Conspiracy theories and why the intellectually insecure believe them

Brilliant photographical and philosophical takedown of moon landing conspiracy theories, including these comments that apply to “truthers” from 9/11 to Sandy Hook (and people who see media conspiracies where they don’t exist):

The urge to believe drives people to trade in part of their soul in exchange for the comfort of being a rebel. …

That step from knowing you’ve been lied to to believing that everything else is a lie is a big step. …

Once you’re forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you’ve stepped over into the realm of magic …

It’s like you need to cling to your belief system with all your might against the overwhelming evidence of your own rational mind. What’s dangerous about that is it blinds you to the real conspiracies that authorities are perpetrating on you right now, as we speak. Things that are a lot more important than whether some guys went to the moon.

I’ve always put it this way: “Never confuse cynicism with intelligence.”

Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof.

(Some commenters took issue with his joke about removing “sapiens” from “homo sapiens,” which he addressed here.)

CNN, CNET and necessary evils

Those Of Us Who Care About Journalism are up in metaphorical arms this week over two stories:

1. The Daily Show laid bare the effects of CNN cutting its investigative reporters. I’m no optimist — I saw in my grad school work more than a decade ago that we were likely to see a race to the bottom in terms of quality, but I was still hoping CNN would attempt to distinguish itself from unabashedly lefty MSNBC and unabashedly loony Fox by doing actual reporting.

2. CNET and corporate owner CBS are in a kerfuffle because CNET wanted to bestow an honor upon a device that, in addition to a few other neat features, lets viewers zap ads on TV shows they’ve recorded. CBS said no, and CNET’s Greg Sandoval resigned in protest, citing a lack of confidence in “editorial independence.” Sandoval is, of course, an instant folk hero for standing up against blurring the line between business and editorial interests.

I won’t dispute Sandoval’s stand, but let’s back up a second. Why is CNET honoring something that kills a revenue stream?

Salon’s Andrew Leonard puts it nicely here, not letting CBS or CNET off the hook by any means but pointing out the problem:

For 40 employees of a company that is owned by a television network to get together and put their Best-of-Show-imprint on a device that takes dead aim at the business model of their owner is provocative, to say the least.

The underlying problem here: Today’s young adults have grown up in an era in which everything is free. They can browse nearly limitless content on the Internet, and they can watch hundreds of channels on TV. And as the Emily White controversy showed last summer, they’re not all that likely to pay for music.

And that gets us back to CNN. Why did CNN cut its investigative staff? Because they’re not making enough money, and it’s a lot cheaper to hire talking heads to sit in the studio that it is to go to foreign countries and embed a TV crew for months to get one story.

So as much as I hate to be the grownup, I have to remind people: All of this stuff needs to paid for somehow. Do you really want a world in which the programmers are paid but the content creators need to be independently wealthy?

Or, as NewsRadio so aptly put it: “What is the Constitution of the United States? An advertisement!”

(And yes, I know the irony of posting a TV clip that has no advertising. Fair use, blah blah blah, and go out and buy the NewsRadio DVDs like I did!)