Are We Witnessing The Death Of Mainstream Media?

There is a lot of chatter these days about the mainstream media and whether or not new forms of media such as blogging and random twitter updates are replacing the standard column within a magazine or newspaper. Some people say the mainstream media is antiquated and that it is slow to react to a modern world. Some suggest this “old media” has long since passed its golden era and will soon be replaced by more modern forms of media that will react within seconds and that are more nimble, directed, and informed.

I’d say those types of people are dead wrong… and I’ll explain why.

The simple truth is the existing mainstream media serves a very legitimate purpose. We can receive in-depth coverage of a variety of topics, and we often have the benefit of reading a column which has taken weeks, months, or even years of research to put together. We can read an article in a magazine which has numerous sources which provide background information, and we know that magazine has a reputation to uphold… thus they likely to print something they haven’t verified and cross-checked.

This isn’t to say these types of media are infallible or that they never find themselves needing to print a retraction or clarification, but the truth is when a person picks up a newspaper, turns the pages on a magazine, or flips the channel to a 24 hour news network, they have a certain expectation of truth. There may be a sense of bias, there may be facts or figures that are questionable, but at the end of the day it is much easier to trust a known source rather than a random unverifiable blog written by a stranger who often may not even provide his or her real name or has no training as a journalist.

The newer forms of media… often called simply “new media” don’t have this same sense of reputation. Often times we find a blogger is more concerned with getting the ‘scoop’ of a story rather than ensuring the facts are correct if for no other reason than they don’t want another blogger to beat them to the punch. The newer forms of media simply don’t have the time, resources, or energy to properly research a story, and therefore the viewer may never understand the full implications of a story or may never reach the same level of involvement on an issue.

However, research and reliability aside, a more significant difference between old and new media is simply the audience they appeal to. David Carr from The New York Times once used the phrase “Echo Chamber” to describe the audience that follows most new forms of media, and I feel that is fair description. The basic premise here is that in many cases these new forms of media are merely talking to themselves rather than reaching the masses.

People who follow new forms of media are presented with blogs and websites that appeal to their viewpoint, and as such they are surrounded by like-minded individuals with similar opinions. If a person happens to be interested in technology and follows a technology blog on a regular basis, they likely will be hearing from peers who share the same interests and who share many of the same opinions. If a person follows a political blog, it will often be because they share that viewpoint and wishes to feel part of a group who all see things the same way.

Many forms of new media could be considered a “vertical column” where one simply feeds from another. Thus if you have a website which results in a blog which results in twitter updates which feed to others who have their blogs and websites and videos uploaded to YouTube which then prompt additional comments on yet another blog and feeds into a Facebook group… you end up seeing this mass of information which is all in a straight column.

There is very little expansion and there is no legitimate desire to feed or integrate this information elsewhere. The end result is a virtual group of head nodding people who have no interest or aspirations to link together with a separate group which may have a similar, but opposing viewpoint on an issue. There is very little collaboration as these groups tend to remain isolated, and for all intents and purposes they remain that way due to the model in which they were built upon.

One reason the old media will remain is for no other reason that the fact they are able to send their message to the masses without a need for the recipient to seek them out, or to subscribe to their message, or to link up with others. Whether it be print media, a cable news network, or a radio station, these forms of media can and do reach a massive audience which is infinitely diverse. Not only do they reach individuals who agree with the message or have interest in the particular topic, but more importantly they can reach those who have no interest and those that without a doubt disagree with the content.

That is the entire benefit – not everyone has to agree and not everyone should. Media should inform, but it should not only inform a small subsection and it should not target a core demographic. Of course we know even the best media sources will never be able to appeal to everyone and there will almost always be accusations of bias, but regardless of these challenges the ‘old’ media will continue to serve a valuable purpose for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, the rumors of the death of old media have been greatly exaggerated.

So does this mean there is no room for new media source? On the contrary – forms of new media can actually strengthen the ‘old guard’ of mainstream media. Likewise old media can benefit from some of the technologies and developments which have resulted in new forms of media. Obviously it is in the best interests of the old forms of media to adapt to the ever changing world around them, but at the same time they need to retain what has made them so strong in the first place.

