It’s been over a month, but I finally got around to watching the 20/20 documentary for Catfish. I thought the film was really powerful and an effective look at the implications of inter-personal relationships in an online age (more thoughts here). The 20/20 episode basically gives away the entire plot of the film, a lot of whose value is predicated on the minute discoveries that one encounters while going through the protagonist’s journey.

I’m not sure what the circumstances were behind the creation of this episode. Did the 20/20 people pitch the filmmakers? Or vice versa? Whatever the case, the filmmakers undoubtedly agreed in order to give much-needed publicity to their small, low-budget, limited release movie. But at what cost does this publicity come? By giving away all the story beats in a 44-minute 20/20 episode, complete with ultra-generic newsdoc voiceover narration, aren’t you cutting off your nose to spite your face? Aren’t you obviating the need to see the movie? Perhaps, but maybe some people will see it and think, “Hey, I should buy a ticket for that!” I doubt it will be that many, though.

Spoilers for Catfish follow:

The 20/20 documentary does have some value in that it features interviews with Angela, as well as the “Real” Megan Faccio. These offer insights into the post-Catfish reaction of these characters, insights that the film obviously can’t give.

In addition, the entire 20/20 episode makes for an interesting comparison. If you watch both the movie and this episode, you’re basically seeing the same story told in two different ways. Which one is more effective, and why? (My vote is definitely for Catfish).

 

From Macleans comes the heartwarming story of two conjoined twins who are craniopagus, meaning they share a skull. They might also share thoughts:

 Adding to the conundrum, of course, are their linked brains, and the mysterious hints of what passes between them. The family regularly sees evidence of it. The way their heads are joined, they have markedly different fields of view. One child will look at a toy or a cup. The other can reach across and grab it, even though her own eyes couldn’t possibly see its location. “They share thoughts, too,” says Louise. “Nobody will be saying anything,” adds Simms, “and Tati will just pipe up and say, ‘Stop that!’ And she’ll smack her sister.” While their verbal development is delayed, it continues to get better. Their sentences are two or three words at most so far, and their enunciation is at first difficult to understand. Both the family, and researchers, anxiously await the children’s explanation for what they are experiencing.

In addition to the fascinating philosophical questions this brings up (e.g. Are they technically two people? Or should they count as one?), I’m heartened by how the family has come together to help give these twins a fruitful existence. In a profession (Education) where you constantly see children’s futures totally discarded because their parents can’t be bothered to care, it’s nice sometimes to see the total opposite.

Over at The Stranger, Brendan Kiley has a fascinating look at why so much of the seized cocaine in the U.S. has been tainted with levamisole, a potentially deadly substance. I love this article’s puzzle-like structure, but this bit in particular gave me flashbacks to The Wire:

One thing that can be done: develop an inexpensive field-test kit to try to detect levamisole. Dr. Clark has invented such a kit and—in association with The Stranger, a few folks in the local harm-reduction community, and the People’s Harm Reduction Alliance (PHRA), which runs the U-District needle exchange—hopes to begin distributing kits in a few weeks. Unfortunately, kits are technically drug paraphernalia under Washington State law, not only because the kits will contain cocaine residue, but because it is illegal for any person to possess something used to “process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance.” It’s a perfect example of how drug prohibition laws make drugs more dangerous—an unregulated market for cocaine, with no quality control, has encouraged the use of levamisole as a cutting agent. And U.S. drug laws make it illegal for users to test their cocaine for poison—if users could, they might stop buying from dealers who sell tainted cocaine, putting economic pressure on the market to be less dangerous. It’s a classically self-defeating chain of policies, but some antidrug warriors defend it on the grounds that since drugs are illegal, users get what they deserve. And if cocaine is perceived as more dangerous, perhaps fewer people will use it.

This, of course, is a cruel, stupid, and expensive way to deal with the problem. As Dr. Clark put it: “The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier is reprehensible.”

Tron Legacy will soon be upon us, but don’t try to brush up on your Tron knowledge by obtaining the original. Used copies go for as much as $75 on Amazon, and it’s completely unavailable on Netflix. According to Hero Complex, director Steven Lisberger recently remastered the film for a Blu-Ray release. Lisberger commented:

They’re trying to figure out when the best time is to release it. I don’t think there’s anything intentional going on to deprive ‘Tron’ fans of the new edition.

I call complete bullshit on this. Disney would only withhold copies of Tron (AKA completely avoid flooding the entire market with Tron DVDs) if they believed it to be financially advantageous. And with graphics and plotting that are incredibly dated, waiting until after Tron Legacy has made its millions before re-releasing Tron is probably the best move.

 

Designed to cover half of a pack’s surface area, the new labels are intended to spur smokers to quit by providing graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers. The labels are required under a law passed last year that gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

Nick Summers on why Slate isn’t doing so hot these days. According to Slate founder, Jacob Weisberg:

We basically invented blogging. And sort of the whole tone of the Web, which to me comes out of email more than anything else, a much more colloquial, personal form of diction. I think Slate was the publication that really, more than anyone else, developed that voice, which in some ways has now infiltrated back into print.

With that delusional attitude, I wonder why Slate has anything to worry about.

Looks like the company that published an anonymous smear piece against Christine O’Donnell has demonstrated its capacity to pull itself back from the brink. A couple weeks ago, a 21-year old man was stabbed to death in Manhattan. Gawker ran a graphic photo of his corpse in its story. But after a huge outcry from friends, family and the internet, the blog giant actually decided to remove the photo.

This raised many questions. When is it okay to publish sensationalistic, graphic photos? And why would Gawker, of all places, respond to user outrage meaningfully? Ryan Kearney has a detailed breakdown of the situation:

That the photo was later taken down — and only after tens of thousands of people, including Jusko’s stepsister, had already seen it — says more about Gawker’s journalistic integrity, or lack thereof, than any statement Denton et al. could whip up. They might be too proud of their perceived mercilessness to admit they made a mistake, but the photo’s retraction is itself an admission — if not of a mistake, then at least that even Gawker, sometimes, can go too far.