is, they just don’t want to be labeled.

What they want is for a woman to have access to safe and legal abortion, if and when she needs it.

At the surface, this doesn’t seem too controversial. PP appears to be going where their data directs them: somewhere between a quarter and a third of “key voters” (recent voters, African-American, Hispanic, and youth), depending on how you break down the demographics, identify as either “both” pro-life and pro-choice or as “wouldn’t use labels,” according to a Glover Park Group survey from December 2012 that PP is relying on. The video is a fairly transparent outreach to people who might be sympathetic to abortion providers but don’t want to think of themselves as ideologically invested in one “side” or the other.

But apparently the purists don’t see it that way. There’s been a bit of a low-key freakout across the liberal media — the actual liberal media, mind you, not the paranoid fantasy that all media is liberal outside of Fox News; I’m talking about sources like Socialist Worker and statements from groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America here — that Planned Parenthood is somehow abandoning the movement.

planned-parenthood-logo

And I have to say, I’m not sure this is the concession to anti-abortion forces it’s getting billed as. The phrase “pro-life” was an anti-abortion marketing choice in the first place; “pro-choice” was a belated and fairly weak countermove to avoid getting boxed in as the obvious opposite of “pro-life,” i.e., “pro-death” or “anti-life.” It’s never been a particularly advantageous framework for supporters of abortion access.

The reality currently playing out at the voting booth is that a majority of Americans prefer access to abortion, but only a minority identifies as “pro-choice.” Which segment would you pitch your advertising at?

Ideological purity is just as silly on the left as it is on the right.

*Those that can’t watch online are, unfortunately, missing one of the best Freudian slips in the history of advertising, right around the 1:14 mark, where a sound editing hiccup makes the phrase “or raise a child” sound like “erase a child.” I’m amazed they let that one go live.

The Manti Te’o Hoax: What the Hell Were Thousands of Media Professionals Thinking?

manti-teo-notre-dameMy first job out of college, at a quarterly magazine, was a quaint little thing called “fact checking.” (Also, to be fair, copy editing, web content, and even the occasional bit of writing — it was a pretty good gig, as far as those first jobs go. But the key part of it for today’s purposes is the fact checking.)

Fact checking is not a particularly sophisticated art. It involves going through the rough draft of a story and making a little mark in red next to every statement of checkable fact. So if the lede is something like “Dr. John Dongley Thompson, an erectile dysfunction specialist at Sweet Mother of God Hospital in downtown Chicago, is having a hard time keeping up with demand for his services,” the fact checker goes through and makes a little dash or something above “Dr.,” above the name, above the specialization, and above the hospital name and location.

Then he/she hastens to yon internet and double-checks that all those things are, in fact, true — that this guy exists and has a doctorate from somewhere, that his name is spelled right, that he does indeed practice the kind of medicine the story says he practices, and that he is in fact employed by the hospital named and that it is still in business and located where the article says it is.

It’s not a very glamorous job. But it is an important one, and at the risk of self-aggrandizement, I’m going to go ahead and say that having done it for a summer more than qualifies me to ask: where the hell were everybody’s fact-checkers when they were running their heartwarming Manti Te’o stories?

manti-teo-deadspin-blarney

If you’re like me, “Manti Te’o” was not a name you’d heard before this week. He is apparently a bit of a somebody in college football? But this year he was especially somebody because he not only played football well, he also had a heartwarming story about a sick girlfriend and, eventually, a dead girlfriend, along with a dead grandmother or something like that.

And like many people this week, I found out about this whole precious story because Deadspin blew it out of the water. I’d never heard of Manti Te’o, much less his girlfriend and her tragic battle with cancer or whatever, until Deadspin (Deadspin! Fucking Deadspin!) ran a blockbuster “scoop” pointing out that Manti Te’o doesn’t have a dead girlfriend. So maybe it’s a little too easy for me to pass judgement.

But seriously? From the Deadspin article:

Manti Te’o did lose his grandmother this past fall. Annette Santiago died on Sept. 11, 2012, at the age of 72, according to Social Security Administration records in Nexis. But there is no SSA record there of the death of Lennay Marie Kekua, that day or any other. Her passing, recounted so many times in the national media, produces no obituary or funeral announcement in Nexis, and no mention in the Stanford student newspaper.

