All over Manhattan, the NYPD is sending undercover cops into bodegas and liquor stores to buy beer underage or hawk stolen electronics, and using those stings to extract fines from business owners, then hit them with onerous penalties. Sorry, did I say all over Manhattan? I meant in Inwood, East Harlem, and Washington Heights, neighborhoods with primarily Hispanic residents.
Today, ProPublica and the New York Daily News offer the latest installment of their excellentjoint reporting on “nuisance abatement,” a law which allows the NYPD to take action against locations where they suspect there is criminal activity, without actually charging owners or tenants or offering them a chance to argue their side in court. Previously, they’ve covered New Yorkers who have been kicked out of their homes on no more than thin suspicion of drug use or sales; today’s article focuses on nuisance abatement at businesses.
The piece opens with a striking anecdote about a laundromat owner in Inwood. In 2013, a man entered the business offering what he said were stolen Apple products. A customer bought them, and was arrested—the seller was an undercover cop. Seven months later, more officers arrived, threatening to close the business for a year if the owner didn’t agree to pay a $2,000 fine, install security cameras whose footage would be accessible to the NYPD, and subject his business to warrantless searches. Fearing he’d lose his business otherwise, the owner agreed, even though he’d had nothing to do with the illegal purchase.
Most of the other instances of nuisance abatement documented in the piece involved underaged people buying beer or liquor at bodegas or liquor stores. Multiple employees quoted in the piece gave similar stories about the undercover buys that did them in: An apparently adult-looking person would enter the store at a busy time of day, come to the counter with a can or bottle palmed so as to obscure the label, put money on the counter, and walk out before the cashier would have had a chance to check ID, even if they wanted to. (Surveillance footage from one bodega seems to corroborate this claim.) Then, they’d be faced with a difficult choice: face long-term closure, or agree to pay fines and install cameras and card readers that would allow police to access customers’ ID information, at their own expense.
By analyzing public records, the reporters found that these actions happen “almost exclusively” in minority neighborhoods, despite no evidence that these neighborhoods have particular problems with underage alcohol sales.
When the nuisance abatement law was instituted in the 1990s, it was meant to crack down on obviously illegal businesses like brothels. Now, it’s used to punish otherwise legal mom-and-pop stores. ProPublica and the News even dug up a 20-year-old white paper in which Commissioner Bill Bratton argued in favor of using less intrusive and powerful legislation known as the “padlock law” instead of nuisance abatement against legitimate businesses that commit violations. Under the padlock law, officers must make three arrests, one of which leads to a conviction, before shutting down a business, and give a business owner notice that they are under threat of closure. Nuisance abatement, on the other hand, does not require any arrests or notices. According to one NYPD source quoted in the piece, the padlock lawhasn’t been used in 15 years.
In the office there was a dry-erase board with each of our names. We had a 6:00 p.m. curfew, and every day at 5:59 the countdown began. All the kids in the living room counted backwards from sixty, staring at the door. At 5:59 and 45 seconds some young gangster would always come running in, make a dash to the dry-erase board, and place a check by his name.
I never went anywhere, so I sat on the arm of the couch by the door and counted down with everyone else. I was used to measuring my time precisely. I got up quick, at the first peep of sun, to silence the hammering of my alarm clock. I showered beside the ticking time bomb of an egg timer. I got dressed. I did my chores.
Foster care, two weeks—that’s all I thought I was signed up for. But I wound up living in group homes and various foster placements throughout Los Angeles for the next four years. I call this portion of my adolescence The Time of The Rules. There were rules before, but these rules were more specific:
1. Do all chores by 5 p.m.
2. Have room clean and ready for inspection by 8 a.m.
3. Treat others with respect
4. Do not use bad language, race talk, sex talk, or “mother talk”
5. No gang signs or actions allowed
Sometimes in the group homes there was a cool-ass staffer. That staffer would say something like, These are the rules. If you don’t like them you have two options. 1) Break them and accept the consequences. 2) Change them.
I met a bunch of kids who chose option 3: break them and get away with it. Boys filled sandwich bags with my clean pee, put the bag in a rubber dog toy called the Kong, and ran a long catheter through the Kong and down their pants. When the staff looked in on them and watched them piss, no one was the wiser.
I’m not sure if it’s naiveté or optimism that made me obsessed with the Rules, and then later with changing them. I’m not sure why I rarely tried for option 3. It’s likely that I knew I was never cut out for that, or born into a place where I could learn to be. I learned later that the wealthy, Wall Street, the banks—they all get to break the rules. But us, the poor, the people of color—we don’t. It’s only your proximity to privilege and power that opens the escape hatch of option 3. You can break the rules and get away with it, but only if you’re rich.
Four years ago, for example, I was a field coordinator on a campaign around bank-owned blighted homes in Los Angeles. What can I say about the neighborhoods where these homes were found? There were shattered street lamps, tennis shoes dangling on telephone wires, CRIPS FOR LIFE sprayed on the drywall. Vacant lots with rusty car parts, skinny girls with wobbly legs, the salted air of French fries. People fought each other in the streets in front of the liquor store or out by the elementary schools, and dogs darted about hunting for food. Everyone, even the dogs, looking of hurt.
But in these places, it was banks that made the worst neighbors. If a family was evicted then the bank owned the house, and that’s when the real trouble moved in. The pimps dragged girls in off the street—dragged them into the bank’s empty houses and raped them. Here was a place for sex trafficking, drug dealing, squatting. Graffiti all over the walls. Inside the homes, amid the damp piles of empty food containers, bottles, used condoms, there was also homework, long division. There were pants and orphaned heels. There was a closet door with the names of girls and their phone numbers. Little nervous eyes peeped out from a window across the street. The residents didn’t call the police. The police came and went but the squatters were here to stay.
The residents had rules to protect them, theoretically. Councilmember Eric Garcetti, who later became the mayor, penned the “Foreclosure Registry Ordinance,” passed in May 2010. The ordinance stated that any bank-owned home that was a “blight” owed $1,000 to the city each day it remained in disrepair. But these rules were not enforced. Who would report these blighted homes? Who would collect the money? No one, even though this was much-needed revenue for the city. Why wasn’t anyone doing anything about it?
Working on the campaign, I thought back to the staffers’ advice in the group homes. I still believed in rules. I didn’t want people to break them. I didn’t like that the blight rule was not being enforced. I wanted to change that. I invited fourcouncilmembers from nearby districts who were running for mayor on a tour of all the bank-owned homes in South L.A. I invited media too. Everyone got messed up about it. They were angry. They too were wondering why the rule wasn’t being enforced.
And then it happened. We got the bill updated. One of the councilmembers started a summer jobs program with the conservation corps, training kids to report on the blighted homes. I was so happy. Wiggling my butt and sticking my tongue out at the banks.
There are guys over at the building and trades union hall in the San Gabriel Valley who sit all day and wait for their names to be called. I interviewed them when I was campaigning for healthcare reform in 2009. They waited and we drank coffee and ate donuts and they told me about why they chose to sit there for a union job: because they’d done it the other way before. Without a union. They were day laborers who sometimes worked a whole day and sometimes at the end of that day the guy who picked them up would drop them off and refuse to pay. Not just regular work either—hard labor. Sweat. Take all the bricks out the truck. Don’t mess them up. Nothing banged or boomed. And then, after it all, no pay: “Whatcha gonna do? Sue me? Am I gonna have any problems out of you? I can call immigration.” And maybe you’re documented but your brother who’s been working beside you all day isn’t—maybe your brother looks at you like please please please. You went by the rules. The bosses, they broke them.
