Rob Reiner Has Died

Amazing how many classics he worked on throughout his career.

And he was quite excellent in The Wolf of Wall Street (playing I think Leonardo's father?)

Very sad development.

Spielberg is an apt comparison.

It’s got a framing and woven-in narrative of the author stand-in tracking down this book his dad read him, discovering it was mostly awful, dry crap, and editing it down (and translating it) to a “the good parts” version like his dad read to him. The (kinda pathetic and melancholy) adult story going on is interesting to an adult reader, and… creates the opportunity to read the actual novel with a “the good parts” approach when reading it to a kid (this has to have been on purpose, it works great).

The author (William Goldman) was a screenwriter so the action scenes are snappy and great and the dialogue tight, but he also filled the book with jokes that only work in print, so you won’t just be getting a repeat of the movie on the humor side (though many of those jokes are in it, too).

Some sequences are greatly expanded and especially notable are large and effective back-story chapters for Fezzick and Inigo.

It's a crowdsourced home-movie version produced by dozens of actors in the midst of pandemic lockdown, recording on their phones and using home made props. The actors rotate through the individual roles so you get a real range of performances. I found it delightful.

Worth checking out the opening scene to get a sense of it

You had me scared for a minute there. But no, at least Spın̈al Tap the band are totally fine.

Amusingly, neither did Liam Gallagher until he was 30:

> https://www.loudersound.com/features/oasis-liam-gallagher-sp...

May Reiner, as they say, Tap into the afterlife!

Teachers: parents expects teachers to deliver personalized instruction to a classroom of 30+ while adhering to standardized testing targets. They are expected to act as surrogate parents yet threatened with lawsuits and suspensions when they attempt to enforce discipline. They are asked to spend their own money on supplies, but I think we've had enough levies to raise funds for our local district, haven't we? They are treated as lazy, agenda-driven agents by their community neighbors. They get the summers off, so I think I've heard enough about their "burnout".

Doctors: patients demand certainty from a science based on probability. They expect empathetic listening but it must come within the fifteen-minute slots insurance and healthcare network financial officers dictate. Any story of a missed diagnosis is evidence of idiocy or contempt. Patients want pharmaceutical fixes for decades of poor lifestyle choices without side effects or changes to habits. They're all just paid for by the pharmaceutical industry anyway, so better if they just give me the prescription I saw a TV ad about. And why won't they just do what ChatGPT said they should do, anyway? Besides, they're all rich, right?

There's some cases where I rather someone put their name up or I don't want to hear it, the only exception is give me some damning proof? Give me something that qualifies your anonymous remarks or its not worth anything to me, its just he said she said.

Regarding this specifially, I don't care enough, I am more curious about the legal case and how it will play out though.

Teachers, but point taken.

There is a real trust problem Journalism will need to overcome and some of it is self inflicted

Almost all, to varying degrees, with the expectation increasing the more you deal with people that are outside that field. People seriously underestimate the challenges and difficulties of things they have little experience with while overestimating their ability to do it.

'How hard can it be to ask someone who knows what's going on and write that anyway?'

Not contradictory. People want information to be verified quickly. That's the job. The person who can do it the fastest gets the scoop. Publishing unverified stuff isn't doing the job faster, it's not doing the job. You can get away with cheating for a bit, as you can probably guess what's going to wind up getting verified most of the time, but that's all the more reason to punish cheaters when they eventually are caught.

And even then, publishing rumors and speculation are fine so long as they are clearly noted as such. It is only when unverified statements are treated as facts that there is a problem.

> They want anonymous sources named "in the spirit of truth," without grappling with the reality that doing so would instantly dry up anyone risking their job, or worse, to provide information.

You're not supposed to cite an anonymous source saying there are bodies buried; you're supposed to learn where the bodies are buried from the anonymous sources and then show the bodies as evidence. There is no need for an appeal to authority when you have proof. If a story relies on cited sources they should be named, and if no one is willing to go on the record then you shouldn't be relying on cited sources.

Also we should be pushing for strong whistleblower protections, especially reporting when whistleblowers are retaliated against.

> They expect journalists to release raw information as soon as they have it, while simultaneously acting as perfect filters

Who is asking for either raw data streams or that the news act as filters? People expect evidence (ie things that can be verified) and analysis (ie context for the evidence presented). Omitting unreliable evidence is fine, but people complain when the standard for reliable evidence changes without good reason.

> never amplifying rumors, or being wrong, even as new facts emerge.

If you publish actual facts, they will remain facts no matter what new facts emerge. Truth never contradicts truth, it only expands the story. It is perfectly fine to have incomplete facts, you better have a damn good reason if you have false facts.

> They want neutrality, except when neutrality conflicts with their priors.

No one wants neutrality, they want integrity. You can enthusiastically report that your side is right any day of the week so long as you're also willing to report when they're wrong. It's when evidence is chosen to fit the narrative rather than the narrative developed around the evidence that there's a problem.

> It's no wonder that morale among journalists is at an all-time low.

Morale should be low in an industry driven to compromise it's standards and race to the bottom, and the worst offenders are the most highly rewarded. This should be an impetus for change.

Or do the contradictions only exist across multiple persons?

(Tangent: anyone know if there's a term for this fallacy?)

I’m with you on journalists, but the police have so many bad apples that I think the profession itself attracts the wrong kind of people.

Trump's a piece of work, all right.

That tracks for me, so Trump has personal reasons for behaving the way he does, though arguably self-preservation would induce him to not carry on the way he has done. But then he cannot be quiet about things he's guilty of, so I can't see his behavior as anything other than having a motive for just what's happened. I can't imagine he would take Rob's proposed series with equinamity: I'd love to know what Rob knew.