Nor is there any report of a severe auto accident involving a Lennay Kekua. Background checks turn up nothing. The Stanford registrar’s office has no record that a Lennay Kekua ever enrolled. There is no record of her birth in the news. Outside of a few Twitter and Instagram accounts, there’s no online evidence that Lennay Kekua ever existed.

The photographs identified as Kekua—in online tributes and on TV news reports—are pictures from the social-media accounts of a 22-year-old California woman who is not named Lennay Kekua. She is not a Stanford graduate; she has not been in a severe car accident; and she does not have leukemia. And she has never met Manti Te’o.

This would not be a big story if every major news source in the country hadn’t run something or other, at some point, about all of those untrue claims the Deadspin article just listed.

ESPN talked about his inspiring story. Sports Illustrated talked about it. The South Bend Tribune wouldn’t shut up about it, ever. And they were all printing something completely unsupported by the simplest and most checkable of facts, and then other news sources picked it up and ran the same, bogus story, without ever checking it on their watch.

newspaper-reporter-typewriterThe sad part is that Deadspin finally figuring their shit out (and even they got an anonymous tip that got them moving; it’s not like they started doing basic journalism on their own either) is being treated like a serious investigative scoop, when all they did was what everyone that ever touched this story should have done: check the goddamn facts.

Did the guy tell you his girlfriend went to Stanford? Brilliant! Check their student registries. He talks about a car crash? Look up the accident report! She’s in the hospital? Maybe think about calling around and seeing if anyone has a patient by that name.

These things are thirty second jobs, maybe a minute, tops, for a $12-an-hour summer intern fresh out of undergrad. There’s no excuse for The New York Times to be running a story that refers to a made-up woman as a “Stanford alumnus” — but the Times did. And the list of top-tier media sources that made the same basic error goes on and on; the Deadspin article quite gleefully — and quite correctly — calls them out on it one by one.

Sports writers are going to be making a lot of hay out of who knew what when, and whether Manti Te’o was in on the scam and if so how deep, and so on, but that’s all a bunch of barn-door closing. The real story here is that, for at least a year, sports media have been making front page news out of a bogus story, and not even a very good one. Five minutes of fact-checking could have spiked any one of the dozens of headline Manti Te’o/Lennay Kekua articles that ran in 2012.

Good job, guys.

Deadspin (fucking Deadspin; seriously now) sums it all up bluntly:

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.

Lennay Kekua’s last words to Manti Te’o were not “I love you.”

And that’s the real story here.

If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

The Wall Street Journal’s “Funny Pages”

First, an important credit: while I do have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal, and even manage pretty well in my efforts to make it through at least the front section every day, I did not notice the following image the first time through, or at least didn’t pick up on the inadvertent hilarity of it. Mike Peterson pointed it out over at his blog, Comic Strip of the Day, which is well worth your time — his writing is reliably as funny or funnier than the comics he features.

The image in question, from the WSJ a couple of weeks ago:

WSJ-tax-jump

I shared this on Facebook the other day with a pretty basic observation: only in The Wall Street Journal do people making six figures look so wan and world-weary.

Now, to be fair, other income brackets aren’t absent because The Wall Street Journal can’t conceive of their existence; the article this graphic accompanied was specifically about the $250,000-$450,000ish earners.

But it’s still a far cry from life as a single mother making $260,000 a year to Les Miserables, and you wouldn’t know that from the Journal’s presentation of the facts.

les-miserables-child-flag

Which brings me to an entertaining little family story: for many years, my grandmother and grandfather, frugal Iowans that they were, gave us our Christmas and birthday gifts wrapped in the funny pages. This was before the internet, of course, so The Des Moines Register still had a pretty beefy comic section, with enough full-color Sunday pages to wrap a couple of good-sized gifts, and a combination of childhood nostalgia and good old-fashioned cheapskatedness has kept the tradition intermittently alive in my family ever since.

The Wall Street Journal, which is the only daily newspaper I get at my apartment in Madison, doesn’t have a comics page, so a few years back I started wrapping gifts in the editorial section instead. So far no one’s complained about a drop in the quality of the humor on my wrapping paper.

(Of course, my subscription to the Journal itself was a gift, so it all gets a bit recursive under the Christmas tree. But we have to save money somewhere, what with all these tax increases coming our way. Thanks, Obummer!)

