CEO Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie & Fitch experienced what mirrored a Mitt Romney moment when, in a unguarded moment during an interview seven years ago, he spoke openly and honestly about the consumer market his clothes are intended to attract:
“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool-kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kids with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes] and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely!”
A popular youth brand bragging about the fact that it’s exclusionary, implying that unattractive geeks can't wear its clothes? Honest perhaps, but it’s an off-putting marketing message that has sparked a major backlash against the chain. The retailer’s apologies have yet to quell the firestorm of condemnation from offended teens, celebrities and others. Is the outrage justified, or is it a case of modern political correctness run amuck?
First, let’s acknowledge that what Jeffries said, while candid, was also painfully obvious. One look at Abercrombie’s over-sexualized advertising featuring athletically fit and handsome young male jocks, and there’s no mistaking who the chain is marketing to. There’s also nothing controversial about a retailer or advertiser targeting a particular niche market of consumers; what retailer doesn‘t? But what Jefferies said during his ill-expressed moment of candor went beyond merely defining his brand and needlessly offended consumers his brand doesn‘t cater to.
In today’s more culturally diverse and inclusive society, it’s not good policy nor good business to promote ideas of exclusion or to suggest that some people aren’t welcome or “don’t belong.” Besides, why turn away consumers who may aspire to be the people a brand celebrates?
Imagine retailer Victoria Secret saying that they only market their stylish lingerie to thin, beautiful women who like to feel sexy. Implied message: fat, ugly women should look elsewhere. But, in truth, some fat women may want to feel sexy, too. And if they are willing to spend money on clothes that aren’t intended for them, so be it. The retailer makes a profit either way.
The flap over the comments by Abercrombie’s CEO isn’t about suggesting that apparel retailers should cater to every type of consumer in the marketplace, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic, as well as being adverse to the ideals of free market enterprise. The flap, however, is about denouncing a corporate message that seemed to insensitively dismiss or demean “the wrong type” of desired customers.
Efforts by teen groups trying to pressure the chain to expand it sizes or tone down its sexualized advertising are perhaps well-intended but misguided. Abercrombie forces no one to shop at it stores. Teens offended by its brand or marketing message can simply choose to shop elsewhere, or even encourage other teens to boycott the store if they choose.
Yes, all clothing styles aren’t made for all body types and sizes. And we have all seen people who fail to grasp that concept in their fashion choices. But Abercrombie as well as other apparel retailers are well-advised to let consumers decide for themselves what clothes they “belong in.”
Exclusion is an unwise marketing message for almost any retailer, and Abercrombie’s seemingly out-of-touch CEO now knows why, as some shoppers will likely “exclude” his store from places they prefer to shop.
G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.
Showing posts with label Arts / Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arts / Culture. Show all posts
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Should Struggling CNN Become a Liberal Version of Fox News to Survive?
Is there value anymore in nonpartisan broadcast news? That’s the question cable news giant CNN must ponder as the network tries to figure out a way to reverse its precipitous decline in viewership over the last several years. As Fox News has risen to the top spot in cable news followed and MSNBC, the once dominant CNN struggles in third place. Its ratings decline is startling: CNN averaged 519,000 total viewers in July, which is a 42% drop from July 2008. By comparison, Fox News averaged more than 2 million viewers in July with MSNBC attracting 855,000 total viewers.
Attempting to be neutral in an increasing partisan news environment today has become more difficult. The disconcerting reality is that viewers seem to want news with an ideological slant. This became apparent to me when I conducted a qualitative media study while in graduate school in 2005. The study, which involved conducting focus groups research on distinct political groups (Democrats, Republicans and independents) to assess how they used partisan news and opinion sources to make voting decisions, proved quite revealing.
Republican focus group participants, in particular, complained about there being too much opinion in major network news, yet they seemed perfectly content watching the unabashedly conservative learning Fox News network. One self-defined independent described major network news as “bland” because it was hard to discern their point of view. Just recently, during a discussion about cable news, a friend described CNN as “boring.” He much preferred the left-of-center tilt of MSNBC’s coverage. I concluded that viewers are fine with news bias so long as it tilts in their perceived ideological direction.
