Mayhill Fowler has been called a poster child for citizen journalism….may God help us all. Fowler wrote entries for OffTheBus, a forum on HuffPo for amateur journalists who followed the 2008 presidential campaign. And I mean literally followed – she traveled around the country on buses covering her man Obama during 2007 and 2008.
Fowler heard Obama’s “bitter” Pennsylvania voter comment at a San Francisco campaign event in 2008 - an event to which mainstream media did not have access. Of course, the mainstream outlets were pissed that they didn’t get that info for themselves. To that I say: Suck it up kids. Like it or not, that’s the nature of new media. And to anyone running for any kind of public office I say: Just because an event is closed to the “media”, does not mean that something you say at said event will not go viral...really fast.
Of course, now, two years removed from the fracas, no one wants anything to do with Fowler. And that could be (one of) the ugly flip side(s) to citizen journalism. She had her 15 minutes of fame, and got burned for it – accusations of being in cahoots with Hillary were predictably thrown around after she posted the quote. And that’s fine on a personal level. If you’re going to walk into the fire, you have to be prepared. Honestly, I don’t really care if Fowler ever gets paid to write. I’m more interested in what her story as a citizen journo means for the bigger picture.
A few days ago, the LA Times reported on an interesting caveat to the San Fran story of which I was not aware. Fowler almost didn’t include Obama’s bitter comment in her post about the evening knowing how damaging it could be to the candidate. She only decided to include it after an OffTheBus director encouraged her to disclose all she had heard. What I find so troubling about the heat Fowler caught for including the quote in her post was the fact that as a “journalist”, she absolutely should have included it. In fact, she was - dare I say - ethically obligated to include it. That’s not the kind of comment that a candidate should get away with at a public event.
The fact that the mainstream was pissed to be scooped by Fowler proves that they wished they had gotten the quote themselves. I mean, that’s good stuff, whether or not you’re in the tank for someone. If you are running to be the POTUS and you say something dumb, you should be quoted on it as eagerly as when you say something smart. That’s a journalist’s job.
Now OffTheBus was not a one-time phenomenon. There are citizen journalism sites popping up all the time. Demotix, for example, reviews content and image entries from international Joe Schmos all day. The ones that are up to snuff get pushed to the U.K.-based company’s news feed. The major outlets can then buy them, allowing Schmo to get published in The New York Times if he gets lucky. Demotix gets a 50% cut and the writer or photojournalist gets 50%.
The great thing about Demotix is that it offers hyper local news from around the world, written or filmed by natives from the area – not an old white dude working for the BBC. The down side is that I don’t yet see how this model works to fill the most important role of journalists – investigative reporting. Not that Demotix claims to do this. The site knows its place as an event-based news outlet.
It could be that with the simple passage of time citizen journalism and maybe crowd sourcing will yield powerful insights into the most troubling aspects of society. (Just consider how much a news story written by lawmakers about their initiatives might differ from a collaborative story written by a cross-section of constituents about how the initiative would affect their everyday lives.) Journalists often work with a similar handicap – trying to capture the sentiments of Everyman by speaking with three of them.
But alas, considering how the craft of investigative reporting has been languishing even in traditional media, I have a hard time believing that it will flourish among people who woke up this morning and decided to change the world. Of course I’m wildly oversimplifying the concept, but I feel good about the point I’m trying to make.
The founder of Demotix, Turi Munthe, says that his idea for the site came out of the belief that when a society is open and enjoys free speech, its propensity towards radicalizing decreases. I’m all for that. I’m just leery of a future where the onus for real journalism is placed on a system that is incapable of supplying it.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
"Game Change" plays by the rules
As a reporter, I’ve had plenty of off-the-record conversations. Some juicy, some not so much. I have never, however, had the delicious pleasure of interviewing on the basis of “deep background”. This is the reporting method used by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in their new book “Game Change”.
Basically, operating on the understanding that all sources are providing deep background means that the authors do not have to reveal any of their sources in the finished product. It is an ideal method of gathering a huge amount of information and creating a sweeping omniscient narrative.
I have not read the book yet, only an excerpt in New York magazine. (As a result of reading that excerpt I cannot wait to get my hands on it.) In this instance, writing a book from an omniscient point of view is akin to the reader being transported back in time to be a fly on the wall in some of the most fascinating, infuriating, disastrous, and amazing meetings and gatherings that occurred during the 2008 presidential election. Who wouldn’t love to take that ride?!
