Why Do I Have Such a Problem With Chris Ayres?

OK, first of all I don't really have a problem with Chris Ayres, just thought I'd get that out of the way, second of all, I do have a problem with the following passage from his most recent missive from our corner of the world

But, of course, we're all wiser now, even here in LA, where gullibility - or “suspension of disbelief', as Hollywood prefers to call it - is pretty much a requirement for simply getting out of bed in the morning. This is a town where it rains for two and half minutes a year, after all: human life shouldn't be possible - yet here we are, regardless. Which perhaps explains why Angelenos fall for bubbles harder than anyone else, while trying their damnedest to sell the very same hype to the rest of the world.

Suppositions without supporting evidence, there's simply no proof that Angelenos are any more susceptible to huxterism than any other part of this country, or the rest of the world, for that matter.

First, the entertainment industry is only one minor part of the overall economy here, this is not a company town, no matter how often people want to make that claim, there are sections of Los Angeles that may feel like a company town, and if you wander into a coffee house in the 'wrong' part of town, you'll be overwhelmed by the preening, self-satisfied yet oddly desperate manner of the folks hunched over their laptops or speaking too loudly into their phones. In number of employees and even overall dollar value of trade, the entertainment business is a major factor locally, but it's not everything, if anything is king in L.A., it's international trade (Port of LA's economic impact is huge), and tourism. The dream factory accounts for a lot, but its impact is not equal to trade or tourism locally, but in the popular imagination around the globe, Los Angeles is a company town.

Second (boy, that was a long first, wasn't it?), given that we've got a town full of hustlers and players and wannabes, rather than being naive and easily fooled, it tends to lend a 'been there, done that' vibe to most folks who aren't absolutely, 'fresh of the boat'. If anything, our proximity to Hollywood lends itself to less susceptibility to the various irrational exuberances that sweep over a place like Iceland or Albania.

Third, give your countryman some due. The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" was coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in his philosophical work, Biographia Literia (text of Chapter XIV, here). I assume Mr. Ayres knows this, so why attribute it to "Hollywood"? Furthermore, I don't think most folks in Hollywood use the term, other than derisively to discount a work that relies on its audience willingness to suspend their belief a bit too much. But even if he's wrong about Angelenos being particularly susceptible, and even if he's wrong about "Hollywood's" use of the phrase, I think he's right to connect Samuel Taylor Coleridge's philosophical definition of poems and poetry with the inflated sense of expectations surrounding our freshly minted 44th President. Here's the first paragraph from Chapter XIV of Biographia Literaria

During the first year that Mr. Wordsworth and I were neighbours, our conversations turned frequently on the two cardinal points of poetry, the power of exciting the sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to the truth of nature, and the power of giving the interest of novelty by the modifying colours of imagination. The sudden charm, which accidents of light and shade, which moon-light or sun-set diffused over a known and familiar landscape, appeared to represent the practicability of combining both. These are the poetry of nature. The thought suggested itself (to which of us I do not recollect) that a series of poems might be composed of two sorts. In the one, the incidents and agents were to be, in part at least, supernatural; and the excellence aimed at was to consist in the interesting of the affections by the dramatic truth of such emotions as would naturally accompany such situations, supposing them real. And real in this sense they have been to every human being who, from whatever source of delusion, has at any time believed himself under supernatural agency. For the second class, subjects were to be chosen from ordinary life; the characters and incidents were to be such, as will be found in every village and its vicinity, where there is a meditative and feeling mind to seek after them, or to notice them, when they present themselves.

I quote the whole paragraph, to give the context, but the key point is, "the incidents and agents were to be, in part at least, supernatural; ... And real in this sense they have been to every human being who, from whatever source of delusion, has at any time believed himself under supernatural agency."

The current fervor over President Barack Obama seems to have a supernatural and delusional tinge to it. I've been poking fun at the cultishness of the faithful for quite some time, and his election and subsequent inauguration has yet to dim this adoration. For those that believe, he really is a supernatural being, and he really will be "The One", he can no sooner live up to those expectations than he can waive his magic wand and turn his own turds into gold (turning lead into gold is way too easy for a demigod, I want to see turds into gold before I choose to believe).

Why Stop with Flat Screen TVs?

So, our California Legislature is proposing tight regulations on the kinds of TVs that can be sold in the state. I doubt this will get through committee. Here's a really dishonest little chart that accompanies the LAT article linked



LCD TVs are more efficient, but this chart makes it seem as if the old school CRTs are better. If they want to compare these four kinds of TVs fairly, then they should compare them on a watt per square inch basis. The real complaint from the regulators and the enviro-scolds isn't that the new TVs are less efficient, instead, it's that they're too big, and too cheap. If it was only a few really rich people buying a 52" Plasma display, then no need for regulation, but when everyone and their mother has more than one LCD TV over the size of 40" in their house, you'll see an uptick in energy consumption even as these sets get more efficient. Manufacturers aren't guilty of making an energy inefficient product, they're guilty of making that product too attractive to too many consumers.