Such reflections make CNN’s quandary all the more difficult. How does one stake out a middle ground in news coverage when viewers seem to prefer partisan extremes. As an opinion journalist, I certainly appreciate the value good political commentary can offer news consumers. Thoughtful and intelligent commentary as a supplement to news, can help enlighten the public with insightful perspectives on importance issues. And while such commentary does exist on the Left and the Right, what viewers are more often subjected to on cable networks is a constant barrage of vitriolic partisan loudmouths seeking to inflame rather than responsibly inform, e.g., Sean Hannity, Bill O‘Reilly and Chris Matthews.
We can thank Fox News for poisoning the political commentary well with its bellicose and rancorous commentary over the years. The network has also shown little regard for the value in distinguishing reported news from opinion. As a result, the lines between the two are so blurred that viewers can probably no longer tell the difference.
MSNBC has of course gained viewership by becoming a more outspoken liberal counterpoint to conservative Fox News, a necessary but still regrettable development. If the 24-hour news cycle is going have one dominant conservative cable news network, it only seems fair that an equally dominant liberal alternative be available.
Of course this bring us back to where CNN fits into this partisan news landscape. I strongly believe that there is still great value in a neutral news source, and I commend the network for its commitment to maintaining such a journalistic standard. However, to be competitive, CNN will need to carve out more broadcast space for partisan commentary. Such shows can be separate and distinct from its reported news coverage. Instead of trying to have balanced liberal and conservative commentary within one program, which has failed to attract viewers, e.g., the Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker flop, the network should consider a slate of purely liberal and conservative political opinion shows. This approach still allows the network to maintain balance while attracting viewers who crave a partisan viewpoint.
It’s unfortunate that cable news has taken such a sharp partisan turn, and CNN deserves credit for its attempt to maintain a balanced approach to its news coverage. But as the cable news environment has changed, CNN -- no longer the only cable news source -- must adapt. The good news is that it can still feed the partisan commentary beast and take a middle-of-the-road approach to reported news. Let’s hope that formula works, if for no other reason than to dethrone Fox News.
Attempting to be neutral in an increasing partisan news environment today has become more difficult. The disconcerting reality is that viewers seem to want news with an ideological slant. This became apparent to me when I conducted a qualitative media study while in graduate school in 2005. The study, which involved conducting focus groups research on distinct political groups (Democrats, Republicans and independents) to assess how they used partisan news and opinion sources to make voting decisions, proved quite revealing.
Republican focus group participants, in particular, complained about there being too much opinion in major network news, yet they seemed perfectly content watching the unabashedly conservative learning Fox News network. One self-defined independent described major network news as “bland” because it was hard to discern their point of view. Just recently, during a discussion about cable news, a friend described CNN as “boring.” He much preferred the left-of-center tilt of MSNBC’s coverage. I concluded that viewers are fine with news bias so long as it tilts in their perceived ideological direction.
Such reflections make CNN’s quandary all the more difficult. How does one stake out a middle ground in news coverage when viewers seem to prefer partisan extremes. As an opinion journalist, I certainly appreciate the value good political commentary can offer news consumers. Thoughtful and intelligent commentary as a supplement to news, can help enlighten the public with insightful perspectives on importance issues. And while such commentary does exist on the Left and the Right, what viewers are more often subjected to on cable networks is a constant barrage of vitriolic partisan loudmouths seeking to inflame rather than responsibly inform, e.g., Sean Hannity, Bill O‘Reilly and Chris Matthews.
We can thank Fox News for poisoning the political commentary well with its bellicose and rancorous commentary over the years. The network has also shown little regard for the value in distinguishing reported news from opinion. As a result, the lines between the two are so blurred that viewers can probably no longer tell the difference.
MSNBC has of course gained viewership by becoming a more outspoken liberal counterpoint to conservative Fox News, a necessary but still regrettable development. If the 24-hour news cycle is going have one dominant conservative cable news network, it only seems fair that an equally dominant liberal alternative be available.
Of course this bring us back to where CNN fits into this partisan news landscape. I strongly believe that there is still great value in a neutral news source, and I commend the network for its commitment to maintaining such a journalistic standard. However, to be competitive, CNN will need to carve out more broadcast space for partisan commentary. Such shows can be separate and distinct from its reported news coverage. Instead of trying to have balanced liberal and conservative commentary within one program, which has failed to attract viewers, e.g., the Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker flop, the network should consider a slate of purely liberal and conservative political opinion shows. This approach still allows the network to maintain balance while attracting viewers who crave a partisan viewpoint.
