You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February, 2006.
America is recovering from a very mild bout of Olympic Fever, an epidemic which failed to spread like wildfire, disappointing the Olympic Committee and advertisers alike.
Last night NBC broadcast the Closing Ceremonies, which failed to hold my attention for more than about half an hour, just long enough to watch the wheelchair-bound mayor of Vancouver, the site of the 2010 games, wave the enormous Olympic flag by sticking the handle in a slot in his chair and spinning. Part touching, part funny.
Are Americans getting bored by the Olympics, despite promoters’ best attempts to make it exciting, adding new sports and more in-depth coverage? Maybe plain ol’ figure skating just isn’t high-def enough.
Technorati tag: Olympics
Everyone’s favorite pretentious language columnist has decided to zone in on the language of the blogosphere. William Safire, usually pretty knowledgeable, seems out of his depth when it comes to this topic. It’s obvious he’s relying quite a bit on information and opinions provided by various “blogeratti.”
Safire gives it a good try. The worry I have that springs from his piece is the gap between “old” journalism and “new” journalism. Safire speaks fondly of ledes and lobster shifts at the beginning of the article. He’s an old-school journalist trying to come to terms with the changing landscape of the media. Not to sereotype the guy, or any old-school writers–this is not necessarily an old dog/new tricks scenario. I’ve never worked in a newsroom alongside seasoned newsmen and women, so this worry may be completely groundless. But the potential for reluctance on both sides, the old and the new,to cooperate with each other seems to be fairly high. The language difference is the first and most obvious barrier between those who were trained on typewriters and paper copy and those who were schooled in Word and InDesign and digital photography. Learning the language of the new participatory media model won’t be enough. An acceptance on both sides of the merits of the other hopefully won’t be too hard of a pill to swallow, and could lead to a media system that is both responsive and accurate. Hopefully.
Technorati tag: Media, Journalism
This weekend my parents came to Austin and we all went to see the new Pierce Brosnan/Greg Kinnear film “The Matador” (this may have been a bad idea–nothing is more uncomfortable than watching graphic sex while sitting next to your mom). The movie was great–had me snorting a couple of times–but most of the two hours was spent thinking, “my god, is this really James Bond?” Pierce Brosnan plays an asassin, which may not seem like much of a departure from 007, but his “Matador” character, Julian, is a far cry from Bond’s smooth womanizing masculinity. Rather, Julian alternates between quirky/dirty badassness and whimpering insecurity.
All this got me thinking about the changing idea of what is appropriate for a leading man in Hollywood. We’ve got Bond playing a bisexual hitman and Casanova playing a gay cowboy, and yet neither of these actors is seen as less masculine or less of a leading man. Contrast them with Tom Cruise, who, despite starring in the upcoming “Mission: Impossible III” and impregnating one of Hollywood’s sweethearts (and Casanova’s girlfriend’s former co-star), is ridiculed incessantly, and has possibly lost forever his place alongside Brad Pitt as an iconic, sexy male star, all because he found religion and jumped on a couch. Granted, it might be a little more credible if his religion of choice didn’t involve aliens, but Tom has already demonstrated he can deal with a few measly aliens, right?
To make things even more interesting, there’s a rumor going around that Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger might guest-star on Will & Grace to re-enact their “Brokeback” makeout. But only after the Oscars, of course… don’t want to lose credibility in the eyes of the Academy.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told PBS Friday that he is against the heavily-criticized program of propaganda going on in Iraq. It was revealed late last fall that the U.S. had been planting pro-American stories in Iraqi media. As a journalism student, the whole thing gives me a bad case of the jibblies. Naturally, since even the most ignorant of Americans probably understands that “propaganda” is generally a bad thing, once the program’s existence was revealed, lots of officials jumped on the anti-propaganda bandwagon. Rumsfeld said the program had been shut down, but according to this LA Times story, it may still exist.