Blogs and websites can work alongside magazines and talk radio. Electronic versions of magazines and newspapers can supplement the print variety with the added benefit of being able to be updated throughout the day. Twitter updates or text messages can replace “breaking news alerts” on terrestrial radio. All of these various forms of media can and do work together to inform and educate the viewer/listener.

At the end of the day this all strengthens old media rather than competes with it, although at the same time many forms of new media also tend to be free media… and to some degree that model is not self-supporting in any way. There are a lot of experiments happening in the world around us, but when the dust falls rest assured the only way people will be able to obtain a high quality and steady stream of information is if they are willing to pay for it. That either means subscription fees, or the willingness to be inundated with advertisements or other minor annoyances that provide a profit stream to the original creator.

So this all begs the question – if new media eventually falls in line with old media via the desire to be profitable in order to provide a higher quality of content… does this means new media becomes one in the same as old media?

It seems one can only remain on the cutting edge and can only remain the new kid on the block for a finite amount of time. Eventually things are much less exciting when everyone else is doing it, and as such the trend is no longer a trend and instead is merely the status quo.

The Problem With Consumerism

I like to think I am like most American consumers in that I prefer to get the most bang for my buck. I shop sales and when I plan to make a purchase I do my research so I know I’m getting the most value for my dollar. If the purchase is an item worth for than $50 or so I’ll sometimes even go so far as to research pricing on the Internet and comparison shop locally. Above all else I refuse to impulse buy and I take personal pride in getting a good deal.

That being said, every now and then I come across a situation which really makes it difficult to understand why some consumers essentially ‘waste’ money without looking at the alternatives. I can understand people not bothering to comparison shop when it comes time to buy new socks or batteries for their remote controls. However sometimes all a person has to do is actually take a few seconds to read the price tag and compare it to other options available in the very same store… often in the very same aisle.

Case in point – this past weekend I found myself in need of a replacement filter for my Ridgid shop vac. Since Ridgid is a Home Depot brand, I knew the best possible location to obtain a replacement filter was likely Home Depot. Since I had some other things to shop for, I decided to make a trip to the big orange store and see what I could find.

As I’m walking through the front entrance I notice as stack of flyers so I grab one and give it a quick glance to see what they have on sale. As luck would have it, they have a Ridgid shop vac on sale for the whopping price of $19.98. Now granted I don’t need another shop vac because the one I have works just fine and isn’t that old, but this got me curious.

As I walked over to the part of the store where they sell the vacuums, I notice a pile of the special sale priced vacs in the main aisle. According to the box it includes two sections of hard plastic extension wand, one seven foot flex hose, and one nozzle. It also just happens to include the same pleated filter as my current shop vac uses. Keep in mind all of this costs $19.98.

So I then walk over to the wall where they stock the accessories and filters. To buy the single filter – with no shop vac, no hoses, no nozzles or other accessories… it costs $15.97.

Yes you read that correctly – the filter costs 16 bucks and the entire shop vac with filter and accessories goes for 20. So basically Home Depot would have me believe that the shop vac itself with the accessories is worth a total of $4 while the filter is worth four times as much.

To make matters that much worse, about eight feet to the left of where I was looking at the filter, they have a display with a twin-pack of filters for the exact same price of $15.97. Knowing that you can buy two filters for the same price as you can buy one filter… why would anyone ever buy just one?

Now I suppose I could buy the whole shop vac and just use that filter with the knowledge if my existing shop vac dies on me or if I break a hose etc I will have a spare, but that is just one more thing to store in my already over-crowded garage and frankly I just don’t see the value in obtaining vast quantities of stuff that I don’t really need. My point here is that Home Depot is almost forcing people to buy things they don’t really need merely due to the pricepoint. This just suggests an older perfectly good shop vac could end up in the landfill when someone replaces it with a shiny new model just because it was cheap.

Just because something is cheap, does not mean it makes sense to buy it… but it is difficult to recognize this when we are continually bombarded with opportunities to “get a good deal”.

This same principle applies with many products and I often times find buying replacements or accessories for products is just as expensive or even more expensive than the original products themselves. One example of this is batteries for power tools. If you want to buy a two pack of 18 volt batteries for a Dewalt drill, you can expect to pay around $119. However if you wait until the drill is on sale, you can actually get a whole new drill, two batteries, a charger, and a hard case for $99! In fact Home Depot and Lowes run this sale on Black Friday almost every year, and I’ve seen it at other random times as well. This explains why I own two drills rather than one drill and extra batteries – because it is just cheaper and a better value.