Biblically speaking, there are two rules being broken here. There are sins of commission—when an employer pays a worker less than the minimum wage, or pays for fewer hours than were worked, or pays in cash to dodge payroll taxes (and workers comp and unemployment insurance). And then there are sins of omission—when senior managers, often of very large firms, pressure local store managers, branch managers, contractors or suppliers to keep costs low, without putting in place equally strong measures to prevent wage theft. (James 4:17: “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”)
But a neat thing happened this fall. The governor of California signed SB588, a bill that holds people who commit wage theft accountable. Makes bad bosses pay a fine, wear a scarlet letter, renders them unable to conduct business until they pay what’s due to the worker. When it was announced on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, that Governor Jerry Brown had signed this bill into law, I got to see all the carwash workers and janitors and home health care aides celebrate at a town hall meeting hosted by SEIU United Service Workers West. I thought, What a beautiful day it is. My heart felt lighter.
Reading this, I thought of J, who I met in 2001, when I worked in a homeless shelter. (Maybe I was the cool-ass staffer. Although it’s entirely possible I was the pain-in-the-ass staffer.) J was one of the residents, a young woman from Kazakhstan. She was blind in one eye from being beaten by her husband. She marveled at all the freedom in Hollywood, the queer people, the transgender people, the people from all sorts of backgrounds. People holding hands and making out and shoving each other against walls and dancing all night. She had an awful habit of staring, which she blamed on her thick glasses. She laughed hard and told self-deprecating jokes about her fat butt, her poor English.
But if someone tried to cut her in line or steal her spot she would call them out. She was not just some stupid girl who knew nothing. She was from Kazakhstan! She knew suffering. She knew hunger. One of the things that she did really well was work. She cleaned and laughed and sang, and then went to work at a restaurant as a hostess.
One day she came back to the shelter and reported she’d lost her job at the restaurant because the manager was stealing tips and she called him out on it. When she told me the story she rubbed the spot on her face her husband had pummeled. You could tell she was in shock, having realized that this was not the America she signed up for. Imagine dreaming of a place your whole life and then discovering it doesn’t exist. She discovered instead that this is a country for other people. A country with so many rules. You become an American when you realize that only with the right amount of money and the right amount of power, you can break these rules, or make them your own.
Melissa Chadburn has written for Guernica, Buzzfeed, Poets & Writers, Salon, American Public Media’s Marketplace, Al Jazeera America and dozens other places. Her essay, “The Throwaways,” received notable mention in Best American Essays and Best American Nonrequired Reading. Her first novel, A Tiny Upward Shove, is forthcoming with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
The BOE said in a statement this week that Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the board’s chief clerk in Brooklyn, was suspended without pay after the election, “pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn.” The News’s sources said that the suspension is a prelude to Haslett-Rudiano being “forced out” of her job, and that her firing could come as early as next week.
A Board of Elections spokesperson has not responded to Gawker’s request for comment on whether Haslett-Rudiano will be fired.
After Gawker issued a call for stories about primary voting problems, we received multiple responses from New York City residents in Brooklyn and elsewhere who were registered to vote, but whose names were not on the books in their polling places. Many of these New Yorkers said they ultimately voted by affidavit rather than with a traditional poll. “Over the last month, I have double and triple checked that I was registered and that I knew my polling place,” a Bushwick woman named Chavisa said. “I was even registered in the online system...I really have no idea how or why this could have happened.”
Haslett-Rudiano did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This week, Uber settled two major lawsuits challenging its treatment of drivers as independent contractors, rather than actual employees. It got off very, very cheap.
Uber drives in California and Massachusetts were disputing the company’s labor practices, saying that Uber was treating them as independent contractors to save money when in fact the company exercised a level of control over their employment that should allow them to be classified as employees (which would put Uber on the hook for benefits and various things that companies are required to give to employees, but not contractors). The case was closely watched. Many felt that this was the big chance to strike a legal blow against the more exploitative business aspects of the “gig economy.” But no!
The cases have been settled. And here is what the 385,000 drivers covered by suit get: roughly $100 million, and agreements from the company to share more information with drivers and stop deactivating drivers so quickly for refusing rides, and to support the creation of “drivers associations” in California and Massachusetts.
Drivers associations, of course, are not unions.
Even a hundred million bucks is not much split 385,000 ways. (The Wall Street Journal notes that while “some drivers could receive upward of $8,000,” most will get only a “nominal” amount.) So the average driver is walking from this with a marginally more open workplace, and not much else.
Uber, on the other hand, is walking away with this: an existential threat to its business model laid to rest, and a valuation of many tens of billions of dollars kept safely out of the hands of its drivers.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe the lawyers thought they would lose the case in court? Otherwise it is hard to understand why they would have agreed to this deal. This will not be the end of challenges to Uber’s business model. But you can be sure that every time a new challenge arises, the company will be waving this settlement around as proof that nothing should change.
Barry Diller and Diane von Fürstenberg. Photo: Getty Images
When it comes to reporting on the sexual preferences of public figures, the New York Times has a long history of dancing around the subject, often to the point of absurdity. While the paper has no written policy against outing gay public figures who would prefer to keep their sexual identities private, it has taken a very conservative approach to the subject over the years, and has in fact loudly denounced outlets, like Gawker, that have followed a different set of rules. Which is why a recent report in the Times about corporate goings-on at Disney caught my eye: It blithely, and without further context, published a claim that IAC chairman Barry Diller is “a homosexual.”
The story, by Columbia University journalism professor James B. Stewart, was about the palace intrigue surrounding the Walt Disney Company’s ongoing search for CEO Robert A. Iger’s permanent successor. To illustrate just how fractious previous searches had been, Stewart quoted a letter sent by former CEO Michael Eisner to Disney’s board of directors in 1997:
Pressed by the board to name a successor, Mr. Eisner cited the entertainment executive Barry Diller, but then wrote a confidential letter to the board saying that “the fact he is a homosexual should have no weight,” which, at the time, all but guaranteed Mr. Diller would never succeed him.
Stewart first reported the contents of this letter eight years ago, in his 2008 book Disney Wars. But this is the first time Eisner’s description of Diller has appeared in the Times; Stewart offered no elaboration on the claim and does not appear to have sought comment from Diller. As far as I can tell, it is the only instance in which the Times has reported, without any qualification, that an ostensibly straight public figure is gay.
Diller was single and unmarried at the time Eisner wrote the letter. Today he is the 74-year-old chairman of IAC/InterActiveCorp, a publicly traded company which controls dozens of media and technology brands—including the Daily Beast, the Princeton Review, and Tinder—and posts annual revenues upwards of three billion dollars. For the past fifteen years, he has been married to the Belgian-American fashion executive Diane von Fürstenberg. Both Diller and von Fürstenberg present themselves to the public as a happily married couple.
