Tag: Media

By on

Quentin Tarantino bad mouthing Paul Dano bothered me for some reason. Tarantino has every right to criticize someone’s work. It is part of the risk artist takes. Critical feedback is a gauge of how effective the artist is so I am not opposed to criticism per se. Tarantino’s criticism, however, was unnecessarily mean spirited. He sounded like he wanted to hurt Dano more than let a colleague know how to improve his work.

More worrisome is this has become the environment we live in. I disagree with you has become more than a difference in opinion or taste. If I didn’t like your performance, you didn’t get it wrong, you are a bad actor. Or a stupid person. Or an evil person. The press eggs this on because it loves a disagreement and have a gleeful willingness to spread the absolute worst thoughts that people have to their readers and viewers. So if a famous person burns another famous person, you can bet your house that there will be a reporter sticking a microphone into the burn victim’s face asking for his response. Retaliation is inevitable.

I wish I was above it all but, I have to confess, I am right in there slinging mud with the best of them. I try to be conscious about it but I fail. Almost all of the time, I fail. A simple a thing as a Trump supporter with a misspelled protest sign is enough for me to forward to Facebook and Instagram so everyone can see how Trump supporter’s are so dumb. I am laughing at one person’s mistake and implying that all Trump supporters are the same which means they all potentially are bad spellers. Uneducated and stupid, right?

The problem is that in a few minutes, I will receive a post from a someone showing a misspelled sign from a left winger. Am I supposed to make the same sweeping assumption about all left wingers based on the one left winger who can’t spell? Of course not. It is just one person’s mistake. The question, for me, then what was I hoping people would think when I sent the post about the bad spelling Trump supporters? It was unfair of me to provide this false depiction of Trump supporters.

Making fun of people is all a lot of fun when you are speaking with people who agree with you but, in the social media world we live in, we no longer have this luxury. Everyone, including the people we are making fun of, can read your thoughts and know what you really think of them. People rarely change their minds if you are calling them stupid. Yet we keep calling each other stupid. Quite loudly at that. How then can we expect people to listen?

By on

I love Bill Maher’s response to Karoline Leavitt’s defense of Trump calling a reporter piggy. Leavitt thinks it is good that Trump is so honest and frank with reporters. Maher took her up on her defense of being honest and frank and called her a bitch. Good for him.

Trump is nearly 80 year old man. He knows that he crossed a line when he called a woman he has a professional relationship piggy. Anyone, as Trump has been, involved in the business world of the last 50 years knows it. The woman deserves an apology but won’t get one because Trump, in that warped little mind of his, thinks that apologizing is some form of weakness and he is so worried about being perceived as weak that he will never deign to apologize to anyone.

This isn’t really the worst problem this little foot-in-mouth incident exposes. Getting an apology is between Trump and the reporter. What is troubling is that Leavitt and other Trump lackeys aren’t willing to call him out for it. No one is willing to remind him of the hard truths of living in the 21st century and how he should conduct himself in his professional relationships.

Yes, she wants to keep her job but this would seem like a good opportunity to help the boss out. An apology would end this relatively minor dust up. Now he looks like an asshole when he could look like less of asshole, sorry he will always be an asshole in my eyes, with a simple I’m sorry. Since Leavitt isn’t saying that an apology is order, it speaks volumes about Trump’s management style. You can’t speak honestly with him even when the stakes are low.

This is a terrible person to be in charge of a business and potentially disastrous person to be running a country. But hey ho at least those Commie Democrats aren’t in charge.

The good news is I think every reporter in the White House pool should feel free to address him as President Fatso. I mean just to be honest and frank with him. He clearly values that kind of honesty.

By on

The above question is the problem. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Compromise, or at least as I understand the word compromise, requires that both sides give a little and take a little. Both sides get something out of the deal. That’s why they call it compromise.

The nightly breathless reporting of who is winning and who is losing the shutdown makes compromising extremely difficult particularly in the present circumstances. Trump needs to look like a winner and the Democrats are trying to look like fighters. Neither wants to look like a loser so all pretense of looking for a compromise has been abandoned because there is a battle going on and somebody has to win.

American democracy, unlike most other democratic countries, depends greatly on compromise due to the cumbersome federal system our forefathers created. There has to be a general agreement across an executive, two legislature bodies (one of which requires a supra majority) and the Supreme Court. It is extremely difficult to get things done through this system even in the best of times. These are not the best of times.

It is clear that it isn’t in the best interest of the press for there to be a compromise between the two parties. Indeed compromise is decidedly boring and unlikely to engage the press who prefer mudslinging, name calling and they particularly like winners and losers. Because the press needs to have winners and losers, they are framing the present struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats in the most unhelpful way. The press wants one side to succumb to a more powerful winning side who will then stand on the loser’s lifeless body and gloat for even more good press. All anybody wants to know who is winning the shutdown

Well, sadly — no one.

