I went to see Fracture at the dollar theater a couple of weeks ago. I'm pretty glad I waited to see it there. The story is about a man whose wife is having an affair, who decides to shoot her. He does so up-close and more than once, but somehow doesn't manage to kill her. He also confesses to the cops but plays mind games with them and the legal system in such a way that he can plead not guilty and get away with it. The guy he plays with the most is the prosecution lawyer.

Anthony Hopkins stars as the husband, who is too smart for pretty much everyone. Ryan Gosling is the lawyer for the prosecution, whose life plans hang on the line because of this trial. David Strathairn also makes a couple of appearances. So, here we have three amazing actors, and a not so amazing script. I'm trying to understand why everyone signed on to this film, because it pretty much runs like a lengthy episode of any law television show. It's not bad. It's good, but along the way, each and every plot point feels so... expected. And that's probably because the audience is shown the answers at the beginning of the movie. When the audience knows all of the answers at the beginning, then the rest of the movie is merely watching a lawyer figure it all out; how interesting is that? Only just interesting enough.

Since that's pretty much my review of the movie ("it's standard with good actors"), I'd just like to address something that's been bugging me lately:

We all know that the Walt Disney Concert Hall is a very cool looking location. Mr. Gehry's shiny ball-of-tinfoil-esque building is a work of art and is amazing in many ways. But I'm sick to death of seeing it in movies and commercials, especially car commercials. It's getting to the point of being cliche. Please, if you are a location scout for a living, just stop. And, speaking of cliche, whoever chooses the music for movie and tv previews, they need to stop using the Requiem for a Dream music. I'm tired of that too.

Okay, I'm done.

It's too bad she has to work with such idiots.

Hat tip This Modern World

A coworker sent me a link to this article on the Onion. I've been that guy. It's so true, though. You menu clickers are frittering away precious seconds of your life. I posted about one of my favorites a few weeks ago. If I learn a few more shortcuts I'll be ready to tackle one of my life goals: Go through a normal productive day at work without touching my mouse. It's good to have dreams, eh?

Happy keyboarding.

Recently a report was published that shows talk radio is dominated almost exclusively by conservative points of view. Big shock, I know. Now, as this NPR story points out, a few people are starting to talk about re-instating something called the Fairness Doctrine.

Basically, the idea is that the airwaves are owned by the public and should be used in the public interest. This is why we have the FCC. Apparently, at one time the FCC mandated that broadcasters not just avoid objectionable content, but that they give equal time to multiple views on political issues. It's important to note that NO legislation is being considered to reinstate this doctrine, and only a few people are even suggesting there should be. Still, this is creating a stink among some people and is worth at least discussing.

I think this Fairness Doctrine sounds like a terrible idea. First of all, the idea of creating "balance" by giving voice to "both sides" of any given debate is exactly what's wrong with the media today. For starters, the very idea of there being two sides to every issue is a false one, created by the two-party system that has developed in our government. Until very recently, people in the broadcast media talked as if the only courses of action available to the army in Iraq were to Stay the Course or Cut and Run. Only now that it's become impossible to deny what a horrible mess the operation has become are other options being discussed publicly.

Another problem is the fact that sometimes there are not two points of view that are equally valid. This has been the problem with the global warming debate. On the one hand we have the undeniable facts that average temperatures across the planet have been steadily increasing, in direct correlation with increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's also a near-unanimous consensus among experts that the increase in temperature and CO2 is due to emissions caused by humans. Whenever the commercial media report on global warning, though, in the interest of "balance" they give voice to detractors with no credibility who deny the findings of the entire scientific community. Both of these sides are given equal airtime, and the result is that something that should be undeniable fact has been turned into a point of contention. While people on TV and the radio continue to debate what has already been conclusively proven, the important details of what we can do to curb global warming go unaddressed.

Clearly there are problems with the broadcast media, but the last thing we need to fix them is more of this artificially imposed "balance." As Bill Moyers said, "Splitting the difference between two opinions does not get you to the truth. It gets you to another opinion." What we need is a return to quality reporting that cares more about informing people than about getting ratings or meeting certain ideological requirements. The FCC can't do this for us. It's up to us consumers to make a change.

To this end I propose the following:

1: Stop listening to commercial talk radio and stop watching commercial news on TV. Clear Channel, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, and the rest are equally as bad. If they sell news for profit then they can't be trusted. For American broadcast media that pretty much leaves us with NPR and PBS. But many people have claimed these are the most liberal news outlets in America, which brings me to the next step...

2: Forget the "Liberal Media" myth. The truth is that the people at NPR and PBS are the most responsible, ethical, and informative journalists in America. They don't use scandal, controversy, and sensationalism to sell their news because they don't work for profit. Their priority is to responsibly inform people of what's happening in the world.

That's actually pretty much it. Sorry, I thought the list was going to be longer, but this is a very simple plan. The commercial media sell whatever people want, so if people start seeking out quality journalism then that's what the TV and radio stations will be forced to offer. This may sound impossible considering the kind of culture we live in, but that's no reason to not try. I guess I'm just an eternal optimist.