Jason Cochran

Jason Cochran appears on Aol and WalletPop.com. He was awarded Guide Book of the Year by the Lowell Thomas Awards (Society of American Travel Writers) and the North American Travel Journalists Association for Pauline Frommer's London. He also wrote Pauline Frommer's Orlando and Walt Disney World and San Francisco. He is Editor-at-Large for AOL's popular WalletPop.com. He is also a regular writer for the New York Post and Travel + Leisure.com.  He has written extensively for for publications including Budget Travel (as senior editor); Entertainment Weekly; the New York Daily News and Times; Travel + Leisure and T+L Family; Newsweek; City; Frommers.com; the South Florida Sun-Sentinel; Arena (U.K.); Who (Australia); Scanorama and Seasons (Sweden). He has been an arts columnist for both Inside.com (late night TV) and Sidewalk.com (theater). His writing has been awarded the Golden Pen by the Croatian government and was selected to appear in a permanent exhibit in the National Museum of Australia. He devised questions for the first American prime-time season of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (ABC) and before that, spent nearly two years backpacking solo around the world. As a commentator, he has appeared on CNN, CNN Headline News, CNNfn, Australia.com, WOR, Outdoor Life Network, MSNBC.com, and national radio shows including those of Arthur Frommer and Doug Stephan. He is an alumnus of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and New York University's Graduate Music Theatre Writing Program. 

 

Just a happy, pleasing video designed to bring you the feeling of being somewhere, without quick cuts or commentary: Like I did for my drive through South Dakota’s Badlands, I shot a ride on the Angels Flight railway in downtown Los Angeles.

Most people don’t know that downtown Los Angeles is steep in places, and this funicular was constructed in 1901 to haul locals up Bunker Hill, which is now the heart of the city but then had some pretty mansions. It’s only 298 feet long (although its historic plaque, installed before the railway was moved slightly south, gives the old length of 315 feet—and adds an apostrophe for “Angel’s”). That it managed to survive at all is a miracle, but the ride has been bumpy. It started as transportation in a residential district, as did Pittsburgh’s Monongahela and Duquesne inclines, which are also still in operation.

It was later engulfed in stone skyscrapers, followed by dismantling, storage, a move slightly south, and a period of benign neglect that climaxed when one of the trolley cars disregarded its brakes, hurtled downhill, and crushed someone. This video was shot 15 days after it re-opened following a nine-year closure and refit. The locals were curious and not a little bit nervous.

Downtown L.A. is actually one of my favorite places. It’s bizarre to me that an entire city, one that is about the size of Chicago’s Loop, would be pretty much abandoned, as L.A. was in the 1940s. The whites went west and left it to the incoming Mexicans. What remains is a fascinating mix of the untouched and the decimated. Part of the city is a stately example of incredible American wealth in the years between the San Francisco Quake and World War II. And part of the city is parking lots. Downtown Los Angeles lost the thread of what its personality was. Angelenos are figuring it out.

Citizens of Beverly Hills, perhaps regretting the white flight that abandoned the Angels Flight, installed this plaque in its old location. They wrongly made its name possessive, too.

 

See the recent graduates huff and puff at the grindstone so that Google is swarmed with the domain they serve

The Twitterverse loves congratulating itself over the speed and reach of its favorite toy, but it leaves out one important fact: There’s a lot more bad journalism now than there was before the social media revolution.

While social media has the power to spread snippets of potentially useful information far and wide, many of the updates link to some truly awful reportage. That is, if people click on the link at all. Analyst Dan Zarrella found that tweeted links have a less-than-10% click-through rate, meaning fewer than one in ten people bothers to absorb more than a headline. The number of people who bother to read more than a sentence or two on Facebook is similar.

With numbers like this, it’s hard not to begin to see poorly executed social media as gossip, refined.

Because much of the time we only see information 140 characters at a time, we don’t realize how wobbly are the underpinnings of the headlines. Even on the relatively rare instances when we click through on a link we read, we’ve become so habituated to scanty details that we some of us have never grown up with the ability to discern a professionally researched, ethically sourced story and something slapped together to harvest a click.

The bulk of our news is now bulk news. These are the post mills.

Corporations have laid off their full-time reporters by the thousands. They devote no resources to deep investigation, or if they do, it’s only to a few figurehead hires. Rarely did someone who works at the site you’re reading actually pick up a phone to validate the story it is recycling. Instead, you will notice, it passes the buck and links to where it found it. And thus, Web rumors circulate daily. A significant chunk of the New Media machine disseminates squibs and filler in a mandate to crank out topical information, harvest clicks while the getting is good, and move on.

These sites require writers to pump out five or more posts a day — not enough time to properly research, and not enough time to even leave their desks to sift through government files, attend press conferences, or cultivate contacts.