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

I have already expressed my shock in seeing Kanye West’s wife near naked body at the Grammys. The bigger problem with Bianca Censori’s display of flesh is the attention it is grabbing from a compliant press. Since people are shocked, they are talking about it. I, writing about it now, am part of the problem. I apologize. It is just too big of a juicy target to ignore and I can’t help myself which is also part of the problem.

It is a self-replicating problem. Famous people know that they will get press if they do something shocking. The papers, because they think people will read it, publish the scandalous story. I, because it is a scandalous story, read it. Once the scandal has drained every bit of media attention, a new attention seeking celebrity enters the fray.

First, and most importantly, it is about absolutely nothing other than Kanye West’s need for publicity. He knows how to create controversy and he did it. But what now, other than a few more days of Kanye making the headlines, is this about?

This trivial event, also, reveals how sadly out of touch Hollywood and the Media is with the rest of the country. It’s both titillating and boring. Kanye has become so lame, so desperate for attention that he will ask his wife to expose herself in front of millions. The media will roll out all the really important people to talk about the controversy. Opinions will churn for days to come but nobody outside the environs of Hollywood much cares.

But West, Hollywood and the Media think we do. This has long been an explanation for the sensationalist press. It isn’t our fault. We are giving the public what they want. They want to see people behaving badly so we, wishing we could report on the serious issues of the day but also needing to make money, will report about it. We aren’t the villain here, the public is.

I am not sure what to do here. I understand. If perusing the headlines and you give me a choice about reading about the problems in the Middle East or a naked celebrity, I’m afraid I am going to choose the naked celebrity every single time. Between my need to be entertained and the media’s need to make money, I am stumped on how to proceed.

By on

Furious Spain Flood Survivors Hurl Mud At King, Queen And Top Government Officials.

I had read the above Huffington Post headline three or four times before I realized it was just bad grammar. It should read Furious Spanish Flood Survivors. The first couple of reads, I thought why is Spain flooding survivors and hurling mud at the King and Queen. Now you may claim I am being nit picky here but this seems really basic here. Spain is a noun which is doing something while Spanish is an adjective describing the survivors.

It is confusing and makes for difficult reading.

By on

I know I am little late in commenting on this but I feel this is a great example of how wrong headed the media has become.

First, I want to apologize to Aaron Rodgers before going any further. I have to mention something that he was reported to have done which is in essence passing on the information that I feel is unworthy of news coverage. I have made my peace with it in that so many major news outlets have reported it and my very low subscriber list is certainly no match for these networks, I am fairly certain that this is not news to anyone who would read an article about Aaron Rodgers. It also shows the bigger problem, I stopped to read this article over say what is going on in the Ukraine or the Middle East.

Any way, here is the gist of the report — Aaron Rodgers eats boogers. That’s right, a man who has a camera focused on him for much of his life, was, maybe, caught doing something human. That it is so important to point this out to the world beggars belief. So what? Nobody needs to know this. NOBODY.

Rodgers denies it and I can’t blame him it because it is embarrassing, but I think a better response would be to mind your own fucking business. What person on this earth, if they were under the same scrutiny, wouldn’t sometime lapse into some gross behavior which is entirely human? Blowing my nose without a handkerchief? Spitting? Picking their nose? Smelling their arm pits to check on their oder?

What value did this story bring to the reading public? All it really does is embarrass Rodgers which, I admit, is pretty fun because Rodgers is a bit of an asshole and deserves a little embarrassment. This, however, was the wrong tool to bring him down. Some in the media will say that they were forced to report on it when social media began to go wild with reports of Rodgers booger eating. It, then, became necessary for people to know about it and for Rodgers to address it.

How disingenuous. This means some crazy person can gaze hour after hour at a famous person sitting on a bench and report about any of the things he does there just because he is famous. Once the asshole finds the booger eating and then spreads his discovery onto social meeting, the media has to investigate because the public is talking about it. Let them talk about it. The media is under no such compunction. It isn’t news. Celebrities are human beings whose bodies function much like other mere mortals. If it annoyed Rodgers enough to rebut, he can talk about it but I see no reason for any responsible media operation to say anything about the topic.

More importantly, it is a distraction from a million more important things that could be reported on. Why waste the short attention of the public with something so insignificant, and, hey, I am admitting I one of the public here because I zipped right on to the booger eating controversy. The sports media might focus on something like the Jet’s abysmal record this season and how Rodgers might change this continuing disaster? Now that is something worth talking about. .