But since their nuptials, Eisner’s private assessment of Diller’s sexuality has become very public. Writing in New York magazine in 1999, Michael Wolff described Diller as “gay,” adding that Diller had once threatened to “kill” him if he reported on his personal life. Gawker has reported on Diller’s sexuality on more than one occasion. He has repeatedly been featured in Out magazine’s annual Power 50 list of “the most influential voices in LGBT America.” Even the Timescoyly remarked on the occasion of their marriage that it “came after years of speculation about a relationship widely assumed to be platonic.” (The same announcement described the ceremony as a “merger.”)
In 2013, von Fürstenberg criticized former New York TimesMagazine contributor Andrew Goldman after he inquired about her husband’s appearances on the Out list. “Do I ask you how many times you’ve slept with your wife?” von Fürstenberg asked Goldman. “It’s just unbelievable, I don’t understand.” (Shortly after that interview took place, the Times terminated Goldman’s contract, in what Goldman believes was an act of retaliation requested by von Fürstenberg.)
The debate over whether, and under what circumstances, it is appropriate for news organizations—not just the Times, of course—to out public figures without their consent has shifted in recent years. Prior to the advent of gay marriage and the precipitous advancement of gay civil rights, some outlets—Gawker included—took a view that deliberately hiding the fact that a given celebrity was gay (especially those who were out to those “in the know” but straight to the wider public) served to ratify the false and harmful notion that being gay is shameful.
But the line seems to have moved. As the late Times columnist David Carr argued in a column castigating Gawker (and me) for mentioning Shepard Smith’s male companion in an item about the Fox News anchor’s misbehavior at a bar, “now that gay marriage is a fact of life, a person’s sexual orientation is not only not news, it’s not very interesting.” Gawker’s attempts to navigate this changing environment have sparked outrage, and last summer, drew a rare apology from Gawker Media CEO Nick Denton, following a highly criticized post about a heterosexually married media executive’s attempts to set up an assignation with a gay escort.
The Times itself doesn’t appear to have ever viewed these issues as worth wrestling with in its own reporting: It has a long history of either winking at or completely ignoring the sexuality of its subjects, no matter how obvious or well-known. When the cultural critic Susan Sontag died in 2004, the Times’ obituary mentioned her short-lived heterosexual marriage but made no reference to her decades-long romantic relationship with the photographer Annie Leibovitz. When television journalist Itay Hod published a Facebook post alleging that an unnamed GOP congressman was gay, the Timescovered the post and the ensuing debate, making clear that it knew who the congressman was but declining to name him (it was Aaron Schock).
This tendency pervades the paper’s coverage of media figures in particular. When Times editors deemed Ronan Farrow’s rise at MSNBC worthy of a profile, the paper noted that he is “guarded” about his private life and “prefers not to address rumors about whom he’s dating,” but not that both the New York Post and Vice had reported that he has dated men. When the Times Magazineprofiled former New Republic owner Martin Peretz, it saw fit to mention the “infidelities and explosive temper” that broke up his marriage, but was stoically incurious about whether those infidelities were with men. And when columnist Alessandra Staley reviewed CNN anchor Anderson Cooper’s talk show debut in 2011, she argued it was “obvious and awkward” for Cooper to meticulously avoid any discussion of his romantic life on “a confessional talk show wrapped around his good looks, high spirits and glamorous adventures,” while omitting any reference to the fact that Cooper had been dating and appearing in public with an East Village bar owner named Benjamin Maisani for the previous two years.
Stewart, who is also a staff writer at the New Yorker, seems to agree with the Times’ traditional stance against outing. In a “reporter’s notebook” published a few years ago, he admitted to pursuing widespread rumors that Apple CEO Tim Cook was gay. (Cook came out in a Businessweek essay in October 2014.) Apple refused to cooperate with Stewart, so he dropped the matter: “I wouldn’t ever ‘out’ anyone without their consent, and in any case, I had no direct confirmation that Tim Cook was gay.”
All of which makes the casual disclosure of Eisner’s letter, which, to Times readers at least, effectively outs—or “outs”—Barry Diller, that much more puzzling. Has the Times altered its policy with respect to reporting on sexuality? Was it simply an oversight? Have the circumstances of Diller’s private life become such a commonplace that he no longer deserves the courtesy that the paper extended to Cooper, Farrow, Schock, Peretz, and Sontag (or her memory)? One could argue that simply quoting from an ages-old memo in the context of a corporate succession analysis doesn’t constitute outing, but it’s difficult to imagine that the Times would publish the contents of such a memo about, say, Iger, without so much as a phone call for comment.
Stewart referred my questions to the paper’s spokesperson, Eileen Murphy, who told Gawker in an email, “The use of the quote in this story was to illustrate how Michael Eisner tried to discredit Barry Diller with the Disney board, not about Mr. Diller’s actual sexual orientation. And, it comes from a document that is not in dispute.”
Diller himself did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement to Gawker, IAC wrote, “Thank you for reaching out. IAC does not comment on personal matters.”
In 1998, Prince called up Mel B out of the blue, and asked if she’d like to interview him, at his house. She, of course, accepted the invitation. “This is the best interview I’ve ever had,” Prince said afterward. Here, he gives his thoughts on mortality, and makes it clear that he would have wanted you to be partying right now.
You may know Prince as the wildly influential singer, songwriter, instrumentalist, actor, and genre-bending virtuoso who tragically passed away yesterday morning. The many websites that write about subjects other than, say, music, know him as a man who occasionally did other stuff, and they’re taking the opportunity to tell us all about it.
As has become tradition, the death of any beloved celebrity is immediately followed by an onslaught of Content about that celebrity’s legacy, his death, the aftermath, and everything in between. The niche news outlets of the internet, however, are often forced to contort themselves into unnatural positions to incorporate the latest mega-star’s death.
Prince’s death, for instance, saw tech outlets posting storyafter storyafter story (after story) reminding us of Prince’s fraught relationship with the internet, all under some variation of the search-engine optimized headline “Why Can’t I Listen to Prince’s Music Online?” As the day went on, things only got worse. Much worse.
Audience: Conspiracy theorists, Billy Corgan, people who are “just saying”
Angle: Chemtrails killed Prince
Infowars, Alex Jones’s virtual mecca for conspiracy theorists and raving truthers alike, has made a name for itself exploiting people’s most irrational fears and emotions. And since Prince actually was a chemtrail truther, why not assume based on nothing whatsoever that Prince fell captive to the dreaded “chemtrail flu.”
After all, as Infowars explains, “A mysterious illness has been spreading across the U.S., coinciding with massive chemtrail spraying – and it’s possible the two are linked.” Wake up sheeple—it’s what Prince would have wanted.
Did you know that prince ate breakfast? He even wrote the word breakfast in a song once. And he used a picture of Dave Chappelle holding pancakes while dressed as Prince on a single. Some might even say he needed food to survive.
Audience: People interested in politics, also Prince, apparently
Angle: Prince, political junkie
“Prince didn’t shy away from politics,” opens the article about how much Prince loved politics, before immediately refuting its main point: “He was not a protest song singer..., did not hit the campaign trail like Bruce Springsteen, and was never associated with global activism like U2’s Bono. And he came under criticism for not taking part in the all-star musical effort for Africa, ‘We are the World.’”
He did, however, donate to a Republican once. Because Prince loved politics.