It’s unfortunate that cable news has taken such a sharp partisan turn, and CNN deserves credit for its attempt to maintain a balanced approach to its news coverage. But as the cable news environment has changed, CNN -- no longer the only cable news source -- must adapt. The good news is that it can still feed the partisan commentary beast and take a middle-of-the-road approach to reported news. Let’s hope that formula works, if for no other reason than to dethrone Fox News.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Music Legends Leave Legacies Today’s Artists Can’t Match
With the recent passing of singer Donna Summer, I was compelled to reflect, with a sense of sadness and nostalgia, about the many great vocal talents we have lost in recent years. In addition to Summer, a few others of particular note include: Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Luther Vandross.
Each of these iconic singers possessed a truly unique vocal style that not only created phenomenal music, but had a profound impact on popular culture and music history. Their musical legacies will undoubtedly live on for decades and generations to come.
As the anointed “Queen of Disco,” Summer’s distinctive sound helped define an entire genre of music that was popular in the ‘70s. The long-haired songstress, who scored many memorable hit songs, clearly left her mark.
Jackson, as the well-earned “King of Pop,” was a music sensation like no other. Along with his groundbreaking dance moves, he delivered a string of hit songs, dynamic stage performances and spectacular music videos that still reverberate across the contemporary music scene.
Houston, arguably one of the most gifted female vocalists of our generation, leaves behind a treasure trove of great songs with her trademark powerful voice. Her rendition of “I Will Always Love You” was a vocal triumph, easily ranking among the greatest hits of all time.
And Vandross was a modern crooner extraordinaire. His soulful voice and impressive range set a new standard for male vocal excellence. His songs were melodic and lyrically rich. Not many of today’s male singers can match his strength as an R&B vocalist.
Contrast the enduring greatness of these talented industry titans with the pre-packaged, studio enhanced and mediocre singers we hear today. Will anyone be talking about the musical significance of Beyoncé, Justin Bieber or Rihanna decades from now? Are their tunes destined to become “old-school” favorites that future generations of music lovers will be listening to – not likely?
And then there are all the wannabe instant-fame seekers who made their way onto the music scene via “American Idol,” “American’s Got Talent” and other TV talent shows that promote the notion of overnight stardom at the expense of honing great talent through years of hard work and artistic dedication to one’s craft. As a result, much of today’s music is more about image than substance; and market packaging as opposed to genuine talent.
Rest assured, the vocal talents of Summer, Jackson, Houston and Vandross weren‘t manufactured in recording studios. As true singers, each were just as vocally strong on CD as they were in live performance. But what further sets them apart from their industry contemporaries is that the scope of their influence goes beyond being the fad of the moment. Their music evokes memories of significant times and places in pop culture history, transporting listeners back to cherished periods growing up.
For those who came of age in the ‘70s, hearing a song by Summer probably takes them back to the sounds, colorful fashions and imagery unique to that cultural period. Likewise, for those of us who grew up as teens in the ‘80s, we witnessed the Jackson phenomenon first hand. The experience was akin to our generation’s “Beatles” moment.
And speaking of great moments, I’m heading to the Los Angeles Greek Theater in July to hear two luminaries of the music industry: Natalie Cole and Gladys Knight. As these classy singers grace the crowd with their amazing vocal talent, I’ll be thinking about their respective rich musical legacies and those of the great singers who are now gone but not forgotten.
Summer, Houston, Jackson and Vandross all left an indelible mark on music history. As new industry trends and artists come and go, their music will live on for future artists and music fans to appreciate.
Each of these iconic singers possessed a truly unique vocal style that not only created phenomenal music, but had a profound impact on popular culture and music history. Their musical legacies will undoubtedly live on for decades and generations to come.
As the anointed “Queen of Disco,” Summer’s distinctive sound helped define an entire genre of music that was popular in the ‘70s. The long-haired songstress, who scored many memorable hit songs, clearly left her mark.
Jackson, as the well-earned “King of Pop,” was a music sensation like no other. Along with his groundbreaking dance moves, he delivered a string of hit songs, dynamic stage performances and spectacular music videos that still reverberate across the contemporary music scene.
Houston, arguably one of the most gifted female vocalists of our generation, leaves behind a treasure trove of great songs with her trademark powerful voice. Her rendition of “I Will Always Love You” was a vocal triumph, easily ranking among the greatest hits of all time.
