The (televised) press is broken

"...the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."

The mind, it is boggled.

From Carrie Brownstein's Monitor Mix, an excerpt from an interview Brownstein did with a producer from The Bachelor (yes, I know):

Q: What tricks or strategies does the show employ to amp up the drama and tension during the taping of the show?

A: Well, in the private one on one interviews with a producer (like me) it is the producers job to get the sh*t talking started, like "tell me honestly what you think of Sally" -- if the interviewee does not want to respond in a catty way then the producer will usually go to the next level, like "well I personally think she is a self absorbed, attention starved skank," and then see if the person will take the bait. Once you start learning who in the house is not well liked it is easy to start seeding conversations and gossip. Also, if the conversations linger too long on favorite movies and stuff the producers will step in a say, "ok we all know we signed up for a TV show -- so if you don't start talking about something more topical then you can't have the sushi you requested tonight." The smarter cast members start to realize that everything can be bartered. Like, "I will give you a good one-on-one interview about Sally, IF you let me listen to my iPod for the rest of the day."

It's like the opposite of ethical.

If maintaining people's dignity is at all important... ah, never mind.

"Male-Bashing" on TV from PopMatters

Some time back I ran across or was otherwise directed to (I can't really remember anymore) this article on male-bashing on television from PopMatters, an "international magazine of cultural criticism."

I was pretty skeptical before I started reading the 2003 article, as 'male-bashing' is almost always a synonym for 'bemoaning the loss of male power'.

While it turned out to be in the same vein, it was a little less transparently patriarchal than that.

The central claim of the article:

Welcome to the new comic image of men on tv: incompetence at its worst. Where television used to feature wise and wonderful fathers and husbands, today's comedies and ads often feature bumbling husbands and inept, uninvolved fathers.

...

While most television dramas tend to avoid gender stereotypes, as these undermine "realism," comic portrayals of men have become increasingly negative. The trend is so noticeable that it has been criticized by men's rights groups and some television critics.

OK, so maybe I was being charitable when I said it wasn't transparently patriarchal.
"Men's rights groups" are almost always men who are angry about their perceived loss of power and who see power as a zero-sum game in which female gain = male loss. Males interested in genuine equality tend to end up like Robert Jensen: working against masculinity itself.

Anyway, the obvious question to ask here is why - as in why have comic portrayals of men become 'increasingly negative'? (I am actually skeptical that they've become increasingly negative, but I have neither the the time nor inclination to check that claim out.)

Sadly, the article fails to answer the question - and this is as close as it gets:

"Some feminists might argue that, for decades, women on tv looked mindless, and that turnabout is fair play."

"Some feminists?" Can you say logical fallacy?

Not to mention the fact that this is entirely circumstantial... and isn't even really a reason for the supposed change. Instead, it's a potshot at feminism is general by way of claiming that "some [unnamed] feminists" might like to see men portrayed as buffoons.

So what? Some men might like to see other men portrayed as buffoons too - which is just as plausible if not more so, since, last time I checked, men still control the entertainment industry.

I'm willing to grant the author of the article the benefit of the doubt and suppose he would agree that it's still a problem if men are producing shows that make men look like idiots. But if that's the case, then we've got to throw the silly men vs. women paradigm out the window, and I highly doubt the author is ready to do that.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of feminists disagree with sitcoms as much or more than this poor guy does; after all, no one wins (especially straight women) when the role models for men are frackin' Kevin James and Ray Romano.

Verdict: This is a piece of whiny fluff that attempts to blame women for something women, as a class, have no control over. Mayhap the author should start thinking about why focus groups of men like male characters who are idiots. The answer to that question is far more telling anyway.

For the record, I can't stop thinking about Knocked Up or Superbad in relation to this article. Or Will Ferrell.

It's so obvious that homophobia is built into masculinity, etc. etc.

From a WSJ article:

Mr. Iwanyk, 32 years old, first suspected that his TiVo thought he was gay, since it inexplicably kept recording programs with gay themes. A film studio executive in Los Angeles and the self-described "straightest guy on earth," he tried to tame TiVo's gay fixation by recording war movies and other "guy stuff."

"The problem was, I overcompensated," he says. "It started giving me documentaries on Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Eichmann. It stopped thinking I was gay and decided I was a crazy guy reminiscing about the Third Reich."

Notice how the logical progression created by the TiVo leads from "gay stuff" to "manly stuff" to fascism?

TiVo must have an advanced degrees in gender studies.

Or perhaps Mr. Iwanyk is thinking like a well-socialized man. Rationality leads to irrational outcomes, or something.

Aliens in America

I think I've mentioned this show before (as has the unflappable Eric Stoller), but I wanted to mark the presence of a couple more things related to the show.

