What if you had to pay for all the resources that you now enjoy for free on the internet, all the articles that used to be yours for a few clicks? It is no secret how cyberspace has transformed research in just a matter of years.
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Dark Side of William Golding
Upon reading Lord of the Flies, I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t leave any children with the author. But upon reading his memoir, I’m fairly certain that I myself wouldn’t be left alone with him.
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
Jealous, Whoopi?
Whoopi Goldberg really doesn't like Sarah Palin. Though, I think Sarah Palin needn’t worry. Even after she lost the vice-presidency, Palin remains the most-googled public figure 9 months after the election.
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Beauty in the Eye of the Employer?
Would you be willing to undergo the knife to get or keep your job?
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"And That's the Way it Was"
Walter Cronkite was born in a normal household in Missouri to a Dentist and a homemaker. He became so iconic, it’s hard to imagine that he had humble beginnings just like anyone else.
While he was very young, he read an article in “Boy’s Life” about the life of a reporter. He was instantly enamored, and just knew that was what he wanted to spend his life doing. He started gathering experience by working on his high school newspaper and yearbook.
He later went to the University of Texas at Austin to study political science, economics and journalism, but he never graduated. The call of the press was too loud to ignore. Instead, he chose to fulfill his childhood dream by working at the Houston Post.
In 1939 he started working for the United Press. Then the world started to change, and he jumped at the chance to report on it. He went to Europe to cover World War 2. He was part of the “Writing 69th,” which was a group of reporters who were instantly thrust into some of the most important developments in the war, including the D-Day invasion, bombing missions over Germany, and later, the Nuremburg war trials. He delivered his front line written commentary.
Television emerged, forever changing the way the world was reported on; not with written words, but spoken ones. At first resistant to a job at CBS, he finally took the TV job in 1950. Television was not considered to be a “serious” journalistic job. Radio and print were taken much more seriously. His first job was pretending to interview historical figures such as Joan of Arc or Sigmund Freud, for a show called, You are there. His famous last line for these programs was: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
Throughout his tenured career at CBS, he reported on a lifetime of events, indeed the stories that changed our lives including JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam war, The Apollo 11 mission, which left him speechless, The Cuban Missal crisis, and Watergate to name a few.
He recognized the limitations of TV, and it’s inability to give the whole story. He said, in 1952, “I wanted to end every broadcast saying, “For more details, see your local newspaper.” Even after his many broadcast successes, he never lost his true love for the written word. In 1994 he told the American Journalism Review, “We’ve got a great percentage of our population that, to our great shame, either cannot or, equally unfortunate, will not read. And that portion of our public is growing. Those people are suckers for the demagogue.” Ironically it is television he blames for the current impression our modern society has that reading isn’t necessary.
In a day when the news was all that was reported, not the corresponding feelings that the media thought you should have as well, Cronkite became such a trusted and influential authority. He truly had his finger on the pulse of American society. In fact, when President Lyndon B. Johnston learned that he opposed the Vietnam War, he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
Do you think the legacies of any of the current politicians will be this strong? Their level of competence or talent is irrelevant. Can you truly imagine feeling a void this big for any of the more abrasive, acidic commentators? Cronkite made his way into everyone’s family. He was like a trusted uncle. He didn’t tell you what to believe. He didn’t judge you for what you believed. He just reported the news. And that’s the way it was.
c. 2009
While he was very young, he read an article in “Boy’s Life” about the life of a reporter. He was instantly enamored, and just knew that was what he wanted to spend his life doing. He started gathering experience by working on his high school newspaper and yearbook.
He later went to the University of Texas at Austin to study political science, economics and journalism, but he never graduated. The call of the press was too loud to ignore. Instead, he chose to fulfill his childhood dream by working at the Houston Post.
In 1939 he started working for the United Press. Then the world started to change, and he jumped at the chance to report on it. He went to Europe to cover World War 2. He was part of the “Writing 69th,” which was a group of reporters who were instantly thrust into some of the most important developments in the war, including the D-Day invasion, bombing missions over Germany, and later, the Nuremburg war trials. He delivered his front line written commentary.
Television emerged, forever changing the way the world was reported on; not with written words, but spoken ones. At first resistant to a job at CBS, he finally took the TV job in 1950. Television was not considered to be a “serious” journalistic job. Radio and print were taken much more seriously. His first job was pretending to interview historical figures such as Joan of Arc or Sigmund Freud, for a show called, You are there. His famous last line for these programs was: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
Throughout his tenured career at CBS, he reported on a lifetime of events, indeed the stories that changed our lives including JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam war, The Apollo 11 mission, which left him speechless, The Cuban Missal crisis, and Watergate to name a few.
He recognized the limitations of TV, and it’s inability to give the whole story. He said, in 1952, “I wanted to end every broadcast saying, “For more details, see your local newspaper.” Even after his many broadcast successes, he never lost his true love for the written word. In 1994 he told the American Journalism Review, “We’ve got a great percentage of our population that, to our great shame, either cannot or, equally unfortunate, will not read. And that portion of our public is growing. Those people are suckers for the demagogue.” Ironically it is television he blames for the current impression our modern society has that reading isn’t necessary.
