|
Other Blogs:
|
Friday, November 22, 2002
Chicken Little was right! News at 11!
Hearing all the anti-media rants from the outside and all the lamenting and hand-wringing on the inside can drive many people away from journalism (and at times, I've thought about leaving because of all the Chicken Little talk). So it's good to see someone trying to look at the criticism from a couple of perspectives. Matt Welch takes a number of authors to task about their sometimes ivory tower look at how bad the field has become. Sure there's change that needs to happen, but after a while, constantly negative talk and unproductive praise will do much long-term harm.
posted at 2:14 PM
It's biased because it doesn't agree with me
Many times people will get upset at "the media" for not covering something near and dear to them properly. Sometimes, it's a matter of laziness, sometimes it's a lack of talent, many times it's a lack of understanding that few will get unless you're really immersed in its culture. As much as we try to be experts on everything, we can't.
With that said, being a lifelong wrestling fan, it was encouraging to see a decent article in SI a while back about the recent problems at WWE, but then it got way trumped by this article for ESPN magazine and a Web sidebar about the Hart family. I almost found it hard to believe that a major publication could treat such an issue like it would any other serious story (sports or not). Of course, the author has a lot of experience in the field, having written a book on Vince McMahon. But sometimes, it's all of matter of treating the subject like another person, another human and things will play themselves out.
On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal tried its hand at comparing video game systems maybe a year too late (or just on time for confused parents to shop), and well I guess it may work for the core readers, it seems way too simplistic and unhelpful for someone with an even a little knowledge of the systems at hand.
posted at 1:14 AM
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Well, there were plenty of complaints after the annual Victoria's Secret Lingerie Show. I tried watching bits and pieces of it but just couldn't get into it. I suppose they wanted to show it was a "real" TV show with the assorted musical acts and skits. It's a bit disconcerting when you're expecting Heidi Klum and you get Phil Collins, Chris Elliott and Jason Sehorn (yet no Angie Harmon). Besides that, I'm trying to figure out if most of the models are not allowed to smile, have a real glimmer in their eye or cheeks that aren't just bone. Watching a bunch of expressionless Eurobots actually detracts from whatever bizarro outfits they're showing. You really can't excited watching it and you almost want to feel sorry for them. The regular TV ads and the ubiquitous catalogs seem to have a better effect in creating a fantasy. Seeing the reality is actually disturbing.
posted at 10:51 PM
While I don't think I caught a minute of it until tonight, I saw the end of The Bachelor pretty much to size up the looks of the lucky woman caught in the headlights of six weeks of dating in front of a national TV audience. She looked attractive enough, but I never saw anything else to know or care if the personality is there. Didn't really matter to me. What did matter is the somewhat comical talk about finding your soul mate after six weeks of taping this stuff. In this environment, it's practically impossible, but hey it makes for good entertainment, I suppose. (Hell, I watch Elimidate although that takes out a lot of the pretenses of shows like this, which may be why I like it.)
Back to the original point about The Bachelor is that the guy "dates" 25 women over the course of six weeks to find his future bride. I don't think I've gone out on 25 dates, never mind 25 different women, in my lifetime, so a lot of this just flies over my head.
But regarding dating, most of my single friends will complain about it at one point in time or another, and I suppose I do that a lot as well. However, I've kinda kept quiet lately because I think I'm having plenty of trouble distinguishing between friends hanging out and actual dating. I've never been really good at meeting someone and then just asking them out, it's not really how I operate. Instead, I've been good (or at least I think so) at cultivating friendships with women who I may or may not be interested in romantically. I suppose it proves Billy Crystal's statement in "When Harry Met Sally" that men and women can't be friends because the sex part gets in the way (well to an extent anyway).
I keep on wondering to myself where the friendship part ends and the "relationship" part begins with a couple of them. In one case, I think I've figured out that line, and I can proceed accordingly. However, in another case, I still keep on trying to figure out where each of us stands (and have been for quite a while), and I suppose I'm too much of a chicken to proceed further at this point (one major extenuating circumstance keeps on slapping me in the face and preventing me from doing so). I guess if I got a definitive answer, everything would be easy. But for now I'm not, and I have to wonder if either of us would call our time together a "date" or just a couple of friends hanging out.
Honestly, the answer should be much easier than this, and maybe I'm making too much of a production in my head about this, but oh well. Then again, I feel a lot more comfortable doing things together with someone if I know them reasonably well as opposed to the stiffness that comes about trying to meet new people in a traditional date setting. A sense of familiarity can do wonders for a social life even if that same sense of comfort actually hinders it.
posted at 1:59 AM
Monday, November 18, 2002
As if I needed more reason to watch Ed, this happens as the Sports Night invasion continues to hit Must-See TV. Good to see her getting into a decent show again.
posted at 5:48 PM
I've been wondering where our goofy Brit had been since we don't usually watch any of the International shows. He's back with a perfect assignment in previewing the next James Bond movie. Wonder if good old Richard could get a role on the next film. He'd fit in oh so nicely.
posted at 1:55 PM
There was always a lot of negative talk surrounding Keith Olbermann's departure from ESPN more than five years ago, and most of it painted KO as a spoiled, egotistical guy who felt above most of his colleagues. Yet another "tortured genius" who did great work at the expense of his co-workers. That's why it's very intriguing to see him apologize for his actions, and you've got to wonder if he's actually grown up. It's an interesting read, especially since you don't expect people to write things like this until much later in life.
posted at 1:49 PM
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Reel alternatives
The next installment of Harry Potter came out this weekend, and instead I went to see Far From Heaven, primarily because I was more intrigued with it than all that Hufflepuff (although that's next on the list).
I really enjoyed the movie, and oddly enough it looks like a movie that might eventually show up on the curriculum of some modern U.S. history classes I took in college from the way it handles race relations and attitudes towards homosexuals in the 1950s. The film reminds me a lot of Pleasantville, in that in tries to bust the conventions of the "perfect" world of white, upper middle class, suburban life in the late '50s. While Pleasantville busted them in a more humorous way (since it was taking a sitcom angle), Far From Heaven tackled the issues in a meatier, more serious and often depressing way. The bright colors of the fashions of the day and the fall foliage in New England served as an amazing contrast to the darkness hidden within.
Julianne Moore was stellar in her role as a June Cleaver who becomes tormented for being a progressive (by '50s standards) thinker. And yet she's not even that progressive (especially with looking for medical help for her husband's homosexuality), it's just that she tries to treat all people as people. But, back then, and even to a lesser extent today, it was hard to treat people not like you with any respect (maybe because of fear, ignorance, etc.). Oddly enough, it's not just whites, either. The friends and acquaintances of Dennis Haysbert's character showed the same animosity towards Moore's character when they show up at a "colored" restaurant.
|
|
