The Biggest Sell Is the Audition

Allen Salkin
The New York Times
Thursday, April 19th, 2007
The Story
The Summary: QVC holds open auditions for hosts in West Chester Pennsylvania.

I found this article interesting because my boyfriend works at HSN, QVC's main competitor. I hear a lot about the goings on at HSN. I hear my boyfriend's ranting about how much better it would be if they listened to him and did a few things his way. (like everyone does about the people they work for)

An open casting call is a risky, you never know what type of psychos will show up. That, and the type of people who host the home shopping shows are scary to begin with. I've heard some strange stories about home shopping hosts. Apparently, a lot of them are prima donas. Rewarded for acting like idiots in front of millions of people.

In the TV world, that is one job I would not want. I work in retail, I'm used to selling stuff to people. But on TV they only get to see it. You don't get to feel or use it. I was just watching Wolfgang Puck on HSN. The host said that the food looked marvelous, perfect every time... because of the pans. No! I think it's because Wolfgang Puck was cooking. It doesn't matter what you're cooking with... if you can't cook, it's gonna turn out like shit.

I've never liked the idea of home shopping. At least with online shopping you can get a product description and (if applicable) and ingredients list. TV home shopping only gives you the good. There's normally some type of negative side to everything. Even my favorite products have some downsides.

And the clothing on home shopping... it's always ugly, grandma clothes... most of which are loungy-types. Gross... those are the clothes that people get fat in. Like sweats and stretch pants.

Home shopping, gross.

Deadly Rampage and No Loss for Words

Alessandra Stanley
The New York Times
Tuesday, April 17th, 2007
The Story
The Summary: Amateur reporters had a major part in reporting yesterday's tragedies.

News has changed. We used to look to strong men to give us the hard facts about recent events (Edward R. Murrow, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite) but times they are a changin'. Women have become a staple in today's news reporting. Katie Couric is the first woman to host the evening news for a network station solo (both Barbra Walters and Connie Chung had co-hosted in the past). But the news has also become more emotional, and more fluff lately.

I don't think that its because of women, but because of the 24-hour news cycle. They created the news networks that never went off the air. There wasn't enough hard news to fill 24 hours (or even 16... with replays during the night time) Fluff worked its way into hard news, and ratings went up for those peices. Because of this you have almost 2 months of air dedicated to the Anna Nicole Smith story. If you search Time magazine's archives between August 1st, 1962 and September 1st, 1962 you find eight stories mentioning Marilyn Monroe's name. Not neccessarily about her, but mentioning her name. Her picture wasn't even on the cover of the magazine containing her obituary. (She died August 5th, 1962)

Compare that to the hours dedicated to Anna Nicole Smith on networks such as CNN and FOXNEWS. Everyone paralelled their lives, but the news coverage of their deaths was not.

Truly hard news has become a thing of the past. Even with yesterday's tragedy, we must put every thing in an emotional, personal light. Why can't we have facts like we used to. Human interest stories have run the news for far too long.

I'm not saying there isn't a human side to every story, because there is. But hours after is not the time to show it. Today was far to soon to be interviewing victims, yet there were interviews on TV today. And there is one photo they keep showing and I wish they wouldn't. A guy is a bloody mess as they carry him off the scene. I hate it. Just stop showing it, or at least give us a warning to look away.

I agree with the article. This is a time that America should be speechless... yet no one can shut the fuck up.

Best-Informed Also View Fake News, Study Says

Katharine Q. Seelye
The New York Times
Monday, April 16th, 2007
The Story
The Summary: People who watch fake news are more informed than people who don't.

I like to laugh when I watch TV. As much as I want to be informed, I'd like to be entertained. If I just wanted to be informed, I'd read a newspaper. That being said, I watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report regularly, and before I had cable... I'd get a lot of my news from Weekend Update. (I was a champion at the Current Events game we played at my elementary/high school.)

Fake news really isn't that fake. The news is real... they report on real stories, they just have a biased and humorous.

I think the people drawn to these shows have a genuine desire to be informed of recent events, but the choose to go outside the mainstream news sources to get it.

