Posted by: junkfoodmedia on: April 12, 2010
This week Vanity Fair took a deserved lashing from View co-host Whoopi Goldberg for their decision to spotlight some of Tiger Woods’ mistresses. Although I have not seen the spread myself, she states the women are photographed in glamorous poses for the article. So like Whoopi, I also beg to ask the public what message does this send out? That having cheap meaningless affairs, or affairs at all, with married men is glamorous? That if you mess around with someone famous enough you too can be in print? Forget about education and meaningful work, all it takes nowadays is to spread your legs for the right guy. Ladies, I thought we had come much further from the days when our mothers worked hard to better our opportunities. Is this how we should repay their hard work, by sending us backwards generations?
I was rather disappointed when Barbara Walters discounted Whoopi’s critique as she tried to end the conversation. Barbara suggested, as she fluttered her eyes, that they invite someone from Vanity Fair to the show in order to explain their decision. I’m curious Barbara, what would be a legitimate explanation? I guess “We’re a fluff magazine with nothing important to report on” would suffice. However, Barbara then segmented into something I applaud her for, pointing out the hypocrisy of The View’s positions. Case in point, Barbara cited their December interview with Ashley Dupre, former prostitute to former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. She cited how their own show, The View, had her on as a guest to promote her new sex advice column (See Junk Food Media post for 12/4/09, From Prostitute to Businesswoman, The Success of a Scandal). For that I applaud you Barbara, way to take responsibility for your reporting decisions, or at least the reporting decisions of your network.
Posted by: junkfoodmedia on: February 28, 2010
The other week I went to a local restaurant for dinner with my husband. It was the type of restaurant that is also a sports bar, so it has a lot of televisions on the wall, as well as televisions at many of the tables. Now I’m not a fan of this in general, but it has come in handy on occasion when I wanted to catch a sports event on ESPN, as we are one of few American homes that does not have cable. We happened to be there at the time Inside Edition was on. In the Eastern time zone where we live, this directly precedes the primetime slots, airing at 7:30pm. One of the stories Inside Edition was airing was a videotape of a beating, from one teenage girl to another at a train station. During the beating, the security guards were present and did not attempt to intervene; instead they stood there watching. I’d like to imagine they were attempting to talk her down at the least; but in such a situation, it doesn’t take a genius to know that physical intervention would be required.
The story is worrisome, but what bothered me even more was the number of times Inside Edition aired this real and violent clip. Before the story aired, it was shown at least two times, and during the story it was aired at the very least four times. It was shown over and over again, stating it was aired six times is definitely a minimization, but I’d rather err on the side of caution.
This was a dining establishment. Although a sports bar, sports bar are often frequented by families. There was a mother present with a very small child in a highchair, fortunately the young toddler was facing towards the booth’s own television where the child was viewing cartoons. Yet, the rest of the dining establishment could not avoid this airing, as it was on the largest television in the restaurant, with the volume on.
This made me think of a handout I frequently gave clients when I did psychotherapy with children exposed to trauma. Here are some of the facts below that I think are relevant, and shocking about our nation’s television habit[1].
Number of violent acts the average American child sees on TV by age 18: 200,000
Number of murders witnessed by children on television by the age 18: 16,000
Percentage of children polled who said they felt “upset” or “scared” by violence on television: 91
Percent increase in network news coverage of homicide between 1993 and 1996: 721
Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes
Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours
Average number of hours per week that American one year-old children watch television: 6
Number of hours recommended by the American Pediatric Association for children two and under: 0
Average daily time American children under age two will spend in front of a screen: 2 hours, 5 minutes
Average time per week that the American child ages 2-17 spends watching television: 19 hours, 40 minutes
Hours of TV watching per week shown to negatively affect academic achievement: 10 or more
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1,023
“How many people are in the average American household? 2.55
How many televisions do they have? 2.73
We are a society of more televisions than people![2]”
Now I’m not one to advocate that criminals should start blaming television exposure for their choices. We are in control of our actions, no matter what may influence us. However, I think it’s impossible to not be affected by what we watch. But as adults, it is our responsibility to control our television viewing so that we are in charge of what infiltrates our children’s consciousness, whether your a parent, or a TV executive.