So what is a person to do? Should we just continue to buy new inkjet printers each time we need a new ink cartridge rather than buying the actual cartridges just because it is about the same money? Should we continue to buy light bulbs in the multipack because they include a free LED flashlight rather than buying the same light bulbs without the flashlight? Should we do this even if we already have five of the ‘free’ flashlights and cannot possibly use any more?

As if this wasn’t all confusing enough, I found myself at Lowes a few days after my Home Depot experience. As I was walking through the store I came across some drill bit kits that were priced at $9.97. The kicker was if you buy the drill bits there is a $10 off a $50 future purchase at Lowe’s. So basically if you buy the drill bits they will cost you $9.97 plus tax (which in my area would equal a total of $10.57). You can then take those drill bits out to the car, remove the coupon, and then return to the store to buy the rest of your purchases. The net result is the drill bit set will cost you a whopping 60 cents.

Now I’m a tool guy – I like tools, I have a lot of tools, and I can almost always justify the purchase of even more tools… however I did not buy the bits even though they are a great deal. The simple truth was I have done things like this so often that I have enough bits to last me a lifetime plus ten years – so even if another set costs less than a candy bar, I just don’t have the need for them. I suppose I could have bought them and given them to a friend or family member, but I was just so amazed at the logic behind the pricing that I just couldn’t bring myself to add them to my cart.

Sometimes being a well informed consumer can give a person a headache.

I Probably Hate You...

If you park in the fire lane of a retail store just to run in “real quick” – even if you leave your wife, girlfriend, husband, boyfriend, dog, cat, child, or aging grandmother in the passenger seat and you somehow think this makes it acceptable... I probably hate you. I don’t care if the engine is still running or if it is 2:45am and the parking lot is empty. I still hate you.

If you have ever used that checkbox that allows you to vote a straight party ticket rather than actually knowing enough about the candidates to vote for them individually... I probably hate you.

If you have ever played your incredibly obnoxious car stereo late at night in a residential area where people are trying to sleep (or put their kids to sleep)... I probably hate you.

If you are currently on welfare, unemployment, or any other government assistance program and are buying lottery tickets, cigarettes, or have satellite television complete with premium movie channels... I probably hate you.

If you follow the religion of your parents, their parents, and their parents just because that is what you grew up with and you have never take the time to honestly and objectively question why you believe what you do... I probably hate you.

If you believe Fox News is in fact the only “unbiased” television news network or that their motto of “fair and balanced” is based in truth... I probably hate you. In fact, if you excuse Fox News by proclaiming CNN is biased in the other direction I probably hate you more.

If you see that your lane of the road is blocked 300 yards ahead and instead of merging behind all the other cars waiting their turn you decide to speed up and try to wedge yourself in between the cars at the front of the line in order to save 30 seconds off your trip... I probably hate you. If you get mad when someone sees you trying to speed ahead of everyone else and refuses to let you cut in front of them... I probably hate you and your parents.

If you have ever protested anything while forcing your young children to protest with you – regardless of what you are protesting for or against... I probably hate you. If you have done this in inclement weather I probably hate you six times more than I hated you the first time.

If you are the guy who always thinks he has the right to fit through the intersection even if that green arrow turned red long before you got there... I probably hate you.

If you have ever chucked a cigarette butt out the window with no care whatsoever for the car behind you or the environment, or if you have ever tried to convince someone that it wasn’t littering... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forwarded some idiotic chain email without taking the 45 seconds to verify it via a Google search first... I probably hate you.

If you have ever had anything to do with advertising via little plastic signs littered all across the countryside on every major intersection and along every major road, regardless of whether you were advertising for your business, for a miracle weight loss drug, for your local church, or for a political candidate... I probably hate you.

If recycling is mandated in your community yet you refuse to recycle due to it being so inconvenient for you on a personal level... I probably hate you.

If you feel the need to dig your hand to the bottom of your bag of popcorn ensuring you produce as much noise as possible from the paper bag while grabbing a entire handful of popcorn only to attempt to jam the entire thing in your mouth over, and over, and over again while watching a movie in a public theater... I probably hate you.