I won’t name names. I don’t need to. Here are 10 warning signs that your site may be a post mill that trades in glorified gossip.

A post mill:

– Links to original reporting another site did. Usually the writer places not so much as a single phone call to get a response or to fact-check. They might quickly consult a website. With post mills, you’ll often find yourself clicking backward from site to site, Escher-like, before you can finally locate the one that reported the story to begin with. Let’s hope it did it properly, because it can be hard to find the beginning of the research trail.

– Doesn’t pay its writers, or it only pays a few of them. If it does pay them a living wage, it may make a show of it to ward of a reputation as a post mill. Some of the aspects of the post mill, such as relentless working conditions for the young people hired to staff them, are not evident on the home page.

– Has high writer turnover. This is sometimes a sign that websites pay (if they do) according to how many views their posts attract. Given the post mill’s onerous daily quota, writers burn out faster. Commission systems also create an incentive to dangle scandalous or scary posts that are designed to stir reader fears or outrage, which in turn has them reposting them in alarm, delivering the post mill the clicks it craves.

– Often covers press releases. These can be collected and processed with a minimum of effort. Readers won’t often recognize the story as a press release rehash, but if a bunch of sites post the same story on the same day with the same details, it’s usually because a miller turned PR puff into news. Or they “aggregated” it from another site. Either way, the emperor has no clothes.

– Front-loads hot, SEO-friendly words in the headline and early grafs. During the writing process, the editors probably consulted Google Keywords to tip potential clicks in their favor, or its editors know what works. This isn’t necessarily a bad practice. Newspapermen do something similar all the time with their headlines, of course, but sexy headlines that attract clicks are a primary M.O. of a post mill.

– Gravitates toward crime and weirdness. Controversy and weird videos are a sure sign a post mill is click-baiting. I see several of the major “travel” sites trafficking mostly in airplane mishaps and airport infractions, posting very little industry and destination expertise at all. Highlighting controversy because people click on it does nothing good for public discourse, and in fact, it often gives power to idiotic arguments that don’t merit endless debate in a society with plenty of real problems to confront.

– Frequently wanders off topic. A post mill often has a lax editorial directive that enables what I call search trapping, which is posting anything, often with not even tangential connection to the theme of the site, to cash in on the hot subject of the moment.

– Often keeps posts really short. The less reporting, the shorter the writing time, the quicker a mill can search trap. If you finish reading a post and you have some basic questions unanswered, if there were no quotes that aren’t attributed to some other publication, or if you have to click from that brief story to someone else’s website to get the full details, you might be reading a post mill.

– Publishes top 10 lists with no methodology. If you’re not finding new stories, you have to rehash old ones, and if you list 10 subjective things, you have 10 chances to pop up in Google searches. They’re also highly shareable because readers are now used to the unchallenging buzz of the meme. They’re not all bad, and I have written quite a few of these myself for reputable publishers such as the BBC and Travel + Leisure; you can recognize the milly ones for their utter lack of factual meat.

– Has lots of sister sites. This is a sign that a publisher is trying to corner a bunch of topics at once, and a business with a split focus like that is more likely to be financially, and not journalistically, obsessed. Not a sure sign, but like everything on my list, it could be a flag.

Don’t get me wrong. Not all post mills are bad. Some do a very good job of aggregating news that would otherwise escape wider notice. There’s also nothing wrong with using tools to get more clicks. There is something wrong, though, when there is precious little expertise, reporter access, or eyewitness validation supporting the content.

Post mills can undermine the Fourth Estate, allow marketing and PR departments to manipulate our media as their mouthpiece, and leave the watchdogs sleeping. An entire generation of people is growing up without an understanding that the people who bring them their news have hastily recycled it, without checking how it got to them. Even the esteemed news outlets devote minutes and column inches to recycling what Joe Blow said about a topic on Facebook or Twitter. Gossip and news are becoming indistinguishable.

We have developed a news system in which everyone assumes that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. Somewhere, we think, there’s a group of people who vetted and researched what we read. In actuality, a lot of it just came off the grindstone.

 
Alec Baldwin as American Airlines pilot on Saturday Night Live

Airfares were in disguise before today, but we can spot bad behavior

It’s a welcome development. As of today, travel vendors are required by the Department of Transportation to include taxes and fuel surcharges right up front when the price of the ticket is quoted. No more will shoppers experience that painful price jump when they click through the final purchase screen. All unavoidable expenses are incorporated from the start.

This change finally makes base price the same as cost. It also makes purchasing travel sensible, like purchasing stuff in Europe: The amount on the price tag is what you pay.

