You’ve possibly noticed I’ve been a little quieter than usual on the Tumblrs and the Twitters. There’s a simple reason for this – I’ve had something that’s almost like vacation, except that there’s been a lot of work happening because I don’t do vacation well. Expect normal service to be resumed tomorrow, including a bunch of links I owe people. JULY! It’ll be better!

Wait, What? Ep. (15)3: The Paise That Frays | Wait, What?

Wait, What? Ep. (15)3: The Paise That Frays | Wait, What?

What was insidious about the ’00s view of the world was that it assumed certain cynical things as a given: that the fashion world is and always will be corrupt, that the molestation of young women by older and more powerful men is tradition, that people can be manipulated through fear. It assumed that what was in the interest of a few powerful men was naturally what was right for the masses. The decade kicked off with Bush’s victory over Al Gore, in which the general public will was overridden on a technicality, and went right into a misguided response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which established a general atmosphere of fear and sparked a depressing wave of American anti-Islamic sentiment the Bush presidency rode into an unnecessary war. The ’00s were a bully. The whole decade revolved around the public and private erasure of consent.

The Washington Post has pulled the portion of its online job advertisement for a social media editor that lists, among its job requirements, the “ability to explain to those twice your age what Reddit or Snapchat or Whisper or Fark is.”

Further, it’s a “bonus if you’ve convinced them to use any of these platforms.”

The new version of the social media editor job posting, found here, does not include the ability to explain social media to older people in its job requirements.

Current job requirements include working knowledge of HTML (“and quite simply, how the Internet works”); audience building experience; and five or more years of journalism experience.

Kris Coratti, The Post’s communications director, called the initial job advertisement a “draft” rather than a final version. It appeared online at various job search sites beginning June 20.

On Tuesday, the reference to explaining social media to older people was deleted.

It’s important to recognize this in terms of gender balance. Since 1971, the “standard” model for Doctor Who has been a male Doctor and a female companion, and while this episode does explicitly note that it is possible to regenerate into a different gender, at this point in the show the Doctor remains a firmly male character, with female characters delegated to the “secondary” role. But The Doctor’s Wife consciously alters this, declaring that the series’ implicit hierarchy is in fact topped by a woman, and making female spaces a vital concept in the show’s mythology, in an entertainingly literal manner. And, because it’s worth saying, the fact that this is what the script emphasizes and not “spooky alien planet with a personality” can be credited to Moffat.

Really into Phil Sandifer’s recent Doctor Who posts, in which he teases out a feminist reading of the sixth season (The above is from this post, but the post about “Let’s Kill Hitler” is the central one in this argument, and one that’s sure to drive a bunch of people insane with fury).

Thanks so much for answering my questions. How long do you guys usually spend prepping for an episode?


Our very rough estimate is 6-10 hours, depending on the volume and intricacy of the material we’re covering, and how familiar we already are with the details.

During the week, we re-read any issues we’re going to cover, plus a lot of peripheral research. Saturday morning, we go out to breakfast and talk through everything, then go home and work on the cold open and outline pretty much until we have to leave for the studio.

Recording usually takes about an hour, and Bobby usually sends us the episode back the same night, because he is a miracle. After that, it’s a few more hours for the writeup, and to assemble all the clips and links for the “as-mentioned” post. (We usually have some idea of what to do for those going in, but where we focus can change a lot between reading and outline and outline and recording, which limits how much we can prep in advance.)

I read this and think “We could work so much harder on Wait, What?.” And then I think, “then again, the rampant inability to stay on topic has worked out okay for us so far.”

UK publishers have raised concerns about Amazon’s new contractual arrangements, with the giant retailer pressing for improved terms from a number of publishers, even as its stand-off with Hachette Book Group continues in the US.

Along with improved discounts on wholesale contracts, Amazon has introduced a number of new clauses in publisher contracts. One causing particular worry is a proviso that should a book be out of stock from the publisher, Amazon would be entitled to supply its own copies to customers via its print-on-demand facilities.

Yes, Amazon is now saying that if a publisher allows a book to fall out of print, Amazon can print up a copy themselves should someone want to buy one.

Fuelling this was a report last month from researchers at the University of New South Wales who discovered that the hipster look was no longer “hip”. In short: the more commonplace a trend – in one instance, beards – the less attractive they are perceived to be. And in 2014 we may have reached “peak beard”. Could it be that the flat-white-drinking, flat-cap-wearing hipster will soon cease to exist?

Sanderson thinks it’s more a case of evolving than dying. Talking to the Observer last week, he suggested there are now two types of hipster: “Contemporary hipsters – the ones with the beards we love to hate – and proto-hipsters, the real deal.” And herein lies the confusion.