The beautiful thing about the crafting of “Game Change” is that the authors got everyone to dish post-election under the agreement that their name would never appear in print…not exactly what the average reporter can promise. As a result, they got the dirt. Some say it’s too dirty – that the authors may have let angry ex- aides and staffers have free reign. The authors rebuttal is that they were very careful with sources and never relied on one person to shape the telling of an event.
Once I do finally meet all imminent work-related deadlines and get the bookstore to buy this gem, I am anticipating a riveting read. I’ve always been a big fan of the omniscient point of view in all kinds of literature. And surely this, of all books, will be intriguing considering that all of the characters are so well-known and have (or had) such carefully crafted public personas.
Now I have to confess, something that has always irked me is “journalism” that is an endless parade of information gathered from unnamed sources. I think there is without a doubt a need for off-the-record conversations, but when they overwhelm an article it begins to read like a flimsy, disposable set of quasi-might-not-actually-be-facts. Writing like this makes my skin crawl. Unfortunately, I’m seeing more and more of it all the time.
“Game Change”, I suppose the argument could be made, is one of these wannabe pieces – full of “facts”, but no substance to back it up. But in this case, that argument does not hold water. I think writing the book in this way was a necessary evil if Halperin and Heilemann wanted to tell the raw, uncensored, gritty truth. And is it really the truth? Do the authors know for sure that everything in the book is completely accurate? I don’t think they have any way of knowing that, but I am convinced that neither of them have any reason to believe that anything in the book is false.
So when all the fuss got kicked up over the Harry Reid comments, I did not find it to be completely unseemly. Some did. But not only did Reid’s staff admit that Reid made the comment to the authors, Halperin and Heilemann probably verified Reid’s feelings through another source as well. Now, should they have written the comment as a direct quote? Well, Reid’s people also never attacked the authors alleging that they violated their sourcing agreement, so it looks as if they didn’t actually do anything wrong.
The excerpt I read from New York magazine was about John and St. Elizabeth Edwards. What I found so fascinating about that part of the story is that no one knew anything about it during the campaign. Stories of John McCain aides being frustrated by Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual rigor were swirling while the campaign was still going on. Not so with the Edwardses. They fairy tale was definitely unraveling well before Edwards conceded, but the extent of the turmoil reported in the book is staggering – mostly because there was no hint of it in the mainstream media at the time.
Did the Edwards camp just have that tight a grip on what got out to the press? Was the staff so deluded by the promises of their candidate that when he morphed into a woman-crazed narcissistic lunatic, they didn’t have the heart to blow the whistle? Did they actually feel bad for an ill Elizabeth even though she’s portrayed as a raving banshee? So many questions! If the rest of “Game Change” is as good as the excerpt, and lives up to all the hype, I’m in for one awesome winter read.
Basically, operating on the understanding that all sources are providing deep background means that the authors do not have to reveal any of their sources in the finished product. It is an ideal method of gathering a huge amount of information and creating a sweeping omniscient narrative.
I have not read the book yet, only an excerpt in New York magazine. (As a result of reading that excerpt I cannot wait to get my hands on it.) In this instance, writing a book from an omniscient point of view is akin to the reader being transported back in time to be a fly on the wall in some of the most fascinating, infuriating, disastrous, and amazing meetings and gatherings that occurred during the 2008 presidential election. Who wouldn’t love to take that ride?!
The beautiful thing about the crafting of “Game Change” is that the authors got everyone to dish post-election under the agreement that their name would never appear in print…not exactly what the average reporter can promise. As a result, they got the dirt. Some say it’s too dirty – that the authors may have let angry ex- aides and staffers have free reign. The authors rebuttal is that they were very careful with sources and never relied on one person to shape the telling of an event.
Once I do finally meet all imminent work-related deadlines and get the bookstore to buy this gem, I am anticipating a riveting read. I’ve always been a big fan of the omniscient point of view in all kinds of literature. And surely this, of all books, will be intriguing considering that all of the characters are so well-known and have (or had) such carefully crafted public personas.
Now I have to confess, something that has always irked me is “journalism” that is an endless parade of information gathered from unnamed sources. I think there is without a doubt a need for off-the-record conversations, but when they overwhelm an article it begins to read like a flimsy, disposable set of quasi-might-not-actually-be-facts. Writing like this makes my skin crawl. Unfortunately, I’m seeing more and more of it all the time.