If you are the parents who are always whining about how your kid doesn’t get enough playing time and then proceed to yell and complain at the umpire at every little league game you go to... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forced your kids to play sports and put their athletic ability above their education and everything else knowing full well an education will be more valuable to their future than a state trophy ever will, merely because you wish to live vicariously through them... I probably hate you.

If you ever purchased a home on an interest only mortgage, lease all of your vehicles, and carry three or more credit cards with a balance yet have the audacity to complain when you have trouble making your house payments... I probably hate you.

If you have been driving for more than six months and yet still don’t understand who should yield at an intersection, or if you have yet to grasp the concept that the first car who stopped is the first car to go regardless if they are turning or going straight... I probably hate you.

If you eat with your mouth open, or if you decide it is important to talk while eating with your mouth open, or if you can’t seem to control the amount of disgusting noise your mouth makes while eating with your mouth open... I probably hate you. Granted I will likely do whatever I can to avoid being in a room where you are eating, but I’ll still probably hate you.

If you have ever blamed your bank or mortgage company for your financial state or claimed they were predatory lenders while refusing to accept responsibility for being the moron who signed the paperwork accepting the money... I probably hate you.

If you have ever sued someone for an accident which was at least in part a result of your own stupidity or ignorance, or if you have felt that you “deserved” financial compensation for something which was nothing more than an inconvenience to you... I probably hate you.

If you over the age of 16 and send no less than 40 text messages a day from your cell phone, and feel the need to respond to text messages you receive regardless of whether you are driving in a car, eating dinner at an upscale restaurant, or sitting in a movie theater... I probably hate you.

If you have a strong desire to see who is on this week’s cover of People or US Weekly and actually hold a subscription to either or both of these magazines... I probably hate you.

If you whine about your financial situation while having the best digital cable package, a cell phone, a smoking habit, bottled water in the refrigerator, more vehicles than you do drivers in your household, or designer clothes hanging in your closet... I probably hate you.

If you have ever based hiring decisions not upon who the best, brightest, most talented, and qualified candidate was but rather based upon who is your friend, relative, related to your friend or relative, or who has the least chance of making you look stupid at your own job due to their work ethic... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purchased a $70 pair of jeans or a $90 leather jacket for an infant, or if you refuse to dress your child in anything that doesn’t say “Baby Gap” or “Ralph Lauren” on the label... I probably hate you.

If you have ever used the terms “pro-aborts”, “anti-choice”, “pro-murder”, “anti-woman” or any such phrase when debating the topic of abortion, or if you fail to understand the mutually accepted labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are considered acceptable by both sides, or if you have attempted to blur the issue by refusing to accept the medically acceptable term is “fetus” rather than “blob of tissue” “preborn”, “preborn baby”, “preborn human”, etc, etc... I probably hate you.

If you have ever assumed someone was “isolated” or otherwise uneducated simply due to the fact they don’t live in a large metropolitan area without grasping the concept that people do in fact know how to travel and people can be very cultured even if they choose to live in Nebraska or Idaho... I probably hate you.

If you feel one political party is always right while the other is always wrong, or if you pretend to be non-partisan while only professing the viewpoints supported by any one political party, or if you have changed your voter registration to independent just so you can pretend to be non-partisan while in reality you continue to vote for the same party time and time again just as you always have... I probably hate you.

If you are still off the belief that climate change is nothing more than a ruse developed to make the environmentalists wealthy while refusing to acknowledge that more wealth is being made by those wishing to harm the environment than will ever be made by those wishing to protect it, or if you simply don’t believe climate change is real or if you have ever uttered the phrase “the jury is still out” while discussing climate change while failing to understand, recognize, or acknowledge that EVERY major scientific agency around the globe that studies climate change does in fact agree that yes it is real and yes humans play a major role in it... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purposefully parked across two parking spaces in any parking lot because you feel your car is more important than anyone else’s and are so afraid of door dings that you feel you are worthy... I probably hate you.

If you are more than 100lbs overweight and blame your condition upon genetics, or if you are convinced the only way to lose weight is to have some type of gastric bypass surgery without acknowledging that if you would simply eat less food you would get the same result... I probably hate you. If you care for someone who is so obese they can’t leave the house (which means you are the one providing the food for them) I probably hate you too.

