j. b. crawford

People, especially enthusiasts of classical music, sometimes criticize John Williams for being a bit repetitive and over-bombastic. But, well, he’s first and foremost a film compose, and that’s sort of the nature of the genre. People tend to select film composers because they liked their previous work and want something very similar, so they tend to have a pretty consistent style. You see the same with other prominent film composers like Hans Zimmer. I guess what’s notable about John Williams is that he was such a prolific and popular film composer for such a long period that his style was the style of film scores for a generation. It’s hard to imagine an era of film, hits like Star Wars and Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park, without his bombast. His tendency to “go big” is part of what defined these epics.

All that said, my favorite John Williams composition strays a little bit from film. It’s “The Mission,” better known as the theme for the NBC nightly news. The short theme is instantly recognizable to probably most Americans, but not so many have heard the full composition. NBC used to play it over credits at the end of the last news segment but I don’t think they do any more. Fortunately there’s a (potato quality) YouTube video of John Williams himself directing a Sony studio orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kIgcYgIQk

It’s sort of hard to know what happened in more detail without really good-quality reporting from in the courtroom, that might inform as to why the jury found the way they did. We know that the judge issued a majority instruction, a not very uncommon process where, if the jury deliberates for too long, the judge tells them that a ruling can now be accepted with one or two dissenters. I don’t think the jury says what the vote was, just that it was enough, so it could have been unanimous, we don’t know. In the US journalists often try to track down jury members and interview them to get those kinds of details but jurors don’t always want the media circus around them and I don’t know if that’s common practice in the UK.

The dropped charges were apparently alternative counts covering the same crime as the other charges and were probably dropped for that reason, although it’s interesting that no reporters seem to have really given a reason why. I don’t know enough about the UK legal opinion to give much of a guess as to why except that I see the crown prosecution manual does discourage using alternative counts (of a lower crime) in rape cases. Some context in, of all things, Yahoo News, suggests the judge may have been concerned that the alternative counts were making things more complicated for the jury. In the US, some states prohibit charging the same crime as multiple alternative counts for this reason, or have a special procedure for the jury to make it easier, it’s sort of a known issue that it’s hard for a jury to come to a verdict when they’re having to choose guilty/innocent for multiple counts of different exact allegations over one event.

The outcome is dissatisfying, but it’s sort of the outcome the criminal justice system is designed to produce. All the jury found is that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Spacey was guilty. There could still be evidence making it most likely that Spacey was guilty, but criminal prosecutions require the higher standard because of the severe impacts of criminal charges. The crown prosecution service put out a statement that they accept the ruling and were just doing their job, which in the US would look more like a prosecutor trying to save face over pursuing what wasn’t the strongest case, but I have no idea about the UK, it might be totally routine to make a statement like that.

The Spacey thing is interesting if you like to follow the legal details. The US cases against him (criminal and civil) were both dropped after the accuser stopped cooperating with the prosecution, at one point pleading the fifth when testifying. That tends to be taken as a sign that the accuser was lying about at least something substantial, thus the prosecutor dropping the charges, but that wasn’t determined by the court or anything. It’s possible, although maybe not so likely, that the accuser was acting in good faith and lost interest in pursuing the case for some other reason. That’s probably more likely when a celebrity is involved, these celebrity prosecutions are all the more complex when it comes to people’s motivations.

The whole culture around sexual harassment/assault allegations has changed a lot over recent years (since “MeToo” if you will), for the better in many ways, but I think there’s still a lot of unsettled issues. It seems like in celebrity cases it’s a lot more likely that “hangers on” will show up with claims that are maybe not untrue but at least stretch the truth. At the same time we obviously have to take accusers very seriously or we risk ignoring criminality because the accused is a popular celebrity. The justice system produces a lot of these unclear outcomes where maybe there were multiple accusers and things look really sketchy for the accused, but it’s not clear enough for a prosecution. That situation has always ended up going to the court of public opinion for a final verdict, but in the case of a big celebrity like Spacey that’s sort of a huge deal. Will studios keep working with Spacey? I suspect the answer is yes, because he’s a huge celebrity, not because of anything about the merits of the case against him. In corporate environments the company will sometimes hire a private investigator to make a decision about the accusation and fire based on that (this is in the US where there are no employment protections), which kind of has its own sketchiness, but the media industry isn’t known for caring that much.

There’s an interesting aspect of this issue that I think the post summary really dismisses. Photos coming from phones these days sort of are AI, and in an annoyingly pervasive way.

I’ve actually gone back from using my phone to using a proper camera again over the last year or so because I’m getting so irritated by the amount of ML-based post-processing my phone does. It results in a lot of photos looking bad, and there’s no easy way to bypass it besides setting the phone to save raw which sort of defeats the point of using the phone in a lot of ways (ability to go from taking the photo to posting on the device). A really common situation for me is when I take a photo with my phone that is blurry because of bad focus/shake/low light/some combination. The phone does really aggressive ML “sharpening” of the image that makes it look extremely artificial and, frankly, a lot worse than if the postprocessing had been omitted. I’ve had sets of photos I took totally ruined by this kind of “helpfulness.”

It’s a tricky issue, there absolutely are benefits to cameras using the best technology available to create the best photograph available. I’m not meaning to appeal to some sense of artistic integrity or “real photography” here. I just hate the lack of control over the product. I used to be really into photography as a hobby and had a lot of opinions about lenses and mostly set up exposures manually. Nowadays I use my Sony Alpha with the kit lens and rarely take it off of its “smart” auto mode, which does have some ML-driven features like subject detection. But it feels like I have so much more control over the output than I do with my phone, because the Sony doesn’t run the image through ten layers of AI processing that’s not a whole lot better than the state of the art in Instagram filters before saving it. If I don’t hold the camera steady it’ll just come out motion blurred, not like someone new to photoshop has just discovered the posterize button.

