Yep - dumb people, smart phones

[Fairportfan]

Dumb people, smartphones: One in four users saves dirty pictures on their phones

Have a few scantily clad photos of yourself or your significant other in compromising positions and readily accessible on your mobile device? You’re not alone according to research from security firm AVG. In fact, one in four mobile device users will store “intimate” photos or videos on their smartphone or tablet.

Your mobile phone is a dangerous place to keep photos you’d never want to have leaked. Smartphone theft is frighteningly common, and there’s also the fact you could get hacked or end up losing this saved content by other means (or you know… accidentally sending it to the wrong person or making a photo roll accessible to people it really shouldn’t be seen by). And don’t forget that many of us have either a Dropbox, Google+, Facebook, or other type of cloud storage service that automatically syncs the media from our smartphones to the cloud. That’s another layer of security vulnerabilities to worry about. At the same time as all this is happening, we’re unfortunately becoming more and more comfortable sharing these graphic photos thanks to Snapchat and other similar messaging apps. They’re bringing out the sexter in us all – and the repercussions could be very, very bad.

<full story>

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm of two minds about this.

First of... stupid people are stupid. And you'd have to be pretty damn dumb to put photos on your phone you wouldn't want to have displayed in public.

Second off, I have several problems with the conclusion.

At the same time as all this is happening, we’re unfortunately becoming more and more comfortable sharing these graphic photos thanks to Snapchat and other similar messaging apps. They’re bringing out the sexter in us all – and the repercussions could be very, very bad.

I'm sorry, if people want to share photos like that with each other... as long as there is mutual consent, and NOT done with minors, there's no problem. I have all kinds of problems with someone trying to legislate morality, and that statement is just shy of demanding it. What people do in privacy is their business, no one else's.

Honestly, it's about time America got a little less body-shy. It's a human body, people. It can't be something you haven't seen many, many times. Deal with it.

[DinkyInky]

I'm sorry, if people want to share photos like that with each other... as long as there is mutual consent, and NOT done with minors, there's no problem. I have all kinds of problems with someone trying to legislate morality, and that statement is just shy of demanding it. What people do in privacy is their business, no one else's.

Honestly, it's about time America got a little less body-shy. It's a human body, people. It can't be something you haven't seen many, many times. Deal with it.

Then there are the freaks that yell at me for walking around my house in my bra and yoga pants. When I do so, I have my blinds drawn, so for them to see me, let alone have "proof"... Yeah, invading my space will get you the business end of something shiny and very sharp...or a letter from my lawyer.

I do believe that folks need to be less, "twig of the week", and more "real women have curves". I used to be a tailored two. I was miserable. I ate enough for a small army, and looked like well, Twiggy. After I had my son, I had a body revolution. I gained a few pounds in the right spots, and some in the wrong that I could care less about... I went from a C cup to an incorrectly fitted DD.

I finally got measured for euro bras, and while American standard stuffs me into a 38DD, I comfortably wear a 36 G. I wear between 7 and 11 juniors jeans, and 10 in petite womens. I am fabulously comfortable in my skin. Thin is so not in.

Oh, the original topic? If you wanna send something like that over the wifi, just don't be surprised when the world sees it, because Murphy loves an opportunity. Let us spin that good ol wheel of morality and see what we come up with.

Anyone else miss the days of totally objective journalism? I sure do.

[Dave]

Anyone else miss the days of totally objective journalism? I sure do.

Were there ever such days? I wish I could recall them from within my lifetime, but I can't honestly say that I can. The biases and sensationalism are often rather blatant these days, but that isn't a new thing... the phrase "yellow journalism" is almost certainly older than anyone participating in this forum

There's no substitute for reading carefully, fact-checking what you read, and adding a 55-gallon drum full of critical thinking to each batch of news-soup.

