Sunday, October 26, 2008

There's An Elephant In The Room

Ahh YouTube. YouTube is a phenomenon that I was introduced to a few years ago. I had a coworker that unfortunately (although she was very nice) revolved her life around YouTube. Have you seen this on YouTube? You should YouTube that. I found this on YouTube. I had no idea that “YouTube” could be used as a verb. Interesting. Anyhow, it’s truly amazing the sorts of things one can find on YouTube: TV clips, homemade movies, homework assignments, etc. It has become a huge multimedia and social network.

Television and movie clips found on YouTube are always very interesting to me simply because it’s a cheap version of editing. One can grab what they want from a whole segment or show and make it into something it was never intended to be, look or sound like. One of my friends and colleagues found an excellently crafted montage of the lovely Sarah Palin speaking eloquently (hahaha) in response to an “interview” by Marge, a main character from the Minnesota parody movie Fargo. Hilarious. This is my point exactly.

Using YouTube in this light also allows one to highlight important aspects of a, let’s say, talk show. Talk shows have the best way of supposedly showing the interviewee as a “real” person, just having a conversation. Okay, not really so much but it’s closer than it being a nationally televised debate. Talk shows generally show the viewer a medium to full body shot of the host and interviewee talking. This makes things a tad more personal and intimate. You get to see the relationship between the host and the interviewee up close and personal. There they both are, sipping coffee, tea or whathaveyou, talking very candidly like they’re old friends, and rather nonchalantly about things that can be, but don’t have to be, extremely important. Did I mention the set? A lot of talk show sets look like a living room picture pulled out of a Martha Stewart magazine. Nice leather couch. I bet that’s a damn caramel macchiato with soymilk, and organic espresso too.

My point is, the set/atmosphere/shots of this television show (yes people, no matter how you look at it, it is still a television show. Daytime television nonetheless. All of the other channels are playing soaps right now.) is supposed to make everything going on seem casual and like you’re getting the more “human” side of people. I can’t believe I actually basically said that talk shows humanize people. Ha.

A few blogs ago I talked about the “hollywoodization” (that’s not a word) of gay and lesbian people. For this post I think I will combine that with politics! Yay! Clearly a topic everyone is comfortable with. Not taboo at all, perfect. I looked at the ever popular and openly gay Ellen and her daytime talk show, and her several interviews with important political figures such as McCain, and Hilary Clinton. You would never believe what Ellen has the balls to do (okay maybe not the best euphemism), “let’s talk about gay marriage,” shall we? Oh no she didn’t…

It’s a totally interesting take on politics if you ask me, the daytime talk show version of campaigning. Ellen asks all the questions that everyone really wants to know the answers too, but in a less “professional” way. It’s not like such politicians have never had to answer these questions before, it’s just that I think people expect to hear much less bullshit this way. Whether or not they get it is debatable. I think one has to have a different identity, if you will, to adapt to talk shows, their hosts, and their audiences. One needs to be extra careful how they present and represent themselves on such a show. YouTube clips of such a representation can either really help or really hurt a politician.

In the first clip I found, Ellen drops the gay marriage bomb on McCain. She tells McCain straight up: I was gonna do it anyhow, and now it’s legal and I can legally celebrate my love like everyone should, it’s only fair and natural. Well, clearly the way Ellen feels about gay marriage is ambiguous (I kid), but then she opens it up to McCain for rebuttal. McCain is brilliant at skirting around the question at first and then says he does believe in the “unique status of marriage between a man and a woman.” This might be one of the most straightforward things he says as a politician. Ellen equates this lack of rights to that of women’s and African American’s rights (or lack thereof) and tells him we are all the same, there is no different between her and McCain. McCain, probably wisely, doesn’t get into it with her, wishes her happiness, but says they simply disagree. He keeps it short and sweet, doesn’t defer much from the topic, but clearly doesn’t want to get into it at all, and therefore does not. Thank you John we agree to disagree McCain. You can see the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8