It has always been one of the cornerstones of American hucksterism. Businesses love separating the price from the true cost because it makes a sale more appealing. Never mind the fact it’s a lie. Everyone pays the full cost, not only the base price.

So of course some of the big vendors have been responding to the change to “teaser fares” with some weasel-like email messages. Don’t they know that travelers are thrilled? Why apologize?

Air-hotel packager Go-Today.com explains it this way: “Consumers should be aware that fares have not increased; they simply reflect a difference in how pricing is displayed.” That’s the bottom line, and it’s true. But other companies are editorializing, and that’s where they step in it.

Sleazy Spirit Airlines has made a business out of making the cost of airfare seem lower than it truly is. It has had its wrist slapped by the DOT already for deceptive advertising. (I hope the DOT scrubbed thoroughly afterward.) Unsurprisingly, the airline, which builds out the true costs of travel by charging even for carry-ons, tried to spin the new rule as an erosion of American justice, saying it is being forced “to hide” taxes in your ticket quotes now.

Spirit’s fear-mongering email is typical of the false victimhood that hucksters hide behind these days:

New government regulations require us to HIDE taxes in your fares.

This is not consumer-friendly or in your best interest. It’s wrong and you shouldn’t stand for it.

Starting January 24, 2012, fares are distorted.

Why?
Thanks to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s latest fare rules, Spirit must now HIDE the government’s taxes and fees in your fares.

If the government can hide taxes in your airfares, then they [sic] can carry out their [sic] hidden agenda and quietly increase their [sic] taxes. (Yes, such talks are already underway.)

“They can carry out their hidden agenda”? I’d put on my tinfoil hat, but Spirit would charge me extra to carry it on. You’d think the Boston Tea Party took place on an Airbus. It’s not fooling customers who know the issue is not about taxation but about advertising deceptive prices, a charge that it paid a fine for.

Spirit alleges a federal conspiracy because it can’t pretend airfares cost $9 anymore. California’s Sen. Barbara Boxer is having the company for lunch, and rightfully so. It’s detestable and disingenuous to manipulate customers into believing that their liberties are eroding when the only thing eroding is Spirit’s ability to deceive them with impunity. Since it has built its business model on the old bait-and-switch, of course it’s mad. It also has to pretend that the way it’s been misleading you all this time has been just.

Booking Buddy sent me this [emphasis mine]:

BookingBuddy Traveler,

Starting today, January 26, 2012, the Department of Transportation is requiring airlines and online travel agencies to include all mandatory taxes and fees when advertising fares. This is a big win for travelers.

We wanted to alert you to this as it will make flights and vacation packages appear more expensive than you may be used to. In reality, you are simply seeing more of the taxes and fees up front. Base prices themselves are not increasing, and the taxes and fees are the same…

The way Booking Buddy breaks the news makes me wonder: Well, if it’s so great for travelers, then why weren’t all the vendors doing it before today?

Is it because up until today, they didn’t care much about what would be great for travelers?

I give credit to the few third-party booking sites that were adding in mandatory fees to begin with, including Kayak and TripAdvisor. Add those guys to the top of your browser bookmarks because they were being frank with you anyway.

They didn’t need partial or incremental disclosure to make sales more attractive — and didn’t require the wrath of the government to quote costs fully.

 
The Genius of Electricity, Edison Labs, West Orange, NJ

Pride in new technology always seems laughably callow later: Thomas Edison bought the "Genius of Electricity" sculpture at the Paris Exposition of 1889 (West Orange, NJ)

Facebook’s ever-changing look, including Timeline, could be called a triumph of simplification, which is to say a train wreck for easy choices. Love it or hate it — and I, for the record, find it a turn-off — we can’t shake the feeling that things are changing rapidly and to such an arcane degree that it’s a waste of time to figure out how to harness it. Here’s some news: Facebook is applying filters across every aspect of its interface for a very good reason

Facebook’s CFO and public relations tap-dancers tell you it’s about giving you personal choice. But that’s not the most important side of the story. No, Facebook is changing mostly because it sells ads when it railroads you into a new system that limits and labels your usage.

Most of the major sites we use now purport to be able to “customize” what they show you based on what you’ve looked at before. But this worrying fascination with personalized content is built on some logical lapses about who we are and what our behavior really exposes about ourselves.

I’ll be quick since I know you have headlines to barely gloss on Twitter, but there are seven essential fallacies that the whippersnappers at Facebook thinks are true — but aren’t.