Do Lawd, come down here and walk amongst yo people
And tek ‘em by the hand and telt ‘em
That yo ain’t hex wid ‘em
And do Lawd come yoself,
Don’t send yo son,
Cause dis ain’t no place for chillen.
-Prayer Following the Earthquake of 1866 Charleston, South Carolina, Composed by Slaves[3]
[1] All statistics are obtained from www.tvturnoff.org; handout: Facts and Figures About Our TV Habit
[2] http://www.screentime.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=14
[3] Karr-Morse, R. & Wiley, M.S. Ghosts From the Nursery. The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 1997.
Posted by: junkfoodmedia on: January 28, 2010
So did you hear about the oil spill on Saturday in Port Arthur, Texas? Yeah, I didn’t think so. I caught it in a passing news blip on television; more like a headline without a story. Hey, have you heard about the balloon boy? Yeah, I thought so.
Since I don’t have cable, I searched the cable news stations websites to see the coverage (or lack thereof) of the oil spill. I decided to compare it to the topic of the balloon boy, a ridiculous occurrence that was documented by the cable news stations live, and then discussed over and over again in the media. I was quite disappointed my investigation did not prove me wrong and alter my perception of our Junk Food Media. My web search for “Port Arthur oil spill” turned up only a few articles on each of the cable station’s websites, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. However, a search for “balloon boy” turned up pages of articles on this subject.
Why isn’t Exxon in the news for this disaster? Does it take 11 million gallons of oil in our waters to make us file lawsuits and take action, like it did in 1989 after the Exxon Valdez? How about the 462,000 gallons of crude oil that saturated Port Arthur’s Sabine Neches Waterway, just off the Gulf of Mexico. Why doesn’t this make the news in detail? Is Exxon funding our cable news stations? Are they paying “journalists” off through lobbyists, as they do our politicians? When it comes to cable news stations please note that I use the word journalists very loosely.
How will this affect the local wildlife? How will it affect the local wetlands? I found an interesting site which has a recording of the most severe oil spills since the sixties through 2004; you can find it at: http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm Unfortunately, based on the data on this site it appears the frequency of crude oil spills internationally is only increasing. It’s also disturbing to note that this oil spill is larger than some of the spills cited on that website.
When all else fails, we can count on our local stations for worthy reporting, that is if the disaster happens in your viewing area. Here is an article from a news station in Houston, TX, which is about 100 miles from the Port Arthur area: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=7241080
I would like to quote the last two sentences of the aforementioned article. “It was the largest spill in Texas since 1990, when a Norwegian tanker spilled 4.3 million gallons about 60 miles off Galveston. The state typically has about 800 spills a year, but nearly all involve less than one barrel, according to the Texas land office.” Eight hundred spills in 365 days? That’s over two spills per day! Eight hundred multiplied by even a half barrel adds up quickly in the course of a year. There are 31 gallons in a barrel, translated from barrels to gallons, even at half a barrel per spill; that is still 12,400 gallons of crude oil spilled into Texas waters every year. For me, that is 12,400 gallons too much. I am not under the illusion that since I live far away from Texas, the environmental havoc does not affect me. It affects us all. If there are 800 spills a year in Texas alone, how many spills are there nationally? Internationally? This is not just a local story; this has international implications.
Posted by: junkfoodmedia on: January 8, 2010
So I haven’t blogged in awhile. It’s not that there aren’t things to blog about, it’s just that I’ve been distracted by other endeavors. I have lots of rantings in my head, but nothing substantial or interesting enough to fill an entire entry. So instead, I’ve decided to let out some rants, free up my mind, and get some things off my chest. So here it goes.
‘Tis the season for the usual cavalcade of celebrity award shows. You know, the endless display of yearly awards to the actors/directors/writers/ and others essential in making movies and television work. But lets get real people, how many annual award shows do we really need to fulfill the egos of the Hollywood elite? Here is a list of shows I just thought of, I’m sure there are many I’m leaving off, but here it goes:
The People’s Choice Awards
The Academy Awards
The Grammys
The Country Music Awards
The Tonys
The Emmys
The S.A.G Awards
The American Music Awards
The Golden Globes
The MTV Movie Awards
The MTV Video Music Awards
Need I continue? Is this really necessary Hollywood? Give me a break. Are celebrities this desperate for recognition and approval? Don’t get me wrong. I am completely guilty of watching the Academy Awards every year with my mother, and I enjoy it, but when you step back and look at all of the hoopla, it’s a bit ridiculous. In my ten years in the social services, I have observed one colleague receive an award on one occasion. She was recognized for her twenty years of service to the domestic violence community. Now that is cause to celebrate. But hers only came once in twenty years. So why not have award shows for people doing important work for years at a time? What about the teachers, social service providers, doctors, police, firefighters, janitors, waitresses, bartenders, in summary the people who are essential to the infrastructure of our communities?