Why just blame TVs, though? Why not limit computer power supplies to 500 watts? It's not like anyone really needs a PC that requires a power supply bigger than 500 watts. If you want to be a good citizen in Ecofornia, then you shouldn't even be thinking about having a computer with an energy hungry multiple graphics card set-up so you can run Crysis. Nobody needs to play Crysis, it's not like it's any fun, anyway. Blow dryers and curling irons suck down an enormous amount of electricity, ban both those products completely, make their use, or even possession illegal. If women don't like the way their hair looks without the use of these environment-raping devices, then get a different more manageable haircut, good citizens shouldn't be given the right to contribute to the destruction of the planet just for personal vanity's sake. All Microwaves should be limited in size and power rating as well, what's the hurry? Take your time, or do something radical and use the stove instead. Electric space heaters? ban them, it's not like it's ever that cold in any part of California (any readers in Truckee at this moment (current temp a balmy 25 degrees F), please ignore that comment). Christmas lights? Ban them, all lighting must be functional only, no decorative lighting of any kind, Gaia won't allow it.

Or we could do something really radical and pass the cost of energy consumption on to the consumers and they can decide for themselves whether or not having a 52" display that sucks down around 300 watts compared to a 40" display that consumes 200 watts. (Got to remember that a 40" TV has only 60% of the area of a 52" set (688 square inches compared to 1163 square inches, so it's unsurprising that the energy consumption is also about 65% of the bigger set).

Also, build more nuclear power plants, we don't need to limit our consumption, we need to expand our clean energy supply. Modern economies thrive on the availability of cheap energy. Nuclear energy is the only proven tech that is scalable, carbon-free, and readily available, just strip away the regulatory hurdles, speed the building process, and let the energy taps flow wide open, and then we can stop worrying about idiocy like whether or not folks use the right kind of light bulbs or watch the 'environmentally correct' sized TVs at home.

Also, since I haven't picked on Times (of London) Los Angeles correspondent, Chris Ayres, in awhile, let me point out some of his thoughts on the same issue,

But what makes monster TVs such a public nuisance? Well, the average LCD screen uses 43 per more electricity than a cathode-ray tube set (a plasma screen uses 300 per cent more) and people tend to leave them on for hours or days at a time - if they ever switch them off at all. A TV used to be something you sat down and watched: now it serves much the same function as wallpaper. All of which puts an enormous strain on California's ageing power grid.

Now much as I abhor the concept of bans, I'll concede that a few Americans have taken the concept of flat-screen TV ownership too far. A few Sundays ago, for example, I went over to my friend Dave's house, and he was watching American football on a screen so large that if the living room walls had failed, the TV would have been able to keep the ceiling propped up. At the same time, Dave was keeping track of two other games via two other (only marginally smaller) displays, while also streaming live data to a couple of laptops positioned strategically on straight-backed chairs at either side of the room. The amount of energy being sucked into Dave's flat could probably have kept the streetlights on in Baghdad for a decade.

First off, power usage from TV use is up because the TVs are bigger, but so what? That's called progress. I don't consider it a tragedy that we have "monster" TVs available at relatively cheap prices. Also, there's no evidence whatsoever that larger sets are more likely to be left on unattended or half watched when compared to older smaller sets. All stats point to less TV viewing now, rather than more, ratings have collapsed across the board for TV programming, and people in their teens and twenties seem to watch TV in historically low numbers. In this DVR/Tivo aided age, I posit that fewer folks 'watch' TV inattentively and as a sort of 'wallpaper'. People only watch the programs they want, when they want, and they skip the ads. Folks don't sit down and watch a solid block of primetime programming any more. Networks can't rely on grabbing a viewer at 8pm and having them not turn the set off until their done listening to that night's Late Night monologue some time around midnight. Are there folks like Ayres' friend "Dave" who have multiple screens on from time to time? Sure, but do they do that 24 hours a day? Hell, no. Sounds like "Dave" is a gambler or fantasy football geek, and that's why he was watching both nationally broadcast games, and had a couple of laptops in view to keep track of his bets/fantasy football players. For every "Dave" out there you can point to as anecdotal 'evidence' of rapacious energy use, I think you could come up with dozens of other characters who keep their TV watching to less than 10 hours a week and do it either on their PCs, or on modest sets.