And Vandross was a modern crooner extraordinaire. His soulful voice and impressive range set a new standard for male vocal excellence. His songs were melodic and lyrically rich. Not many of today’s male singers can match his strength as an R&B vocalist.
Contrast the enduring greatness of these talented industry titans with the pre-packaged, studio enhanced and mediocre singers we hear today. Will anyone be talking about the musical significance of Beyoncé, Justin Bieber or Rihanna decades from now? Are their tunes destined to become “old-school” favorites that future generations of music lovers will be listening to – not likely?
And then there are all the wannabe instant-fame seekers who made their way onto the music scene via “American Idol,” “American’s Got Talent” and other TV talent shows that promote the notion of overnight stardom at the expense of honing great talent through years of hard work and artistic dedication to one’s craft. As a result, much of today’s music is more about image than substance; and market packaging as opposed to genuine talent.
Rest assured, the vocal talents of Summer, Jackson, Houston and Vandross weren‘t manufactured in recording studios. As true singers, each were just as vocally strong on CD as they were in live performance. But what further sets them apart from their industry contemporaries is that the scope of their influence goes beyond being the fad of the moment. Their music evokes memories of significant times and places in pop culture history, transporting listeners back to cherished periods growing up.
For those who came of age in the ‘70s, hearing a song by Summer probably takes them back to the sounds, colorful fashions and imagery unique to that cultural period. Likewise, for those of us who grew up as teens in the ‘80s, we witnessed the Jackson phenomenon first hand. The experience was akin to our generation’s “Beatles” moment.
And speaking of great moments, I’m heading to the Los Angeles Greek Theater in July to hear two luminaries of the music industry: Natalie Cole and Gladys Knight. As these classy singers grace the crowd with their amazing vocal talent, I’ll be thinking about their respective rich musical legacies and those of the great singers who are now gone but not forgotten.
Summer, Houston, Jackson and Vandross all left an indelible mark on music history. As new industry trends and artists come and go, their music will live on for future artists and music fans to appreciate.
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Gay Marriage, GOP Must Distinguish Personal Beliefs from Civil Freedoms
In the wake of the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Proposition 8 (the California same-sex marriage ban) as unconstitutional, conservatives are once again making claims of “judicial activism.“ Such hollow claims have become a familiar refrain from conservatives in response to major court rulings on which they disagree. They seem to believe that the role of the judiciary is to simply rubber stamp whatever the majority wants, whether it runs afoul of constitutional principles or not. Keep in mind that it took a major court ruling in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that struck down racial segregation, an immoral apartheid system in which the majority found perfectly acceptable.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Real News vs. Fake News
The most prominent ethical problem in journalism today is the infiltration of entertainment and popular culture into the news arena. With the emergence of entertainment news shows and the public’s increased interest in the personal lives of public figures, the lines between real news and industry buzz have been blurred. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news outlets. When talk shows hosted by highly-paid comedians become a news source, there is a serious problem. Distinguishing authentic journalism from pseudo journalism has become increasingly difficult due to the prevalence of mock news shows that are entertainment-focused, gossip-prone and sensationalistic.
The goal of news is to provide the public with meaningful information that enlightens and empowers people to make informed choices. To accomplish this, news outlets must center its content around stories that are newsworthy. Unfortunately, the application of the term is applied much too loosely. Too many stories are featured as newsworthy, when in reality they are nothing but an illustration of bizarre behavior and sophisticated gossip. The news industry must work to distinguish itself from entertainment media and reestablish its reputation as an avenue for accurate information based on reliable sources, sound reporting techniques, whose content is factual and substantive.
A study conducted by researchers at Ohio State University in 2008 found that people who watch fake news shows learn far less about political issues and candidates than people who watch television news shows on networks, such as CNN and NBC. “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more about a wide range of important topics than those exposed to entertainment media,” said Young Mie Kim, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State.
Entertainment news shows like Extra and Inside Edition project a news-like format, however the content featured hardly qualifies as news. Regular topics include movie and sitcom reviews, the latest fashion trends and quite often the indiscretions of celebrities. During the Tiger Woods scandal in 2009, networks such as CNN and MSNBC provided prolonged coverage of the ordeal. While the story was newsworthy to some extent, traditional news programs provided more coverage than appropriate for news networks. High viewership of such stories may prove there is a considerable audience present, but news organizations must fight the urge to dilute its content to compete with entertainment media.