If you have ever discussed artwork from the likes of Jackson Pollock and professed some senseless drivel about how he grasped such deep emotion or how his extensive use of the color pallet was so unique or that his work encompasses more talent than his peers without acknowledging that the average four year old could produce the same types of paintings given adequate supplies of automotive paint and canvas... I probably hate you.

10 Things That Have Always Annoyed Me About The Back To The Future Trilogy…

First let me be clear that I love the Back To The Future trilogy. I loved the first movie, I really loved the second movie, and I loved the third one too. When the first Back To The Future (BTTF) movie was released in 1985 I was 10 years old and the mixture of a stainless steel clad DeLorean, Marty playing Johnny B. Goode on the guitar and the concept of time travel was pretty much everything I could wish for in a movie, therefore it instantly became one of my favorite films and remains so to this day.

However, that being said there have always been a few things which bothered me about the movies. I realize any film that deals with time travel requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and I’m not even going to get into the debate about whether time travel is theoretically possible or into long discussions about string theory, influencing the timeline, impacting future events etc, etc – but nevertheless I think there are few points which really don’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me… so why not put them into a top 10 list?

So – without any further explanation, here is a random list of ten things which have always annoyed me about the BTTF series of films:

1. At the end of the first BTTF film, Doc Brown arrives at the McFly house in a panic and tells Marty that something has to be done about his kids. Doc Brown puts Marty and Jennifer into the DeLorean and they proceed to fly off into the future.

But here is the problem – they are in a time machine, so what is the rush? The events that Doc Brown is concerned with don’t happen for 30 more years in the future, so why would he feel the need to rush off this very day? Since Doc Brown knows more about time travel than anyone, surely he would understand it would make more sense to plan ahead and not activate the DeLorean in the middle of the day where it could be (and is) seen.

2. In the first film, how did the Libyan terrorists that shot Doc Brown know he was at the Twin Pines Mall (or Lone Pine Mall in later scenes)?

The fact is, even if the Libyan terrorists figured out that Doc Brown had stole their plutonium, and assuming they knew his real name and real address… why would they think to look for him in the parking lot of a mall at 1:15am? It isn’t like Doc Brown left a note on his door telling them where he was, so this never really made sense. I won’t even bother asking the question how a VW minibus seems to be able to keep up with a DeLorean in the parking lot… that is a separate issue.

3. In the third and final BTTF film, the gas line of the DeLorean is punctured by an arrow which results in the DeLorean running out of fuel.

I can understand if the fuel tank itself was punctured since Marty was essentially driving through a desert at the time, but considering the fuel tank is in the rear of the car and the engine is above it, why on earth would there be a fuel line running on the exterior of the car? Doc Brown said himself that the “Mr. Fusion” reactor powered the time circuits (which eliminates the need for additional plutonium) so there was no logical reason for a spare fuel line in that area. To add to this, considering the line was above the fuel tank itself, one would think even if it was punctured there would still be ample fuel in the tank itself which could be used once the line was repaired.

4. In BTTF part III, Marty arrives back in 1985 on the railroad tracks only to have a train demolish the DeLorean meaning there is no way for him to ever return to 1885 and bring Doc Brown back to the present.

Fine – but wouldn’t the engineer of the train or any of the witnesses report the accident? Wouldn’t Marty be questioned or detained and wouldn’t the place be packed with emergency personnel within minutes? To make matters worse, when Marty returns to the scene hours later to look at the wreckage, Doc Brown suddenly arrives on a time traveling locomotive!

Ok, I can buy the fact that Doc Brown creates a new time machine. I can let slide the fact that the electronic components required to build it won’t be invented for another 80 years and that the train flies off with no concern about onlookers getting a view of a flying, disappearing train… but how on Earth did Doc Brown know precisely the exact moment to appear on the train tracks? Did he just time travel back 1200 times to find the exact moment when Marty was standing by the tracks? Seems to me it would have made more sense for him to appear minutes after Marty went back to 1985… but I suppose that wouldn’t have made for nearly as entertaining of a movie.