CNN Money, which essentially acts as CNN’s web vertical, explains how Prince helped found YesWeCode, a nonprofit that attempts to integrate low-income youth into the world of tech. Prince also once said, “Let’s teach the black kids how to to be like Mark Zuckerberg.” Prince loved code.
The article includes many good lawyerly memories, including:
“I get a call from someone who said, ‘Hello, this is The Artist,’” Elkin recalled. “And so I respond with, ‘Go fuck yourself.’ This went on for a minute or two before I realized it was actually Prince on the phone. I apologized profusely—I was so humiliated and embarrassed—but Prince just went on talking. And then he just hung up. He never said goodbye, he’d just hang up.”
Did you know that, like Prince, biblical Abram and Jacob also once changed their names? And that Prince once tried to convert a Jew when he became a Jehovah’s witness? He also one hired a Jewish man to play drums. Happy Passover to Prince.
As it just so happens, Prince was born in a city—a city with teams that play sports. He also played a (phenomenal) halftime show once. On either side of that halftime show, there were sports. Prince loved sports.
The first article is about BuzzFeed’s thriving L.A.-based video operation, which churns out videos that routinely rack up millions of views in the span of hours. Have you noticed those videos on Facebook in which a pair of disembodied hands assembles an often dubious looking meal from beginning-to-end in the span of about 60 seconds? Those are BuzzFeed. One for Chicken Fajita Salad, posted on Tuesday, has already been viewed 33 million times. Every other media company on Earth would commit ritual sacrifice for that level of “engagement.”
Anyway, the Hollywood Reporter piece focuses on how BuzzFeed “Motion Pictures” is keeping its first wave of on-camera talent from leaving for the brighter lights of Hollywood proper. This group includes The Try Guys—four men who humiliate themselves in the name of upholding gender and sexual stereotypes—and Quinta Brunson, a 26-year-old comedian whose videos translate Tina Fey’s humor to a generation saddled with student loan debt.
Those five and two unnamed others have signed two-year contracts through BuzzFeed Motion Pictures’ Development Partners program. The contracts bind the creators to the company while also allowing their work to flow out and away from BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed may facilitate such upward mobility, and they will take a cut of any resulting riches. As an example, the article opens with the writer watching Eugene Lee Yang, the Justin Timberlake of the Try Guys, at BuzzFeed’s studio workshopping a makeover show called Mansformation (wacky!). But the show is not intended for BuzzFeed. Instead, Yang is pitching it to Lifetime.
The most detailed description we get of the contracts is this:
These are comprehensive deals, covering projects for digital, linear and theatrical distribution as well as sponsorships and other branded content opportunities. Talent receives a base salary and gross revenue participation. In some cases BuzzFeed might act as a producer, studio or distributor on the projects.
Regardless, BuzzFeed’s recognition that this privileged group of talent would be welcomed elsewhere in the media and/or entertainment industries obviously means that said talent is being handsomely compensated for sticking around at BuzzFeed. (Though probably not too handsomely: Matt Bellassai, BuzzFeed Video’s biggest breakout star, left the company earlier this year to sign a deal with power-broking talent agency CAA.)
Yet the cheery tone that powers the Hollywood Reporter article is not shared by the one in the Financial Times, which reports that BuzzFeed has cut its internal revenue target for 2016 from $500 million to $250 million. BuzzFeed said the report wasn’t true, but those of us who observe the media from within nonetheless took the story as an indication that the billowing content bubble is about to pop. And if BuzzFeed will indeed be out an assumed $250 million—or even $100 million, or $50 million!—it’s not hard to imagine the company finding savings by shedding a few employees. But which ones?
If you had to guess which group of BuzzFeed’s content creators will be hit the hardest in the event of a “correction,” would you go with the incredibly prolific video division and its prized stars (who have large followings on Facebook, which is eating publishing) who may have scored exclusive contracts or... the people (once prized stars themselves) who just write shit?
Earlier this week, Verizon (the telecommunications company) and Hearst (the media company) announced the joint acquisition of Complex Media. (The Wall Street Journal pegged the price at somewhere between $250 million and $300 million; I have heard it’s closer to $350 million, but what’s $50 million really?) Complex Media is a conglomerate of websites and blogs you may have never heard of, but its flagship namesake site takes a rap-focused view of pop culture and is popular with younger readers. Let’s see if we can deduce which of Complex’s various content-types is important to both Verizon and Complex. Via Variety:
“The decision to acquire Complex is certainly a continuation of our media strategy, which is focused on disruption that is occurring in digital media and content distribution, and involves building a portfolio of the emerging digital brands of the future for the millennial and Gen-Z audience,” Brian Angiolet, Verizon’s senior VP of consumer product and marketing, said in announcing the deal.
According to Complex, the company reaches more than 50 million unique monthly visitors and delivers 300 million monthly video views, representing 415% year-over-year growth. “Since honing in on video, we’ve proven our ability to create culturally relevant, premium video content at scale in a very short amount of time,” [Complex CEO Rich] Antoniello said in a statement.
The “disruption” referred to by the Verizon suit is video, and Complex’s CEO helpfully acknowledges that in his statement. In its write-up of the sale, Variety calls Complex a “video-focused media company,” which is really just a pleasant spoonful of PR. Complex started as a magazine, and since its inception it has been run by varying people with vast experience in print journalism. Complex currently employs dozens of writers and editors who produce far more content than its video team. If anything, Complex aspires to be a “video-focused media company,” and that’s really all you need to know. If you were a Complex editorial staffer who did not work on video, would these quotes about your company’s sale to several corporations inspire you? Would they soothe you? My guess is: no.
Instead of feeling celebratory, you might instead feel kind of like the group of Mashable staffers who were suddenly fired a few weeks ago as the company shifted its focus towards video. The internet craves more video, and it definitely needs it from Mashable.
Back when bloggers were themselves the disruptors, print publications belatedly started building out websites. At magazines especially, this created a division—if not quite a caste system—within those publications. Web staffs and print staffs existed in their own silos, with separate (and highly unequal) budgets and separate teams of writers and editors that rarely if ever commingled. At some places—such as within Condé Nast—this structure still exists. You read some writers online but never in print, and the writers you read in print you only read online when their articles get put there for the people who don’t read magazines (everyone).
Soon, we will start to see the same sort of fissures—and resentment—within digitally native media companies, except instead of print versus web it will be words versus video. This may already have started.
Last week, BuzzFeed Motion Pictures released a video titled “27 Questions Black People Have For Black People,” which you see above. The video was widely criticized and mocked for perpetuating racist stereotypes, and earlier this week BuzzFeed formally apologized for the video on Twitter:
In the hours after the video was posted, the gathering social media mob was looking for answers, and, naturally, they turned to some of BuzzFeed’s more publicly visible black writers and editors. As a result, some of those writers not only publicly denounced the video, they also made it clear in no uncertain terms that their side of BuzzFeed had nothing to do with that video, nor anything produced by the otherside of BuzzFeed. (The two factions are helpfully located on opposite ends of the country, with writing mostly produced in New York, and BuzzFeed studios producing most videos out of L.A.)