The next clip I watched was of Hillary Clinton on Ellen. Ellen prefaces the all-important question with “I don’t know if you know this, but I’m gay.” Hillary plays along and looks shocked. “WHAT??” It’s actually quite funny. Hillary then makes a terrible pun about being gay and happy..and how they mean the same thing sometimes…It was terrible. Ellen then poses her platform; she wants the same rights as people whom are not gay and married. Sounds simple enough. Ellen then spells out Clinton’s platform: she supports civil unions but not gay marriage. “Uh huh,” is Clinton’s brilliant response. Ellen’s response to that was better, “Uhhh….why?” Clinton says she’s down with civil unions with full benefits, but then she moves on to talk about the military??? What? I missed the part where that has anything to do with gay marriage. Ellen then asks the big money question “do you think it’s possible for someone to run and openly say I support gay marriage and win?” At least Hillary is honest and says she doesn’t know, but she has maintained her position for years. Well, good for you lady, but she does say that marriage should be left up to the states. Well, that is a little different than what you first said about civil unions Ms. Clinton. She says that we need to “open the door for people to define their relationships in a way that we can recognize and acknowledge.” I don’t get it…are you for gay marriage, against it or what lady? Congrats Hillary, you’re a true politician; I have no idea what the hell you are saying! This seems to prove my point though; Hillary seems to be playing up her specific host and audience, while not really defining who she is or what she stands for! But look at me in my excellent pant suit, chatting and chumming it up with my girlfriend Ellen-for the record she’s a girl that is my friend…not my girlfriend girlfriend…you know what I mean right?? Vote for me! Well played, although you seem to have a little brown on your nose Hillary. You can see the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8&feature=related

It’s interesting, recently it has become “cool” or “okay” to be gay (it wasn’t before, you know) or know someone whom is. Television and film have been the first to eat this up, take advantage of, utilize, manipulate, exploit and probably anything else one can think of-gay people and their lifestyle for the sake of television and film…whatever that means. It’s no longer taboo, with the exception of in politics. This is still an issue in which we cannot “go there.” Put a politician on television, a talk show, a talk show with a gay host, and it’s like the best 27 minutes of television ever! Dance monkey dance. It’s incredible to see them skirt around this issue. I love watching people talk about issues but never actually truly talk about them. A sociologists dream!

It appears the politicians understand the “talk show” atmosphere and philosophy and they play to that. It can truly make or break them I think. They play up their humanistic, sympathetic, “I’m for the people” kind of characteristics, although they never really delve into the issues the people really want to know and talk about. The talk show truly has a way of representing people in a unique fashion. It’s just a television show, unless your talking to Katie Couric, no one will remember what happened. Right? This is where the wonderful world of YouTube comes in. People can cut, crop, edit anything on YouTube and potentially show the world “how you really are,” or make you into something you are not at all. Vicious. Depending on which category a clip falls into, there are catalogs and numerous archives of alike clips for viewers to get their hands on, not simply one or two. YouTube clips can stereotype or prototype, or they can do just the opposite, it just depends on whom is doing what with them. Didn’t your mother ever tell you, be careful what you say? It might come back to haunt you, or rather, live in infamy on YouTube. Put that on your resume.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Did Oprah Okay That?

Yep, I’m gonna do it. Hold on. Who wants to talk about Oprah mother f-ing Winfrey?? Pardon my language, it sounds better out loud rather than read, given intonation, emphasis and whatnot. And just for fun, let’s talk about politics too. Anyone still reading?

I checked out the blog of an “online content guru” for the Chicago Sun times, Mark Bieganski. He claims to follow Oprah “like a religion” (vomit), and even Tivos the lady. I guess he’s too busy stalking Oprah (again, vomit) for me to say…get a hobby? Oh, wait. Anyhow, in September he wrote a blog entitled “Republican women's group boycotts Winfrey; put Palin on show they say. What do you think?”

Here’s the link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/oprah/2008/09/republican_womens_group_boycot.html

To sum up that particular blog entry, he “reported” that Oprah does not currently want to have Palin on her show (I vote just have Tina Fey instead..equally entertaining) because she does not want her show to be a political platform for anyone. Oprah has since given her endorsement to, and even campaigned for Obama. The 4,500 Republican woman strong group is quoted stating "[Sarah Palin] is an icon, and set her herself up to be such a women's rights and women's issues person. To have the first vice president of our lifetime on the Republican ticket being a woman and to sit it out regardless of what her personal political beliefs were was disingenuous, we felt.” Oprah claims that she would like to have Palin on the show, but only after the elections.

In response to this blog, there were numerous comments from readers mostly using the space to employ their own political agendas. The comments said one or two of basically four things; they either supported Oprah’s choice not to have Palin on the show, bashed Oprah and called her racist (of course they did), supported Palin, or bashed Palin/McCain calling them stupid or something of the sort (of course they are).

I noticed that almost all of the people responding and commenting to this blog were women (nooo).