“Game Change”, I suppose the argument could be made, is one of these wannabe pieces – full of “facts”, but no substance to back it up. But in this case, that argument does not hold water. I think writing the book in this way was a necessary evil if Halperin and Heilemann wanted to tell the raw, uncensored, gritty truth. And is it really the truth? Do the authors know for sure that everything in the book is completely accurate? I don’t think they have any way of knowing that, but I am convinced that neither of them have any reason to believe that anything in the book is false.
So when all the fuss got kicked up over the Harry Reid comments, I did not find it to be completely unseemly. Some did. But not only did Reid’s staff admit that Reid made the comment to the authors, Halperin and Heilemann probably verified Reid’s feelings through another source as well. Now, should they have written the comment as a direct quote? Well, Reid’s people also never attacked the authors alleging that they violated their sourcing agreement, so it looks as if they didn’t actually do anything wrong.
The excerpt I read from New York magazine was about John and St. Elizabeth Edwards. What I found so fascinating about that part of the story is that no one knew anything about it during the campaign. Stories of John McCain aides being frustrated by Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual rigor were swirling while the campaign was still going on. Not so with the Edwardses. They fairy tale was definitely unraveling well before Edwards conceded, but the extent of the turmoil reported in the book is staggering – mostly because there was no hint of it in the mainstream media at the time.
Did the Edwards camp just have that tight a grip on what got out to the press? Was the staff so deluded by the promises of their candidate that when he morphed into a woman-crazed narcissistic lunatic, they didn’t have the heart to blow the whistle? Did they actually feel bad for an ill Elizabeth even though she’s portrayed as a raving banshee? So many questions! If the rest of “Game Change” is as good as the excerpt, and lives up to all the hype, I’m in for one awesome winter read.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tweeting vs. Spending: Which is more universal?
If Time magazine cannot come up with one interesting-enough person in this big, wide, interesting world to name as its person of the year, then they should at least choose the Economy over Twitter.
In what can only be perceived as Time's position that there is currently an absence of news-making, attention-garnering people gracing the world stage, the pub has apparently tossed out the concept of a person altogether and has narrowed the field down to two inanimate contenders. Baffling? Yes. What would make this worse? Picking a thing that lots of people don't care about. Do I personally think that Twitter is inconsequential? Far from it. But the title should go to someone or something that registers with as wide an audience as possible.
After 2006's kitschy cop-out (You), it seems the Editorial department over there needs to step up its game and get back to the roots of its annual POTY story. The You choice was the perfect compliment, time-wise, to what has become the train wreck of blogo-journalism. Sure, technology has exploded and is allowing people to connect and share ideas in ways and in time spans never before imagined. But to make You (Designers, Users, and Keepers of the Information Age) the person of the year? Come on, Eds! Why didn't you just give "The Passage of Time" the honor and call it a day? The You story should have been a feature inside the book and someone good should have been on the cover.
Historically, the person (most usually a man...maybe they should re-think that strategy as well) is a well known, sometimes polarizing figure. (Personally, I think choosing a controversial name is more fun.) In regard to one of the top possibilities for this year, Twitter, I've heard way too much of this over the past two years: "twitter? I've never used it" or "I don't get it" or "it's only for narcissists" for it to be considered Thing of the Year. Hmmm, that just doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
Now the economy on the other hand, affects everyone, very personally. No one can take the 5th on the economy. You will never hear someone say, "the economy? I've never used it."
"The economy? I just don't get it." Now that's something people say, and that's why the story would be so good. If people don't get twitter, they just ignore it. Few people have a tight grip on how the economy works and doesn't work and yet everyone has to use it every day, like it or not. A story about the economy (provided it is handled correctly) will be way more confusing and harder to write than a twitter piece, and I guarantee that will make it a more interesting read and it will have a resonance with a much wider audience.
In what can only be perceived as Time's position that there is currently an absence of news-making, attention-garnering people gracing the world stage, the pub has apparently tossed out the concept of a person altogether and has narrowed the field down to two inanimate contenders. Baffling? Yes. What would make this worse? Picking a thing that lots of people don't care about. Do I personally think that Twitter is inconsequential? Far from it. But the title should go to someone or something that registers with as wide an audience as possible.