5. In BTTF part II, when Biff threatens to shoot Marty on the rooftop and Marty “jumps” off to land on the DeLorean, why would Doc Brown bother to rise up and give Biff a clear shot at Marty, the DeLorean, or Doc Brown himself?

They already had the date that they were going to travel back to in order to restore the timeline, so why bother dealing with Biff? What Doc Brown should have done was just float off into the distance because the second they go back in time the current time dimension/reality would no longer exist, so knocking Biff out is really of no benefit.

Then again, anyone who has ever been in a DeLorean will tell you the gull-wing doors actually open in a vertical manner, so it wouldn’t be possible for the door to swing out far enough to hit Biff in the head and knock him out… but I suppose I can let that slide for the sake of entertainment.

6. In the second film, Marty hides under what appears to be a tarp in the back seat of Biff’s car and even goes so far as to call Doc Brown on his walkie talkie without Biff ever hearing him.

Biff just got his car out of the shop where it was cleaned off all the manure. Don’t you think he might just be a tad interested to find out why there is a big tarp in his back seat? And don’t we think he might actually hear Marty (or see him in the rearview mirror) when he is talking to Doc Brown on the walkie talkie? Seems to me it would have made a lot more sense to put Marty in the trunk where the chances or being seen or heard would be exponentially less. There could have been a nice tie-in back to the scene where Marty gets locked in the trunk in the first film as well.

7. In the first film, Marty and Doc formulate a plan to use the lightning bolt as their source of power to send the DeLorean back to the future based upon the flyer that Marty has which tells them the time of the lightning strike.

Fine, so they know the minute that the clock stops, but when you are driving at 88mph down a city street (which coincidentally has zero other cars anywhere to be seen even though it is only 10:04PM) the difference of a few seconds could very well determine the probability of hitting the lightning at the exactly second required. Thus, if the lightning occurred at 10:04:55 but Marty drove through the cable at 10:04:25, he would have missed the lightning by a full 30 seconds and would have crashed into the movie theater without ever traveling back through time!

Now aside from the fact that Marty failed to start accelerating when the alarm clock went off and thus he would have most likely been late, and aside from the fact that the lightning bolt seemed to have been powerful enough to send the time machine back through time yet never caused any harm to any of the other electronics in the vehicle, and aside from the fact that there wasn’t enough stopping distance to prevent Marty from crashing through the movie theater and dying in a horrific car accident, I don’t see any way to time the arrival of the DeLorean to reach the cable at the precise moment of the lightning strike.

Instead, they should have used some form of an extension cord or long cable to connect the clock tower to the DeLorean so Marty could be driving away from the clock tower at he could hold his speed at 88mph for the entire 60 second time period. Another alternative would have been to rig up some type of a mesh such as the type used to connect a bumper car to the overhead electric service – but clearly unless they knew the exact second of the lightning strike and could time it to the exact second the hook comes into contact with the wire there would be no possible way for Marty to return to 1985.

8. The storm that results in the clock tower being hit by lightning doesn’t seem to involve any significant amount of rain (although the ground does appear to be wet) and the wind and lightning seem to be very strong but only to the point of the lightning strike on the clock tower.

Once the lightning strike hits at 10:04PM, the storm suddenly – and shockingly – ends. There is no more rain, there are no more high winds, there is no more lightning. I could buy the fact that there is no more lightning after that one strike, but surely the wind doesn’t go from 50mph to dead calm in the span of less than 10 seconds.

9. The “present day” (in 1985) Doc Brown has no memory of Marty or the events that took place in 1955.

The thing is, as soon as Marty traveled back to 1955 and met Doc Brown, the present day (or 1985 version) Doc Brown would hold those memories. Therefore, the present day Doc Brown would know that Marty would get transported back to 1955 and with a little pre-planning he could have ensured there was a spare container of plutonium stored in the glovebox or in the trunk (which in the DeLorean is actually in the front of the car, but I digress).

Once the events of 1955 occurred such as Doc meeting Marty and learning about the time machine, the lack of plutonium, the fact that Marty needs to get back to 1985, Doc Brown would hold all those memories and he would be able to build upon them. He would know his time machine was successful and therefore would likely stop working on other projects and devote himself to it. He would know Marty would be the one to travel back in time and therefore he would probably wonder why he himself didn’t do so (and perhaps led him to the discovery that the Libyans were going to attempt to kill him).