Reader Mrs. LJ writes:

“I don't feel that Oprah should succumb to the ideas and thoughts of others and place her values and integrity on the line to please anyone or place her name on anything she doesn’t feel she has to. If so many people are for "rights", Oprah has the "right" to do what she feels and she does not have to give an explanation for her decision.”

J in Georgia agrees:

“We must remember that #1. Oprah is a woman. So what is the point of destroying one woman who has accomplished a lot to force her to put another woman on her show. Is this showing sisterhood? #2 Oprah is also African-
American, which I am sure is not the only reason she supports her long-time friend, Obama. So what are the republican women asking of this woman who has helped to make the careers of many whites and a few blacks. She has been criticized by blacks of catering more to whites. 
Are the republic women asking Oprah to give up her right to choose who appears on her show, and succumb to threats to end her career to boost another woman's career. As a woman, I need someone to explain this entire logic to me. As an African-American (who has been denied rights), and as a woman (who has been denied rights), I say Oprah should stand her ground, regardless of the consequences.”

One response by reader mportch read:

“Oprah has played the women of the world like fine flute and lead them around by the ring in there nose. Now that she got what she wanted from them (wealth and power). She is now showing them the true racist that she is. Women burn your O mags and anything else to do with her. Oprah nice color of lipstick. BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT NOW NOW.”

Reader Mae wrote:

“I am not a fan of Obama or Palin. However, I am disappointed in Oprah and hope advertisers will boycott her show. Oprah seems to care only about two things..herself and money. The sooner advertisers boycott Oprah the sooner she will reconsider being fair. Why doesn't Oprah want to discuss the issues of both parties? Oprah would certainly have Palin on if she were African American. I won't be watching Oprah anymore. Oprah seems to be a racist.”

Reader Kathy responds to reader Mae:

“You are not defined by another individual. Why? Why? Why do we feel that Oprah is the person who will define you in life? Oprah has come from the bottom of the bottom and worked her way up to the top not to be defined by any of you.
I am happy that Oprah is standing by her word unlike the 'Repuuuublican' (Republican) party.
To Mae (posting on 9/11): So, I'm assuming you do not watch the Oprah Winfrey Show because for you to say she is a racist is beyond IDIOT. Let us not judge for ye will be judged. Oprah has always had a diverse audience.
How about we fight for the issues we believe in. Stand against abuse of our VETS, children, & elders. Instead of repeating "the bridge to nowhere." How about we say "the WAR to nowhere."

Unfortunately there are Palin supporters folks, and Oprah haters if you can believe. Mrs.Mac (all dressed in black I presume) writes:

“Governor Sarah Palin has more class than anyone who would seek cheap notoriety by being a target on the Oprah Winfrey show. She can impress the voters just fine without the Queen Of Sleaze's help. I cannot imagine anyone who wastes their time listening and watching that TV drivel having enough common sense to vote for anyone who would/could do this wonderful country any real good. Gov. Palin is probably now worried about Oprah's decision.”

And then we have the multitude of Palin/McLame bashers:

Rita writes:

“This group's spokeswoman is an idiot! Palin is the SECOND woman in our lifetime to run as VP -- does the name "Geraldine Ferraro" ring a bell to her? And besides that, no woman in her right mind is going to vote for Sarah Palin because she does not believe in rights for woman. She believes that woman who are raped and get pregnant or girls who are victims of incest and get pregnant should be forced that bear that child. My body--my decision, not hers! It's not about being pro-abortion, it is about being pro-choice!!!!”

All in all I saw some people (mostly women) in here trying to have a decent conversation/post their specific opinion about the question that the author Mark Bieganski asked. Some people used it as a civilized place to post their thoughts; others used it as a forum to attack (sometimes personally) other posters or Oprah/Palin themselves. Some posters shaped their posts based off of others whom had posted before them, some went off on their own new rant, but all had the same social agenda and they all wanted to be heard (even if they couldn’t spell/type (annoying)).

There seemed to be four different types of posts: those whom were pro-Oprah, the O-haters, the Pro-Palin/McLame, and the Palin/McCain loathers. This was clearly opened up and intentionally (wisely) left open by Mark in asking, “what do you think?” This way such postings didn’t foster an attack of the main author Mark, or the Sun Times. Smart move. Imagine, there would be people then not watching Oprah, not reading Mark’s intensely interesting Oprah blog, and reading the Chicago Tribune instead.

It’s hard to imagine that people can have such potty mouths when supposedly all grown up. However, here in lies the beauty of anonymity. Anonymity gives people the power to say or do whatever they want without it coming back to them. Would such discourse prevail if all of these women were face to face in a room? Probably not if they were all interested in keeping their hair attached to their heads and their manicures looking nice.