As I understand Apple is better than most of the Android vendors about this kind of thing and the iPhone processing probably produces better output - but it’s still frustrating to me feeling like photos are changing from “capturing the scene” to “recreating the scene.” I did graduate work on forensics of digital images, learned a lot of theory and methods for analyzing and reversing in-camera processing. I did some research on the “auto HDR” feature that was starting to appear in Android devices at the time and whether or not it defeated some known forensic methods for device fingerprinting (mostly, not totally). But that was the tip of the iceberg… it used to be that cameras only did a bit of processing, debayering for example, the kind of things that really need to be done to turn sensor data into a useful image because of the properties of the sensor and readout pipeline. But phones, the dominant photographic tool today, are taking it to this whole new level where they do what would have been very complex postprocessing on every image, as it’s taken.

As with so many things, I guess it’s good when it works, but endlessly frustrating when it doesn’t. At least it feels like the phone vendors are doing their part to preserve “traditional” photographic technology, if that’s what you’d call a Sony mirrorless, by really nerfing phones as tools for people who want much control over the result. I do understand there are third-party apps for iPhone that expose a lot more user control but it seems like they also have some limitations with how much of the camera stack they can control/bypass.

I still miss my old iRiver with Rockbox… definitely been thinking about getting a proper PMP again.

Although I oppose corporate sponsorship, I would encourage you to strongly consider incorporating (probably as a nonprofit incorporation, options vary by state) as you scale upwards. This offers legal protection not only to the operators of the service but also to the users, since it allows for appropriate controls on governance and finances. Unincorporated community services that take donations are, unfortunately, notorious for corruption and self-dealing since there are few legal and organizational measures in place to prevent it.

Beehaw would most likely not qualify for federal tax exemption (but you could get an attorney’s opinion). In a way that’s a good thing, as the typical cost of getting an IRS letter of status runs over $1k while the typical cost of incorporating a nonprofit in most states is around $100. This is all US-centric of course, in other countries I have no idea!

My husband swore by B5 and had a hard time convincing me, especially since the CGI effects have not aged well and in general the sets, costume, etc. feel cheap. He was right, though: I really enjoyed it, although I think it took a season or so to really get into it. The writing is surprisingly good, especially later on, and it has complex alien characters in a way that a lot of scifi series struggle with.

There’s a widespread belief that Deep Space Nine is a knockoff of Babylon 5. B5 was apparently pitched to Paramount before they started work on DS9, but they turned it down. So it’s certainly possible that DS9 is at least inspired by B5, although I think people with more inside knowledge tend to doubt that it’s directly ripped off from the B5 pitch as others claim. It’s clear though that there is a deep similarity between B5 and DS9, and considering B5 aired later it’s natural that people feel the need to defend B5 on this point — it’s not a cheap ripoff of DS9, if anything, DS9 is an expensive ripoff of B5!

All that is background for me saying that I think B5 is a better DS9 than DS9 is, but DS9 might be a better show. What I mean by that is that the original concept that DS9 and B5 share, that of a multi-cultural space station resolving diplomatic disputes at the edge of human territory, is much better done in B5 than DS9 where it’s almost secondary to DS9 as a military outpost in the Dominion war. That said, DS9 had a bigger budget, better effects, and in my opinion better actors, so it’s easier to get into than B5. It just looks better.

Another interesting thing about B5 is that its creator, J. Michael Straczinsky (think I spelled that right?) was Terminally Online in a very early age of Online. He had a reputation for getting into dumb but heated arguments with fans on Usenet, which is pretty funny to think about now. This was a particularly big deal when the lead of the show had to be abruptly changed between seasons 1 and 2. Years after it became public that this was because of the original lead actor developing some serious mental health problems, but JMS understandably didn’t want to talk about that in public and so the abrupt and unexplained replacement lead to a lot of flamewarring (mostly under the presumption the original lead had been fired) that gave the show sort of a bad reputation among some.

I’d totally recommend that you watch B5, just be prepared for a rough given the much poorer production quality. It does get better over time, and most significantly the acting gets a lot better over time as cheesy stereotypes evolve into more complete characters. Of course pretty much every show goes through that evolution but it’s especially important with B5 where Londo starts out as an annoying guy with annoying hair. He remains as such through the rest of the series, but also gains other traits to the extent that he’s one of the more relatable characters.

There’s also a really funny left turn that happens in the last season - the last season is good! but there was some weirdness that happened where the last season was bought after the writers had already wrapped up the show (they thought they wouldn’t get another one), so they had to swap around episodes and come up with a whole new arc for the last season. The result is actually some of the best episodes of the series since they end up with sort of “free time” episodes to dig into aspects of the world that you don’t get much other detail on. The original finale of the series got moved into the actual last season, so the finale of the second to last is an episode they kind of shoved in at the last moment that is, admittedly, half clip-show but also explores the world of B5 in a really interesting way that we probably wouldn’t have gotten if the writers room didn’t have to scramble to produce something that was both fast to shoot and a satisfying season end.

Oh, and I didn’t even really address your actual question, I just rambled about television scifi for a long time like I’m prone to do. I think you’d like B5: it does have a definite aspect of moral parable to it, but it’s a more complex and nuanced one than most TV shows of the '90s. I think that’s part of the reason it didn’t get the kind of big-budget production that Star Trek did. It’s not set in a post-scarcity, largely post-politics utopia like Star Trek. The world of B5 is very political, and there aren’t really any “good guys.” Humans (from the central government charmingly called EARTH DOME) are just as much a part of the problem as everyone else, and I think the show does a much better than average job of representing different interests that have to come to compromises to get along, and the real political and cultural results of scifi concepts like telepathy. It’s not all happy endings!