[Fairportfan]

... the phrase "yellow journalism" is almost certainly older than anyone participating in this forum

Older than most people still living in the US - possibly older than anyone still living - it grew out of the "cartoon war" between Hearst and Pulitzer over the cartoon feature originally named "Hogan's Alley", which began in a Pulitzer paper in 1895 and

In 1896, William Randolph Hearst, Pulitzer's arch-rival for newspaper readership, raided Pulitzer's cartooning staff, and Outcault was lured away by Hearst's money. He continued the feature for Hearst, prompting Pulitzer to sue. The judge took his cue from Solomon and divided the baby, ruling that Outcault could take the character wherever he liked, but the name Hogan's Alley belonged to Pulitzer. George Luks continued the feature at the World, while Outcault began drawing it under a new name, McFadden's Row of Flats, for Hearst's New York Journal.

With that opening shot, the Hearst/Pulitzer circulation war was on. Its fallout included the entire American comics industry.

Eventually, they all gave in to the inevitable, and simply called both features The Yellow Kid (tho the Hogan's Alley title was still closely enough associated with it to have been used in the title of a 1903 film short based on the series). It was heavily merchandised in the New York area under that name, with products like gum, postcards, baby clothes, and even household appliances, until February 6, 1898, when Outcault returned to Pulitzer.

<snip>

Incidentally, comics have given our language quite a few expressions, including "Gloomy Gus" (from Happy Hooligan), "Dagwood sandwich" (from Blondie) and "druthers" (from Li'l Abner). The very first came from this feature. The papers that ran it were often referred to by New Yorkers as the "Yellow Kid" papers or, simply, "the yellow papers". During the Spanish American War (1898), when their sensational and unreliable reportage reached a fever pitch, that style came to be known as "yellow journalism".

<full article at Toonopedia.com>

(I will point out that Don Markstein, the creator of the Toonopedia, was very knowledgeable about comics and cartoons, and also did a lot of research. However, there are misstatements, misinterpretations or downright errors in some of the articles - really unavoidable, i guess considering the sheer number of articles.

(I pointed out some of the errors in a couple of articles about comics i was familiar with personally, and Don accepted one or two, told me that others were that interpretation thing, and downright ignored one or two.

(There's one in that final graf - which may be an interpretation one; "druthers" was certainly current before "L'il Abner, since it appears quite a bit in the works of Mark Twain.)

[Mark N]

Anyone else miss the days of totally objective journalism? I sure do.

I am hoping that you are being a little sarcastic here because I would hate to tell you but objective journalism has always been an illusion. I think that quite a lot of so called historical truths are just as muddied as our current news claims.

[DinkyInky]

Anyone else miss the days of totally objective journalism? I sure do.

I am hoping that you are being a little sarcastic here because I would hate to tell you but objective journalism has always been an illusion. I think that quite a lot of so called historical truths are just as muddied as our current news claims.

Being dead serious. My sister was trained that way, and every article published was objective...just the facts, ma'am/sir. It galls me when they don't even bother trying anymore, and just publish for a squick factor instead of a real story...then publish eleven billion retractions cause they already got paid, so why do the legwork.

[Atomic]

Objective journalism is not "And now, for the argument in support of slavery/fascism/communism/rape/etc..."

One can illustrate, illuminate, and educate, or you can remonstrate, prevaricate, and titillate. The latter pays more, but the former is more useful. Necessarily, you often need to directly question the motives, methods, and consequences of the people in charge -- the "speaking truth to power" thing. This does not make you popular with them.

It's the difference between the Cynic and the Skeptic. Given an inch, the Skeptic will measure it. The Cynic will complain about how small it is.

Sadly, the media herd seems mostly to be cynical about the skeptics among them!

[Typeminer]

My general impression is that most journalism has been nakedly partisan, or just sensationalistic, for most of the history of the press. The fairly widespread commitment to some standards of objectivty of the mid-20th century may have been a highwater mark. But as someone once incisively observed, 90% of everything is crap. We always feel that standards are eroding, but part of that may be because over time, the 10% endures, and we forget most of the crap.

Back on the original topic, standards of what constitutes outrage also change over time. People used to fight blood duels over insults that are part of the weather of public life today. If a whole generation of kids publishes naked pictures of themselves, how big a deal will it be over the long haul?