These articles were military-written and the space was actually bought by the government. A third-party interest with an agenda to promote paid for space in newspapers to plant content favorable to the organization. We have stuff like that in America too–they’re called advertisements. Only here, where the media are independent and have ethical standards, ads are labeled as such. The sleaziest of sleaze, and the quickest way to ruin a publication’s reputation, is to confuse paid content with real content. I used to write for a publication that didn’t really care about this necessary distinction, and that in part is the reason it has no credibility and is often a laughingstock amongst its readership, journalists and otherwise. The fact that the military defends this program as a method of “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis just reinforces my belief that those in charge of our armed forces have become frighteningly independent of conventional morals. There are lots of trite aphorisms to describe the mental process that leads to the abandonment of ethics–the ends justifying the means, that thing about good intentions and the road to hell… maybe that road is really Highway 9.
Technorati tag: Propaganda, Journalism, Iraq
“Bennifer” was bad. “Brangelina” was worse. Stephen Colbert’s “Filliam H. Muffman” was hilarious. But the flagrant celebrity name-combining has gone too far. “Jilary?” What the… who is this Joel Madden person? He is definitely not celebrity enough to be one half of a name shmear. Hilary Duff is barely celebrity enough for it. Come on, people, I enjoy a good celeb-heckle as much as the next woman, but it’s gotta stop somewhere.
In other news: I can’t believe we still think two guys kissing is a big scandalous deal… and on Will & Grace, of all places. Calm down, people. Oooh, and not only was it a gay kiss, it was a gay interracial kiss. Deliciously taboo. You wanna see shocking? Go to Iraq. This is kids’ stuff.
Technorati tag: Celebrities, GLBT
Are bloggers journalists? Should they be held to journalistic standards? Should bloggers like Dan Gillmor and bloggers like every 13-year-old girl on Xanga be considered the same? Be held to the same standards?
Check out what Jeff Jarvis has to say on the topic. I like the emphasis on disclosure. Mainstream media, are you listening? Cut it out already with the obsession with objectivity. There is no such thing as a perfectly objective journalist, unless said journalist is a robot. Even then, I guess it would have been programmed by a human, and would thus be subject to that human’s biases… I wonder if a robot could program a robot…?
A hem. That’s beside the point. Here’s the moral of the story: disclosure of your biases (or affiliations that might create a suspicion of bias) is so much more important than trying to be the Switzerland of journalists (read: neutral country). And you, the public? Cut it out with the flinging of accusations, please. “Liberal media.” Heh… makes me chuckle inside.
This is completely unrelated to media criticism or entertainment or anything. Occasionally I run across something so aggravating that I can’t resist. Apparently, despite Bush’s “best efforts” (aka tax cuts, and more tax cuts), the rich are getting richer. Faster. Suckage.
Technorati tag: Money
Mark Glaser at PBS’ Media Shift paints an interesting picture of the future, a world of completely integrated news/citizen journalism. I sort of thought he was writing about a dystopian society, a la Epic 2015, but many of the comments on the post seem to be excited about a possible future of all reporters and no editors. Is such shallow newsgathering really the future of journalism? I mean, the guy didn’t even have to leave his house to report on the earthquake story. He just stole from other people’s firsthand reporting. Surely that will never be defined as “journalism,” something people will actually pay to consume.
UPDATE
Technorati tag: Citizen Journalism
After much speculation, the 2005 Oscar nominations came out Tuesday, including (and excluding) some surprising choices.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith only received one–ONE–nomination, in the makeup category. Not even for visual effects! Even War of the Worlds got more than one lousy nomination. For a film some considered to be the best of the six (and unanimously considered the best of the newest three), it is ludicrous it didn’t get a least a few more technical nominations. I think Ian McDiarmid’s eerily accurate imitation of the original emporer is almost even worthy of a nod. This is the end of an epic film saga, people! Show some respect.
Another interesting shun: Walk the Line didn’t grab a nom for Best Picture. Big mistake, I think. I’m not so sure it would actually deserve to win (I haven’t seen Brokeback), but the movie was such a thrilling and bittersweet joy to watch, surely it deserves recognition? Granted, both the principal actors were nominated, but I think the film holds its own as a whole, beyond the talents of the two (delightful) stars.
The only confident predictions I have are Brokeback Mountain to win the big one, Felicity Huffman for actress, and Rachel Weisz for supporting actress. Usually I’m pretty good at this… feel free to throw stones at me if I end up being wrong.
UPDATE
Technorati tag: Movies