1. If you don’t click on a link, you’re not interested.

I can tell this just from my own web stats on this site. While my post about a cool interactive 1924 aerial map of Manhattan had lots of traffic, relatively few people took things further and clicked on the actual source map at NYC.gov. Simply learning about the map was enough for most people. That’s the way it is with links. We read the headlines and we read the lead paragraph. Much like the inverted pyramid of newspaper tradition, we can glean the basics from the leading edge of a story without having to read further. So a click is not representative of interest, but only of a certain kind of interest. Sometimes, it’s merely an indication the headline was confusing and we needed to understand what was going on. Yet Facebook, Google, and most trendy Web media outlets use a click as their measure of us (as I wrote about in my “The Tyranny of the Click” post). It’s a fallacy.

2. You primarily want to hear from the same group of people.

So if we agree that a click doesn’t equate with whether I care or who I am, it stands to reason that my lesser-known acquaintances and friends are of interest to me even if I don’t alway interact with them. That’s why I friended them to begin with. In fact, often I use Facebook to keep tabs on people I don’t know very well yet, but would like to. If there’s one thing Facebook is good for, it’s what I call passive affection. (“Facebook’s Gift to Society: Passive Affection” is a favorite post on this blog.) Yet Facebook’s algorithms decide who is important in your life based on your interactions, and they hide all others until you happen to notice they’re missing.

3. You only want to know about things you already like.

In the old days, you’d thumb through a newspaper and even if you didn’t bother to read the articles, you at least were exposed to the headlines so you had a sense for what was going on in the world. Not anymore. Even Google’s search, which we all think of as a raw resource, delivers different results from person to person, which was exposed in Eli Pariser’s depressingly prescient TED talk about “filter bubbles.” Now, two people entering the same simple term in Google will be shown two different results page based on their past usage. This self-selection for the familiar threatens to make us all shallower and more ignorant. I despaired over this same development in “It’s Content You Want to See!“.

4. You want your activities to be turned into ads.

Of course, the reason all of this is happening is Facebook and Google want to be able to tell advertisers what you’re clicking on so they can make more money off you. That’s why they’re doing everything they can to exclude stuff they don’t think you will click on. The need for newspaper advertising was gutted once our consumer economy discovered instant Web search (I wrote about that in “How the Web Destroyed our Economy“), and now advertisers are successfully horning in where they know they’ll find us: on social media. It’s a well-worn argument that most people would rather preserve their privacy than have their activities sold piecemeal. Even setting aside privacy concerns as a matter of transition into a new digital age, the tactic of commodifying our clicks is logically flawed. Because what I click on is not necessarily representative of what I like (see Point #1), most of the time the targeted ads I’m shown are insultingly off-target anyway. I often click on things I have no knowledge about, naturally, because I want to learn about them, so it makes little sense to use that click to market to me later. It’s bad enough that I can’t find what I want in the stores anymore because the modern customer service default is, “Go look online.” Now even my own online life is being used to crowd out the things I do want to see in favor of ads for things I don’t want.

5. You care mostly about today.

This is one good thing about Facebook’s Timeline, which I otherwise hate: It allows you to go back so that stuff you said can be found. Lots of people despise this very fact about it, and it still only gives you the illusion of preservation, since none of it will ever be written down in a certifiably preserved form that isn’t subject to accidental deletion (my concern in “You Are Being Erased“). But Twitter, unlike Timeline, is intentionally temporary. It’s nearly impossible to track down a tweet once it’s a few days old, and even the most powerful programs can’t dredge up a tweet from several years ago unless an outside entity happened to archive it at the time. The result is that we are relentlessly tossing important thoughts on the discard pile simply because the design of our sites knocks them downward, off the table and out of sight. For social media to truly reflect us as humans, it must learn to be about all of us, the before and the after, and not just hook into our prurient interests.

6. Algorithms can predict intangible things about you.

Dating sites boast that their mathematical formulas can pair you with the perfect mate based on questions you have answered. But there is far more that goes into attraction. The echoes of your grade school sweetheart, the reverberation of your upbringing, the whiff of pheromones, the pang of past traumas… none of these can be quantified by a whiz kid programmer. We can’t even predict them ourselves; it’s metaphysical chemistry. We are amalgamations of our experiences. We also, it bears noting, tend to feel “on the spot” when we answer these questionnaires, and we respond with an idealized version of ourselves in mind. So because the questions miss the mark, and because they can’t be answered with the honesty and nuance required anyway, they’re extremely rough. That’s one reason it was so offensive when OKCupid sent me an email saying that from now on, it would show me fewer “ugly” people. How does it know what I find attractive? What we find seductive in others’ faces has many mysterious origins.