In a day when the news was all that was reported, not the corresponding feelings that the media thought you should have as well, Cronkite became such a trusted and influential authority. He truly had his finger on the pulse of American society. In fact, when President Lyndon B. Johnston learned that he opposed the Vietnam War, he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
Do you think the legacies of any of the current politicians will be this strong? Their level of competence or talent is irrelevant. Can you truly imagine feeling a void this big for any of the more abrasive, acidic commentators? Cronkite made his way into everyone’s family. He was like a trusted uncle. He didn’t tell you what to believe. He didn’t judge you for what you believed. He just reported the news. And that’s the way it was.
c. 2009
Partisan Punchlines
Everyone knows in times of conflict and stress, people often turn to humor as a way to cope. It is interesting the various ways people do this. Some can definitely dish it but have a hard time taking it. Others are very good-natured and don’t take themselves too seriously.
George Bush had a great sense of humor, so did Sarah Palin. It was a good thing, too. They were insulted mercilessly. I seriously doubt any one of their opponents could have handled it with such class. The ability to laugh at oneself shows a true strength.
It is especially interesting in such a stressful and public field as politics.
Humor can be a great tool to connect with the people. It can lighten the moment and endear you to the audience. When microphone problems interrupted Rudy Giuliani’s answer to a question in a CNN debate with Catholic bishops, he was told that it was because of the lightning. He laughed and said, “For someone who went to parochial schools his whole life, this is a very frightening thing.”
Palin’s spokesperson Tracey Schmitt told CBS that [Palin] thought that Tina Fey’s impersonation of her on SNL was funny. “The governor and the press corps watched the sketch in the back of her plane, laughing at Tina and Amy’s satirical take on the two politicians. She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.”
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, known for his wit, jokingly said he was going to ask satirist Stephen Colbert to be his running mate if he won. The Vulture blog reports in, Mike Huckabee Gives Stephen Colbert His Funniest Interview So Far, “Yes, he was funnier than Leno last Wednesday and got more laughs than Letterman on Monday… Which other candidate will protect us from the terrorists and make us laugh? Mike Huckabee for President of Earth!”
In the Democrat debate, people sent questions via video submissions from YouTube users. The atmosphere was a little edgier than usual. John Edwards, when asked to name something he doesn’t like about Clinton, stared at the brightly colored jacket she was wearing: “I’m not sure about that coat.”
Of course, no one likes being the butt of jokes, but I’ve found that often some of the more comedic sorts are the ones who can’t stand being laughed at.
The more overtly left leaning humorists all seem to have something in common. They are all obnoxious blowhards. Think Michael Moore, and Al Franken. The guys from Southpark show a lot more class than them. Oh yeah, they’re not flaming liberals.
Liberals tend to dominate the entertainment industry, and as such, they are dubious, if not combative of any Conservative influence. There are mixed reviews about Mike Judges’, The Goode Family, which pokes fun at Liberals. Liberals, not surprisingly, hate it because they can’t stand to be the butt of any jokes. They can dish it, but they can’t take it. Contrast Chevy Chase’s “moral problem” with SNL’s parody of Hilary Clinton, with his opinion that Fey should “go even harder on” and “decimate” Sarah Palin (video here).
Liberal humor tends to be more insulting and backbiting (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is just one example), whereas Conservative humor doesn’t feel it has to stoop that low. Not that Conservatives are completely innocent and not that Liberals are completely devoid of humor.
Take the confirmation hearings for Sonya Sotemayor, for instance. Al Franken lightened a, perhaps, tense situation with a humorous comparison of, well, something completely irrelevant, their shared love for Perry Mason. He likened the preparation for a job such as a Supreme Court Justice to watching Perry Mason day in and day out. Well, maybe he is kind of funny!
c. 2009
George Bush had a great sense of humor, so did Sarah Palin. It was a good thing, too. They were insulted mercilessly. I seriously doubt any one of their opponents could have handled it with such class. The ability to laugh at oneself shows a true strength.
It is especially interesting in such a stressful and public field as politics.
Humor can be a great tool to connect with the people. It can lighten the moment and endear you to the audience. When microphone problems interrupted Rudy Giuliani’s answer to a question in a CNN debate with Catholic bishops, he was told that it was because of the lightning. He laughed and said, “For someone who went to parochial schools his whole life, this is a very frightening thing.”
Palin’s spokesperson Tracey Schmitt told CBS that [Palin] thought that Tina Fey’s impersonation of her on SNL was funny. “The governor and the press corps watched the sketch in the back of her plane, laughing at Tina and Amy’s satirical take on the two politicians. She thought it was quite funny, particularly because she once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.”
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, known for his wit, jokingly said he was going to ask satirist Stephen Colbert to be his running mate if he won. The Vulture blog reports in, Mike Huckabee Gives Stephen Colbert His Funniest Interview So Far, “Yes, he was funnier than Leno last Wednesday and got more laughs than Letterman on Monday… Which other candidate will protect us from the terrorists and make us laugh? Mike Huckabee for President of Earth!”
