I question the timing of Tom Rawstorne's article in The Daily Mail and the article in BBC Magazine about SL sex.
Back in the day, airlines used to signal price changes to each other by "flashing" fares at 12:01AM, reducing or raising prices briefly.
The media is no different. Staffers used to fraternize with the competition at local watering holes or while on the beat, but deadlines and workloads make it impossible for Reporter X and Editor Y to arrange a midnight thrusting in the alley behind Harrods anymore.
Hence, my theory: it is now necessary for them to "flash" stories at each other to catch each others attention.
Looking at the articles, it's perfectly clear that someone at the BBC wants to have virtual animal sex with Tom Rawstorne. Tom has responded positive with his own article, but wants to wait for "haptic" feedback. (Something, I'm sure, Daily Mail will expense.)
So, in the end it isn't about SL sex at all. It's really about two British reporters who are tired of writing Lady Di article after Lady Di article, so they're wanting to get their freak on with each other.
I say: have a happy time, you two lovebirds.
Just remember to use protection. (McAfee or Norton make decent anti-virus products to prevent accidental infection.)
UPDATE:
Steven Morris of The Guardian is obviously looking for a threesome with these two.
I have another explanation for these stories.
These reporters loaded Second Life on their work computers, engaged in all the sordid and tawdry virtual sex they couldn't get as pathetic secondrate beat reporters in RL, and got caught by their bosses.
So, they lied and said they were engaging in "Research" for a story they were working on, but hadn't cleared it with their editors.
Trying to avoid a scandal, the editors agreed to run the half-rate, badly-researched garbage passing as stories because they didn't have anything else worth publishing.
Hey, it's more plausible than some respected news agency actually assigning crap like this intentionally, right?
This is yet another example of reporter looking for sex in SL and - SURPRISE - they find it.
There's nothing about the music scene, art scene, aviation, combat RPG, religious tolerance, investment speculation, cultural bridges, education industry, telecommuting business... it's just the humpy-humpy.
It's all they looked for, so that's all they see. Result - they report that's all there is to find.
Fuck 'em, eh. They're terrified that they're losing readership and viewership to online worlds, so they go slagging on them
The twisted bright spot of all of this is that sex sells and this will only hasten the floodgates.
Hopefully, a few folks in that flood will turn out to be the next Madcow, Sojourner, Bettina, Circe...
Comments (5)
I commented on one of the articles, pointing out exactly that, that it was pretty cheap to run 'sex' stories in stead of - for once - something on the 'positive' uses of SL.
Comment did not get approved.
I did the same on a Flemish newspaper website, where also my comment did not get through moderation. :(
Posted by Vint Falken | November 14, 2008 11:30 AM
Posted on November 14, 2008 11:30
Obviously they are too busy trying to entice other reporters into gay virtual furry robot sex with them to approve those comments on a timely basis.
There is only one bright spot to these stories: The BBC, daily Mail, and Guardian recognize the talentless and incapable members of their staff and refrain from assigning them to legitimate news stories like the American elections, War in Iraq, Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Wall Street Shakiness, Banking Collapses, or other things that might affect people's lives.
No, they assign these screwhead perverts to something that won't cause any more damage to society than their rags have already done.
Posted by Crap Mariner | November 14, 2008 11:35 AM
Posted on November 14, 2008 11:35
I love this post and particularly the second 'reason' proposed... they got caught. I'm constantly irked by mainstream media making it appear as though Second Life is all about sex, violence and All That Is Wrong With The World.
I recently did a contract with an organisation looking to use SL as a teaching environment. Actually, there were already some classes trialling SL but they could not get access from within the organisations Institutes/Colleges. One of the IT guys allegedly came back with the righteous response, "It's not an appropriate environment. I logged in and I got bitten by a Vampire". Right. And where did he go and what did he do when he logged in? It's doubtful he investigated any of the numerous education related sims that lecturers were actually using. (By the way, we eventually got access for the lecturers at their desks and also in classrooms for the duration of the classes).
I constantly talk to people in my real life about Second Life and generally the first part of any conversation is answering questions to clear up misconceptions created by the mainstream media. Most people I talk to are curious about Second Life and can often see ways that it will be useful/of interest to them personally or professionally.
Further, if Second Life was about nothing more than sex, I certainly wouldn't have created accounts for my parents (Ewwww!).
I'm with you Crap, I wish that reporters would release some big stories about the art of second life, the second life community (who let's face it are pretty amazing), education, business, fundraising or... quite frankly anything but furry hate, paedophilia or reporting on real life couples who have had some virtual connection and ended in disaster. And if they must report on these things, can they at least pretend to have gone to the bother to gather some actual statistics or facts?
*walks off muttering and trying to remember where I put my soapbox*
Posted by Moggs Oceanlane | November 14, 2008 5:22 PM
Posted on November 14, 2008 17:22
*pictures new catchphrase to increase sale numbers*
This just in: now with more ignorance!
:D
Posted by Gany | November 15, 2008 2:26 AM
Posted on November 15, 2008 02:26
It's silly to assign any weight to the consensus that SL is populated solely by ~60,000 iniquitous perverts. If the reporters could cam through their rl neighbors' walls, their view, indeed their focus, might be different.
One could easily say, given the amount of pornography available on the internet, that essentially, they can cam through their neighbors' walls.
In either event, you're right. They're just barking.
Posted by Ivanova Shostakovich | November 19, 2008 12:38 PM
Posted on November 19, 2008 12:38