If our "ageing power grid" is under "enormous strain" it's not cause of the likes of "Dave" so much as its because of all the NIMBY jerks who oppose the construction of new power plants. Besides if you look at the actual stats, we are some Green Ass Folks here in the Golden State. We are 48th in per capita energy consumption, and our share of US production of CO2 is 2.4%. Our 36.8M folks produce $1.8T in economic activity (with a population about 40% smaller than the UKs, our economy is only 15% smaller than theirs, so suck on that you limeys, and our CO2 production in 2006 was 59M metric tons (from the stats link) compared to the UKs Gaia destroying 587M metric tons of global warming gas(stat pulled from this wiki)).

I Suppose It's a Good Thing That Journalist Are So Responsive to Criticism (Chris Ayres Edition). . .

"I can't prove this is made up"? Well, you could always Google 'Bentley' and 'Hyundai' (as I did, because I couldn't believe my own eyes) and this would be the result: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/05/cruel-sick-joke-bentley-continental-badged-as-a-hyundai/ Likewise, with the bunny story, you could buy Palin's biography and turn to page 17. Patina is surely among the most expensive restaurants in LA, and if Obama isn't a good orator, McCain is a Yupik Inuit. My bad on New Mexico and Polaris.

A response in reply to my Chris Ayres post, from a "Chris", I will assume this Chris is that Chris, though as with everything on the internet, this may or not be the case (and what's the deal with award-winning journalists responding to my thoughts on media?).

First, the Bentley thing, one sick joker who probably lost a bet, doesn't a trend make. You can get a single fact right, and still completely miscontrue the truth. In some ways it's anti-truthiness. Rather than making up a fact and then spinning a larger truth from a lie, this is an example of finding a fact, and then making up a larger lie based on one small fact.

2nd, the first chapter of the Palin bio is a PDF available on the net, so let's read what Kaylene Johnson wrote on page 17 (reprinted without permission, but seems like pretty fair use to me):

When the family wasn’t running or hiking, it was hunting or fishing.

“We could literally go hunting out our back door,” Chuck Jr. said. Sarah shot her first rabbit at age ten not far from the back porch. In her teens, she hunted caribou with her father. The family’s freezer was always full of fish and game. Chuck
Jr. said he didn’t eat a beef steak until he was a senior in high school. Gardening helped fill the family larder.

Here again is what Chris Ayres spun from this:

At the age of 10, Sarah Palin got her very own bunny rabbit. Which means to say that she crouched down in the grass outside her family home, aimed her shotgun and blew its furry little head off. That's how things work in Alaska. You kill stuff. You freeze it. You turn it into stew.

Notice a difference? First, no mention of the weapon used, so the shotgun part is made up. Second, calling a wild hare a "bunny rabbit" suggests a fuzzy little domesticated animal, and not some lop-eared feral beast/pest that would threaten the family's vegetable garden (in good breeding years, wild rabbits are rapacious garden destroying pests). So what we have here is one made up fact not supported by the source (the shotgun), and a characterization that paints the anecdote far more luridly than originally given. It's a choice, and in my opinion a dishonest choice.

As far as Sen. Obama possessing "faultless oratory skills", I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But, in my opinion (and as stated in my other post), to count as a 'faultless orator' one would need to be great both speaking from prepared text, and without a script. Sen. Obama has not met that standard, I commend his ability to speak from a script, but he's a bit of a mess without a teleprompter, for example:

That's just one moment, but to me 'faultless' suggests without fault regardless of the situation, and above is just one example of Sen. Obama struggling while answering a question off teleprompter.

And as far as Patina goes, again, it's not untrue that a couple could spend $400 feasting at Patina, and it is indeed one of the more expensive restaurants in L.A. (but by no means close to being the most expensive, the upscale Japanese restaurants in town usually earn that honor), you could run up huge tabs at any good restaurant if you include the cost of drinks (I used to check expense reports at an entertainment company, so I've seen +$500 receipts for appetizers and drinks for 4 people before, and that was ten years ago). The point seemed to be that Mayor Villaraigosa isn't plebeian enough, but it's a silly point to try and make, and it could be made without exaggeration (and besides, this is L.A., a little glamour never hurts, so long as it's not on the public dime, though I have no idea what non-government jobs Villaraigosa has had where he can afford to go to Patina too often (his girlfriend probably pays), but that's a completely different story, and tangential to this discussion).

And thank you Mr. Ayres for admitting small factual screw-ups regarding New Mexico and Piper Indy Palin's name.