Said staff writer and podcast host Tracy Clayton:
Said mobile news editor Stacy-Marie Ishmael:
Said ex-BuzzFeed writer Ashley C. Ford:
BuzzFeed is a tight ship that rarely leaks or cracks. Because of its, um, disruptive approach to the internet, it is frequently criticized by its competitors. It also famously has no use for haters. As a result, its writers have always tended to project a unified, above-it-all, drama-free happiness that can only be achieved through unencumbered success. But the “27 Questions Black People Have For Black People” video was so bad and so immediately hated that BuzzFeed’s facade of positivity was punctured, and what spilled out was anti-BuzzFeed Motion Pictures tea that could not have been brewed just in one night.
So who will protect the written word? The answer, ultimately, is probably no one. Some people do seem to be trying, but they must also hedge their bets. The Ringer, Bill Simmons’ second attempt at a Good Website, has so far amassed a staff that appears to be slanted heavily towards writers. And yet, the biggest announcement out of the shop so far is that it has partnered with HBO for a post-Game of Thrones recap show. There are ethical questions that arise when a website that aims to carry the torch for cultural criticism teams up with the leading manufacturer of prestige television, but it’s no surprise that those questions have taken a backseat to, you know, getting the hell onto HBO.
Over at the new MTV—which has been rebooted by a core staff from Simmons’ old site—emphasis has also been put on the written word. But in the last week, the site has rolled out podcasts. And video. And there are entire bylined articles living in Instagram captions. Ideally, this could all be part of a robust new media operation, but it’s more realistic that some stuff will stick and other stuff will slide off the wall. And if writing—produced by experienced and, at the new MTV especially, well-paid professionals—is the least profitable of those things, who will save MTV’s burgeoning edit staff? Definitely not this fucking guy.
This post is obviously a self-serving lament. Perhaps readers (well, viewers and listeners now) won’t notice or particularly mind as the amount of primarily word-based content pushed into their feeds shrinks. The market simply doesn’t provide as many writing jobs as there are people who wish to make their livings as writers, something that is the case in most “creative” fields. And, of course, there are likely to be even fewer slots for writers in our video-centric media future: The production of professional-quality video is hugely expensive compared to the production of words, and it requires significantly more behind-the-scenes labor than the current dominant forms of internet writing—blogging and personal essays. Resources will have to be shifted.
An explosion of video content probably means fewer distinct critical voices, overall. And probably fewer interesting ideas, as well. So far, the Content Internet’s video boom has not valued thoughtfulness and critical thinking. Since Buzzfeed’s viral watermelon detonation (already an epochal event in digital newsrooms), publications have suddenly tossed their writers in front of cameras to satiate the industry’s sudden and accelerating obsession with streaming stunts and experiments broadcast on Facebook Live. These streams have been light and goofy in a self-consciously amateur way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the videos are also, on the whole, unwatchable. Last week, Mic streamed a series of basic chemical explosions*—a bizarre attempt to keep pace with the future by reciting one of the internet’s oldest tricks. With time, these videos should improve. But the question is, will the writers get better at doing them, or will they be replaced with people who don’t need to improve at all?
In a related note, please check out my video series in which I hesitantly try basic foods, as if I was a small child, for the grand enjoyment of the public.
*This post originally stated Mic detonated Mentos and Diet Coke. It was hydrogen peroxide liquid, yeast, warm water, dish soap, food coloring.
In New York City, the average income and the average rent seem to have both just flown in from very different planets. They have no idea how to communicate with one another.
In 2015: 60% (INSANE) In 2016: 65% (EVEN MORE INSANE)
The average New York City household would need to spend two-thirds of its income to rent the average New York City apartment. Not tenable.
If you are one of the millions of average people who work in New York City, you can move far away and endure a long commute; you can try to find a spot in public housing; you can try to find a spot in other subsidized housing; you can live in grinding poverty because you spend so much of your income on rent; or you can leave New York City. If too many people leave New York City, New York City doesn’t work.
A Russian hacker who claims to have broken into the personal computer of a Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office investigator named Mark Lewis did have access to Lewis’s email account at one point, an email released to Gawker this week shows. The hacker, who goes only by the pseudonym BadWolf, previously claimed to have obtained a document from Lewis’s computer that seemed to implicate Lewis and the PBSO in the surveillance of local journalists.
Last month, Gawker published an investigation into alleged corruption at the PBSO, based in part on a text document that BadWolf supposedly hacked from Lewis’s computer. The document was titled “Reporter Sabotage Campaign,” and it contained what appeared to be logs of Lewis conducting detailed surveillance against Lawrence Mower and Katie La Grone, two Palm Beach journalists who had given critical coverage to shootings of civilians by PBSO deputies.
The story contained many seemingly corroborative details, but one central question remains without a definitive answer: Did the PBSO, and Mark Lewis specifically, conduct surveillance of Palm Beach journalists? One of the supposedly surveilled reporters was unsure about the allegation, and the other did not wish to speak on the record at all. The PBSO declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation. The closest thing to smoking-gun evidence was the Reporter Sabotage Campaign document, which could have easily been forged by BadWolf or someone else.
An email released by the PBSO Thursday in response to a public records request from Gawker for communications between Lewis and two top PBSO officials supports BadWolf’s claim that he gained access to Lewis’s accounts. Sent from Lewis’s personal Yahoo account to Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, Chief Deputy Michael Gauger, and several other PBSO employees and reporters on September 15, 2015, it begins:
Greetings! I am Russian hacker BadVolf. I can not write my name in Russian because smap filters will probably send the emails to junk. I send this email from the hacked email account of Detective Kenneth Mark Lewis of the Palm Beach County Sheriff Office.
The remaining messages released to Gawker, a dozen in all, were procedural and innocuous.
BadWolf’s message from Lewis’s email address does not verify the authenticity of the Reporter Sabotage Campaign document, but it does confirm that the hacker had access to Lewis’s account, from which the document could conceivably have been pulled. BadWolf also claimed in the email to have hacked the accounts of Bradshaw, Gauger, and others at the PBSO—claims he never repeated to me in our weeks of conversations leading up to the story—and to have found evidence of a “very big criminal enterprise” at PBSO.
Lewis and a PBSO spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on the hacked email or the veracity of the Reporter Sabotage Campaign document.
Gawker previously reported on a number of other questionable goings-on at the sheriff’s office. Two candidates for sheriff said they were followed by PBSO helicopters while campaigning against Bradshaw in two separate elections. A PBSO deputy seemed to admit, on tape, that Lewis “went after Channel 5,” the TV network that employs one of the allegedly surveilled journalists, and that “Any time anybody fucking goes after Ric, he puts Mark Lewis on him, to try to get shit on them.” Lewis himself admitted to racism and to “picking...apart” the lives of PBSO critics on recorded catfishing phone calls orchestrated by BadWolf.
Days before Gawker published the original story, the PBSO and FBI each executed a search warrant on the home of Mark Dougan, an ex-PBSO deputy who is an associate of BadWolf’s. Dougan is the founder of PBSOTalk.com, a website where BadWolf published the hacked personal information of thousands of law enforcement officers and others living in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties. Since the publication of the story, GoDaddy has shuttered PBSOTalk after a request from the State Attorney’s Office in nearby Broward County, and Dougan has traveled to Moscow, where he says he is seeking political asylum.