After 2006's kitschy cop-out (You), it seems the Editorial department over there needs to step up its game and get back to the roots of its annual POTY story. The You choice was the perfect compliment, time-wise, to what has become the train wreck of blogo-journalism. Sure, technology has exploded and is allowing people to connect and share ideas in ways and in time spans never before imagined. But to make You (Designers, Users, and Keepers of the Information Age) the person of the year? Come on, Eds! Why didn't you just give "The Passage of Time" the honor and call it a day? The You story should have been a feature inside the book and someone good should have been on the cover.
Historically, the person (most usually a man...maybe they should re-think that strategy as well) is a well known, sometimes polarizing figure. (Personally, I think choosing a controversial name is more fun.) In regard to one of the top possibilities for this year, Twitter, I've heard way too much of this over the past two years: "twitter? I've never used it" or "I don't get it" or "it's only for narcissists" for it to be considered Thing of the Year. Hmmm, that just doesn't quite have the same ring to it...
Now the economy on the other hand, affects everyone, very personally. No one can take the 5th on the economy. You will never hear someone say, "the economy? I've never used it."
"The economy? I just don't get it." Now that's something people say, and that's why the story would be so good. If people don't get twitter, they just ignore it. Few people have a tight grip on how the economy works and doesn't work and yet everyone has to use it every day, like it or not. A story about the economy (provided it is handled correctly) will be way more confusing and harder to write than a twitter piece, and I guarantee that will make it a more interesting read and it will have a resonance with a much wider audience.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Dan Plus Jon Plus Kate
Well, the courts have dismissed Dan Rather's case against CBS News. I guess we're not going to get a glimpse into the deep, dark abyss that is network news after all. I was really gunning for it, I have to say.
CBS does not exactly come out of this smelly rosy, but at least they don't have to open their confidential emails and correspondence. I bet that's a pretty enormous relief for them. The big question I have left after this fracas is: Where does Dan go from here? Although I think he had a valid argument, the dismissal of the suit does not bode well for the future of his journalistic career. It will be interesting to see in which direction he decides to go. Can he still draw enough viewers as a correspondent to make it worth his time, or is he better off moving into retirement? Only time will tell.
And in not so surprising...or interesting...news, Jon Gosselin halted production of Jon & Kate Plus Eight, or Kate Plus Eight, or Kate Plus Eight Plus a Shrink and a Life Coach...whatever name it was going by these days. Gosselin stated in a handwritten note that camera crews were not allowed on his property to film. He allegedly feels it is time to get the kids out of the spotlight.
Now whether this is a PR ploy to end up looking like the good guy, or if he has has actually stopped eating brain tumors for breakfast is anyone's guess, but I'm relieved the madness might actually stop. Kate has plenty of other ways to make enough money to send all the little mini Gosselins to fine institutions of higher learning. And maybe they'll even read about themselves
in a Mass Media class in college someday! ...or in a Psych class...but let's hope for the best.
CBS does not exactly come out of this smelly rosy, but at least they don't have to open their confidential emails and correspondence. I bet that's a pretty enormous relief for them. The big question I have left after this fracas is: Where does Dan go from here? Although I think he had a valid argument, the dismissal of the suit does not bode well for the future of his journalistic career. It will be interesting to see in which direction he decides to go. Can he still draw enough viewers as a correspondent to make it worth his time, or is he better off moving into retirement? Only time will tell.
And in not so surprising...or interesting...news, Jon Gosselin halted production of Jon & Kate Plus Eight, or Kate Plus Eight, or Kate Plus Eight Plus a Shrink and a Life Coach...whatever name it was going by these days. Gosselin stated in a handwritten note that camera crews were not allowed on his property to film. He allegedly feels it is time to get the kids out of the spotlight.
Now whether this is a PR ploy to end up looking like the good guy, or if he has has actually stopped eating brain tumors for breakfast is anyone's guess, but I'm relieved the madness might actually stop. Kate has plenty of other ways to make enough money to send all the little mini Gosselins to fine institutions of higher learning. And maybe they'll even read about themselves
in a Mass Media class in college someday! ...or in a Psych class...but let's hope for the best.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Gotta love that Bloomie!
On page 14 of this week's New York magazine - a reporter asks Mayor Bloomberg about Matt Damon's endorsement.
Reporter: "How do you [and Matt Damon] know each other?"
Bloomie: "All young sex symbols know each other."
Classic.
Reporter: "How do you [and Matt Damon] know each other?"
Bloomie: "All young sex symbols know each other."
Classic.
Rather pathetic? I'm not so sure...