7. You love customizing sites.

I’m busy. So are you. I don’t have the energy or the inclination to comb through my Facebook Timeline and select cover images, prune bygone updates and photos, and set subscriptions and visibility levels for all of my friends. After all, the last two, three, and four times I went through the trouble of setting everything the way I liked it, Facebook changed everything overnight, neglected to write instructions, and buried the alert in its privacy notice. Now, nearly every site you use on a regular basis thinks nothing of radically altering its user interface, proclaiming the upheaval an improvement, and then assuming you have the will to think of every possible new privacy violation, cut off every new loophole, and search out every available preference. The people who code these sites assume you will be excited about customizing your usage because they live in a world where computer geeks are overly rewarded, so they assume you are not only tolerant of their endless retroactive patching of blatant weaknesses, but that you admire them for the changes. Your time is their toy.

Such is our era’s technological arrogance. Such are these smug, benighted programmers.

 

 

 

It’s politics season, so people are throwing around the word capitalism (usually as an inoculation against the scary socialism) as if they are invoking the name of a personal deity. So what is capitalism in America today? In my parents’ generation, it meant starting your own business, working hard, and making enough money — sometimes lots. In capitalism, private ownership wins out and thrives.

That was when affordable supply chains and bank loans weren’t shutting almost all of us out. Capitalism once was private and gave us all plenty, but now that the infrastructure is in place, most of us find our labors flowing to others. Just look at your own life if you doubt me.

To us, modern ‘capitalism’ usually means taking a wage from a business that isn’t loyal to you, buying your food from corporations, voting for corporate-sponsored politicians, watching corporate-backed news, buying corporate products from mostly corporate brand stores, and filing the rest of the time with corporate-made entertainment. There is precious little ‘capitalism’ left.

Now, if you’ve got a success story to tell, you’re considered one of the lucky ones who escaped the cycle, and everyone’s envious. It takes a unique person these days to smash through the barriers. The common man, the Moms and Pops among us, rarely can. That’s not a viable system. That’s a lottery.

The few people who are rich enough or creditworthy enough to start their own businesses are squashed by the international and legislative advantage that massive businesses hold.

Too many people seem to think hard work is the same thing as ‘capitalism.’ In truth, almost all of us work hard to put the fruit of our labor in an investor’s pocket. Although most of us are very hard workers, few of us are really ‘capitalists’ the way we think we are, and fewer of us still can afford to be. We confuse toil with capitalism.

Why can’t Americans see their lives for what they really have become?

Starbucks facade Chicago

You don't have to dislike capitalism to notice how our wages flow. (Chicago, 2010)

 

This video of Badlands National Park in South Dakota is seductive. It’s a nearly four-minute, uninterrupted shot of the driver’s view as he travels east on Badlands Loop Road (240) as it prepares to intersect with 377 near Interior, South Dakota.

Turn up the music and go full-screen and it’s almost like being there. The sunlight is perfect. The colors of the stone and the sky are rich and true.

I should know. I shot it. And it’s a high-def video, so it took me about six hours to upload onto YouTube.

If you want to try this drive at home, here’s where it begins on Google Maps. Then head east.

 

I love shooting these on-the-fly, you-are-there snippets when I travel. Click here to see one I shot in Tokyo that has more than 1,000,000 views on YouTube now.

 

I’ve been road tripping a lot this year to research a big project I’m writing. When I got home from one of the most recent trips, I plugged in my digital camera to download my pictures and it stared at me blankly and said, “Pictures? What pictures?”

PhotoRescue took care of most of the problems, still, some of my images turned up corrupted. But my camera is an artist. It didn’t turn my images to snow. It inserted wry counterpoint and beautiful geometric juxtapositions. It found brilliant ways to immaculately bend my own visual commentary. These are true works of art.

Jackson Pollack did not credit gravity as a collaborator of his splatter paintings. So I also claim my camera’s binary hiccups as the fruit of my initial inspiration.

I shot these in lush, panoramic 16:9. So click on each photo to admire the full glory.

 

 
Warren G. Harding

Harding of hearing

The Treasures of the British Library exhibit is one of my favorite sights in London. Every time I’m there, I see something electrifying, be it Lewis Carroll’s original hand-drawn Through the Looking Glass, the Magna Carta (two copies!), or an 11th-century copy of Beowulf on vellum. And that doesn’t even include the priceless stuff the British stole from other cultures!

One of the things that grabbed me there was a panel where visitors can press a button and listen to the actual voices of famous people who we never realized were recorded in sound. When you suddenly hear the timbre of Florence Nightingale, she becomes flesh-and-blood real. She actually happened!

Many historic recordings have finally migrated online so we can all hear them. Because it’s so energizing to close your eyes and feel these printed names come alive again, I’ve linked a few here. They link to an audio file (usually, at a library). Because of stupid WordPress nonsense, not all of the names are colored as links, but they indeed are, so click on the names.

Florence Nightingale, recorded in 1890

Edison’s representative in Britain clearly instructed her to speak slowly and clearly. It was, after all, 1890, and if you wanted to be heard all the way in 2012, you had to enunciate. When she refers to Balaclava, she’s talking about raising money for survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade in 1854, many of whom were living in poverty 36 years later despite their service to their country. Sound familiar?