Reached by phone in Moscow Friday, Dougan said that he left the United States because he feared that he would be arrested here, either by the FBI or the PBSO.
His fear may be warranted, at least as far as the PBSO is concerned. On another recorded phone call, Lewis can be heard discussing a “creepy guy” who “picks on” the PBSO and “attacks the sheriff.” Dougan believes Lewis is referencing him on the call, and considering his highly public clashes with the sheriff’s office, this does not seem like a wholly unreasonable suspicion. “When he gets arrested, what jail do you think he’s going to?” Lewis asks on the call. “He’s going to ours.”
Lewis then jokes that this unnamed man could be placed in a cell with “the big, big, huge, black pedophile guy.” “Remember me telling you this guy is little?” he continues. “Yeah, he’s going to be somebody’s girlfriend.”
Prince Rogers Nelson, in his long and brilliant career, meant many, many things to many, many people. How can you choose what he meant to you? Find your own angle on everyone’s loss with the Prince Thinkpiece Generator. Hit the button to explore the possibilities.
The extrajudicial military prison at Guantanamo Bay, like every other brand, maintains a Twitter presence. Today it brings you a nice quote about being forced to be somewhere against your will. Aw!
Bill Clinton, who continues to be allowed to wander onto stages and address thousands of people as if entirely by accident, found a new group of people to yell at yesterday. Bill’s latest bad stump speech topic: Millennials! They’re ruining everything. Now please vote for my wife.
Speaking in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Clinton started rambling about stagnant incomes. And why, exactly, is the economy so very bad? Because of people like you and me. Take it away, Bill:
The reason that there’s so much anxiety, intensity, anger, blame in this election is that 80 percent of the American people have not gotten a pay raise since the crash eight years ago, after inflation.
A lot of young people feel like they’ve played by the rules, went to school, they’re gonna graduate with debt they can’t repay, or they’ve already graduated with debt they can’t repay, and they may not ever get to do what they really wanted to do with their lives.
So why are all these young millennials so angry all the time? Because they’re poor! And why are they so poor? According to the future First Husband, “If all the young people who claim to be disillusioned now had voted in 2010, we wouldn’t have lost the Congress, and we’d probably have our incomes back,” he said.
The fact that Democrats of all ages vote in lower numbers in off-cycle election years is apparently beside the point.
And on an unrelated note, a recent poll showed that millennials voters support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton at a rate of 54 to 37 percent. This probably does not help.
A once-proud nation—founded as a rebuke to the entire idea of worshipping royalty—has once again been shamed by her president, Barack Obama, as he squatted down in submission before a prince in a monogrammed bathrobe.
Prince George, who declined to remove his ornamental bathrobe for a visit from the Leader of the Free World, celebrated his symbolic victory over Obama by taking a ride on a wooden pony:
The pampered princeling’s brazen horseplay was made all the more insulting by the fact that he surely has an entire train of living ponies that he could ride if he so pleased.
After this display of flagrant, elegantly casual disrespect, Prince George was powdered and diapered with an original copy of the U.S. Constitution taken from the National Archives and presented to the child as a gift.
A profile of Hillary Clinton in the latest issue of the New York Times Magazine makes the case, convincingly, that the Democratic frontrunner is the most hawkish candidate in the race, from her upbringing as the daughter of a Navy training officer to her disagreements, as secretary of state, with President Obama over use of force. The piece outlines her relationships with several powerful current and former members of the military, and notes that the “single greatest influence” on her thinking about the military is a retired George W. Bush-era four-star general named Jack Keane.
While campaigning for president, Clinton has called out Bernie Sanders for his criticisms of President Obama, despite her own frequent disagreements with the president on foreign policy issues. She has positioned herself as the candidate who would carry on the president’s legacy if elected. As the Times Magazine profile notes, she has said in national security speeches that her plans for dealing with threats in the Middle East represent an “intensification and acceleration” of the president’s, not a clean break from them.
But Keane, who has informally advised Clinton on military affairs for 15 years, dispenses tough-guy criticisms of the president regularly.
Some highlights:
In 2013, Keane claimed on Fox News that Obama’s timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was based on politics and not “the conditions on the ground,” comparing the situation to Vietnam. General David Petraeus, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates all disagreed, supporting the president’s timetable and calling it “conditions-based.”
It made “no sense” for the Pentagon to publish a report on climate change, and was evidence of a “misguided priority” by the Obama administration, Keane said, adding that he had seen no report from the Department of Defense on the Islamic State.
“I can’t imagine that [report] having much impact on our allies, who are facing an assertive and aggressive China in the Pacific, that we’re going to come help them with climate change. Or, our allies in Eastern Europe facing the threat of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, that we’re going to come help them with climate change,” he said.
And just this year, Keane loudly criticized the Obama’s push to close the Guantanamo Bay prison complex. In February, the president gave a speech expressing his continued commitment to shutting down Gitmo. Among his reasoning was that the prison is “counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit.”
On Fox News, Keane argued that closing Guantanamo Bay is irresponsible, and that the facility is no longer used in propaganda from terrorist groups. However, ISIS’s use of orange jumpsuits when it executes prisoners is widely presumed to be a reference to Guantanamo prisoners. A 2010 issue of Inspire, al Qaeda’s propaganda magazine, features essays by two former Gitmo detainees. And as recently as last year, the group Human Rights First argued that there is “no doubt” that Guantanamo is a “powerful propaganda tool for violent terrorists,” as Media Matters notes.
The most pernicious thing about Keane isn’t his wrongheaded hawkishness, however, but the fact that his the perpetual state of war he argues for helps him to line his own pockets. As Lee Fang detailed in an article for Nation in 2014, Keane is paid as a special advisor to Academi, successor to the bloodstained war contractor Blackwater, as a board member for a the major defense contractor General Dynamics, and for positions at several other companies in the for-profit war business.
Every time he goes on TV or in front of Congress to advocate for U.S. military intervention against ISIS, Hillary Clinton’s “single greatest influence” on matters of war and peace has a monetary interest in making the case for war.
Have you heard about this hot new trend where you feed unsuspecting people all sorts of wacky things on camera and then laugh at their nescience? It’s gonna be huge. Just ask the NYPD.
For Passover, the NYPD decided to tweet out this Buzzfeed-style video of cops trying matzoh for (presumably) the first time.
“Just bite it?” asks one of the cops of the item of food that’s just been handed to her for her explicit consumption.
Bookmark Kinja Deals and follow us on Twitter to never miss a deal. Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a small share of the sale. Click here to learn more, and don’t forget to sign up for our email newsletter.
You don’t need a yard, or even any gardening skills to grow your own food at home; you just need Miracle-Gro’s Aerogarden line. These fully-integrated, soil-free indoor gardens can grow herbs, vegetables, and salad greens up to five times faster than regular soil, and you can choose from two great deals today.
These days, you probably charge as many things over USB as you do over standard AC outlets, so it only makes sense to add some semi-permanent USB ports to your home.
Assuming it’s legal in your state, a good radar/laser detector can pay for itself over time, and this highly-rated Escort Passport S55 is on sale for just $109 on BuyDig’s eBay storefront, or $60 less than Amazon.