First, this review from Newsweek:

[T]he conceit of "Aliens" is couched in post-9/11 xenophobia...A teacher turns [Raja's] religion and ethnicity into a class discussion, in which one girl innocently says, "I feel angry because his people blew up the towers in New York." Cue the laugh track.

...

They are the aliens in the show's title—Raja because he's a visitor from a distant world, Justin because, well, he's a geek. But equating Raja's exclusion with Justin's minimizes the psychological stress that comes from racial discrimination. It's similar to the person who hears that his friend's parent has passed away and thinks he's sympathizing when he says, "I know how you feel. I was a complete wreck when my goldfish died." That isn't to say social exclusion doesn't hurt, too, but as we've seen time and again through then-and-now photos of glamorous Hollywood stars, geek washes off, Pakistani doesn't.

...

"Aliens" [doesn't] work because the subtlety required to explore racial dynamics doesn't mix well with the broad strokes required of a network sitcom. The result is two shows about intolerance that feel intolerant in their worst moments, and emotionally disconnected from the subject matter at best.

Yup. Still barfing. Still a pathetically bad show.

On the other hand, there is this biting and spot-on comment from the actor that plays Raja (South African Adhir Kalyan):

One writer asked Kalyan if he experienced culture shock, coming to the U.S. from South Africa. His reply: "In truth, the only thing I found difficult to deal with coming to the States is the size of the portions of food. Really -- I mean, really, do we need portions that are that big? I mean, Africa doesn't need Bono. Africa doesn't need Geldof. Africa needs a Denny's grand-slam breakfast."

Burn.

Arrested Development

After being encouraged to watch that show for a long time, I finally rented the first season. I'm almost done with it, but I'm not very excited about the possibility of renting the next season. Here's why:

The hilarious and brilliant one-liners and contrived situations in Arrested Development do not make up for the fact that I cannot stand to watch sitcoms that are ultimately based on the premise of having complete idiots for characters. I can't do it anymore. It's not funny. It's just tragic and stupid.

The character played by David Cross in particular is totally and completely unbelievable. It actually reminds of the Sarah Silverman Show, which is like a death sentence for me.

In fact, I think I might just hate the sitcom format, since it doesn't allow for genuine character development and instead relies on formula. But that's not news.

The Simpsons Movie

Ezra Klein says almost exactly what I was thinking about the Simpsons movie:

It was a film during which the lead female character realized her husband was a senseless brute who would always put his happiness before her own, and where her son realized the father was an abusive drunk who was continually denying him the emotional support and family environment he needed. And unlike in most Simpson's episodes, both characters recognized these truths fully, and abandoned Homer to begin new lives elsewhere. And shortly thereafter, both took him back, tossing away their opportunities for personal growth and fulfillment despite there being no evidence of an enduring change in their tormentor's psyche. It was a tremendous demonstration of the self-destructive mentality of the abused, and in that, quite unsettling.

The only thing I take exception with is that I think The Simpsons is pretty much par for the course when it comes to the portrayal of heterosexual relationships on television, i.e. pretty pathetic. Certainly it was no worse than, say, Family Guy.

UPDATE: I should add that I was really, really happy when the family ditched Homer, but I just knew that it being The Simpsons, they would get back together again before the movie was over. It always works that way in our patriarchal culture.

Nevertheless, a tiny bit of me held out hope that they would ditch the bum. One good deed - saving Springfield - in no way makes up for so much bad behavior.

Sounds Like Another Excuse to Attack Feminism To Me

Apparently I'm on a mission to out bad upcoming TV shows. Via Feministing, a new Fox show called When Women Ruled the World.

Full stop.

Feminism isn't about women ruling the world. Well, most feminism, anyway. There are a few strands....but I digress. Let me repeat that:

FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT WOMEN BEING IN CHARGE OF MEN.

From the Fox website:

The unscripted series will reveal how women and men react in a world where women are in charge and men are subservient, and each gender’s ability to adapt to a new social order will be put to the test.

Is that an admission we live in a patriarchy? It sure sounds like it to me. Quick - some body tell Fox News! It's true - hordes of old white guys actually does count as a society where men are in charge, no matter how much they complain!

Sorry about that. It's early, and I'm tired and cranky. No coffee yet.

Anyway, I get the feeling this is all a giant platform from which to bash women. Why would I say that? Well, here's another excerpt from the Fox site:

How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? [emphasis mine]

And since Fox will undoubtedly pick a bunch of folks for whom it will be impossible to get along - it wouldn't really be a show if it worked, now would it? - the answer will inevitably be no.

UPDATE: A comment on the show from Echidne of the Snakes:

Feminists are all about equality, not about reversing the power relationships. But Fox is all about male dominance, and this show is intended to prop that up.

...

I'm the polite blogger, yanno. Well, I've just had my fill about politeness today. Fuck those Fox assholes. Fuck them for making fun of the real injustices and troubles the majority of women have to endure in this world. Fuck them for making it into a game to prop up their own petty feelings of threatened masculinity. Fuck them for their disgusting slimy bias and their silly little commercial brains. Fuck them for having the empathy of a toe cheese.

And most of all, fuck them to the deepest hell for suggesting that the only alternative to the current system is some perverse upside version of more of the same.

I think she captures how I feel pretty well.

CBS Sinks to a New Low

I just saw an ad on television for a new show called Kid Nation.

After the ad ended, I found myself saying "no no no no no no" over and over while shaking my head in disbelief. Even Wendy seemed shocked by what we had just seen, and she has a much higher tolerance for bad television.

It turns out the premise of Kid Nation is none other than Lord of the Flies: Put a bunch of kids together in a place with no adults and see what happens. In this case, they are putting the children in an abandoned town named Bonanza in New Mexico.

The TV trailer had all the things you would expect in that situation: Kids crying, yelling at each other, trying to do 'adult' things like (apparently) trying to catch pigs that happened to be larger than they were.

The major difference between Kid Nation and Lord of the Flies?

LORD OF THE FLIES WASN'T REAL, YOU SICK FUCKERS. THIS IS CHILD ABUSE.

Let's ponder this for a second: These kids - who are aged 8-15 - cannot give informed consent in this case. They are not equipped with the mental, intellectual, or emotional tools that would allow them to handle this situations they will be placed in.

Furthermore, what the fuck is wrong with the parents of these children? Especially those parents with younger children?

Furthermore, how is this even legal? Not that legality should be the minimum standard here - given the nature of the show, I am holding this to a higher moral and ethical standard.

...

Browsing around for some information, I found a Wikipedia entry on Kid Nation. It states that the children are on the Imus Ranch, which according to its Wikipedia entry, houses children with cancer and other serious illnesses. It is not clear if the children of Kid Nation are ill in any fashion or not. I don't consider any of that to count as mediating information.

Finally, there is the CBS website for the show, which contains almost no information other than the trailer.

I did not make it through the trailer. I had to stop when they had a kid get up in front of everyone else and say something to the effect of "we have to do this to prove to adults that we can get stuff done and organize a society." It was just too scripted to be believable.

Between Kid Nation and Aliens in America, I'm feeling less generous than ever towards the television industry. More on this lousy trend later. I hope the outcry is tremendous and CBS decides never to make another season again.

Stupid American Racism, Continued

Eric recently posted about a new show from CW - go read his post, then mine, because mine is essentially an extended comment/reaction/liveblogging of the trailer (which can be viewed here):

So I'm trying to play the devil's advocate...maybe the folks at CW think they are 'humanizing' the Pakistani Muslim kid?

...

Watching the trailer....*puke* It's going to be bad. It has that feel, like it would have been bad in the 80's (but at least it would have fit in).

Did they really just imply that the most shunned kid in school (who is nevertheless good-looking and smart) is ten times more acceptable and "normal" than a Pakistani Muslim kid by default? They did. Shamelessly.

I am speechless. This kind of shit really fucks with high school students who really struggle in the hell that is the high school social world.

Did they just have a student accuse the protagonist of being gay because he didn't view his sister's breasts as sex objects?

Barf.

At least now I know where the high school students I worked with last spring got all the crap they were spewing at each other.

...because it's totally natural to be freaked out by Muslims and/or Pakistanis.

"If I ordered a coffeemaker and I got a toaster I'd return that." - the mother, as a reference to unexpectedly hosting a Pakistani Muslim exchange student (rather than a tall, Nordic, blond dude).

It's almost too obvious to have to say, but: When you make a joke like that, the reason it's funny is that you just objectified a human being and made them into an object - and then rejected them. When combined with the fact that the person making the joke (except she wasn't joking) is white and the person on the receiving end is a person of color, wow! RACISM!

...One More Time:

The teacher on the first day of class: "For one year, we will be in the presence of a real live Pakistani." The catch is that we're supposed to view the teacher as backwards and ignorant, but the only reason that's in the show is that it validates the ignorance of the viewer. It doesn't really work otherwise - 'Oh, since no one else knows anything about Pakistan or Muslims, it's OK if I remain ignorant.'

Um, no.

The teacher also called Islam 'Muslimism.'

/liveblogging. I couldn't take any more.

This kind of shit leads to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and a thousand others.

This kind of ignorance leads to fear, which encourages dominance and hierarchy of the "unknown Other," which leads to pain, violence, and death.

It also prevents the development of empathy and compassion, since they are predicated on deep knowledge of other people, and this is predicated on stereotypes and caricatures.

In other words, I'm with Eric: This show needs to be canned (and the creators fired). Now.