If you peruse the reader comments after any given web story on the topic, it seems as though there are two kinds of people when it comes to the Dan Rather vs. CBS saga. One group of people used to care but is experiencing a sharp decline in interest as each day passes. The other group never cared. Me? I find it fascinating. A life-long journalist is working on the biggest investigative piece of his career. The ironic twist is that the genesis of the piece, for all intents and purposes, ended his journalistic career...for now.
Rather reported a story about former President George W. Bush's questionable stint in the National Guard on “60 Minutes II” in 2004. Later, CBS, apparently succumbing to pressure by the administration, assembled a panel to investigate how the piece saw the light of day seeing as how some of the documents in Rather's story were not authentic. The story resulted in an apology to the White House from CBS and Rather being ousted from his position in the anchor seat at the CBS Evening News. (...and the grand entrance of Katie Couric...barring the Palin interview, that choice has not exactly been wildly successful for CBS.)
But instead of quietly going out to pasture, Rather fought back. He launched a lawsuit against CBS in 2007 claiming that he was the fall guy for a story the network said was fraught with flaws. He's also claiming that the network did not live up to the terms of his post-anchor contract which promised continued airtime and appropriate support staff. In the spring of last year, a judge threw out several parts of the claim, specifically the sections that claimed fraud against top execs at the network. What's left is basically a glorified breach of contract claim. But depending on how the imminent trial goes, this could shake out to be much more than a run of the mill contract dispute.
Now, without being limited by the usual shackles of a journalist, Rather has been free to dig deep during the discovery phase of the legal process. It seems that Rather has uncovered some information that could prove quite embarrassing to CBS at trial, including how they formed their independent panel that investigated Rather's story. Emails and memos imply that CBS was intent on assembling a panel that would pacify the right. After all, it was 2004 and there were another four years of Bush and, more importantly, deregulation stretching before them. If (which is starting to look more and more like 'when') the case goes to trial, CBS brass could find themselves on the stand testifying about the assembly of the investigative panel and how said panel compiled its report.
Some have called Rather's actions petty and pathetic, but this lawsuit could provide a rare and fascinating window into the goings-on at a major news organization. How things make it...and don't make it...to the airwaves. The crux of the claim will depend whether Rather can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the records used in his story are authentic. Although the network's lawyers are seeming pretty confident and are fond of talking smack in the press, no one has yet publicly proven that the records are fabricated or inauthentic. And, several people independent of the network maelstrom have corroborated everything that was in Rather's piece. If I were the counsel for the CBS, I'd be pretty skeered. A wealthy reporter who is not interested in a settlement is a formidable opponent.
Having said all this, I have to say that I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I respect that Rather is not backing down. I have to admit, initially I wasn't following the story closely and I thought he was just being petty and pathetic. It turns out, he's trying to protect his journalistic integrity! However, there are problems here too. Rather did apologize for the story, basically stripping it of all credibility, then later said the apology was coerced...now that's just lame. The other problem I have is all the reports about how Rather sulked about not being invited to Walter Cronkite's funeral. I don't know what the real story is there, but if Rather had anything to do with fanning the flames of that tidbit of information, it was a big mistake. If he wants to have anything resembling a decent legacy, he needs to pray this thing goes to trial, fight like hell to prove his side of the story, and never sulk.
Rather reported a story about former President George W. Bush's questionable stint in the National Guard on “60 Minutes II” in 2004. Later, CBS, apparently succumbing to pressure by the administration, assembled a panel to investigate how the piece saw the light of day seeing as how some of the documents in Rather's story were not authentic. The story resulted in an apology to the White House from CBS and Rather being ousted from his position in the anchor seat at the CBS Evening News. (...and the grand entrance of Katie Couric...barring the Palin interview, that choice has not exactly been wildly successful for CBS.)
But instead of quietly going out to pasture, Rather fought back. He launched a lawsuit against CBS in 2007 claiming that he was the fall guy for a story the network said was fraught with flaws. He's also claiming that the network did not live up to the terms of his post-anchor contract which promised continued airtime and appropriate support staff. In the spring of last year, a judge threw out several parts of the claim, specifically the sections that claimed fraud against top execs at the network. What's left is basically a glorified breach of contract claim. But depending on how the imminent trial goes, this could shake out to be much more than a run of the mill contract dispute.