When you can get a 1080p action cam with a waterproof housing, two batteries, and a built-in LCD screen for under $40, it’s not hard to understand why GoPro’s in trouble. If you’re on the fence, here’s a handy YouTube video to see how the footage stacks up next to a GoPro. Spoiler alert: Pretty well.
You can’t control it from your smartphone like a Philips Hue Lightstrip, but this TaoTronics LED strip light can glow eight different colors, and even includes several modes that will make the lights flash and change to match whatever song is playing in the room. Plus, unlike a Hue system, almost anyone can afford this thing at $25. Each strip is 16.4' long, but they can be cut to length.
This weekend only, Green Man Gaming is taking an extra 25% off their “Games To Watch,” including preorders for Mirror’s Edge Catalyst, Homefront: The Revolution, and more. Head over to this page to see all of the games, and use code WATCH25 at checkout.
These Dyson AM06 air multipliers are marked down to awesome prices on Amazon today, as long as you don’t mind buying a refurb. Yeah, they’re more expensive than your average fan, but they look so gorgeous that you’ll actually want to show them off, and they come with features like a sleep timer, 10 airflow settings, and a magnetic remote that can stick to the fan’s base when not in use.
If any of the magazines in the image above appeal to you, Amazon will sell you a deeply discounted subscription in today’s Gold Box. Just note that like all Gold Box deals, these prices are only available today.
Your phone might not support it yet, but if you want to be prepared for the Quick Charge 3.0 revolution, this is the best price we’ve seen on Anker’s QC 3.0 wall charger. And while you’re waiting for the future to arrive, it’s also backwards compatible with Quick Charge 2.0 as well.
Velcro cable ties can transform the rat king of cables behind your desk or home theater into something more manageable, and you can get 100 of them today on Amazon for just $6. Now, Amazon frequently lists these at $5, but as add-on items that only ship as part of a $25 order. Today, you’ll pay $1 more, but you can get free Prime shipping.
Earlier this week, we shared a deal on a front pocket RFID-blocking wallet for $8, but if that one wasn’t your style, here’s another option for the same price.
For a few years now, Antec’s USB-powered HDTV bias light has been one of our most reliably popular deals whenever it went on sale. The problem: It only gets a significant discount once every few months. Luckily, a copycat has emerged to fill in the gap.
Just like the Antec model, this Vansky LED light strips plug directly into your TV’s USB port for power, and sticks to the back of the set via built-in adhesive. Once you turn your TV on, the light strip will cast a soft glow on the wall behind it, which can reduce eyestrain when watching in the dark, and improve your TV’s perceived black levels. We’ve posted a few deals on this model, but $15 is the best price we’ve seen.
Apple Watch discounts have almost exclusively been relegated to the entry-level aluminum sport models, but this weekend only, Best Buy is taking $200 off the stainless steel line. In addition to heftier, shinier cases, these Apple Watches include nearly-impervious sapphire screen covers to ward off scratches.
These cheap LED lights can stick directly into your grass to light a path to your front door, and since they include built-in solar panels, you won’t have to run any wires or replace any batteries. Under $20 for a 2-pack is one of the best deals we’ve seen on a product like this.
This deal is incredibly niche and a matter of taste, but if you want to turn old wine bottles into portable light fixtures, this three-pack of cork lights is the deal for you. They’re battery-operated, and will run for 2.5 hours on a charge.
If the thought of a $15 rice cooker isn’t enough to wet your whistle (and really, what’s more exciting than rice?), consider that it also includes a steaming tray that can cook your meats and vegetables simultaneously.
If you’ve got a little more to spend, this step-up model from Tiger will double as a slow cooker, and includes dedicated settings for different styles of rice. At $49, it’s never been cheaper.
Update: Price mistake! The headphones and generic waterproof bag come out to $8 after code VRHXRO7D. Get yours before they fix it!
Update 2: If you add the waterproof bag to your cart on its own and use the same code, you can get it for free!
Update 3: The waterproof bag is sold out, bringing the excitement to an end. If you have an iPhone 6 though, the other armband deal below should still work.
Bluetooth headphones and smartphone arm bands go together like peanut butter and jelly (except much healthier), and you can take your pick of two combo deals today. Just add Aukey’s Bluetooth headphones to your cart, then add either an iPhone 6 armband and use code 5EU6TKKX to get both for $18, or a generic, waterproof armband and code VRHXRO7D for $16.
If you can’t start your day without a morning cup of coffee, but you’re still using an electric drip coffee maker, or even (gasp) a Keurig, you might want to try out a flavor-extracting french press. This inexpensive model looks nearly identical to the excellent Bodum Chambord, but is significantly cheaper at $14 with code VID2IO58.
If you’re not convinced, know that french press took the #1 spot in Lifehacker’s coffee-making Hive Five, and many coffee aficionados swear by it. And with no disposable filters or pods to buy, this machine could pay for itself over time.
Today’s Amazon deal is the best price we’ve ever seen this model, but we don’t know how long it will last, so perk up and lock in your order while you can.
If you have a closet with at least one 4'-8' wall, this Rubbermaid custom shelving kit will add a ton of extra storage space. The configuration is totally up to you, so you can add more shelves, hanging rods, or any combination thereof. Today’s $84 deal on Amazon is within a few bucks of an all-time low, so be sure to lock in your order before it sells out.
In case you missed out last week, you can once again snag an extra year of PlayStation Plus for $40. I know it seems like we’re seeing this deal every week right now, but these gift card deals tend to be feast or famine; it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the deal disappeared for three months.
Simplehuman dominated the nominations in our recent kitchen trash cans Kinja Co-Op, and Amazon’s running rare discounts on several different models today, plus a handful of soap dispensers and kitchen accessories to match.
It isn’t the fastest or most powerful router on the market, but if you’re on the hunt for an 802.11ac router, and you’re on a budget, this well-reviewed TP-Link model is marked down to $50 today on Amazon. That’s about $20 less than normal, an all-time low, and one of the best prices we’ve ever seen on a reputable 802.11ac router.
They won’t track your steps or show you notifications, but Timex’s simple Weekender Watches are still some of the most popular watches ever listed. They’re extremely versatile and come in a variety of colors, and today several models are marked down to the $30 range, plus an additional 20% off with code WEEKENDER. Just note that the code will only work on watches shipped and sold by Amazon.com directly; no third party sellers.
Nespresso’s the easiest way to make good espresso, and the smartphone-connected Nespresso Prodigio is marked down to $169 on BuyDig today, by far the best price we’ve ever seen. The Bluetooth-connected smartphone app allows you to “manage your capsule stock, schedule a brew time, brew remotely, get machine assistance alerts and seamlessly register your machine into the Nespresso Club.” Just be sure to use promo code SMARTCUP100 to save $100 at checkout.
If you use a home theater PC, or even just occasionally plug a laptop into your TV to watch something from across the room, this handheld wireless keyboard and trackpad can give you full control without taking up too much room on your coffee table.
Game of Thrones returns to TV this weekend, but if you need to get caught up, the first two seasons are both marked down to $20 on Blu-ray right now, an all-time low. You don’t need to be a Lannister to afford those prices.