When I am no longer even a memory, just a name, I hope my voice may perpetuate the great work of my life. God bless my dear old comrades of Balaclava and bring them safe to shore. Florence Nightingale.

Theodore Roosevelt, recorded in 1912

You’ll never hear 10-dollar words like his in a campaign speech today. People prefer bumper stickers now. But here, after some disarming political foreplay, TR goes for the gusto and advocates for industry regulation, a living wage, work hours reform, and child labor laws. Newt Gingrich would blow a gasket. An industry that was “injurious t the common welfare” was heavily on American minds in 1912, not least because the horrific Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, which I wrote about in March, happened the year before. (For the record, Roosevelt lost, but it was a messy election with an outcome greatly affected by internal politics in the Republican party. Again, Newt should take note.)

[My favorite bit:] As a people we cannot afford to let any group of citizens or any individual citizen live or labor under conditions which are injurious to the common welfare. Industry, therefore, must submit to such public regulation as will make it a means of life and health, not of death or inefficiency. We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure. We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit a reasonable saving for old age. Hours are excessive if they fail to afford the worker sufficient time to recuperate and return to his work thoroughly refreshed. We hold that the night labor of women and children is abnormal and should be prohibited; we hold that the employment of women over forty-eight hours per week is abnormal and should be prohibited. We hold that the seven-day working week is abnormal, and we hold that one day of rest in seven should be provided by law. We hold that the continuous industries, operating twenty-four hours out of twenty-four, are abnormal, and where, because of public necessity or for technical reasons (such as molten metal), the twenty-four hours must be divided into two shifts of twelve hours or three shifts of eight, they should by law be divided into three of eight.

Vladimir Illich Lenin, recorded in 1919

Yes, Lenin spoke! But in Russian. He made many gramophone records between 1919 and 1921 to spread the tenets of communism, but in this one, he praises Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov, who was instrumental in the revolution of October 1917 and in forming Russia’s communist government, the world’s first. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Translation.] All those who worked day after day with Comrade Sverdlov now appreciate fully that it was his exceptional organising talent that ensured for us that of which we have been so proud, and justly proud. He made it possible for us to pursue united, efficient, organised activities worthy of all the proletarian masses, without which we could not have achieved success, and which answered fully the needs of the proletarian revolution. The memory of Comrade Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov will serve not only as a symbol of the revolutionary’s devotion to his cause, not also as the model of how to combine a practical, sober mind, practical ability, the closest contact with the masses and ability to guide them, but also a pledge that ever-growing masses of proletarians will march forward to the complete victory of the communist revolution.

Harry Houdini, recorded in 1914

Harry Houdini, like FloNight, was obviously told to enunciate when he recorded this, and the showman delivered. Here, he works up excitement for his most famous trick, the Water Torture Cell. The complicated clauses make it also clear that it was probably scripted, but his pronunciation of “locked up” and “demolishing the glass” give you a sense of his streetwise immigrant roots. Before this natural-born Hungarian’s unnatural death in 1926, he told his wife Bess that he would send a signal from the afterlife if it was at all possible. She tried for 10 years but gave up, heartbroken, after years of silent séances. Hearing this clip makes you wonder if he’d actually already left his message.

Ladies and gentlemen, in introducing my original invention, the Water Torture Cell, although there is nothing supernatural about it, I am willing to forfeit the sum of $1,000 to anyone who can prove that it is possible to obtain air inside of the Torture Cell when I’m locked up in it in the regulation manner after it has been filled with water. Should anything go wrong when I am locked up, one of my assistants watches through the curtain ready to rush in, demolishing the glass, allowing the water to flow out in order to save my life. Harry Houdini, October the 29th, Nineteen Hundred and Fourteen, Flatbush, New York.

President Warren G. Harding, recorded in 1920

The party puppet anoints some purple prose by one of his more talented speechwriters with the lustless pallor that typified his career. This snippet from his “Americanism” message is adapted from an address delivered at the Waldorf Hotel for the Ohio Society of New York, which was packed with big contributors to whom he doled out prime posts. Hotels played a huge role in Harding’s corrupt presidency. Not only was he a notorious philanderer, but he got his biggest job in a hotel. Despite being at the back of the pack of Republican presidential candidates, party bosses forced him as the Republican nominee in a “smoke-filled room” at Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel. It’s where the phrase, synonymous with backroom deals overriding the will of the people, comes from. You can still rent that room if you want, although I’ve been and it has a dull Renaissance Hotel décor now. Harding also died, still holding office, in a hotel: In 1923, he was rendered nearly as lifeless as in this clip in a bathtub of a suite at San Francisco’s Palace Hotel. Some people say his wife poisoned him.