In the Democrat debate, people sent questions via video submissions from YouTube users. The atmosphere was a little edgier than usual. John Edwards, when asked to name something he doesn’t like about Clinton, stared at the brightly colored jacket she was wearing: “I’m not sure about that coat.”
Of course, no one likes being the butt of jokes, but I’ve found that often some of the more comedic sorts are the ones who can’t stand being laughed at.
The more overtly left leaning humorists all seem to have something in common. They are all obnoxious blowhards. Think Michael Moore, and Al Franken. The guys from Southpark show a lot more class than them. Oh yeah, they’re not flaming liberals.
Liberals tend to dominate the entertainment industry, and as such, they are dubious, if not combative of any Conservative influence. There are mixed reviews about Mike Judges’, The Goode Family, which pokes fun at Liberals. Liberals, not surprisingly, hate it because they can’t stand to be the butt of any jokes. They can dish it, but they can’t take it. Contrast Chevy Chase’s “moral problem” with SNL’s parody of Hilary Clinton, with his opinion that Fey should “go even harder on” and “decimate” Sarah Palin (video here).
Liberal humor tends to be more insulting and backbiting (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is just one example), whereas Conservative humor doesn’t feel it has to stoop that low. Not that Conservatives are completely innocent and not that Liberals are completely devoid of humor.
Take the confirmation hearings for Sonya Sotemayor, for instance. Al Franken lightened a, perhaps, tense situation with a humorous comparison of, well, something completely irrelevant, their shared love for Perry Mason. He likened the preparation for a job such as a Supreme Court Justice to watching Perry Mason day in and day out. Well, maybe he is kind of funny!
c. 2009
Bravo: Queer TV
One thing that struck me as I was watching the Bravo network the other day was the overabundance of estrogen; both real and fabricated. According to Reuters, Bravo is one of the leading gay-friendly stations. Bravo, part of the NBC/Universal family, is known for it's both female and gay appeal. Fashion shows, and reality shows such as Top Chef, America's Top Model, Kathy Griffin's My Life on the D List, Inside the Actor's Studio, Make Me a Supermodel, Miami Social, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, all seem to have a gay element to them. If Lifetime is called “TV for women,” I think we can safely call Bravo, “TV for gays.”
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salon staffs. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c. 2009
The Fashion Show, is hosted by Isaac Mizrahi, where a collection of designers, both over-the-top women and extremely flamboyant men get together and have a “design-off,” as well as vie not to be the “design that greatly disappointed us this week.” In one of the competitions they are told to sketch a dress from memory. This checks their eye for detail, (because “being a designer is kind of like being a secret agent,” don'tcha know). Just like any other reality show, some contestants get voted off.
The blunt or “direct,” as she prefers, lesbian Tabitha Coffey's, Tabitha's Salon Takeover showcases her razor-sharp directions to motley salon staffs. After bringing one stylist to tears, she declares, coldly, “I hate tears. Why don't you channel all those tears and emotions into something productive....work.”
Lesbian, Jackie Warner hosts Work Out, a show that chronicles the life and drama of a Beverly Hills spa owner. The cast includes the trainers at her spa,”Sky Sport and Spa,” as well as Warner's lover, Mimi, who is a self-centered Brazilian She-Rah.
Of course there's Queer Eye For the Straight Guy where 5 gay guys transform an everyday shlub to sheer fabulousness.
Comedy Central even hosted a spoof on it called Straight Plan for the Gay Man, which featured four heterosexual men teaching gay men how to be straight, or “mannish,” redecorating their homes with neon beer signs and teaching them about sports.”
United States Congressman Barney Frank speaking to the New York Post commented on Queer Eye, saying, "The notion that gay men have a superior fashion sense is not true and it's damaging. It's perfectly possible to enjoy that show and say, look at those clever homosexuals. What they do with hair! And not support gays at all.".
On Top Chef, It seems food isn't the only thing holding the attention of the viewers. The restaurant's kitchen is the backdrop for a saucy soap opera. The chefs, both gay and straight, have 30 minutes to cook dishes complete with amuse-bouches, and refreshing palate cleansers, topped off with sexual innuendoes and double entendres.
The judges hold nothing back. One chef's dish, quoted judge, Steven “reminded me of the career of Elvis Presley. It started out great, but then died on the toilet.”
So, is gay TV really that odd an idea? It is not rare for other subcultures have a channel that is exclusively theirs. Some say that they, just as anyone would, want to have a voice; a representation. Others say that they are trying to push their agenda on all of us straight people, thus validating themselves. Some say that they are trying to make homosexuality seem “normal” or mainstream, turning the kettle water up a notch, so to speak.
I think whatever they are doing, for good or for bad, is working. I remember 20 years ago, gayness was very much in the broadcast closet. TV networks would never even think of putting a gay character on one of their shows (Jack Tripper, aside). An entire gay channel would have been out of the question.
Now, however, it seems we have surpassed mere acceptability. We are embracing it. Celebrating it, even. We are forced to revel in their flamboyancy. My question is, can we honestly say that we celebrate or feel an obligation to be “OK” with any other subculture as much as the homosexual culture?
c. 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