You aren't a bad writer, your LA Notebook is entertaining after a fashion, but the place you describe is basically a fantasy that has little connection to the real thing. I recommend that you get out a bit more, visit a suburb or city within 60 miles of downtown that you've previously haven't visited, once a week. Chat up a local a two, and maybe you'll learn something about this vast and confused land and be able to communicate a fairer and more interesting snapshot of this megalopolis to the readers back in England. If I may make a suggestion, the L.A. County Fair begins in a few days, and that place would be chock-full-a stuff you can poke fun at, and show you a side of this town that I'm guessing you haven't experienced.

It's just a suggestion, I'm sure the editors at Times of London will continue to support your column one way or the other (you're not the first columnist over there I've noticed stretching the truth to fit their own narrative), but if you want readers here to respect your writing, tighten it up a bit. This is an interesting place, it's an exaggerated fantasy land in a lot of ways just as it is, no truth stretching necessary to sell it that way.

Besides, Mr. Ayres, it's not a bad thing I have my eye on you, think of me as one of your most loyal readers, and come by any time to comment on any of my posts, whether they're about you or not (and if I see you in a pub, I'll buy you Guinness, no hard feelings, and if you don't drink Guinness, well, screw you, then, what kind of Englishman are you?)

You Are On My List Now, Mr. Chris Ayres, I'll Be Keeping an Eye on You.

UPDATE: Someone who seems to be Chris Ayres left a comment here, I respond in this post (also a small correction below)

Chris Ayres, writes the LA Notebook for the Times of London. He is also either, a poor fact checker, or an out and out liar, haven't figured out which, yet.

Let's check his last 3 columns and one news article, August 12th he has two whoppers of tales that strain credulity.

Here's the first paragraph from that 'report':

Chances are you didn't pay much attention to a story in last week's edition of the Albuquerque Journal regarding the Los Alamos National Laboratory, home of the Manhattan Project in the Second World War. It revealed that after 20 years and $350 million, scientists at the vast 40 sq mile atom bomb factory in the New Mexico desert finally plugged in and switched on a brain-meltingly complex new X-ray machine known as the dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility (DARHT, for short). Instead of doing what it was supposed to - scan the vast stockpile of nuclear warheads at Los Alamos to see if any of them need repairing - the contraption somehow X-rayed itself, causing part of it to blow up.

First, the tone is snide, and ridiculous, complicated machinery doesn't always work as designed, failure is part of progress, plus there's the bit about it being in the New Mexico desert, thing is, it's not, it's in nice wooded hilly part of New Mexico. Turns out, New Mexico isn't one big vast desert, whodathunkit?

Same column, different bit of nonsense:

Speaking of job losses, I fear Los Angeles is having a hard time coming to terms with the new post-crunch economy. I was driving through Hollywood the other day and pulled up behind an incredibly handsome-looking sports coupé whose badge declared it to be a Hyundai. After a couple of red lights spent admiring the vehicle's powerful rump and twin exhausts, I made a resolution to find a Hyundai dealership the very next day and inquire about the exact same model.

There was only one problem: when I overtook, I realised it wasn't a bloody Hyundai at all. It was a brand-new $200,000 Bentley Continental GT, the owner of which had ripped off all the official badges and replaced them with Hyundai ones, presumably in an effort to diffuse the envy of other motorists. If this is LA's idea of slumming it during a recession, I heartily approve.

I call shennanigans on this. I can't prove this is made up, but I seriously, seriously, seriously, doubt the veracity of his statement. I can assure you that conspicuous consumption in Los Angeles is far from dead, and most likely Mr. Ayres needs his eyes examined.

Moving on to August 19th's column:

Everything else you need to know about him was summed up by a list of favourite restaurants he recently submitted to the Los Angeles Times. Amid the collapsing economy, the Mayor of the People chose as his No1 spot Patina, where a meal for two can easily cost $400 (parking alone is $8). “I always get the foie gras,” he wrote. “It's great.”

No a meal for two at Patina can't "easily" cost $400. The most expensive entree is $49, and the most expensive appetizer (the aforementioned foie gras) is $28. Even if you go for the 11 course tasting menu option, that'll run you $150 per greedy gut. With wine that could run to $400 per couple, but that's certainly not a normal night out, and you can easily get out of there for less than $150 for a couple if you share an appetizer and each get a modest plate (which, really, why the hell would you want to pig out, anyway?). Also, $8 for parking is 'hoity toity'? Ummm, I've seen event parking at Staples run as high as $150 for valet service, so $8 really ain't so bad in downtown L.A.. Ayres doesn't tell an outright lie there, but he stretches the truth to make his point, and what point is it? That the mayor of L.A. likes good food, the horror, the horror. Sorry, Chris, most folks here don't care one way or another how their public officials choose to spend their off time, so long as they do it on their own dime. (I'm really pissed at Ayres now, he forced me to defend Mayor Villaraigosa, uggghh)