Funny thought in closing: all of the examples in the Journal graphic pay more in income tax than I make in a year. In fact, the hypothetical family of six actually gets a tax increase larger than my yearly income. But that’s mostly because we’ve stopped giving them money for having more babies, which I can’t really criticize from a social responsibility standpoint. Now if only we could get rid of that deduction for households making less than $300,000 annually, while we’re at it…

Rape in the News and Our Love of the Outrage Narrative

gavelA sad story out of California has been making the rounds since yesterday: the overturning, on appeal, of the conviction of a man who snuck into a woman’s room while she was sleeping, had sex with her pretending to be her boyfriend, and then left when she woke up, pushed him away, and began to cry and yell.

I think everyone can agree that this was rape. Two different ways in one act, even — first because she was asleep (i.e., not consenting), and second because, when she woke, she initially thought she was having sex with her boyfriend (i.e., not informed consent even if she had given it).

That duality is actually what the defense took advantage of on appeals: they argued that it was unclear whether the initial jury had found the defendant guilty because they believed the former was rape, or the latter, or both, and California law (passed in 1872 and unmodified since) only considers pretending to be another person to coerce sex to be rape if it is done by someone who is not a woman’s husband.

Since the defendant is unmarried, the defense argued, sex-by-deceit would not, under California law, constitute rape. They requested a retrial on the basis that the jury’s decision might have improperly taken the deceit into account in their verdict, and the panel of judges agreed.

So cue the outrage (and there is plenty of it) about how the court system is constantly failing and these awful conservative judges are unsympathetic to rape victims, should be run out of town on a rail, etc. Which is natural — but misses the point. Several points, actually, all of which are salient but all of which also make for a less heart-warming rage porn story to fuel your righteous indignation:

  • First, and probably most-overlooked by everyone that seems to have an opinion on the story, the defendant wasn’t acquitted. He was granted a retrial in front of a different jury. That jury will almost certainly still find him guilty, on the basis that having sex with a sleeping or unconscious person is explicitly rape under California law.
  • Second, the panel’s opinion makes it clear that they are not happy about this decision, but agree on the legal conclusion. It was a badly-written law that left a loophole, and should have been updated generations ago — but it is the law on the books. The judges’ opinion is larded with phrases like “because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape” and “We reluctantly hold that a person who accomplishes sexual intercourse by impersonating someone other than a married victim’s spouse is not guilty of the crime of rape of an unconscious person under section 261, subdivision (a)(4),” none of which even hint at personal sympathy or leniency toward the defendant.
  • Third, the defendant in question already served his time. As gross as it is that he could potentially be found “not guilty” and have his record altered, he has already been punished with the full force of law. Not harshly enough, perhaps (only three years in prison), but that was his sentence and he served it. This doesn’t even represent a chance to get off scot-free, and if it did it would still be a slim chance (see the first point).

I realize that those are complicating factors in the deliciously provoking narrative of “the courts always protect rapists” — which is a narrative played out in plenty of horrible stories, if you want to go find them and be angry about them. There really are shameful acquittals and deeply offensive judicial opinions out there, all the time.

But the fact is that this guy was found guilty by a jury of his peers, who didn’t seem to have any trouble agreeing that what he did was, in fact, rape. The only people that have actively tried to argue that it was anything but rape are his defense lawyers.

Passively complicit, we could argue, are the California legislators of 1872, who should have written protection for unmarried women into the law in the first place — though it was progressive for its time, and written deliberately to counter the precedent set by contemporary English courts, which had concluded that pretending to be someone else for purposes of obtaining consent wasn’t rape, so long as the consent was given. And we can certainly be disappointed in 130-odd years of legislatures that never considered updating the language.

But it’s not really the story of the complacent, patriarchal rape culture it’s being made out to be, and I think we all ought to examine our outrage a little bit. Are we actually looking at cultural problems and ways to change them when we read stories like these? Or do we just like getting angry about sad things that didn’t hurt us personally? The frantic urge to blame the judge, the courts, etc. makes me think it’s more the latter for a lot of people.

Anger can be good, used constructively, but unthinking anger that manifests itself as a scolding comment on a news article or a sad Facebook post and nothing more is masturbatory at best. There are real things this story could encourage us to do (start by checking your own state’s consent laws, for example, and if it has similarly archaic language and assumptions, write your legislators to get them on that shit — forward them the article as a spur).

Just be angry about the right thing, even when it doesn’t fit the righteously-indignant narrative so lovingly constructed for us by outrage-porn “news” sites like Jezebel and the Huffington Post.

The War on Christmas (Isn’t a Thing That Anyone Actually Believes Is Happening)

All right. All right.

