Category: Media

By on

Whoops, I made a mistake I changed an already published blog. Mostly because I was trying to get out more content because my readers are so demanding. I accidentally looked at this published article and made some changes. I come from a publishing background and vowed to myself that I would never change an already published article’s content and, up until this moment I have lived up to this commitment.

Any way it happened. I am sorry but it is really your fault. Stop asking for this endless supply of new bon mots from me. I am just one man. I am trying my damnedest, but you always want more. So really, dear reader, you only have yourself to blame if I make these mistakes. All right. End of lecture. Go back to what you were doing.

By on

A few months back I read an advice columnist on Slate that shook me. I wanted to say something about but what exactly I wanted to say was still coalescing. The shooting of Charlie Kirk reminded of this column and what I wanted to say.

A bride had asked a friend to wear a piece of clothing that would piss off the bride’s MAGA loving in-laws. At the time, I thought why would anyone want to deliberately piss off their new in-laws and his family. On her wedding day no less. The bride said that the new in-laws were constantly disrespecting her and her fiance never supported her.

First, and most importantly, this marriage sounds doomed and not because of politics either. This woman expects support from her man and isn’t getting it. So pissing off his family is going to change this how? If he doesn’t support you now, while he is still in the wooing stage of the relationship, what makes her think he is going to get better at it after a brawl at her wedding. He has shown his character and she is on her own with his relatives.

Then, there is a big difference between people bringing up their politics independently of your prompting and you waving a red cape at them and expecting them to sit quietly while you taunt them. Maybe you would get along better with your MAGA loving in-laws if you didn’t try to piss them off. I know it is a stretch but maybe give it a try.

I have a strategy that works every time I am with people whose politics I disagree with. I avoid politics altogether. We can chat endlessly about the weather, sports, movies, children, and so forth as long as we tip toe around politics. Which is a surprisingly easy strategy and almost always successful. If politics does come up, I have found saying something like “I don’t think we agree on politics so maybe lets not talk about it” works well to defuse the situation. I have found people, on the whole, prefer civil conversations as opposed to knock out drag out quarrels over Donald Trump.

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk. So many people want to both acknowledge the wrongness of his assassination and still make a point about how horrible a person he was. You really don’t have to say he was horrible person. It is irrelevant to the present situation. All you need to say is nobody should be shot for what they say and I am sorry his family has to suffer through this. Then do the easiest thing of all keep your God Damn mouth shut.

There is a time for political quarrels. This isn’t the time. You may have a lot to say about Charlie Kirk’s politics. It will keep and you can raise it again when the time arises.

By on

I don’t know who the genius behind the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads is but surely this person deserves a raise. They created a significant amout of buzz. A lot of people are talking about it. Hell, the ad might being getting more buzz than Donald Trump the king of manipulating the media for buzz.

The ad is both ambiguous enough for American Eagle to continue to use it and controversial enough for people to debate the true meaning. Even if American Eagle is force to withdraw it at some point, they got their money’s worth. Being a strictly Levi’s guy myself and not much of a shopper, I now learned all about American Eagle — a brand of jeans that I knew nothing about before I saw Sweeney struggling to pull up her pair of “good” jeans.

By on

I am not sure why the word female was added to this Daily Beast headline. Shouldn’t it read ‘Drunk’ Delta Pilot? The gender of the pilot is an unnecessary addition and it makes the whole headline awkward. Read it out loud and compare Drunk Female Delta Pilot and Drunk Delta Pilot.

I took a photograph of the headline because I am pretty sure it will be taken down but here is the link.

By on

The Huffington Post headline reads: Kim Carnes Seemingly Shades JoJo Siwa over her “Bette Davis Eyes” cover. Oh my, how horrible. Now everyone is talking about it.

Seemingly is the most important word in this headline. Huffington Post hedged its bets — they can’t positively say for sure that Carnes was shading JoJo Siwa. On the other hand, there is enough ambiguity here for them to speculate. What’s the harm in a little speculation, right?

Kim Carnes and JoJo Siwa were getting along fine or, more likely, completely unaware of the other person’s existence. Then some reporter comes along and speculates. It is a slow news days. Why not stir the pot a little and see what pseudo controversy can be created that will grab readers attention. This will go on for a few days. With both parties being asked what they think of the other’s increasingly vitriolic statements until the reporter tires of the feud and creates a new one.

This formula for creating pseudo controversies is the bread and butter of the new business these days — particularly when celebrities are involved. And everyone seems to be on board with this. Celebrities love headlines. Newspapers love reporting gossip. It is what you call a win/win relationship.

It is also a terrible diet for people needing information. Feeding people bon bon after bon bon without a vegetable or a piece of fruit in sight. Now, I get that controversies sell newspapers but there needs to be something more substantive on the menu so while I can enjoy my bon bon, I need to eat my broccoli as well.

This terrible strategy has spilled over to political reporting which now boils down to people reacting to whatever nonsense comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth. It is all about one upping the other person and the press is there breathlessly reporting responses to each new outrageous comment. What does this mean? How will they respond? Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But it is hardly substantive reporting about what ails the country.

By on

There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

By on

Christiane Amanpour says she prepares for a trip to the United States now like she is preparing for a trip to North Korea.

I believe that her preparations may be different with Trump and his cronies in charge but North Korea — a country so backward that there are no lights on at night and where there is no political opposition whatsoever seems a bit of a stretch. More importantly it obviously isn’t the least bit true. The lights are very much on in the USA and the opposition to Trump is both active and vigorous. The mere fact that she is saying this while in the United States undermines her own statement.

She has a point. Unfortunately it got lost in the hyperbolic nature of her statement. This is especially damaging for someone who is a journalist. Maybe a comedian could get away with the North Korean comparison but someone who conveys important information to the public it calls into question their judgment. And, to be clear, she wasn’t joking so can I trust what this journalist is saying?

Now I think I can because of her long record of accurate reporting but what about red America? People who are already deeply suspicious of journalists. They might think if she believes that traveling to the USA is akin to North Korea, she is clearly someone who has lost her senses or, at least, her ability to reason.

By on

Sometimes I can not believe the things I see — Masturbation Month Sale advertised in the Daily Beast.

I am not saying it is wrong but it is jolting for someone who was raised in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I didn’t even know the correct spelling of masturbation until a few months ago and I am a little embarrassed about using the word even today but I had to relay this important information to all of my reader.

You can thank me later.

By on

I can’t tell you how disappointed I was to see only 7 stories about the Met Gala on the Huffington Post.

Only seven! For the Met Fucking Gala! You can tell I am riled because I rarely use exclamation points and I have used two in one paragraph.

It is an insult too difficult to bear. I can only hope that the editorial team at the Huffington Post will seriously assess their headline reporting a bit more seriously and make better decisions.

Poor Anna Wintour! She must be gutted. My heart bleeds for her!