Part of me feels a little embarrassed about the subject of this blog, but I can‘t help it. Britney is staging a comeback and it is working. Now I have never been a Britney fan, even in the early Britney years, when it seemed like every fourth grader loved her. I did not hate her, I just didn’t care. I did not like her music. So about two years ago when her life went to hell, I had sympathy for her, but more along the lines of what a sad and stupid drug out ex star. But then when her first “come back” happened, I along with the rest of the world laugh at her terrible performance. This indifference, with a mild sense of piety, has really been my stance on Britney ever since.
So when a documentary on her new record came out I had really no interest in watching it. But Saturday, while doing some work, I left the TV on and “For the Record” started playing. I will be honest, within ten minutes into the show I had to stop all other work and sit down and watch. It was truly troubling, that poor woman seems to have no control over her life and the worst part is she never had a chance. Especially troubling was the scene with her in New York were the media just hounded her. They followed her by car, bike, skateboard and foot. Yelling at her, screaming, she had to have bodyguards to hide behind, she really could not go any where. Now I know that at some point in her career she asked for this media attention. This even morning I saw her on the cover of at least three magazines. We are talking magazines not tabloids, national magazines, like the Rolling Stone. It is apparent that she does play the media as much as the media plays her. What I find so sad is that she became a star at 15 when her mother was throwing her at the media and now at 26 she is a victim of her mother’s success and has no control over this monster which started 11 years ago. There is so much money in the name Britney Spears, she is a franchise. I watched in the documentary as she got carted one place to the next by producers, managers, agents and even by her father. The whole time she has no clue as to where she is going. They are all making so much money off of her. That is also what is driving the photographers; so much money can be made off of just one good photo. I was surprised at how upset I got about someone who I was a few minutes before indifferent. Poor Britney.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
BBC and Terrible Crime
On a truly terrible note BBC reported a horrific crime on their website. In Germany a women was just convicted of killing three of her children. It turned out that in 1986, 1988 and 2003 Monika Halbe, age 44, killed her children. She was shockingly only sentence to four years in prison. She was only tried for killing two of her children because too much time had elapses from the 1986 killing of her daughter. The bodies of the children were discovered in the freezer of her house. Her son went to the basement to look in the freezer for some pizza and found three small bodies. In a strange twist, BBC reports that though she admitted to keeping the bodies in the freezer she does not admit to killing the children. She only said she wanted to keep them close to her by having them in the freezer. The prosecutor asked that she be sentenced to eight and a half year. But the defense made the case that she had already raised three grown children and was in the BBC words “ deeply ambivalent about having more children”. She was also an alcoholic. I personally do not see how this works as a defense. I think that is all the more reason that she should be locked up. BBC then went on to list other horrific crimes committed by Germen mothes. It was quite a strange little article about a truly terrifying and unimaginable crime.
-
-
Holiday in the Recession and in the News
A topic that has been in the News frequently is making the best out of Christmas in the recession. From Vogue to the New York Times it seems everyone has ideas of how to make the holiday in the harder times special. Vogue had an article about whether not it was appropriate to give larger gifts to distance friends in the recession. The New York Times had an article about how to throw a beautiful dinner party for under 250 dollars by shopping at K-Mart and the 99 Cent store. Now how helpful these articles are for the average American is yet to be seen. Two hundred and fifty dollar on a dinner party for the average American when the economy is good is a lot. I have to raise an eye brow that this is the best these to respectable publication could do. In the New York Times defense there was also a very depressing article about how many families were cutting out giving gifts this holiday season, and how many families were turning to their church to provide gifts for their family this year.
I found it interesting that the articles were either just depressing or useless. I m ean how many of us are really worried about removing distance friends from our Christmas list or whether or not the gift was to ostentation.
I found it interesting that the articles were either just depressing or useless. I m ean how many of us are really worried about removing distance friends from our Christmas list or whether or not the gift was to ostentation.
A Room With A View An Article That Got My Attention.
The New York Times had a beautiful article Sunday in the Travel Section on Florence . It came with a stunning half page of photographs of the city and the surrounding area. The article questioned whether or not you could explore Florence without a guide book. It suggested that instead of a guide book you should bring along a copy of E.M. Forster’s A Room With a View. This article then explored the difference between Forster Florence and the Italian City of today. I had never seen an article like that before in the travel section. It seamlessly incorporated literature, history, food, sightseeing and the difference between being a tourist and really just enjoying and experiencing the place you are in. I read the whole article which was quite long. It really was able to hold my interest, which to be honest is not something the travel section generally does. The idea of experiencing a city through eyes of a literature heroine who lived a hundred years before was fascinating and intriguing. I guess what surprised me the most was not how creative the article was, but that I found it in the travel section. Maybe I do not read the travel section of the New York Times enough but because of this surprise I will be checking it out more often.