Actually, this theme of memories not traveling to the alternate timeline is quite common throughout BTTF. In the original film, Marty’s parents spent several days with Marty and surely would have developed memories of what he looked like, what his name was, the type of person he was etc, etc – yet in the present day 1985 timeline, they don’t seem at all surprised that their son, who just happens to be named Marty and plays the guitar, looks exactly like the Marty that brought them together at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance back in 1955!

Now I don’t claim to be well versed in all aspects of time travel theory, but one would assume you don’t just magically lose your memories simply because someone else travels through time, and therefore the 1985 Doc Brown would know about the 1955 events and would easily have taken steps to avoid them. Due to his insistence on minimizing impact to the timeline it seems clear to me that Doc Brown likely wouldn’t have involved Marty in any of his time travel escapades for fear of influencing future (or past) events.

10. When Marty and Jennifer travel into the future to “fix” the problem with their kids, they would no longer exist in the past and therefore could never meet themselves.

This is the part that gets a little confusing, but bear with me for a minute. The fact is, if I get into a time machine right now and travel into the future 10 years, if I was to meet someone I had known in the past (which for us is present day) – they would wonder where the hell I had been the last decade because from their perspective I would just disappear one day with no trace left behind.

Now one could argue that since I will travel back to the past again in the future (confused yet) that I would then exist in the future that I am now visiting, but the simple truth is if that were true, the future me would know that I had traveled to the future in the past, and as such there would be no reason to hide it from myself.

Yes – it really is that confusing, so feel free to read that last paragraph or two again.

My point here is that it might be possible to meet yourself if you travel into the past, but it really wouldn’t work to travel into the future, because the second you leave your existing timeline you no longer exist in the future – and as such you have already changed the future even without trying along with the fact you could never prevent your future self from knowing about the incident.

This also is a common theme throughout the film because if the timeline was altered and if Marty was never able to coerce George and Lorraine to fall in love, then Marty would never exist in the first place and as such could not travel back in time. If Marty couldn’t travel back in time then he couldn’t be the one to get hit by the car, and Lorraine would have fallen in love with George as it happened originally. Thus, Marty would never disappear or fade because his future or his fate if you will, was already determined.

So there you have it – just a few things that I have obviously spent far too much time thinking about, especially when you consider these are all trivial points about a film that deals with the concept of time travel (which I would argue is a sheer impossibility, but that is a philosophical discussion for another time.., pardon the pun).

None of this changes the fact that the BTTF movies were and still are incredibly entertaining, and none of this changes the fact that I expect to see a new Back To The Future movie made sometime I the next 15 years if for no other reason than Hollywood has been out of original ideas for quite some time. Perhaps with a little luck Michael J. Fox will still be healthy enough to make some sort of cameo appearance in a future BTTF film, but that is probably a stretch.

In any case, all things considered there are a lot more things I loved about the BTTF trilogy than things that ever annoyed me – but if I were to write them all down that list would be far too long… so this was much easier.

The Talk Radio Business Model – Above All Else, Prey Upon Fear

Have you ever stopped to actually think who the core demographic of talk radio really is? Who are the people who can devote three or more hours of their day to a particular program or radio station? Who are the types of people who listen to the drivel day in and day out while nodding in agreement or repeating the clever insults and catch phrases to their friends and family? Who are the people who actually think the talk radio pundits are actually journalists as opposed to their true role as entertainers?

I’ve often wondered who these people are, and I often wonder what common trait exists among those who clearly pull 98% of their political opinions from one particular talk radio host or another. These are the people who are always convinced political party ‘A’ is right while political party ‘B’ is wrong, and I’m sure everyone has met a few of them in their lifetime.

Now I’ll admit that if I’m near a radio at lunchtime I will sometimes tune to talk radio to be entertained… but that is where it stops. I admit and recognize that talk radio exists for one true purpose, and that purpose is to entertain rather than inform. If you want to be informed you can listen to the news, if you want to be entertained (and you aren’t particular interested in sports), you have talk radio.