We see deals on car-starting battery packs just about every week, but even by our standards, $27 is a really fantastic starting price (with code TA9A92XK) for a 300A model. And for owners of larger cars, 400A and 600A versions are also on sale. No matter which one you choose, they all include a DC charger to juice it back up inside your car, and they’re all small enough to fit in your glove box.
Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a small share of the sale. Click here to learn more, and don’t forget to sign up for our email newsletter. We want your feedback.
We know the world is becoming a more accepting place for queer people, despite visible disparity and virulent backlash. But until we achieve equality for all, how do we reconcile the surviving traditionalist mindset with that of today’s progressive youth? Cecilia Aldarondo’s documentary Memories of a Penitent Heart suggests, if not an answer, then a method for telling stories along our way.
The film recounts the story of her uncle Miguel, who died in 1987, when she was six years old. Her grandmother attempted to suppress the truth of Miguel’s death—that it resulted from AIDS—and that her son was gay. Neither his disease nor his partner were mentioned in his obituary. Inspired by a host of old VHS footage that her mother dug up in her garage, Aldarondo interviewed friends from the period of his life that he spent in New York, after moving from Puerto Rico. She spent considerable time with his partner Robert, who was then a former priest and, after Miguel died, re-entered the priesthood. She interviewed friends of her grandmother and her mother, and in the process uncovered a family secret that was kept even quieter than the truth about Miguel’s life. A lot of people think their families are interesting; Aldarondo has documented proof that hers is.
Memories played this year’s Tribeca Film Festival—its final screening will take place Saturday evening. A few weeks ago, I talked to Aldarondo by phone about making this movie and attaining retribution for her uncle’s legacy.
Gawker: What motivated you to tell your uncle’s story in film?
Aldarondo: I would just start noticing the way my family would talk about him. It was this kind of almost mythical thing. I think they were very romantic about how he was this very talented, bright young actor. Charismatic. The class clown. Everybody would talk about how great he was. But behind the scenes, they would toss off little details, like, “Oh, we know he was gay.” “Oh yeah, he had a boyfriend.” It was both casual and suspiciously not part of the main story. As I became an adult and someone who cared about gay rights, it bothered me, the way that they talked about it. I had a feeling there was something amiss in the story.
Was retribution part of your goal here? Part of what your movie does is reinserts your uncle’s partner back into his narrative.
I feel like it was a really common story, not just of the AIDS crisis, but it’s particularly intense around that time. There are so many people who get written out of history for one reason or another. There was a lot left of my uncle’s life in my family, but it was a selective memory. There was a lot that my grandmother saved and kept and cataloged of who her son was, but there was this huge thing missing. There’s something really intense about tracking down friends from his life in New York. I always suspected he had a community in New York, and then finding out that basically all these people loved my uncle so intensely and were in the hospital helping take care of him, and had never really grieved him. It’s hard to describe the sense of anger and injustice that I had. That sense of righteous indignation did drive this process for me.
Puerto Rico is underrepresented in media and underrated in our culture. Your portrayal of it also feels like retribution.
It was really important for me to pay attention to the question of my uncle’s cultural identity, and how that played a role in his death. Gay is not a universal experience. There are a lot of factors that inform the way somebody may or may not be accepted in a situation, and in the case of my family, and I think this still may be true across the island of Puerto Rico, the Catholic Church has a really intense foothold in people’s minds, particularly in the way families behave with one another. There’s also very particular expectations about how men and women should behave, how a child relates to their parents. I was raised to never disrespect my parents. That’s a very powerful thing in Puerto Rican society, even now. There are a lot of checks toward somebody breaking out of the mold and being counter-cultural and different. I think that’s also a consequence of colonialism. Puerto Rico is a place that for many decades has not had a clear identity.
You said you were raised to respect your parents and yet you made this movie. That’s rebellion, right?
Yeah. I don’t know that my mom knew what she or I were getting into. I think that’s a theme of the film. There have been many moments where I thought, “What would my [now dead] grandmother make of this process?” There are times that I think she would be horrified at what I’m doing. There are other times I’ve thought, “I wish I could have this conversation with her. I wish I could watch the film with her.” There is a freedom that comes from her not being around.
That question of respecting your elders is a very powerful thing. It prevents us generations later from asking questions about why this shouldn’t have happened, or who said what or did what. I’m very lucky that my mother is not her mother in the sense that she was open to the process. She represents an interesting moment in our history. She was open to evolving. I think that she welcomed the reflection brought up by this stuff. At the same time, it hasn’t been easy.
One of the things I’m trying to say with the film also is, “Just because we have a generation’s worth of hindsight and power and we can say with our distance, things should have been done differently,” I think it’s more important to ask yourselves what is our responsibility in that? How do we work together? I think about it as a collective debt we have to pay to the past and a sense that I should help to pay that debt somehow, and not just point fingers.
We understand that future generations will become more liberal and that queerness may actually become the norm, but in the meantime, before the largely [and relatively] homophobic baby boomer generation dies out, there needs to be some sort of reconciliation. We can’t just be waiting around for people to die for there to be progress. There needs to be dialogue and this movie represents a model of that.
I think about the arrogance of youth, like, “I’m part of the new generation. I’m so enlightened. I’m so much more progressive of you.” The hubris of that. I’m teaching a course on HIV and AIDS depiction in film and media in the fall to college students, and it’s interesting how little students know about the crisis in it’s capital-C sense. Part of the reason AIDS became an epidemic in the first place is that people in the United States didn’t think it had anything to do with most people. It was a problem for a particular set of marginalized groups. I feel like that extends into today the task or burden of understanding HIV and AIDS is a ghettoized thing. Part of realizing that my family had an active role in this was thinking, “Why doesn’t my family think this is their problem?” That to me is a lot of the unfinished business of this work. It’s not just like, “Let’s make sure we know our history,” but maybe it’s time for a lot of people, not just gay people, not just people who are infected, but people who lost people, maybe it’s time for all of us to look at ourselves and make some different choices.
What does your mother think of this movie?
I think this happens a lot with documentaries: you think that somebody’s going to freak out over certain things and then they don’t. I think she appreciated it. She didn’t have a violent reaction against anything. I think she’s open to being part of it.
Today, authorities in Minnesota announced that an autopsy of Prince’s body was performed at 1 p.m. local time, upon which the late singer’s body was handed over to his family. Results of the of the exam, including toxicology tests, won’t be released for weeks, the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office said in a statement this afternoon:
In a press conference later in the day, local police reiterated that it will take weeks before they release concrete information regarding how or why Prince died. Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson did tell the press that there was no obvious signs of trauma on Prince’s body and that they don’t believe he committed suicide.
Olson also stated that Prince was last seen alive at Paisley Park on Wednesday evening. When friends and associates were unable to reach him on Thursday morning they went to Paisley Park and called police. At that point, Prince’s body was found unresponsive in an elevator by authorities.
Meanwhile, unofficial details of Prince’s final days have begun to trickle out into the press. Several gossip outlets—including TMZ and E!—reported today that Prince’s private jet was grounded in Illinois last week not because he was battling the flu but because he overdosed on Percocet, which he reportedly took for pain related to a degenerative hip.
Again, the extent to which Prince’s death was related to prescription drugs—or another health issue entirely—is not yet known, and barring a statement from his family or representatives, won’t be revealed until the medical examiner’s office releases its findings.
