Nicolas Cage Is the Least Talented Coppola

Why do we love celebrities so much? I'm sure Brian will help us articulate that in our classes this coming week, but I found myself thinking about my unique brand of celebrity obsession.

I consider myself a snob on some levels, and I definitely find that this is so when it comes to anything having to do with pop culture. The way it breaks down is, Christopher Guest is a god, Bono is a prophet, Paris Hilton is Satan and Entertainment Weekly is my bible. So, naturally, I went to them to find out the latest in snarky pop culture punditry.

What I found showed me just how obsessed we can be. While any tabloid will show you that we love to see celebrities at their worst, EW takes pride in showing this to the nth degree. This is why I so highly enjoyed the most recent of their "Top" lists, "Sexy? You Be the Judge . . .". and felt the need to forward it to several of my close friends. While I believe in love and compassion for all people, I am not above taking out my insecurities on celebrities who have done nothing more than be photographed in awful, unspeakable ways . . . and gotten caught with prostitutes and drugs . . . but that's beside the point.

The truth is, we all need gossip and a means to get away from our own lives for a while and celebrities, in all of their good looks and fame, fit that bill. And since not all celebrities are George Clooney when it comes to humanitarian efforts, I'm sure it's the least they could do.

All's Fair in Journalism & Media

Let me just say, I think I might want to be Faith Salie.

The woman went to Harvard, is a Rhodes scholar, and is now doing the news her own way on Public Radio International's Fair Game with Faith Salie.

What makes Salie so special? For one thing, she's smart as a whip, having earned her bachelor's degree from Harvard and then going on to Oxford to obtain a master's of philosophy in modern English literature. Still, there's something else about Salie that stands apart. As one of her fan sites reads, "Faith Salie may be the only Rhodes scholar intentionally doing comedy." And in this generation of Stewart and Colbert fanatics, we all know what this means . . .

While Salie's show does bring on highly-respected experts and big names in the news, she makes the effort to cut through the "nicities" jargon of mainstream journalists. Her interviews are peppered with straightforward questions that refuse to acknowledge the possible discomfort of her interviewee. The show has been described as, "the quirky love child of 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart' and 'All Things Considered.' It's smart enough to slake the traditional public-radio fans' thirst for intellectual programming but satiric enough to catch the attention of the prematurely cynical Gen X and Gen Y sets." We wouldn't expect less from a woman who also moonlights as a pop culture pundit for Vh1.

The radio show's website has a lot to shout about as well, featuring blogs done by professional writers about prevalent (and sometimes not so prevalent) stories in the news. And for those who believe that radio is dead, her show can be streamed off the website or copied onto your computer's MP3 player. Web 2.0 overkill? Definitely, but in the finest manner possible. If at the end of the day I can listen to a highly educated woman who shares my "useless" major give the news in a no-holds-barred sometimes satirical format that plays on my iTunes with the greatest of ease, I can go to bed happy.

What's the straight man's problem?

As a woman, I can only guess at the above question, for the answer may not be as simple as one may think.

For example, everyone knows that many men strive to be as buff and strong and masculine as possible, but I can attest that women quite often go for men who do not possess these qualities, in fact, they go for the opposite. Why do you think Will & Grace was such a hit among women? Who hasn't had the hots for the gay guy? And even when the sexual preference of these men comes to light for the unfortunate woman, they often find themselves wishing for a straight partner who possesses similiar qualities.

I guess I must beg the question, why are men afraid to be metrosexuals? Even when asked in class if the men considered themselves "metros", the men distanced themselves from the name. It was almost like asking women if they're feminists.

The term, though now overspoken and admittedly dorky, holds a very novel idea: men can be "manly" while looking great and, perhaps, allowing themselves to be sensitive. Are straight men afraid that this takes away from their overall masculinity? Are they worried about being considered gay? If this is the case, they need only look around to see that the women don't mind a nice pair of tailored pants on a man one bit. Still, I think all of this points to something deeper about men and how they are taught to behave.

In a world where many men have trouble admitting that they sometimes have a taste for clothing outside of workout sweats and old jeans, no wonder so many gay men are afraid of coming out. This unwillingness to admit to any other gender except for the extreme heterosexual male is disturbing and makes me think twice about how far we've come as a society that can accept many different genders and sexualities. How can we expect to move forward if men are even afraid of dressing well?

To the scared and straight men of the world, I leave you with this: Every girls crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man.

I Hereby Order You To Report!

In a day and age when people are continuously debating when the press should remain silent, it is surprising to hear that making a reporter write could be punishment. However, so goes the proposed penalty for Katie Baker, a reporter and news anchor who has been ordered by District Judge James Shumate of St. George, Utah to write a story about something “that needs some attention" in exchange for dropping criminal charges against her.

Baker was in contempt of court for interviewing a jury candidate live on her television station, KUTV, though she seemed to be unaware that her behavior was inappropriate; she later apologized and took responsibility for her actions. Judge Shumate had the charges against her put on hold, but only to offer her the opportunity to buy her innocence. The judge did not stipulate that the proposed public service story be broadcast, but required that Baker give him a copy of it on DVD.