Legal news shows like Nancy Grace feature newsworthy stories that obtain national attention, however, they are covered with a tabloid-like slant and overzealous tone. As a result, stories are taken out of context and blown out of proportion, making mock news shows like this a platform for sensationalism. Programs like The View use a talk show-like forum where issues of the day are discussed, however, most of the hosts are not professional journalists so their perspectives tend to be opinion-based, rather than founded on sound reporting and research. When substantial guests like President Obama appear, interviews are compromised due to poor training and technique. Programs in this genre also mix newsworthy events, such as the tax-cut debate with tinseltown gossip like Kim Kardashian’s divorce. Citizen journalism, while beneficial in some ways, has also compromised news quality due to “do it yourself” websites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia. Technology now allows people to blog and post videos of anything they find interesting without verifying facts, sources or properly reporting a story. The mix of real news with entertainment chatter is dangerous because it compromises the work of real journalists.
The news landscape has been muddied by a variety of genres that have weakened journalism and its perception by the public. “Audiences are attracted more to entertainment than serious public-affairs reporting, and what’s worse, that they may not even be able to distinguish between the two,” said Jeffrey P. Jones, associate professor and Director of the Institute of Humanities at Old Dominion University. While solid journalism is the goal of most news outlets, ratings and revenue lie at the heart of any business model. Abiding by an ethical model in a revenue-driven media landscape where viewership of entertainment-based shows is in high demand may prove difficult, but its necessary. The role of ethics in journalism depends upon the philosophy and mission of a news organization, and the mindset of management and producers. Whether good or bad, the ethical code of any news organization will determine the quality and caliber of news featured, the direction a network will go in and ultimately its longevity. Implementing high standards will undoubtedly set traditional news networks a part from entertainment media, and position them as the more credible, reliable and respectable news source. -v7
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Problem of Celebrity
As Kim Kardashian prepares for her nuptials to NBA cutie Kris Humphries, and buzz about Jennifer Lopez’s recent divorce continues to adorn grocery store aisles everywhere,
one question comes to mind:
one question comes to mind:
Why are people so enthralled with the personal lives of celebrities?
I attribute this obsession on the part of the public to what I call “The Problem of Celebrity.” Our society is obsessed with people who have achieved money, success and extraordinary fame. We live vicariously through them. Look no further than the recent fanfare following the sudden death of Amy Winehouse, the reemergence and popularity of R&B singer Chris Brown following his domestic abuse incident, and the distant but not forgotten sex scandal involving golfer Tiger Woods.
Our daily news is an usual blend of savvy headlines like: “President Obama makes sharp remarks about the debt ceiling standoff....” “The victims of Norway are gone but not forgotten....” and “Kim Kardashian finally picks her wedding dress.” You can't be serious.
Who’s to blame for this moronic blend of substantive news and sorority girl antics?
The public? The media? Or celebrities? Hold that thought.
In addition to the denigration of news in the U.S., it’s also a crude reality that people set higher standards for celebrities than they do for themselves. What happens when and if our beloved Kim Kardashian cheats on her reality TV husband? Will we continue to worship her? Or will we knock her off her tinsel town pedestal and treat her with the same disdain as Arnold Schwarzenegger? Again, hold that thought.
The public is notorious for boycotting celebrities when scandals break. We are quick to pass judgment and stop patronizing someone if we get wind they did something we don’t approve of. Because celebrities exhibit a talent, skill or image the everyday Joe or Joanna doesn’t possess, we make modern-day idols out of them and come short of deeming them superhuman.
Truth is, people feel comfortable playing judge in the lives of celebrities because we have the luxury of seeing their lives and indiscretions played out for the world to see, while our own lives remain private and unbroadcasted. When you have that kind of access and anonymity coupled into one, people feel empowered, and exploit that power to the Nth degree.
Because celebrities have achieved in life what many only dream of, people expect them to be dreamlike in every way. Hence, the constant fanfare and never ending obsession. People feel the need to love everything about a celebrity in order to support them because we expect them to do something we're incapable of: attain perfection.
We expect celebrities to live up to the hype we’ve created for them.
And we throw tantrums when they don’t. The moment our expectations don’t materialize, we are forced to face the reality that the people we’ve been idolizing are just that: people. Not immortal super heroes, but rather everyday people just like us who garner public attention through the machinery of marketing, distribution and media.
