A scene transition may not sound like much, but think of how many films and shows utilise now-famous cuts and transitions as part of their storytelling
These small details are integral to the overall story. It's an affront to artists, therefore, to suggest these can be 'automated' or assisted by AI
By contrast, while it may look as though a "transition from scene 5 to scene 6" in The Wire is the same endeavour within a different medium, it misses the fact that "art for art's sake" is often primarily in more creative works
Functionality exists in fiction, of course, but it's often secondary
Even journalists who might consider themselves more creative writers fall into this 'efficiency trap' due to the inherent demands of the medium. The practical mindset, when it comes to writing, can overwhelm the creative
And if it doesn't for the writer, it certainly will for their editor
Art, style and flair naturally appear in all great journalism, but are subsumed, to some extent, by the practical need to deliver information to the reader in a clear and concise manner
The specific example Shapiro gives encapsulates this difference rather nicely, because it's the sort of conundrum you sometimes face when writing an article – how do I cleanly bridge these two aspects of my story from one paragraph to another?
We have some decent research now pointing to 'pre-bunking' as an effective tool to counter such propaganda. Essentially, pre-loading people with accurate information inoculates them against disinformation
I see no reason we can't apply that to politics more broadly
Working out how to tackle modern 'politics as propaganda content' is definitely going to be critical to neutralising this rising threat from the authoritarian far right
The only thing I can really think of right now is essentially counter-programming?
But it does pose a question of how to interact with them in public that I don’t really know how to answer. Ignoring them achieves nothing but they also aren’t really making efforts to get people hostile to them on their side - in fact they’d rather people did do the opposite
We know voters think all politicians are corrupt. Giving Johnson a free pass here only reinforces the narrative that Labour are just ‘more of the same’
I was on LBC to discuss this story and pointed out that a source got in touch yesterday after we first published to say no further action would be taken by the government against Johnson.
A govt spokesperson noted that in future ex-ministers who break rules could be asked to repay severance.
Johnson refused to answer specific questions or to provide factual denials to allegations of rule-breaking, while insisting all the rules had been followed at all times. His responses led Acoba’s chair, Isabel Doverty, to find him in breach of the rules.
Another reason you do this is so you can say, "That role sounds stupid/pointless, cut it"
A manager/head will be able to explain why a seemingly random role is actually critical to a wider strategy. But a specific employee may not be able to advocate for themselves
New: In a note to staff this morning, New CBS EIC Bari Weiss asked everyone across CBS News to send her a memo by next Tuesday explaining how they spend their workday and what’s working/not working…
No clearer indication of the right’s moral rot than the swift evolution from angrily denying any association with buffoonish bigots like like Posobiec and Fuentes, to “there’s no harm in having a conversation,” to openly praising and promoting them.
Obviously the below is a key factor, but some of the moves we've seen – Merck in particular – do feel rather extreme and self-defeating over something that, if taken on its face, is resolvable
This rather backs up my suspicion that moves such Merck suddenly pulling out of the UK market, and the Eli Lilly CEO going on a tirade about us being tight-arses, are in large part due to political pressure from the US
I was at a pub in Hackney on Sunday evening that had to restrict entry because it was over capacity!
The net closures we're seeing across the sector do mask the reality that pubs are *still* popular, and that moves which give them more options to turn a profit are a good thing
I have to say, the reactions to this online have been quite strange
People are variously claiming that most pubs are "desolate" by 9pm, which, in my (London bubble) experience, isn't the case, or acting like pubs will be forced at gunpoint to stay open. They can still set their own opening hours!