You know what else bugs me? Smug celebrities on the red carpet. Lets take for example Angelina Jolie. I can’t stand it when she is asked the usual questions on the red carpet, such as “What dress are you wearing?” and she responds as if she is far too important to be mingling and answering ridiculous questions. Sure, the questions are ridiculous. I personally can’t wait for someone to say “Simplicity pattern 7865.” But let’s face it, that’s not going to happen.
Sure Angelina, you are doing some important work. Every once in awhile you rent a mansion in a foreign country and visit with the locals. Great. But it’s nothing compared to the workers who teach in dangerous neighborhoods for Thirty Thousand a year. It’s nothing compared to the people who take care of the homeless day in and day out at the shelter. It’s nothing compared to the person working to help women obtain restraining orders from their abusive partners. It’s great that she donates some time and money, but to act as if she is better than her Hollywood colleagues is offensive to someone like myself, who has done real social service work on a daily basis for very little pay. Smile Angelina, answer the questions, you get paid a lot to do that. Until you leave your million dollar movie deals to teach full time in the inner city for twenty five thousand dollars a year (assuming she has a bachelor’s degree), you will be a celebrity, no better, no worse.
From Prostitute to Businesswoman, The Success of A Scandal
Posted by: junkfoodmedia on: December 14, 2009
Today on The View the ladies had on Elliot Spitzer’s former “escort,” Ashley Dupre. I don’t mean to do so many blogs about The View, but this group of women embodies the concept of Junk Food Media so well that I can’t just leave it alone. I decided to look into their choice of labels, which clearly bothered me. My Mac dictionary had various definitions for the word “escort”, the closest one to this situation being, “a person, typically a woman, who may be hired to accompany someone socially.” Now as a married man, we can logically assume there was no public socialization between Ms. Dupre and Mr. Spitzer, only private adultery. So lets find a word that actually defines the relationship between Ashley Dupre and Elliot Spitzer. I began with the classic search, “prostitute” it the same dictionary. The Mac dictionary states a prostitute is, “a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.” Bingo, I think we have a winner. I could have told you that, but as a stickler for citations, I think it’s relevant to cite a true source.
So I ask the ladies at The View, why are we dancing around this issue? Lets call a spade a spade. You had on Ashley Dupre, a prostitute, and a well paid one at that.
During her interview Ms. Dupre stated she is now being paid to write an advice column. Interestingly enough, she cited her age at twenty-four while confidently reporting to have so much experience to justify her knowledge and contributions. She did laugh at how little she was being paid for the column. I guess selling your body reaps more wages than selling intellectual property. I think we can all agree that Ms. Dupre has done a good job at self-marketing, or at least hiring someone who does.
People make mistakes, granted. People should be able to move forward in their lives following this. But what is it about our culture that gives so many opportunities to these types of women? Monica Lewinsky has gone on to have a quite successful purse design business. I am beginning to have a better grasp on why so many women are exposing themselves publically as lovers of Tiger Woods. Sure they will get their fifteen minutes of fame, but as Ashley Dupree and Monica Lewinsky confirm, there are benefits above and beyond. Why is that? Why do we reward these types of people? What does it say about our character as a nation?
Why are we suddenly giving an uneducated twenty four year old prostitute an advice column on relationships? Her interview on The View feeds into false beliefs that blame the spouses who have been cheated on. Cheating is the responsibility of the cheater, not the spouse. If there are issues in your relationship, then you need to work proactively to resolve those, and if you don’t want to continue on in your relationship, then end it, but don’t screw around. Let’s not let a twenty four year old prostitute give cheaters a reason to say, “See, that’s why I did it, you weren’t giving me what I needed.” Take responsibility for your behavior. A married man takes vows and makes a commitment. Seeking out extramarital affairs, whether for payment, or for free, makes you the culprit, no matter what a twenty-four year old prostitute says.