When faced with this reality, people become disgruntled. Rather than blame ourselves for having unfair and unrealistic expectations, we fault celebrities for not fulfilling our dreams. So who’s the real culprit: the public, the media or celebrities? I'll let you answer that.
Until people accept the fact that celebrities are not perfect, but just as flawed as we are,
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us.
“The Problem of Celebrity” will continue to plague us.
And until the public takes more of an interest in news that actually matters, rather than how Kim Kardashian will look in her wedding dress, we’ll continue to be bombarded with more dense reality television.
Until then, it’s only downhill from here. -v7
Monday, July 4, 2011
What Happened to Personal Discretion?
It’s official; the art of personal discretion is dead. Face it, we now live in a popular culture where anything goes and everything is ripe for public display. Take a look at almost any reality TV program and you often see young, attractive people degrading themselves on national television in pursuit of a monetary prize or ephemeral fame.
Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class.
The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.
A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.
Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.
There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.
Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.
So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.
When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.
Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.
Contestants have been shown engaging in sexually crude behavior, distastefully exposing intimate body parts, using coarse language, speaking disparagingly and disrespectfully about fellow competitors, and sometimes displaying an astounding lack of common sense and class.
The notion of exercising personal discretion is simply passé for a generation hooked on camera phones, computer cams, text messaging and other forms of instant communication that allow individuals to engage in graphic show and tells whenever the mood strikes.
A friend was shocked, appalled and dismayed when she heard about the antics of the New Jersey teenager who was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for posting sexually explicit images of herself on MySpace. My friend couldn’t fathom why a young person would even dare do such a thing, let alone think it was acceptable behavior. But what my friend so innocently failed to grasp was that today’s teenagers have grown up with the Internet and comfortably using social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter where putting aspects of one’s private life on public display is the norm. What’s a few nude images between friends, when they can so easily be uploaded at the click of a button? As only a passive user of Facebook myself, I am still amazed at the intimately personal things friends seem compelled to post online. What they want me to know versus what I feel I need to know is often at odds.
Personal discretion has eroded partly because the Internet offers an irresistible venue for freely engaging in narcissism and self-promotion. It provides free self-advertising for those seeking some distorted sense of frame and notoriety. By creating a Webpage or posting images of oneself online, one can escape the shadows of obscurity to become known a entity. It’s like having one’s own personal billboard for all to see.
There was a time when the fear of shame or humiliation used to be a sufficient inhibitor to inappropriate or distasteful public behavior. Take extramarital affairs, for instance. The mistress involved in an extramarital scandal was once a universally scorned figure. Public sympathies were always reserved for the aggrieved wife and the “other woman‘s” identity, if known, often remained discrete or received scant attention. Few women in such situations wanted to be known as the homewrecker who destroyed a marriage.
Today, mistresses have often become minor celebrities. Instead of hiding in the shadows, mistresses brazenly discuss their affairs in public - freely participating in the media spectacle. Rielle Hunter, former fling of presidential candidate John Edwards and mother of the disgraced politician’s love child, gave a tell-all interview to GQ magazine. And look at the parade of women involved in golf superstar Tiger Wood’s tawdry extramarital escapades. Many willingly came forward, seemingly unashamed of their actions, to discuss their sordid affairs in the press.
So where do we go from here? Can we as a society return to our once modest and discrete ways? Sadly, probably not. The ubiquity of the Internet, reality TV and talk shows (where people seem willing to blather on about everything) have essentially blurred -- or obliterated -- the lines between private and public. Leaving little to the imagination is the new norm. These highly public venues also fuel an instant-fame-obsessed mindset that doesn‘t appear to be leaving us any time soon.
When reality TV features everyday people who become household names, regardless of how boorishly or stupidly they behaved on-air, 15-minutes-of-fame seekers will abound, especially when show producers dangle million dollar carrots in their faces. Apparently, illusions of fame and fortune have won out over concerns about self-respect and decency.
Think about it: If the fear of public humiliation and embarrassment isn’t enough to tame crude, lewd and outrageous behavior, nothing will. Like I said, discretion is dead.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Oprah's Legacy
In Winfrey, we saw a sensitive and kindhearted humanitarian who used her prominent public position to affect positive change on people's lives and, by extension, the world. That's the great legacy Winfrey leaves behind after 25 years. Her show will truly be missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)