The scary thing is, it seems that many people are unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between entertainment and information, and for them talk radio becomes less about entertainment and more about providing them insight. The type of insight which is based upon rumor, falsehoods, distortions and flat out lies. The type of insight which makes me question the true intelligence of the common man. The type of insight which reaffirms my belief that the ignorant and the uneducated are easily influenced by those who are adept at preying upon fear.

Because when you really boil it all down, that is what it is all about… fear. You can listen to the programs themselves and hear about how a certain politician or a specific government program are going to ruin the American way of life. You can hear how they believe one political party is the source of all that is evil and how if you don’t vote for the other party your children and grandchildren will be those that suffer. Time after time after time, if you toss aside all of the fluff and excess, when you objectively look at any given subject you will find the basis is nothing other than fear. The pundits know if they can scare the listener, that listener will keep coming back for more.

Nowhere is this concept more obvious than the one time you would expect the theme of fear to be absent. I’m talking about the commercial breaks in between segments, and if you take some time to actually listen you will soon discover that the advertisers have found a niche market, and that niche involves the concept of fear. Millions upon millions of dollars in advertising are spent every year, and it is very obvious that those marketing firms know the true demographic listening to talk radio at any given point is one built upon fear – thus they cater to, and profit from, that demographic.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the list below of some of the advertisements presented during the commercial breaks of talk radio.

• Lifelock – appealing to the fear of identity theft.

• Broadview / Brinks Home Security – appealing to the fear of burglary or home invasion.

• Identity Guard – another product that appeals to the fear of identity theft.

• Tax Masters – appeals to the fear of the IRS “stealing” money or leaving a person destitute.

• Various Gold Investing Firms – preying upon the loss of net worth in the stock market and retirement plans. Also suggests the apocalyptic scenario where paper money holds no value.

• Law Firms specializing in Asbestos – Appeals to the fear that surviving family members might not be taken care of in the case of severe disability or *gasp* death. Also appeals the desire to hold someone or something else accountable for anything bad which might happen in one’s life.

• Personal Injury Lawsuits – see above.

• Life Insurance – again this appeals to the fear that loved ones won’t be financially secure if the primary bread winner is no longer around to provide.

• Carbonite Online Backup Software – appeals to the fear that a computer will crash resulting in the loss of financial data, vital documents, or irreplaceable files, photos etc.

• Prostate Medications – appeals to the fear that health problems (namely cancer) will end a life prematurely.

• Debt Management and Debt Collections services – appeals to the fear that ‘evil’ corporations will take all of a persons earnings leaving them with nothing.

• Legal Zoom online legal documents – appeals to the fear that a person will die without a proper will or living trust being established. Also appeals to the fear the government will seize assets leaving surviving family members with nothing.

So as you can see, between disaster coverage, legal services, and various forms of self protection services all of these products have one thing in common. They all appeal to some level of fear.

Now if this were only a small percentage of the ads or if I cherry picked these ads over a period of two or three months it might not be all that indicative of a larger issue, but the fact is every single one of these advertisements were heard within 90 minutes of talk radio. Not 90 days, not 90 hours – but 90 minutes. On other days I was able to hear the same ads or slight variations of them time and time again, and during the times I listened there were very few other ads that weren’t based in some way upon fear.

In fact I can only recall one ad that seemed out of place, and that was for a Sleep Number bed. I suppose I could stretch and twist to make it sound like that ad was appealing to a concern about bad backs, but for all intents and purposes I think that just boils down to the marketing strategy of the Sleep Number people involving market saturation and less about meeting a specific demographic.

I never heard a commercial about cleaning products. I never heard a commercial about automobiles or travel services or toothpaste or coffee. I never heard an ad pertaining to beer or chewing gum or fast food, and I never heard anything in relation to gasoline, shampoo, or clothing.

Time and time again, day after day, the vast majority of ads I ever hear pertain to fear, and the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that advertisers know the target core demographic that tunes into talk radio on a daily basis is scared. They might be scared about their finances or scared about their health or scared about the government, about home security, or maybe just scared about common sense or logic – but in some way these people are scared.

So if the advertisers know it, doesn’t it make sense that the talk radio hosts know it as well? Don’t kid yourself – they know it, they count on it, and they prey upon it… that much is certain. So maybe the next time you hear someone quote something direct from the mouth of a talk radio host you should ask yourself… what are they afraid of?