While it may seem a mild punishment, the Society of Professional Journalists asked that the charges against Baker --and her story requirement-- be dropped. The SPJ was especially furious because, though Baker was not forced into silence, she was made to feel intimidated by the government. They also felt that the judge was over-stepping his bounds on several levels and abusing the power of the judiciary by trying to control the content of the news.

It all goes back to the same questions: What's more important? A fair trial or an informed public? Who is the watchdog? The government or the press? A balance needs to be struck between these forces that should not be against each other.

Be wary of the meat

When will the people learn not to keep information out of journalists' hands?

This past week, the Society for Professional Journalists signed a letter concerning the 2007 Farm Bill approved by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee on Oct. 25. This bill's language, which was drawn up by Iowa's Tom Harkin, included a provision which would keep mum certain information that the Agriculture Committee possessed.

The bill in question was drawn up in response to the mad cow disease scare of 2003-2004. During the panic, the Agriculture Committe kept quiet about which stores carried the infected batch of beef, and the bill seeks to make secrecy a right of the group.

Worrisome? I'd say so. Such information is prime fodder for newspapers whose job it is to inform and protect the public from such covert operations. While the committee should have the right to obtain any information they please, they also have an obligation to the citizenry that elected them to keep them informed --especially when the information could save their life.

As I've been blogging, it worries me how often I see these stories of certain higher-up organizations trying to keep the public on the outs. In our society that prides itself on public knowledge and participation, it is a shame that we have to keep checking our leaders this way. The public may not always want to know the info, but more often than not, they need to.

Boob(s) Tube

Feminism should be doing fine and well these days. Women are taking more leadership positions than ever before, they are in the lead in college attendance and in grades, and we may be well on the way to perhaps having the first woman president.

Sadly though, our culture still gives us several obstacles to overcome. With reality shows like I Love New York, America's Most Smartest Model and Beauty and the Geek high in popularity, besides low brain activity, audiences are getting an unhealthy dose of women as solely objects of love and lust. And not as just objects, dumb objects.

While one could argue that men are made to look ridiculous in these shows as well, women seem to be especially targeted by the reality TV world. The incredible number of makeover shows like What Not To Wear, 10 Years Younger and Extreme Makeover, are a testament to this. Men can be made over, but there is hardly ever a consensus that they "need" a makeover to make themselves attractive. There is a disproportionate number of women to men on such shows because women need to look feminine and be in style to make it in our culture. Obviously, men don't know how to dress, but women should -- and they should have great hair and make-up as well. Even on reality shows that these women already look great, it just means that the likelihood that they'll get into a catfight with another woman or become the show's resident devil is astronomical.

Reality TV, in my opinion, is already the most low-brow of all entertainment and it makes my thumbs itch (what I do when I'm incredibly nervous or uncomfortable) just thinking about how people are subconsciously seeing women in this format. I've already resigned myself to the fact that reality TV is here to stay, but I can only hope that it will, someday and somehow, show women as smart and vivacious and unique individuals. Not as Jessica Simpson.

We're involved. A little too involved.

When discussing narratives, particularly those put out by the mainstream media, it is not surprising to find how we tend to let a fictional world control how we should be. Our culture, indeed, even our world, tends to judge itself based on the constructed narration and reality that is presented through us through media texts and outlets. I believe that this has a lot to do with the way that narratives engross us.

There are six ways in which audiences become a part of the stories they hear. Most of the time, people are looking for answers in these stories that usually relate back to real life. If something works in a movie, why shouldn't it for us? If this character has this problem and they're now fine, won't I be? There are several ways that audiences can, and do, misconstrue fictional narratives with their own lives. This relation influences our fantasies, our ways of thinking, and sometimes, even our choices and actions.

This supposed influence may be overblown, but how many times have you considered yourself to be just like a character out of your favorite book? How many times have you thought of your life as "just like a movie"? How many young girls feel they need to be just as beautiful as every woman repesented in media texts? When we get involved in narratives, they tend to get involved with us.

Newspapers = Crime?

Everyone knows that newspapers have always been a place to read about and report crime, but could they also be a cause?

In England's Press Gazette, Paul Macey has posed the question: Do newspapers support the underground sex trade?

His concern comes from advertisements that have been placed in newspapers in England and elsewhere advertising massage services that seem to go several steps beyond therapeutic touching. What's more, these kinds of services are usually a front for sex businesses that abuse women and even young girls. Some of these businesses even advertise the many races of women that they have available, which is highly suggestive of illegal activity. This is no small matter, seeing as 4,000 women and children are trafficked illegally every year into the UK alone. A special interest group, The Croydon Community Against Trafficking, reports that 80% of women working in brothels or in other sexual service businesses have been illegally brought into the country. CCAT also found that most of the men who frequent these businesses find out about them through their local newspapers.

Many have voiced their outrage over this matter and are especially irate since newspapers are there to be a part of the solution --not the problem. The Poppy Project, a group devoted to providing help to trafficked women, has voiced concern over the ethics of newspapers and why they are not checking who they're advertising. Newspaper staff have shot back that they do not check all of their advertising clients, and should not be called to do so for all massage parlours or sensual services.

Most newspapers follow the guidelines of the Committee of Advertising Practice which have codes that attempt to protect against the type of advertising being disputed, but in the end, it is the publishers and editors who have the final say, and they must be relied on to make the right decision.