Oh Myyy! (21 page)
For that matter, why in this day and age does anyone expect that the Internet is there to present us with complete reality? We understand that movies, books and theater are laden with fiction, and that our disbelief is to be suspended in order for us to enjoy ourselves. The Internet is a place of both fact and fiction, akin to television in some ways, but we still haven’t figured out how to tune our brains properly to that. Perhaps this is the magic behind the Infomercial — it appears to be “informative” but really is a bunch of malarkey (thank you, Joe Biden, for resurrecting that fine word). We’re all supposed to be savvy enough to understand this, but obviously there are enough dupes out there to believe anything they are fed.
Now, I can understand the outcry if a “news” organization put out a photoshopped image and expected everyone to accept it at face value. But even our “news” these days often comes packaged with strong biases. The media is starting to understand that people will “buy” what they want to hear. That explains the growing popularity of MSNBC among liberals and FOX News among conservatives. They are the “Infonewtials” of the modern era.
When it comes to pure laughs, however, maybe the Internet should be put through a less arduous screening, and we should be able to have a good chuckle about something without someone else throwing a wet blanket over it all. I say, save the debunking for important facts and rumors, not for images and memes meant to entertain.
The Internet is, after all, a place where mistakes, like mutations, may be propagated into reality. Recently, I shared an article posted by huffingtonpost.com about a woman in Louisiana who claimed she’d been set on fire by three men, who later scrawled “KKK” on her car. It was truly a horrific story, and I expressed my outrage that such an attack could still occur today. A special “prayer” page had been set up online for the victim, and I included a link to that. Unfortunately, the entire thing turned out to be a tragic fabrication. Evidence soon indicated that the woman in fact had set herself on fire and invented her attackers. Upon learning this, I posted a “retraction” of my earlier post, and expressed pity for the woman who clearly was in need of a “different kind of help” now.
This was a keen lesson in how fake stories can become real in a matter of seconds, but was also an indication of how the Internet ultimately corrects itself. Yes, I took some flak for posting my original outrage. But again, I wonder whether it’s fair or realistic to hold someone like me, a private citizen, to a standard of journalistic fact checking. Should I be expected to couch all of my posts with caveats and disclaimers? Should I refrain from sharing anything that might later turn out not to be true? I’ve given significant thought to this, and concluded that it’s better to participate and own up to my own errors than it is to self-censor.
There’s another way in which the Internet creates and propagates new things and ideas, even things that are plainly mistakes. Here’s an example. When I first started posting online, on occasion I would post a story or anecdote in which the victim turns the tables and “burns” the oppressor back, giving him his due as it were. Fans love a good “got him good” story, and share these liberally with their friends. We all want justice in the world, and examples of wrongdoers getting their comeuppances resonate strongly with all of us. I recall one example in particular:
If your eyesight is anything like mine, you can’t read the above note left by a co-worker on the office refrigerator, so I figured I’d include the text here for your benefit.
DEAR FOOD PILFERERS,
IT’S BEEN APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH SINCE MY DELICIOUS BROWNIES STARTED RANDOMLY DISAPPEARING, EVEN THOUGH MY NAME WAS CLEARLY AND PROMINENTLY WRITTEN ON THE TUB. I REALLY HOPE YOU ENJOYED THEM AS MUCH AS I WAS UNABLE TO, AS MY 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER MADE THEM FOR ME WITH THE HELP OF MY HUSBAND.
OBVIOUSLY, MY PREVIOUS FRIDGE NOTES FELL ON DEAF EARS, SO I DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO TAKE A BIT MORE OF A DIRECT APPROACH. SO, I LEFT AN ANONYMOUS TIP WITH HR, SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROMINENCE OF DRUG USE IN THE COMPANY AND THE POTENTIAL LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT WERE POSSIBLE...YADDA,YADDA YADDA. THAT IS THE REASON WE ALL HAD TO TAKE A RANDOM DRUG TEST YESTERDAY.
OH... I FORGOT TO MENTION... FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS I HAVE BEEN LACING THE BROWNIES WITH MARIJUANA. NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF EFFECTS, BUT JUST ENOUGH TO SHOW UP ON A DRUG SCREEN.
CHECK. MATE.