The six news sources cited most often by people who knew the most about current events were: “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” (counted as one), tied with Web sites of major newspapers; next came “News Hour With Jim Lehrer”; then “The O’Reilly Factor,” which was tied with National Public Radio; and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.

This is the age-old Mass Communication Senior thesis topic. (okay... maybe not age old... but for about the last 10 years?) Every class there's someone who takes the easy way out and decides to do their research on where college students get their news from. (They choose college students because there's a large amount of them readily available, and most professors are willing to give up 5 minutes of class time to allow you to do a survey for academic research) It's nice to see that "fake news" not only rules us academics but those out in the "real world" as well.

There is legitimate news value in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. It's not made-up news, like The Onion, but a satirical take on the real news. You learn things from it. In fact, you can learn things that you can't from other news programs. (Like the fact that President Bush has used certain phrases, such as "stay the course", repeatedly over the course of his presidency.)

So, here's to "fake" news... because it's not really fake, it's based in truth, and spun to make us laugh.

Virginia Tech Shooting Leaves 33 Dead

Christine Hauser and Anahad O'Connor
The New York Times
Monday, April 16th, 2007
The Story
The Summary: Today's top story. Headline sums it all up.

I really don't know what to say. It only seems appropriate to post it further... just incase someone, somewhere hasn't heard about it yet. It's one of those things that you can't really have an opinion about... of course it's horrible, no one, right or left, is going to argue with you.

I think it's really sad that in order to get people to agree about something in the country, large numbers of people need to die. And even then, there's arguement about something. (9/11?)

Even in tragedies like today's, people want to start playing the blame game.

Take Columbine... all of a sudden it was Marilyn Manson's fault that these boys were as sick as they were. Not the parents, not those who were close and could actually have a real effect on them, but Marilyn Manson, a musician who happens to look really freaky.

Marilyn Manson didn't buy the guns, and Marilyn Manson didn't shut them out. Parents want to be fully responsible for their children until their children f*ck up... then they had nothing to do with it... it was the TV (we bought for him) or the video games (we bought for him) or the music (we bought for him). Stupid breeds stupid, it's as simple as that.

Back to what's important... my (as so many others') thoughts and prayers go out the victim's of today's tragic events and their families.

He’s Not My Grandpa. He’s My Dad.

Thomas Vinciguerra
The New York Times
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Story
The Summary: The article examines the trend of older men becomming new dads.

It's strange to think about someone as old as my grandpa being my dad, especially since both my grandfathers are gone.

This article goes into some of the psychological issues, such as a young child dealing with their father's illness, and how the man's first set of children feel about his new wife and second set. (The new wife often being young enough to be his daughter) Other issues include (obviously) the death of a parent, and the single parenthood that follows.

The article said that most of these "start over dads" (the article calls them SODs) are rich, most often married to women much younger than them. Most of which are second or even third marriages.

I can't say that I think it's entirely wrong. Having children is a choice. If these May-December couples choose to have children, I can't see anything entirely wrong with it. Most of these men have money, and as long as they leave funds for their children's upbringing I can't see anything absolutely horrible about it.

Yes, there are psychological issues when a child deals with the death of a parent, but on the other hand, it doesn't mean a man who fathers a child at 25 is invincible. Yes the older man has a higher chance of death, but that doesn't make him a bad father. In fact, the article said that one of the perks of being a SOD was that these men spent more time with their children, becuase they were either retired, or at least weren't working as hard as they did in their 20s and 30s. The men also said they were more mellow with their 2nd set of children.

I can't leave the subject with out touching on Hugh Hefner. Not only does he date women that could be his daughter, one of his three girlfriends (Kendra, 21) could be his granddaughter. He has two adolescent sons, and two grown children from his first marriage. He's the ultimate poster-child for this type of lifestyle.

Recipe: Supernatural Brownies*

The New York Times
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

*So... it's Friday, and just for fun, I'm gonna re-post this entire article, which is just a brownie recipe!