Now, without being limited by the usual shackles of a journalist, Rather has been free to dig deep during the discovery phase of the legal process. It seems that Rather has uncovered some information that could prove quite embarrassing to CBS at trial, including how they formed their independent panel that investigated Rather's story. Emails and memos imply that CBS was intent on assembling a panel that would pacify the right. After all, it was 2004 and there were another four years of Bush and, more importantly, deregulation stretching before them. If (which is starting to look more and more like 'when') the case goes to trial, CBS brass could find themselves on the stand testifying about the assembly of the investigative panel and how said panel compiled its report.
Some have called Rather's actions petty and pathetic, but this lawsuit could provide a rare and fascinating window into the goings-on at a major news organization. How things make it...and don't make it...to the airwaves. The crux of the claim will depend whether Rather can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the records used in his story are authentic. Although the network's lawyers are seeming pretty confident and are fond of talking smack in the press, no one has yet publicly proven that the records are fabricated or inauthentic. And, several people independent of the network maelstrom have corroborated everything that was in Rather's piece. If I were the counsel for the CBS, I'd be pretty skeered. A wealthy reporter who is not interested in a settlement is a formidable opponent.
Having said all this, I have to say that I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I respect that Rather is not backing down. I have to admit, initially I wasn't following the story closely and I thought he was just being petty and pathetic. It turns out, he's trying to protect his journalistic integrity! However, there are problems here too. Rather did apologize for the story, basically stripping it of all credibility, then later said the apology was coerced...now that's just lame. The other problem I have is all the reports about how Rather sulked about not being invited to Walter Cronkite's funeral. I don't know what the real story is there, but if Rather had anything to do with fanning the flames of that tidbit of information, it was a big mistake. If he wants to have anything resembling a decent legacy, he needs to pray this thing goes to trial, fight like hell to prove his side of the story, and never sulk.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Jon and Kate Plus 8 Times 25 Years of Therapy
Reports of Jon Gosselin potentially co-starring in a new reality show were swirling last week. The would-be-trainwreck, Divorced Dads Club, would feature a group of famous divorced fathers and how they are coping with (read: giddily embracing) their return to the single life.
One E! Online headline read “Does the World Need Another Jon Gosselin Reality Show?”...Come on, people, we all know it didn't even need one!! Luckily, Gosselin will proooobably not be part of the show, if the world should ever be unfortunate enough to be subjected to it. The brass over at cable network TLC would have to approve his inclusion in the show, something insiders apparently think is not likely.
I only watched one episode of Jon & Kate Plus 8 before the inevitable marital implosion became apparent to the outside world. If I remember correctly, I did so out of sheer boredom, with a twist of procrastination. I needed to clean my apartment and had done just about everything else I could possibly do in lieu of springing the Pine Sol from its quiet, slightly dusty abode under my kitchen sink.
A freelance project I had been working on was complete, I was up to date on all of my email correspondence, I had even sewn a long-lost button back on a sweater. Both sweater and button had been thrown aside months prior to patiently await their reunion. Jon and Kate were the only hurdles standing between me and a clean apartment. Unfortunately, they won. I didn't want to, but I gave in. I thought, 'a show about eight kids has to be at least a little interesting, even if that interest will be accompanied by exasperation, annoyance, and possibly anger. I was right about the last three things.
I was genuinely overcome with boredom by the end of the show...as well as exasperated, annoyed, and angry. I don't think I could have expressed the boredom in words if I had tried. It was the feeling of not being able to get back the two hours you spent watching a dumb movie, except even though I had only lost a half hour of my life, I felt that pain...exponentially. It was like the show had left a hole in my soul. Of course, I only saw one episode, so maybe there were others that were more interesting.
The episode I saw can be summed up thusly: eight children run around babbling incessantly; they at some point get into some minor trouble; Kate runs around, sporting her insane rooster-inspired hair cut, barking at Jon in a most shrill and obnoxious manner; Jon walks around with his tail between his legs and quiet rage brews.
Now, from what I understand, I might not be the only person who thought the show was super-duper boring before the split. The show only had so-so ratings. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at various meetings when the execs over at TLC were first hearing about the brouhaha.
I wasn't a fly on the wall, so I don't know exactly what happened. But here's what I think happened: they began foaming at the mouth like rabid beasts. There's really no other explanation for the way they have exploited this sad, dysfunctional, downward spiral of a marriage. I'm pretty sure they saw a show that had been just sitting there taking up space and realized they now had the opportunity to create a world-wide media circus centered around it.