I came to understand that this type of story is properly acknowledged with the comment “OWNED,” as in “she owned him good.” Urbandictionary.com defines it this way:
TOTAL AND UNDENIABLE DOMINANCE OF A PERSON, GROUP OF PEOPLE OR SITUATION AS TO MAKE THEM/IT AKIN TO ONE’S BITCH.
It really is a colorful word and covers so much of life’s obvious inequities.
I started noticing, however, that some of my fans, largely young males between the ages of 18 and 25, would comment with the word “PWNED” instead of “OWNED.” It occurred too frequently for it to be a coincidental error. Curious, I asked some of my younger friends what that meant. Apparently, the term originated in the online game
World of Warcraft
, which I’m told accounted for a measurable drop in total U.S. productivity after it premiered. In that game, a map designer had created a typo with the word “owned” and spelled it instead as “pwned.” When the computer defeated a player, instead of saying so-and-so has been “owned” it said, “has been pwned.”
And thus was born a new word, and a fine example of the phenomenon of error replication. If a mistake occurs with regularity, it might well become the norm. If enough people believe and propagate the error, it could become gospel. Another example is the term zOMG. I saw this also occur with regularity in my comments, and I had to ask why. Apparently, people mistakenly hit the “z” key instead of the shift key when typing OMG, causing a common error. Enough people did this, and soon it became “it’s own thing.”
Perhaps this is the real reason the Doubters of the world have their work cut out for them. The Internet is a place where original fiction quickly becomes fact, where mistakes become the norm, and where attribution is nearly impossible.
Betty White is a victim — or perhaps a beneficiary — of this phenomenon. A popular Internet meme, which I also reposted, has her complaining:
Now, according to snopes.com (you see what I did there?), Betty White likely never said this. At least one web administrator source claims that Ms. White wrote him an email, protesting that these were not her words and that she was upset with the attribution. The Doubters postulate that the joke actually belongs to a comedian named Sheng Wang. But here’s the thing: It
sounds
like something Betty White would say, and we all wish she really had said it because it makes her all the more “Betty Whitish” to us. People simply are likely to continue to share this and laugh about it until it becomes its own reality.
One of our greatest presidents said it best, in fact:
Use The Source
I don’t come up with most of my own images. Nearly all of them come straight from fans, who post them on my wall or send them to me as email attachments through my website. I’ll flip through something on the order of a hundred posts — and as many emails — every morning, generally from the day before.
Fans don’t always understand that it may be days, weeks or even months before I’ll repost something they’ve shared, even if I really like it. Indeed, it’s rare that I’ll see something and repost it right away. For starters, there’s usually a backlog of things I’ve been meaning to share. So for something to jump the line, it needs to be particularly compelling.
I’m also admittedly something of a meme hoarder. I’ve been downloading funny images for nearly two years. Many of them aren’t even funny any more, having been beaten to death by so many likes and shares and LOL comments. But I keep them around anyway, tucked away in my virtual chest of funnies. On occasion I’ll go back and find a gem or two that makes sense within a particular context or news event, or tickles my fancy because I’m in a mood. Holiday related memes in particular might sit for a whole year before they get hauled out again, like last year’s Christmas tree ornaments or Brad’s Easter Bunny ears.
I’m also a morning person — a very early morning person — and as a consequence I’m usually up at the crack of dawn reviewing fan submissions. Nobody else would ever see them if I shared them right away. So if something makes me laugh or think, I’ll download it and give it a file name that will help me remember what it is later. Or at least that’s the idea. Often the naming helps not a whit. I’m looking at a file name “FunnyFromBradGandalf” and have no recollection whatsoever of it, if it’s from Brad Gandalf, or if this means Brad found something funny about Gandalf.
It’s further apparent to me that the vast majority of these images don’t belong to the fans who sent them. They are typically images they found on some other site, or had some other friend send to them. So the best that I can say at any time is “From a fan” — if I even remember that it came from a fan, and not one of my interns as they surfed the Net. Truth be told, by the time I get around to posting the image, I have really no idea where it came from, unless some kind of credit appears as a mark on the image itself. Often certain humor sites add their Facebook URL or website to the image to try and preserve some kind of ownership or claim over it, but as is typically the case, even those sites are at best borrowers of the image.
I commend sites and comics that come up with original content. One of my favorites is Rick Polito, who writes film summaries for a newspaper. Here are some of my favorites of Rick’s:
