2 posts tagged “the big bad media”

(AP) -- In the days after the Britney Spears soap opera rode a police-escorted gurney to its apex, celeb-mag sales spiked, traffic jammed gossip Web sites, tabloid TV ratings rose and paparazzi photo prices surged.

Shaving

For a growing number of people and businesses, Britney's saga is about money: Every time she sinks to new lows, cash flows. And these days, no one is above the fray.

When a custody dispute devolved into a three-hour standoff at Spears' home January 3, police officers and firefighters were pressed into duty. Television stations sent up helicopters, and cable news anchors reported the unfolding drama in real time. The Associated Press had two reporters working the story, with editors on both coasts updating it seven times throughout the night.

Spears is just one of many stars driving the growing multibillion-dollar celebrity news industry. But the Spears story in particular, with a new twist nearly every week, has become a very profitable sub-sector unto itself.

"Britney is the most bankable celebrity out there right now, and she has been for the past year," said Francois Navarre, founder of the paparazzi agency X17.

Spears became a can't-miss tabloid topic after filing for divorce from second husband Kevin Federline in November 2006. Since then, she's been in and out of rehab, shaved her head, revealed a bit too much above the hemline, was arrested after a traffic accident, and lost custody of her kids (and later her visitation rights).

Although it would be best for Britney and the media to separate themselves, it's not going happen -- there's too much money invested in it. Britney will continue to provide her mental decomposition, in return for showers of attention that she feeds off of -- meanwhile, the paparazzi will be close in tow, making money off of her deterioration. It's sad, really.

To make it perfectly clear, I have not yet personally endorsed any candidate yet for the 2008 presidential election. The only candidate that I feel speaks my views is Mike Gravel, but he is the absolute least popular contender for the Democratic nomination. Being a Democrat myself, I've been trying to figure out whom I'd rather have in office -- Barak or Hillary -- but haven't devoted myself to either yet. I find it exciting that the top two contenders for the nom represent minority demographics that many people believe will never hold office in the United States. I find it even more interesting that, although black men constantly portrayed by the media as gang members and uneducated lowlifes, Obama undoubtedly gets the better press over Clinton.

Why do people hate Hillary so much? I've been trying to wrap my brain around it for months now, and, despite her supposed flaws, I have to believe that the bad press is 90% due to the media and society's interpretations of  something, not purely policy.

In a recent speech, Obama mentioned something that I think might contribute a lot to the media's distrust of Hillary: "I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century,"

But perhaps this is exactly it. It's no debate that G. W. is unpopular, and it's not much of a question of whether or not he would have a career in politics were it not for daddy. And now that Obama mentions it, Hillary is much in the same position. Although she had a career and aspirations separate from her husband's (in fact, that is how they met), I also have little question as to whether or not she would have become senator were she not first First Lady. Much like Bush, her popularity without a doubt hinges on someone else's career.

Would she have accomplished much without her marriage to provide her with such connections? Who knows. But the point is that she definitely, undoubtedly has a career today because of it.

Maybe the idea of the family dynasty is what is subconsciously playing into many Democrats' lack of support for Hillary. After all, seeing as how our current president is in office largely due to his father, it doesn't seem out-of-line to question someone's experience if a former president is legally related to them.

But Bush still got into office with not nearly as much bad press as Hillary. I don't think it's unfair to cite sexism as a contributed to Hillary's poor media image. Women who pursue high positions are often dismissed as bitchy and power-hungry, and you'd have to be kidding if you said the negative media surrounding Hillary wasn't making her out to be just that.

But there is opposition to this: Well, if the media is being blatantly sexist, where's the racism against Obama?

This is where my point comes in -- perhaps Hillary is more succeptible to being labeled as power-hungry because of the similarity between the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty. Both let two terms pass before the family re-entered the presidential scene. It's also easy to call a woman power-hungry when she's running for office as the wife of a former very successful president.

Would I vote for Hillary? I have no idea. I'm merely trying to differentiate bad press from sexist press and still waiting for Obama to say something to make me believe he has the experience necessary for being a president. The fact is, I like neither Clinton nor Obama, and am greatly disheartened to learn that the other, safer looking hopefuls Kucinich and Edwards have both dropped out. My lack of certainty with either of the candidates has led me to even start considering those on the Republican bench -- McCain has some solid ideas, I hear.

Since Michigan fucked itself out of the primaries, I didn't vote, and now I suppose I resign for the rest of the public to make the decision for me. Hopefully I'll have waded through this all by election day.