I would just love to know if it ever crossed anyone's mind that maybe, just maybe, they should cut their losses and encourage the family to go away and attempt to quietly put the pieces of their lives back together.
If it were just Jon and Kate, two attention-and-money-whores...I mean...adults, involved it would be one thing. But there are eight kids here, people! That's eight little minds being warped by this weird, constant attention they are getting, for no good reason other than they are part of a large set of multiples. These are eight kids who will grow into young adults and be able to watch a video chronicle of the erosion of their parents' marriage...and know that a whole slew of twisted Americans (yours truly included) watched it too.
Yeah, I know, I know, money whores is a little strong. But if they wanted a good life for their kids, there are tons of other ways they could have made money on their story without plastering it all over the world (and airing their dirty laundry) with their insipid reality show. They could still do speaking engagements, they could still write books, they could create a website and blog. None of those things, even cumulatively, would have put their kids in the middle of such a frenzy. They would probably not be household names and be making 3 million dollars a year combined, but their kids might actually have a fighting chance of turning out normal. Now, not so much.
One E! Online headline read “Does the World Need Another Jon Gosselin Reality Show?”...Come on, people, we all know it didn't even need one!! Luckily, Gosselin will proooobably not be part of the show, if the world should ever be unfortunate enough to be subjected to it. The brass over at cable network TLC would have to approve his inclusion in the show, something insiders apparently think is not likely.
I only watched one episode of Jon & Kate Plus 8 before the inevitable marital implosion became apparent to the outside world. If I remember correctly, I did so out of sheer boredom, with a twist of procrastination. I needed to clean my apartment and had done just about everything else I could possibly do in lieu of springing the Pine Sol from its quiet, slightly dusty abode under my kitchen sink.
A freelance project I had been working on was complete, I was up to date on all of my email correspondence, I had even sewn a long-lost button back on a sweater. Both sweater and button had been thrown aside months prior to patiently await their reunion. Jon and Kate were the only hurdles standing between me and a clean apartment. Unfortunately, they won. I didn't want to, but I gave in. I thought, 'a show about eight kids has to be at least a little interesting, even if that interest will be accompanied by exasperation, annoyance, and possibly anger. I was right about the last three things.
I was genuinely overcome with boredom by the end of the show...as well as exasperated, annoyed, and angry. I don't think I could have expressed the boredom in words if I had tried. It was the feeling of not being able to get back the two hours you spent watching a dumb movie, except even though I had only lost a half hour of my life, I felt that pain...exponentially. It was like the show had left a hole in my soul. Of course, I only saw one episode, so maybe there were others that were more interesting.
The episode I saw can be summed up thusly: eight children run around babbling incessantly; they at some point get into some minor trouble; Kate runs around, sporting her insane rooster-inspired hair cut, barking at Jon in a most shrill and obnoxious manner; Jon walks around with his tail between his legs and quiet rage brews.
Now, from what I understand, I might not be the only person who thought the show was super-duper boring before the split. The show only had so-so ratings. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at various meetings when the execs over at TLC were first hearing about the brouhaha.
I wasn't a fly on the wall, so I don't know exactly what happened. But here's what I think happened: they began foaming at the mouth like rabid beasts. There's really no other explanation for the way they have exploited this sad, dysfunctional, downward spiral of a marriage. I'm pretty sure they saw a show that had been just sitting there taking up space and realized they now had the opportunity to create a world-wide media circus centered around it.
I would just love to know if it ever crossed anyone's mind that maybe, just maybe, they should cut their losses and encourage the family to go away and attempt to quietly put the pieces of their lives back together.
If it were just Jon and Kate, two attention-and-money-whores...I mean...adults, involved it would be one thing. But there are eight kids here, people! That's eight little minds being warped by this weird, constant attention they are getting, for no good reason other than they are part of a large set of multiples. These are eight kids who will grow into young adults and be able to watch a video chronicle of the erosion of their parents' marriage...and know that a whole slew of twisted Americans (yours truly included) watched it too.
Yeah, I know, I know, money whores is a little strong. But if they wanted a good life for their kids, there are tons of other ways they could have made money on their story without plastering it all over the world (and airing their dirty laundry) with their insipid reality show. They could still do speaking engagements, they could still write books, they could create a website and blog. None of those things, even cumulatively, would have put their kids in the middle of such a frenzy. They would probably not be household names and be making 3 million dollars a year combined, but their kids might actually have a fighting chance of turning out normal. Now, not so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