Adapted from “Chocolate: From Simple Cookies to Extravagant Showstoppers,” by Nick Malgieri (Morrow Cookbooks, 1998)

Time: About 1 hour

2 sticks (16 tablespoons) butter, more for pan and parchment paper
8 ounces bittersweet chocolate
4 eggs
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup dark brown sugar, such as muscovado
1 cup granulated sugar
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 cup flour
1/2 cup chopped walnuts or 3/4 cup whole walnuts, optional.

1. Butter a 13-by-9-inch baking pan and line with buttered parchment paper. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In top of a double boiler set over barely simmering water, or on low power in a microwave, melt butter and chocolate together. Cool slightly. In a large bowl or mixer, whisk eggs. Whisk in salt, sugars and vanilla.

2. Whisk in chocolate mixture. Fold in flour just until combined. If using chopped walnuts, stir them in. Pour batter into prepared pan. If using whole walnuts, arrange on top of batter. Bake for 35 to 40 minutes or until shiny and beginning to crack on top. Cool in pan on rack.

Yield: 15 large or 24 small brownies.

Note: For best flavor, bake 1 day before serving, let cool and store, tightly wrapped.

ENJOY!!!!

CBS Drops Imus Radio Show Over Racial Remark

Bill Carter and Jaques Steinberg
The New York Times
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Story
The Summary: After about a week of media hoopla, Don Imus gets the boot, completely, from everyone for making sexist and racist comments about the Rutgers' women's basketball team.

So, I know that this story has been developing for the last week, but I didn't know much about it. I didn't even know who Don Imus was, to tell you the truth. I had to do some backgrounding to figure out who he was, and why he was significant enough to matter. So, for everyone like me, who has no idea who he is, I give you Don Imus: a mini biography (courtesy of Wikipedia)

John Donald "Don" Imus, Jr. (born July 23, 1940) is an American comedian, writer, and radio talk show host, best known for his sarcasm and often harsh language. His popular radio show, Imus in the Morning, aired weekday mornings until it was canceled on April 12, 2007[1] following a controversy stemming from comments he made on air which were perceived by some to be racist and sexist.

Imus began as a radio disc jockey in 1966 at radio station KUTY in Palmdale, California after hearing the morning disc-jockey. He immediately walked over to the nearby station and convinced the owner to hire him, saying he could do a better job. At the time he was a brakeman on the Southern Pacific Railroad. He stayed at the station for about two years,[6] leaving in 1968 for a move to KXOA in Sacramento, California. His on-air pranks, such as calling up a restaurant and ordering 1200 hamburgers, made his show immensely popular and boosted ratings.

In 1977, WNBC fired Imus for his cocaine and vodka habits and unprofessionalism; he had missed a hundred days of work in one year.[citation needed]Imus then went to work in Cleveland and cleaned up his act. In 1978, Imus commuted between Cleveland and New York to tape a TV talk show, Imus Plus at WNEW-TV. (The show was nationally syndicated by Metromedia, which owned WNEW at the time). Imus was reinstated in September 1979 as WNBC's morning drive time host.

From 1982 to 1985, the station also employed talk-radio host Howard Stern, and WNBC heavily promoted the pair in print and television ads, which often featured the slogan "If We Weren't So Bad, We Wouldn't Be That Good." Although Stern's show aired later in the day, Imus and Stern often made brief appearances on each other's shows, giving the audience an occasional glimpse of an on- and off-air rivalry that continues to this day.

Now that we're all caught up to speed (is it bad that I'd never heard of the guy until he was fired?) Should this guy have been fired? Personally, I think so. But... there's the First Ammendment. He didn't say anything that would be classified as obscene. It seems like the comment is stated as opinion, and opinion, no matter how wrong, isn't false. Between the First Ammendment and the FCC, Mr. Imus made no infraction.

But I still thing MSNBC and CBS Radio did the right thing. That kind of biggotry can't happen in this country. Mr. Imus just might have a First Ammendment case against them, not that he would win. The First Ammendment only works when one has something intellegent to say. Mr. Imus made his career by saying something stupid. A lot.