I did only see one post that was truly in reference to another specific post. The rest were mainly general responses about their personal beliefs, another invitation to really let your opinion fly. Although different values (repub vs. demo and whathaveyou), all posters seemed to have the same purpose; here’s my opinion, hear me. No one seemed to care about being accepted or resisted by the rest of the community. Again, maybe this is due to the anonymity of it all. Or it could the fact that no one really responded to anyone’s post in particular (except the one). Maybe no one even bothered to read anyone else’s post and only wanted to get their point across. I think the real winner here is that Mark used an open-ended question. He did not (until later) post his personal opinion about the issue, and left it to his readers to fight out. Well played Mark. The only thing these posters could say to him is hey-thanks for providing the space for us to complain about out daytime talk show preferences-with a touch of politics.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Gay Is The New Black

YES! First and foremost I need to say that I am lovin’ that I have a class in which it is totally acceptable for me to do what I’m about to do. Well, I may be assuming that (and we all know what happens when one does that) but I’m gonna do it anyhow. To those whom may be offended…I’m sorry but I have as much sympathy for you as I do the devil..excellent Grateful Dead song… Anyone? I know, I’m heartless. Anyhow, this week we were to look at a particular phenomena and comment on its portrayal in the media. My choice? Gays and lesbians! Why? Because we’re all hypocrites and I am indeed the jerk whom loves to point that out. You’re welcome.

Hey! Remember that show Ellen? Remember how it was a great show, it was funny and everyone (most people) loved it? I do. That was until the famous last episode where Ellen said…(clearing the throat) I’M GAY! Aaannnd….then she went off the air. Wait? Ellen is gay? (Duh.) Gasp! We can’t have gays and lesbians (don’t forget your queers and the rest of the GLBT group) on television!! That way people will know they are real! Please excuse my dripping sarcasm but seriously..it was once taboo to have anything to do with gays and lesbians. They were people to fear or feel sorry for. And now all of a sudden they are novelty items (think we’re #1 foam fingers)?? Remember Rosy O’Donnell…like you could forget. Again, everyone loved her (?). She was funny, loud (obnoxious), pretended like she loved Tom Cruise for us (like we don’t all do that), and was a huge hit until she came out (OMG of course she’s a lesbian you guys). Then…poof! There went her awesome talk show. Oxymoron.

Sorry, there were a lot of parentheticals in there. I’ll do better.

However, these days most people would be lying if they said they weren’t amused and even if secretly, liked “just Jack” and his jazz hands from Will and Grace. How about the fantastically dressed telling you how to dress Tim Gunn? And you know damn well you wished you had a queer eye for your straight guy self and your terrible Ikea clad bachelor pad! Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down yet? It is no longer hip to be a square my friends. Gay is the new black.

The point here folks is that the gay and lesbian community, up until recently, had to be censored and strained through a “mainstream” and non-gay/queer/whathaveyou filter that resulted in a televised picture of gay life that was “acceptable” and non-offensive to the masses. So..you can be gay without actually BEING gay…so long as your ratings are high. Actually, Will and Grace represents this quite well. Both Jack and Will are gay. However, there is very little conversation about being gay or having gay relationships, and either character is rarely shown in a romantic situation. So…great…at least we are including the gay and lesbian community in the media, but it also still marginalizes them and almost always stereotypes them..oh the flamboyance.

Sociology has traditionally been concerned with inequality and social change, both of which are constituents of the study of homosexuality. Big time social theorist Michel Foucault, as a highly influential post-modern thinker, helped bring about the idea that “knowledge is not a set of truths but instead a set of socially constructed beliefs, and that no one knowledge is more credible than any other knowledge.” Hmm. You mean, the way you think is no better or no more “correct” than the way I think? Noooo….. And there was a bit in there about “social construction” too I think. So what I’m supposed to know and think is based upon what my society constructs as acceptable and important. Umm..curious here..but what happens if this socially constructed “knowledge” is false or conveniently leaving important pieces out?? Wait..that doesn’t happen. Especially in the media. This is my point, at least within a sociological framework (the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society everyone) we are brave and sensitive enough to view/research the gay and lesbian members of society and their identities not as they “should” be seen but as they are and as they change, paying special attention to the difficulties and complexities that surround them. Sociological explanations say “the structure of society leaves room for changes in an individual's sexuality and gender throughout the life course.” Media, on the other hand, continues to distort and exploit this community for the benefit of the mainstream masses…so long as the ratings are high.