On to the August 26thSept 2nd column: (correction, wrote the wrong date, had the right link, right article, but wrong date, sorry 'bout that, and see, when I correct a mistake, I leave a record of the original text so as not to make my readers think they're crazy and saw something that wasn't there, unlike some larger internationally renowned news websites that shall remain nameless)

It's tempting to see all this as part of the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy. But that would be wrong. Hollywood is much shallower than that. Hollywood likes Obama because he is movie-script material, an underdog endowed with supernatural photogenicism (“manorexia” as it's known in the business) and faultless oratory skills. Let's face it, Obama's biopic would clean up on Oscars night. John McCain's biopic would go straight to DVD - before being picked up for syndication by the History Channel.

This isn't as cynical as it sounds. Hollywood is a company town, and company towns like to elect politicians who fit in with the corporate culture. Why else would it have helped to dump the former Democratic Governor, Gray Davis (old, spindly, boring), to replace him with the more Tinseltown-friendly Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who once professed his love for Richard Nixon?

Uh, yeah, and ahhh, hell no! Where to begin? First, "Hollywood" was not interested, or helpful in getting Schwarzenegger elected. There's a big difference between a few of his friends (Leno, Tom Arnold, and Danny DeVito) saying nice things about him even though he's a Republican and Tinseltown helping to 'dump' Gray Davis. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, or he does, and he knows he's lying, but doesn't care because it fits his narrative. And ummmmm, ahhhhhhh, about those "faultless oratory skills", has Mr. Ayres heard Sen. Obama speak off prompter before? Yes, he delivers a written speech well, but to earn the appelation orator, I believe one (even The One) should be able to speak well extempraneously as well. And ummmm, ahhhhhh, Oooooooobbaaaaaammmmaa hasn't done too well in debates, forums, or unfriendly interviews (all things which he avoids as much as possible). Orator? Hardly. Watched Leno on Friday, and they had a fake Obama on, he didn't look a thing like Obama, but most of their impressionist don't look like the folks they are impressing, but what he did capture in a very exaggerated way was the ummmmmm, aahhhhhh, looooonggggg paaauuuuussseeeess, annnnnnddddd draaawwwwwwwnnnn oouuuuuuuutttt syllables at the indicative portion of sentences, and the overly emphatic consanants at the enddddddddd. Also, the impressionist captured the aloofness of The Obama tone, and the dismissive attitude towards questions. It will be interesting to see if SNL will be as pointed in their impressions of The One, or will they wimp out like everyone else? (sorry, I meant to bury Ayres, not give Leno faint praise).

Almost over (for now), here's another bit of questionable narrative (and one outright factual boner) from Chris Ayres, this time from an article meant to introduce British readers to potentially the next VP of the United States:

At the age of 10, Sarah Palin got her very own bunny rabbit. Which means to say that she crouched down in the grass outside her family home, aimed her shotgun and blew its furry little head off. That's how things work in Alaska. You kill stuff. You freeze it. You turn it into stew.

Great anecdote, except, so far not corroborated anywhere else, and is entirely inconsistent how a hunting family would introduce their child to hunting. The way he framed it, the family went to a pet store, picked out a domesticated bunny, plopped it down in the backyard, and told young Sarah to fire away. Her first hunt very well may have been for rabbit, but wild rabbits are common in Alaska, and they go through cycles where they are scarce and other times when they breed like, well, rabbits, so culling their numbers is an important part of helping to maintain a proper ecological balance. Plus, they're tasty. Also, I doubt they started her out with a shotgun, a .22-caliber rifle is much more likely.

That's not so bad, but here's a bit from the same article that's plain bizarre (which they've changed, finally, it was wrong for a good 24 hours, I'll show both versions, the fixed, and how it originally appeared as best as I can remember it):

Mother of five (one of whom is named Piper Indy, after the Polaris Indy snowmobile).

originally:

Mother of five (one of whom is named Polaris, after a snowmobile).

Damn, they caught his mistake, doesn't mention the correction anywhere, that's not just a word left out or a spelling mistake, that's a serious error, and given that the names of all five of her children are relatively unusual, you'd think there'd be enough material there to make his point with out making it wrongly.

So, Chris Ayres, I'm talking to you, buddy, Los Angeles is my city, even if it's your beat for the Times of London, get crap wrong, make stuff up, exaggerate things for effect, and I'll be noticing, I won't be able to do much about it, or get you to fix it, but I'll be noticing.