The FNORD Awards 2007 Ceremony

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

Bah. KZFO should've won

KZFO is a network.  Networks aren't eligible for journalism prizes.  Radio Nafticon isn't journalism but comment and entertainment, which if you ask anyone in the NUJ or its equivalents is not journalism since it violates the standard of objectivity.  Considering that it frequently doesn't check its facts and engages in speculation and fart jokes, it can't really be compared to the hard work put into publications like the AMC.

And the GSO is nice enough, but revolutionary? For doing exactly what another organization has been doing for five years, but with slightly better graphics? Yeah, they're a regular Che Guevara.

Unsurprising words coming from an MCS creator.  The making of maps, much like slavery in the 1860s, is a tangential element to its revolutionary nature.  What the GSO has done has broken the monopoly the MCS had on our sector of micronationalism, preventing the constraining of activity and encouraging a very deep look at reform of the former organisation.  All Che did was do what Lenin had been doing for five years, but with a better PR machine.

And I refuse to recognize any winner of a literary award who can't use commas and periods properly; that really ought to be the bare minimum.

The work's an epic poem, and in such instances grammar becomes less of an issue than it is with prose.

Also, just in general, you all suck.

Magnanimous victor you are.

[Scott Alexander]

Radio Nafticon may not be one hundred percent serious, but it's pretty reactionary to say that only media that conforms completely to the popular macronational standards of journalism qualify. Since you seem to like analogies, consider KZFO as the Daily Show and AMC as the North Podunk Times-Picayune, or whatever. The latter may be a very official and real newspaper, but it's the former that can keep people's attention, analyze issues honestly, and draws people to care about the news. Yes, KZFO may occasionally digress to weird Antican in-jokes, but they also frequently have discussions of important issues, and not even the New York Times is about Important International Goings-On ALL the time.

As a micronational community, we're not only about aping the agreed-upon set of macronational standards, we're about adapting them to a new environment and even, in some cases, improving upon them. AMC does exactly what everyone else does exactly as well as everyone else does it, which is admirable, but KZFO manages to give the news the special touch that makes people love to listen and even draws nonmicronational listeners into the world of micronationalism, and that's exactly the sort of thing that the FNORDS should be rewarding rather than whining about.

That's why I'm proud to, for the second year in a row, present KZFO with the prestigious Malarbor Award for Journalistic Nift:



And apologies to Prince Jeremy. As an English teacher, I am maybe too sensitive to the grammar things, but the world needs more epic poems, and since you're writing them, good for you.

Also, on a more solemn note, Robert Anton Wilson, inventor of the word "fnord", died yesterday at a ripe old age. See http://robertantonwilson.blogspot.com/ for more details.

[Koen]

AMC does exactly what everyone else does exactly as well as everyone else does it

I'd like to believe that AMC does it better than anyone else. that is at least, the objective. Besides, your argument is flawed: it is like saying that one sorts of apples cannot taste better than another sorts of apples, because they are all apples in the end. And then, you ask the jury to give the award of the most tasty apple to a banana.

Now, I agree that KZFO does merit an award, but you don't give an award for journalism to "Oprah" or "Rollingstone", even if that type of programs/magazines might go into actuality and/or news events.

KZFO deserves an award for best entertainment program, surely, and if KZFO never got an award for best revolutionary concept (the very first audio in micronationalism, if I'm not mistaken) then that is definitely a mistake of the past "generations".

[Behmanesh FarzAn]

My issue isn't the digression; it's that it doesn't check facts, doesn't ever issue retractions when it gets things wrong, and doesn't report the news objectively.  It is a talk show, not journalism, and you're seriously stretching the imagination to claim it is just because you want to jump on the ingrate bandwagon.

[Wíll Tómsétt]

Hmm...

Isn't writing it enough?

[Nick Foghorn Leghorn]

That's why I'm proud to, for the second year in a row, present KZFO with the prestigious Malarbor Award for Journalistic Nift

Thank you Scott for your wonderful award. For the second year in a row, we at KZFO gratefully accept the Malarbor Award for Journalistic Nift, and would like to thank you for your support.

[Scott Alexander]

I'd like to believe that AMC does it better than anyone else. that is at least, the objective. Besides, your argument is flawed: it is like saying that one sorts of apples cannot taste better than another sorts of apples, because they are all apples in the end. And then, you ask the jury to give the award of the most tasty apple to a banana.

That's a good point, but I'm not trying to say it's better because it's not journalism. I think it's better because it's taking journalism in a different direction. To continue your analogy, if there was a "Best Fruit" award, and every year people had been bringing one apple after another, and then someone finally came up with a banana, I think it would be completely reasonable to give the award to the guy who invented the banana instead of the guy who had whichever apple happened to be on the top this year. It shows more creativity and expands the field in a completely new way.

But I guess I agree with you. If you want to define journalism really really strictly, maybe KZFO isn't the best choice. My argument is mostly that it definitely deserves to win SOMETHING, and it's closer to journalism than it is to anything else.

My issue isn't the digression; it's that it doesn't check facts, doesn't ever issue retractions when it gets things wrong, and doesn't report the news objectively.  It is a talk show, not journalism, and you're seriously stretching the imagination to claim it is just because you want to jump on the ingrate bandwagon.

I think the whole "doesn't check facts" thing is a red herring. KZFO, like all organizations, reports what appears to be true to them at the time according to a certain standard of proof. If I IMed Foghorn saying "Babkha just merged with Gotzborg!" I'm sure he wouldn't just repeat it on KZFO without looking. It's a nuanced question of what level of proof you need for something before it goes in. Set the standard too low and you say things that aren't true; set the standard too high and you end up missing all the juicy rumors and ending up with the news everyone else reported a month ago. By artificially setting one level at "checking facts" and then requiring that as a qualification for the award, you're showing a bias towards one end of the vast spectrum called journalism; ie, the type of journalism that people in your sector of micronationalism happen to be good at.

Also, although I stopped listening to KZFO when I retired, I really didn't notice any glaring errors for most of its run, which is pretty impressive considering how MUCH of it there is.[/quote]