[After invoking the Constitution, he intones this nugget:] In simple truth, there was no thought of nationality in the revolution for American independence.  The colonists were resisting a wrong and freedom was their solace. Once it was achieved, nationality was the only agency suited to its preservation.

Thomas Edison, recorded in 1927

In the 1870s and 1880s, everyone was racing to come up with the most practical way to record voices, but Edison had the advantage of employing an army of some of the country’s sharpest minds, all of them helping him come up with inventions that he could patent and get rich off of. Sometimes he succeeded in coming up with ideas, but most of his grand business ventures flopped. Here, an elderly Edison recreates one success: his 1877 proof-of-concept recitation of “Mary Had a Little Lamb” (that recording no longer survives). At the turn of the century, he was recording the biggest entertainers of the day in an effort to make his proprietary version of sound recording the most attractive to the American market. The recording studio was directly upstairs from his study and library in West Orange, New Jersey, and you can visit it today at the Thomas Edison National Historic Park. It’s just as he left it.

Ernest Shackleton, recorded in 1910

Fresh back from his Nimrod (mis)adventures at the South Pole, Shackleton, who was knighted for his efforts, retells a hint of a snippet of the hardship he and his heroic men endured. (If you’ve never learned about what he went through, don’t let Shackleton’s chilly storytelling skills deter you. It’s incredible.) Incidentally, he left some crates of whisky behind in Antarctica in 1909, and they were discovered last year, the recipes are being duplicated. You can buy Shackleton’s whiskey soon.

William Jennings Bryan, recorded in 1908

At Bryan’s Nebraska home, Edison recorded an argument against too much federal control of the railroads. As ever, the politician hinges his point on the matter of states’ rights. Some things never change. Bryan was so very nearly America’s president (he ran three times and was running when this recording was laid down on the cylinder), and figures so powerfully in the national goings-on of his era, that it boggles the mind he isn’t better known today. He certains sounds like the folksy leader his followers purported him to be.

William Howard Taft, recorded in 1908

Taft was Bryan’s opponent in the 1908 election. Labor rights were a huge issue in the day because America had so few of them and the vulnerable classes were being exploited so outrageously. To us today, Taft’s definition of what a labor strike should be permitted to do sounds like the very definition of a strike, but at the time, worker actions were a very scary thing, and they degraded into violence far more frequently than happens nowadays. So his prescription must have seemed soothing — and as civilized as what came to pass and we now take for granted. Taft won.

David Lloyd George, recorded in 1909

DLG was the then-future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the reason for this recording is as pertinent today. The early 20th-century British people, disgusted by how rampant industry had stained their cities and poisoned their people, realized it was for the greater good if they took care of the poorest among them. As groups such as the Fabian Society stirred popular empathy, they began taxing the rich to make sure the least fortunate of society were kept healthier. DLG was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this was his pitch to make that happen.

I am one of the children of the people. I was brought up amongst them and I know their trials and their troubles. I therefore determined in framing the budget to add nothing to the anxieties of their lot, but to do something towards lightening those they already bear with such patience and fortitude. No necessity of life will be dearer or more difficult to get owing to the budget. On the other hand, out of the money raised by taking superfluity, funds will be established to secure honourable sustenance for the deserving old and to assist our great benefit societies in making adequate provision for sickness and infirmity and against a poverty which comes to the widows and orphans of those who fall in the battle of industry. This is the plan, this the purpose of this government. We mean to achieve these aims whoever stands in the way. David Lloyd George.

Christabel Harriette Pankhurst, recorded in 1909

The daughter of Emmaline Pankhurst was equally badass. Right after being released from prison for her pro-suffrage demonstrations, she repeats this eloquent ultimatum to the government: Give us the vote or else.

