Pseudo-Events

In Daniel Boorstin’s book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, he argues that, given the wealth of news outlets in America, there are an awful lot of pages that reporters have to fill.  Therefore, “[t]he successful reporter is one who can find a story . . . If he cannot find a story, then he must make one . . .”

If the reporter’s digging and imagination both come up dry, then the news that gets reported may be nothing more than a “think piece” or “speculation about startling things to come”—or, worse yet, a rankings puff piece.  In sum, “news” is now “anything that makes a reader say, ‘Gee whiz!’”

In light of his words, I couldn’t help but notice two pieces of pseudo-news recently—Boorstin would call them stories about “pseudo-events.”  These two current examples fall under the heading of “career news”—a category that is now a big business in itself—and involve my former career (accounting) and my current career (law).

Law school sheep and the US News rankings

Countless news stories now litter the web proclaiming that Yale and Harvard, followed by a slew of copycat schools, “withdrew from,” “pulled out of,” or “abandoned” the US News law school rankings.  But as I explained in a previous post, these schools are not withdrawing from, pulling out of, or abandoning the US News rankings at all.  They are just not submitting data.  They are still going to be ranked.  In fact, the new top 14—which consists almost entirely of “protester” schools—has already been released and, putting aside the narcissism of small differences, appears virtually unchanged from last year!  (As explained below, we’re still waiting on rankings for schools #15 on down.)

Withholding data is nothing new or newsworthy; my alma mater Marquette Law did it back in the 90s (see p. 310) long before Yale and Harvard decided the rankings were, for nonsensical reasons, bad.  This entire thing is just a redo, a non-event.  It’s no more newsworthy than Kim Kardashian having a bad morning because she got too much foam on her designer coffee.  It just doesn’t matter.

Instead, law schools are doing this for virtue-signaling purposes—although it’s hard to see how that ploy could be successful with any thinking person, a category of persons that hopefully includes a decent percentage of law school applicants.  For example:

Text messages and phone banking – what’s next?

A couple of months ago, I said to someone that banking on your phone just isn’t right.  The ease and convenience did not fit the seriousness of the activity.  Paying a bill, transferring money between accounts, and other banking transactions are just too important and shouldn’t be done so casually or quickly.  Among other risks, the risk of error on that tiny “keyboard” is way too high.

Instead, banking should be done in person or on your computer, using a man-sized keyboard.  Banking by phone, I said, was just another symptom of the underlying problems that plague us today, such as laziness and a lack of seriousness.  It’s just like sending an important message by “text” instead of letter or email—and then having that "text" filled with errors and a lack of punctuation, to boot. 

Ready to pass the bar, not to practice law

The above headline could apply to most new law school grads.  (Not all new grads, of course; not all new grads can pass the bar.)  But I’m using the headline to describe an A.I. named Chat GPT.

A few years ago, I was convinced that A.I. had taken over legal tasks (if not entire legal jobs).  Not all tasks; you can’t send A.I. into the courtroom to try a case, for example.  But certainly it had taken over things like legal research and writing legal briefs, I thought.

And then I got an email from my state bar touting its seminar on how attorneys can put A.I., in the form of Chat GPT, to work for them.  I then researched it and learned that Chat GPT recently passed a bar exam.  Based on that, I signed up for Chat GPT and gave it a spin.