A Media Walking on Egg Shells
The attacks in Mumbai have been on the front page of every paper, on the all the TV talk shows and on the radio news reports. What I have notice is how careful the media is being about labeling this an Islamic extremist attack. The media seems to be very mindful of Pakistan. They seem to either report that attackers came from Pakistan or that they were Islamic extremist. You rarely see the two words used in the same article. The media is playing this very carefully.
Yesterday there was an article in the New York Times about the attacks. It only mentioned that there were ten gunmen and that they were thought to have come through Pakistan. Relations between India and Pakistan have never been close; they have fought three wars in the last fifty years. Neither is the US relationship with Pakistan on the best of terms. The US believes that many Taliban insurgences are crossing the border from Pakistan to cause trouble in Afghanistan. The Media seem really to be making an effort of not ruffling feathers. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and many other large papers and stations were to come out and call this an Islamic extremist attack from Pakistan the repercussions could have the potential to be huge. The media is being more careful. They are making no assumptions and framing this carefully.
MSNBC had an article on its website about the Muslims world reaction to the attacks in Mumbai. It went into how the Muslim world immediately condemned the senseless terrorist attacks, yet they once again found themselves in the position of defending their religion against the bloody acts of indiscriminate violence that is link to it. MSNBC though is giving them a calm voice. They are not leading the country blindly into fear. They are being much more cautious of what they write and who they label. The media is aware that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and that US needs Pakistan’s cooperation because of it borders with Afghanistan. Because of this we see the media reframe from painting Pakistan in any negative light.
Yesterday there was an article in the New York Times about the attacks. It only mentioned that there were ten gunmen and that they were thought to have come through Pakistan. Relations between India and Pakistan have never been close; they have fought three wars in the last fifty years. Neither is the US relationship with Pakistan on the best of terms. The US believes that many Taliban insurgences are crossing the border from Pakistan to cause trouble in Afghanistan. The Media seem really to be making an effort of not ruffling feathers. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and many other large papers and stations were to come out and call this an Islamic extremist attack from Pakistan the repercussions could have the potential to be huge. The media is being more careful. They are making no assumptions and framing this carefully.
MSNBC had an article on its website about the Muslims world reaction to the attacks in Mumbai. It went into how the Muslim world immediately condemned the senseless terrorist attacks, yet they once again found themselves in the position of defending their religion against the bloody acts of indiscriminate violence that is link to it. MSNBC though is giving them a calm voice. They are not leading the country blindly into fear. They are being much more cautious of what they write and who they label. The media is aware that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and that US needs Pakistan’s cooperation because of it borders with Afghanistan. Because of this we see the media reframe from painting Pakistan in any negative light.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Last Stand
The third and last presidential debate was in my personal opinion the best by far. The candidates really began to respond to one anther and let go of their little memorized talking points. The bias that both candidates played to the most, in my opinion, was that of motorism. Neither one took an extreme stand to the right or to the left of the political spectrum. While I am sure this was in part for the journalist, I think it has more to do with independent voters. They will play such a huge role in this election, that neither of the candidates will want to lean too far to either side. On topics where they were forced by the moderator to make a stand, such as abortion, both tried to state their politics while still respecting everyone else’s view. Both candidates were very careful in their responses not to alienate the independent voters or give the press a field day. I also thought that McCain really went after Obama, all of his responses somehow related back to why Obama was unqualified. While Obama really gave his responses to the press and the American people, he is far enough ahead in the polls to be able to really ignore McCain’s attacks. Obama came off as the progressive candidate who could reach across party lines and makes us all come together; because he did not need to attack McCain. He came off as cool and collected. He was able to push aside McCain’s accusations and spend his time letting the American people know how he was going to help them. Because of this, he came off as much more put together and focused on what matters; the country. Where as John McCain came across as angry and focused more on slinging mud at Obama. I think Obama won this debate by a long shot.
The third and last presidential debate was in my personal opinion the best by far. The candidates really began to respond to one anther and let go of their little memorized talking points. The bias that both candidates played to the most, in my opinion, was that of motorism. Neither one took an extreme stand to the right or to the left of the political spectrum. While I am sure this was in part for the journalist, I think it has more to do with independent voters. They will play such a huge role in this election, that neither of the candidates will want to lean too far to either side. On topics where they were forced by the moderator to make a stand, such as abortion, both tried to state their politics while still respecting everyone else’s view. Both candidates were very careful in their responses not to alienate the independent voters or give the press a field day. I also thought that McCain really went after Obama, all of his responses somehow related back to why Obama was unqualified. While Obama really gave his responses to the press and the American people, he is far enough ahead in the polls to be able to really ignore McCain’s attacks. Obama came off as the progressive candidate who could reach across party lines and makes us all come together; because he did not need to attack McCain. He came off as cool and collected. He was able to push aside McCain’s accusations and spend his time letting the American people know how he was going to help them. Because of this, he came off as much more put together and focused on what matters; the country. Where as John McCain came across as angry and focused more on slinging mud at Obama. I think Obama won this debate by a long shot.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