The militant suffragettes who form the Women’s Social and Political Union are engaged in the attempt to win the parliamentary vote for the women of this country. Their claim is that those women who pay rates and taxes and fulfil the same qualifications as men voters shall be placed upon the parliamentary register. The reasons why women should have the vote are obvious to every fair-minded person. The British constitution provides that taxation and representation shall go together. Therefore, women taxpayers are entitled to vote. Parliament deals with questions of vital interest to women, such as the education, housing and employment questions, and upon such matters women wish to express their opinions at the ballot box. The honour and safety of the country are in the hands of Parliament. Therefore, every patriotic and public-spirited woman wishes to take part in controlling the actions of our legislature. For forty years this reasonable claim has been laid before Parliament in a quiet and patient manner. Meetings have been held and petitions signed in favour of votes for women, but failure has been the result. The reason of this failure is that women have not been able to bring pressure to bear upon the government and government moves only in response to pressure. Men got the vote not by persuading, but by alarming the legislature. Similar vigorous measures must be adopted by women. The excesses of men must be avoided, yet great determination must be shown. The militant methods of the women of today are clearly thought out and vigorously pursued. They consist in protesting at public meetings and in marching to the House of Commons in procession. Repressive legislation makes protests at public meetings an offence, but imprisonment will not deter women from asking to vote. Deputations to Parliament involve arrest and imprisonment, yet more deputations will go to the House of Commons. The present Liberal government profess to believe in democratic government, yet they refuse to carry out their principles in the case of women. They must be compelled by a united and determined women’s movement to do justice in this matter. Next session we demand the enactment of a women’s enfranchisement measure. We have waited too long for political justice. We refuse to wait any longer. The present government is approaching the end of its career. Therefore, time presses if women are to vote before the next general election. We are resolved that 1909 must, and shall, see the political enfranchisement of British women.

It didn’t. It took nearly another decade. She even had to flee to France to avoid being arrested for her pull-no-punches convictions. She hated DLG but was forced to ally with him for politics’ sake. In the 1920s, fed up with British chauvinism and war hunger, she moved to California. She’s buried in Santa Monica.

Queen Victoria? Recorded in 1888

In 1929, descendants of Samuel Morse gave London’s Science Museuma wax coated cardboard cylinder, saying it had been used with a graphophone that was demonstrated to Queen Victoria. There was no way to play the tube and no way of verifying the donor’s story. But a half century later, a researcher found mention of an 1888 letter that said Morse had indeed visited HMQ and shown her the new invention. It’s possible that this is her faint voice on this primitive equipment, fumbling for something to say into the cone: “Greetings… the answer must be… I have never forgotten.” But we have.

Houdini Water Torture Cell

Houdini: Alive forevermore through your magic box

 

That day, I was sick as a dog. I should have been in bed. But how often am I in Tokyo?

So I walked everywhere I could. I was in the neighborhood of Shibuya, crossing in an overpass, when I saw something that astonished me.

I whipped out my junky little Canon Powershot A95 (with the swivel screen) and waited for it to happen again. This is what I recorded and uploaded to my non-personal YouTube account. It has now racked up 1,011,000 views, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

This simple little YouTube video of wonderment — sarcasm-free, no trendy jump cuts — still astonishes me. And so does the fact that it thrills so many people across the world.

Capture all you can.

My regular YouTube account is bastablejc.

 

Over the weekend, I noticed that people began finding my website using a brand new phrase. It’s not a phrase people have ever used before to find me, and what’s more, it wasn’t a fluke. Multiple people successfully got to this website using it.

The phrase is “jason cochran porn.”

At first, I didn’t know whether to be flattered or insulted that my adoring public was thinking of me that way. Then, I had a sinking feeling that maybe I did something at last year’s Christmas party that slipped my memory.

But when I plugged the same search into Google, I found my answer. It turn out that I have a newly minted namesake. Here he is. Grab some blue!

Jason Cochran, porn star

I'm surprised they stuck with the 'h'

So that should give my life some future fodder for Three’s Company-style miscommunications.

Welcome to the Web, Jason, and thanks for the clicks! Shame about your clothes. But I truly hope your erotica-craving fans enjoy my recent post on how dirty Oklahoma! is.

It has not escaped my notice that there are a lot of incoming Cochrans these days. This guy is John Cochran, known simply as “Cochran” from CBS’s Survivor. Cochran also takes his clothes off on camera:

John Cochran, Survivor

Cochran the diabolical mastermind. Well, the other one.

I’d make some amusingly crass crack now, but Cochran attends Harvard Law, so I have to be careful. He also probably endured the same witless grammar school Cochran puns that I did (“It ran? Where did it go?”), and besides, I like the guy. So maybe I should just ask him to write a stern lawyerly letter to the porno Jason Cochran to demand he stop using my name, although Jason Cochran Two’s guns certainly give me credit.

The only person that should be allowed to use my name on screen is me. And besides, in this economy, I need to keep all options open.

I have a few other namesakes on the web. One is an aspiring racecar driver. One is in Arizona real estate. But as far as I can tell, most Cochrans do their jobs clothed.

Most.

 

Backtrack!

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
"One of my favorite travel writers ... witty, perceptive, highly talented and much-experienced... The single finest guidebook to London that I for one have ever read" — Arthur Frommer
"Smartest man in travel" — Gadling.com
"A travel blogger I dig" — Andrew Zimmern
"A blend of frustration, fortitude, and humor" — Christian Science Monitor
"He's far too popular for my tastes" — Frank DeCaro
All content © 2010-2012 Jason Cochran Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha