White Washed Broadway

In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing.  That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.    

The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy.  The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.

Interviews

I have been a slacker and haven't posted the interviews I've done over the past few weeks with media outlets.  I was interviewed for a story for Forbes.com about the changing role of fathers on television.  I was also interviewed for a story for Christian Science Monitor about celebrity and youth cultures. 

What Are the Rules for Celebrity Forgiveness?

A conversation I saw on Facebook caused me to think: what are the rules for celebrity transgression (and subsequent forgiveness)?  Last night's BET Awards featured performances by both Kanye West and Chris Brown.  For those who have been living under a pop culture rock, Kanye West famously interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Music Awards and ended up looking like an asshole to just about everyone.

Fame Monster

Before I even start this post, I have to go on record saying that I am not a fan of Lady Gaga (or Lady Caca as many in the media call her).  I don't find her music particularly interesting or innovative.  What is innovative and interesting in many ways is the way in which she has creating the Gaga brand.  Let's not forget that before she created Lady Gaga, she was just a singer/songwriter toiling away trying to make it big (like thousands of people before and since her rise to fame). 



With a few crazy costumes and a danceable beat, she has become a worldwide phenomenon sparking college courses and treatises on her persona and female empowerment.  Now she's has even been banned from the Yankees' clubhouse and was accused of upstaging her sister's graduation while "attempting" to not upstage her.

On one hand, one could argue that Lady Gaga is in some ways eschewing the idea of a culture industry, developed by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer which says that pop culture is an industry that produces standardized good for mass consumption, but that would only be true if she really pushed music forward and I don't believe she does that.  Perhaps she is pushing boundaries with her elaborate costumes, but one could argue that Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City accomplishes that as well with her often ridiculous outfits. What I think is really at work is that, to borrow her own words and use them against her, she's become a fame monster.

It seems that she just can't stay out of the spotlight. It seems the antics she tries to pull off as "just being Gaga" feel calculated for maximum publicity value.  What makes it grating for her and somewhat endearing for someone like Kathy Griffin is that at least Griffin will admit what she's doing.  Certainly, we (collectively speaking) are not without fault.  If we cease to buy magazines that print stories about Lady Gaga (and other celebrities) or watch the endless parade of newsertainment programs that report every detail of a celebrity's life, maybe it'd all just go away.           

Quote of the Day

"Oh, the gays are getting miffed! Don't tell us we're too gay or not or whatever. Oh lord, what is gay, anyway? Find me the line -- find me the defining line between gay and straight. Find me the defining line between male and female. There is no line. You cannot draw this line in the sand. Yes, there are plenty of people way over there who will never partake in anything straight and there are people way over there who will never partake in anything gay, but there's a whole lot of gray in the middle. Where's the line? Behind all of it is sexual insecurity. It's sexphobia."

-- Melissa Etheridge on the Newsweek "controversy" over Sean Hayes being "too gay" to play straight.

Donna Brazil: Speaker of Truth?

I am usually not a fan of Donna Brazil, but she has spoken the truth.  Brazil says that if she could get rid of one thing in the world, that'd be pundits.  Amen!  She says:

If a single move could restore civility to politics, that is it. Get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth. If your only credentials are "GOP shill" or "Democratic hack," you've no business cluttering up the airwaves or the op-ed pages. My momma always told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep your mouth shut. That's good advice.

Whom do we put in their place? I say replace the pundits with people who have genuine expertise -- whether from their academic work, professional life or personal experience -- on the key issues of the day. Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the "tea party" preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes, let's hear from doctors and insurance professionals, or the number-crunchers from the Congressional Budget Office. They're much better equipped to help viewers, listeners and readers wade through the facts, arguments and data.

 We'd have a much more informed public if we could just get rid of this one thing.  But we won't. And the reason we won't is because many will make the argument that regular folk and those with actual knowledge (not to infer that ALL of the pundits who are "approved" by producers don't have knowledge) don't make for "good TV."

Lena Horne goes to that Emerald City in the Sky

Legendary singer, actress and activist died at the age of 92 yesterday in New York.  Sadness...

But, we'll see what effect this has on her career.  As Chris Rojek reminds us in his brilliant book Celebrity, death can be the greatest thing for a celebrity's career.   

From "The Voice" to "Punchline"

How in the hell did Whitney Houston go from "The Voice" to (inter)national punchline?  While Maya Rudolph pales in comparison to Debra Wilson's Whitney Houston, the out of breath "Whitney" is Hi-Larious particularly given her (reportedly) horrible concert performances as of late.

Entertained to Stupidity

If a celebrity (or fauxlebrity) makes a statement in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer to the question is only if we follow them on Twitter and it then gets reported all across the Internet. As someone who has worked in PR for more than 10 years, I certainly know a thing or two about manufacturing news, but the proliferation of the Internet as a growing source of information seems to have multiplied this to the nth degree. We are constantly bombarded with news of mistresses "speaking out," explicit email revelations and encouraged to take sides in celebrity and fauxlebrity splits.

The Thrill is Gone: The American Idol and Dancing with the Stars Backlash

Since the Industrial Revolution, our culture has been driven by consumerism and consumption.  VHS became passé so we culturally moved on to the "superior" DVD.  The same argument can  be made for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars this year.  For American Idol, my belief is that the argument holds true as early as Season 5, but I won't get into that.  I don't think American Idol's problem this year is a true lack of talent (there are certainly contestants on the show who have vocal talent) rather the problem is that culturally, we're simply over it.  The newness has worn off and American Idol has become just another reality show. 

It's All in the Context: Erykah Badu and Nudity

Erykah Badu has never been one to suppress her artistic side.  And she is making news for being "artistic" in her new music video for the lead single from her new CD The New Amerykah Pt. 2: Return of the Ankh.  In the video for Window Seat, Badu strips naked while walking through downtown Dallas to the site where JFK was assassinated before herself being assassinated and bleeding the word "group think"  then in a voiceover says:

"They who play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand.  They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual."

Whose Side Are You On? Celebrity and the Culture of Binaries

We live in a world that is often black and white with no shades of gray. You're either for health care reform or against it. You either support war or you're unpatriotic. We are constantly asked to choose sides in our culture. But never is choosing sides more absurd than when it comes to celebrities. I was reminded of this penchant for the news media to choose sides and then in their reporting make us chose a side as well when I (begrudgingly) watched CNN last week. The "impartial, just delivering the news" anchor Kyra Phillips decided to call Jesse James, Sandra Bullock's husband, a jerk in the course of delivering the news that Sandra Bullock had moved out of the family home in Los Angeles. Kyra Phillips was definitely on Team Sandy.

It's not just limited to coverage of marital/relationship discord (although there are many examples like Team Jen or Team Angie) but also reared its head when we were to chose between Team Coco (Conan O'Brien) or Team Jay (Leno). What's puzzling is that we make these decisions in a knowledge vacuum. As Chris Rojek says in his brilliant book Celebrity "one peculiar tension in celebrity culture is that the arousal of strong emotion [for celebrities] is attained despite the absence of direct personal reciprocity." In other words, we refer to celebrities by first name or by nicknames yet we have so little knowledge about them that would offer us the license to refer to them on friendly terms. For example, Mariah Carey is Mimi, Jennifer Aniston is Jen and Sandra Bullock is Sandy (maybe it's a female thing?). In addition, we have unimonikered people in our culture who go by their first name only: Beyonce, Madonna and for some (or most) gay men when you hear Liza, Bette, Diana, Tina, or Barbara, there can be no doubt about the person being discussed.

There have been some pretty nasty things written about Tiger Woods in light of his extramarital affairs (as well as Jesse James and many other celebrities who have admitted to having sexual relationships with people with whom they are not attached). But the fact remains that we know nothing about them. Perhaps Tiger Woods and his wife had an agreement that sexual monogamy is not an important aspect of their marriage (like Mo'Nique and her husband) and the media's focus on the relationship is really about Elin being embarrassed that the sexual dalliances of her husband have come to light. Maybe Sandra Bullock isn't really America's Sweetheart and is a bear to live with who refused to have sex with her husband. I doubt this is the case with either Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock, but it illuminates that we just don't have enough information to be able to make the call about who wins when Team Sandy is going head to head with Team Jesse, or Team Tiger vs. Team Elin.

This binary also speaks to the way in which our culture has socially constructed marriage and monogamy. Culturally, we give Mo'Nique the collective "side eye" when she says that one of the partner's "infidelity" is not necessarily a reason to dissolve the relationship -- particularly if we believe that about 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Who said marriage (or serious relationships for that matter) had to be based on monogamy? We have culturally tied something carnal (sex) to something emotional (love) when the two are not really related. Maybe it is for the best that we live in monogamous relationships, but it's our modern creation and it hasn't been around "forever." And even in the Mo'Nique monogamy situation, we're asked to be on Team Monogamy or Team Open Marriage. Stories on the Internet urge us to make a choice with titles like Are Open Relationships Better?, Is Mo'Nique's Open Relationship Sexist? and Do Open Relationships Equal Insecurity? As Matt Bianco asks us, whose side are you on?

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Are White Dolls Worth More than Black Ones?

For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."



It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.

But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.

I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).

The One Where Meredith Vieira Does Not Like Man-on-Man Hugging

The places that one sees, if not homophobia, at least someone questioning male-to-male affection, is astounding. This from the Today Show wherein Meredith Vieira implies that two men hugging is cause for concern and essentially not normal. Her coded language is really saying, "That hug was really 'gay'. Are you gay?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I do like how Anthony Mackie shuts her down and essentially, to borrow a phrase from South Park, calls shenanigans on her ludicrous line of questioning. And kudos to Al Roker (words I never thought I'd type) for incredulously asking, "Why would you ask that?!?!?!?"



Why does our society still support such antiquated notions of masculinity? Why does this (or Adam Lambert's AMA performance) raise eyebrows in a way that two women hugging/celebrating doesn't?

Movies and Financial Education

Here's a story for bankrate.com for which I was interviewed to discuss what movies teach us about money.

What is Maleness and Femaleness?

There's no need to rip out the front page when I say that we live in a gendered society. And even though we are more than 100 years past the events most often associated with the start of the Women's Rights Movement and about 50 years from the start of second wave feminism, gendering all things in life is, unfortunately alive and well.

As a male, I sometimes forget just how gendered society is and on the occasion that I do forget, it's usually something like the image for this week's cover of Life & Style magazine that slaps me back into reality. In the interest of framing, Life & Style is not The New Yorker. But with a circulation of nearly 500,000, it is certainly worth taking seriously from a media message dissemination perspective (not to mention the millions of people who at least see the headline as they are checking out at the grocery store).

This article is particularly egregious by implying that there are things that are uniquely male and those that are uniquely female -- namely haircuts. Or more to the point, it seems that the editors of Life & Style are implying that short hair equals masculine. While it extends far beyond the issue of race, the trailer from Chris Rock's film Good Hair, provides a great example of how hair is constructed as feminine.



Certainly, from a Marxist perspective one can look at hair as a capitalist endeavor that lines the pockets of beauticians and manufacturers (bourgeoisie) who specialize in hair extensions and weaves while simultaneously exploiting those (proletariat) women in other countries who sometimes cut their hair for religious reasons only to have it sold/used for capitalist reasons. And let's be clear, women of all races and ethnicities participate in this marketplace.

But beyond that, our society is set us as a host of binaries that always privilege one binary over the other: Men/Women. Heterosexual/Homosexual. White/Black. These binaries help us to frame things where we define things by what they are not. In other words, a woman is not a man or a homosexual is not heterosexual -- effectively setting up those things that are "not" as somehow deviant or less than the thing to which they are being compared.

So, why is Shiloh Jolie-Pitt considered less female because she has shorter hair? Why can't she rock a pair of jeans and a polo without having her "girlness" called into question? And most importantly, why would Life & Style question whether or not her (and her parent's) refusal to wholeheartedly adapt to gender norms might somehow harm her?

Certainly, Life & Style knows that news about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sells magazines, but they also have to be aware that they are helping to brainwash a nation of people into believing that by wearing certain things, or looking a certain way you are able (and rightly should) perform gender. And as icing on the cake, Life & Style also have a story about how Vienna "tricked" Jake on The Bachelor positioning her as cunning and sneaky -- but that's another conversation altogether.

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.

Sex and the Singing: American Idol and Gender

The real competition portion of American Idol starts tonight. As such, there has (for whatever reason) been a blitz of American Idol judges giving interviews about the show. One such interview was Randy Jackson appearing on the Ellen Degeneres Show. And while the interview was fairly inane one comment he made struck me: he said that they (the judges) wanted a girl to win this year. (Skip ahead to 1:50 in the video below)

And when you think about him favoring a girl to win and why he might say that, one only has to look at American Idol's track record. As Jon Caramanica points out in his New York Times piece, Idol's track record as a bonafide star-making machine has been spotty at best with Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood the only winners who have emerged as real music stars. Other Idol successes include Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson (although her singing success has been eclipsed by her success as an actress). So, it's really no wonder that Randy Jackson wants a girl to win (and my guess is that he'd like a white girl to win since Idol's success with girls of color has not been stellar either; see Fantasia and Jordin Sparks).

Arguably, American Idol has become less of a singing contest and more of a vehicle for exposure, thanks in large part to contestants who haven't even cracked the top 24 (or 36) like William Hung and General Larry Platt, but most damaging have been Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson who finished seventh and fourth respectively -- who proved that you don't have to be named the next American Idol in order to achieve success. Jennifer Hudson went on to win almost every acting award imaginable for her role in Dreamgirls and Chris Daughtry, as front man of the band Daughtry, was one of the most successful artists of 2007.

With those two glaring exceptions to the rule and other Idol winners (and runner-ups) being dropped from their labels and heading to Broadway (Fantasia in The Color Purple, Ruben Studdard in Ain't Misbehavin', Diana DiGarmo in a host of Broadway productions, and Taylor Hicks in Grease) it makes sense that Idol would want to try to capture any remaining music industry cred by having a bonafide star emerge from the show. The problem isn't talent -- the person who emerges victorious on American Idol can always sing (despite the efforts of websites like Vote For the Worst) but that most bonafide musicians aren't auditioning for the show. When those who are voted off the show (or any reality show for that matter) claim that we'll hear from them again, in most cases we won't. And for those who thank their fans when they are voted off, you don't really have any fans. You have spectators and as we've seen with American Idol winners, just because millions of people voted for you to win the competition, those same millions are not going to go out and buy your record.

A Kiss is Still a Kiss: White Heteronormativity and the movie Valentine's Day

Garry Marshall you owe me $6!

Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.


According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.

Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.

I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.