I get it.

Your point has been made. This shit:

war-on-christmas-cartoon

And this shit:

batman-robin-christmas-fox-news

And some more of this shit:

winter-holidays

We get it. People who scream about “the reason for the season” and object to saying “happy holidays” are crazy. No one is trying to dispute that.

But no one ever actually sees people like that, either.

Sure, they exist, the same way that Roswell crazies are out there (pun intended). And yes, there are Fox news commentators who will talk seriously about “the war on Christmas” as a sort of yearly holiday programming. but you know who they are and if you watch their show, or even the little MediaMatters clips of their most egregious moments, you either agree with them already or were just looking to get pissed off and have no one to blame but yourself.

Do a little experiment. Google “the war on Christmas” and see what the latest news items are:

  • “John Stewart Mocks Bill O’Reilly’s War on Christmas”
  • “Catholic Priest Calls ‘Fox & Friends’ Anger Over War on Christmas Just Silly”
  • “Time to Call a Truce in the War on Christmas”
  • “The War on Christmas Resurfaces” (complaining about Fox News, not about a “war on Christmas”)
  • “Time to Take Sides in the War on Christmas” (same)

And on, and on, and on. Virtually every item that’s about “the war on Christmas” is actually an item about how the war on Christmas is this stupid overblown conservative freakout, citing either one Fox News program or an article from somewhere well out past the loony fringe as evidence.

So yeah, The Daily Caller is full of insane bullshit. It took Christmas stuff to tip you off? I’d have thought the whole birther thing was a good clue.

But no one else is talking about this, except for liberals who want to feel righteously indignant.

Stop it. You’re beating up a strawman. The only place you see the phrase “the war on Christmas” these days is in complaints about the war on Christmas.

The actual disputes that come up from time to time regarding displays of religious symbols in statehouses or on federal property are worth discussing. A generic idea of Christianish scolds telling you you’re going to hell because you said “happy holidays” is not, unless it happened to you personally and you want to bitch about it on Twitter. In which case more power to you — but let’s all stop pretending that it’s a great culture battle being fought every year, in which we’re all noble soldiers of secularism.

If a Story is Too Good to be True, It Probably Is (Especially If It Involves Unicorns)

You know what’s even more embarassing than publishing a news story that’s impossible to believe?

Publishing a piece about someone else’s impossible story, because ho ho ho those lesser journalists sure are silly, and getting the basic facts wrong.

Because let me tell you, I was, for obvious reasons thrilled — thrilled! — when news sites yesterday started reporting a North Korean claim to have found a unicorn’s lair.

Obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons.

And the official North Korean news service is not above printing some whoppers. I don’t even bother covering their fibs here; you could make a full-time blog out of it. Cracked.com has run some good “best of” lists if you’re into Korean absurdities. So a unicorn lair story is not beyond the realm of possibility.

But remember the giraffe penis? Stories in translation always need a second look.

And it turns out, upon that second look, that the Western journalists were pretty much unfounded in their criticism. io9 looks to have done some minimal fact-checking, by which I mean “running it by someone who speaks Korean and hoping they know what they’re talking about” (it is a Gawker blog, after all), and their grad student “expert” points out that the article simply claims to have found ancient writing reading “Kiringul,” which you can translate into English as “Unicorn’s Glade” or “Unicorn’s Glen” — or, if it makes a better story, “Unicorn Lair.”

Statue of a Qilin (or Kirin), sometimes translated into English as "unicorn."

Statue of a Qilin (or Kirin), sometimes translated into English as “unicorn.”

It’s also the name of a historical place, which is the significance any Korean would automatically associate with it. It is, as the io9 article points out, sort of like seeing a U.S. road sign for “Devil’s Peak” and writing a news story about how those silly Americans think they discovered Satan hiding on a mountain.

Now there are a lot of problems with the claim. The archaeology looks dubious at best, and this probably is mostly a puff piece for a regime that wants to associate itself with an ancient, mystical capital (it’s a bit like claiming to have found evidence that Pyongyang used to be Camelot).

But no one — not even the Korean press — is claiming that this is a place where unicorns once lived. That interpretation is about one part lazy translation mixed with two parts good, old-fashioned orientalism and garnished with a dash of adolescent wish-fulfillment.

Or at least, it is until they announce the discovery of fossilized unicorn droppings, at which point MA101 will be all over the story. Unicorns and poop? Count me in.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 787 other followers