NYCweboy

The Darn Thing Has Wings!

The Emmy Awards are silly.

I wouldn't bother to share this insight, but I tripped over the fact, just now, that today was the "official release of the Emmy nominations," a showing of pomp and circumstance meant, like all things Emmy, to emulate the actual suspense around the reveal of the Oscar nominations; TV still suffers from movie envy. 

If you want a quick indication of the pointlessness of the Emmys, here's a few obvious examples: Mariska Hargitay's umpteenth nomination for SVU, long past the point the show, or her performance, is anything to write home about. Or the "so sorry about Charlie Sheen" nomination for Jon Cryer of Two and a Half Men, nobody's idea of a brilliant comic performance.

How about this? The program with the most nominations of any show is Mildred Pierce, HBO's bloated remake of James M. Cain's noir potboiler, which premiered to dismal reviews and compares weakly to the 1945 film (or, as we like to call it, Joan Crawford's Oscar). Even if it's decent (I haven't seen it, and I'd bet Downton Abbey, the BBC miniseries for masterpiece actually wins), does it deserve 21 nominations? I'm guessing no.

And those 21 categories are just the tip of the Emmy iceberg.

It's an odd moment for television; I can't remember a time where so much good episodic television is being produced, nor a time when network television was as generally poor. The great work of producing television, really, is off the network path, whether it's the cable channels that mimic network like TNT and USA, or the higher end efforts of HBO and Showtime, or even the upstart work of mini-net the CW. The options are so wide and varied, it is, in some sense, no wonder that the Emmys can't possibly take it all in. What's sad, and has always been sad, is that the Emmys rarely reflect the boldest, or most innovative efforts in series television, going back to, say Twilight Zone or Star Trek - reflecting a general failure to respect science fiction - up through ignoring shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Emmy Awards generally play catch up, or reward, as is often noted, movie stars willing to slum on the small screen.

This year, among the overlooked: Burn Notice, Southland (now on TNT), Rizzoli and Isles, The Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Archer, RuPaul's Drag Race (tell me, really, how So You Think You Can Dance is better). That's just off the top of my head, and the top of my viewing interests. Yes, the Emmys were quick to recognize Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire (both of which I'd like to see), and recognized the bright spots of NBC's comedy lineup as welll as the obvious necessity to reward The Good Wife. But still; the Emmy Awards continue to reward industry darlings, movie stars, and marketing ploys. Want another example? How about Betty White's forgettable performance in Hot In Cleveland, an altogether pointless excuse for a sitcom? It's embarrassing, and as I said, it becomes silly to try and take the nominations seriously, never mind the awards.

I mention all of thie because it's a good moment to plug a couple of blogs I read for entertainment news. One, most obviously, is Deadline Hollywood, which still showcases the genius and reporting godlike qualities of Nikki Finke, along with a new band of hardy coanchors. Nellie Andreeva is their main TV reporter, and she is generally great, though her Emmy coverage is depressingly conventional, and tends to accept the status quo. 

The other blog I feel compelled to mention is Alyssa Rosenberg's new effort over at Think Progress, which is devoted to "cultural criticism", the kind of blog idea that makes me slightly green with envy... except that, as good as she is, Rosenberg's blog is interesting only in starts and fits. She's settled into too many TV series recaps (her Burn Notice recaps seem especially poorly conceived), and her overall insights on film and television are, too often, pedestrian and kind of obvious. Still, she's a bracing feminist critic and she's clearly passionate about the material, if muddy on her overall concept. 

But here's the thing: I expect, as with Deadline, that Rosenberg will take apart the nominee lists, pick her favorites, and generally cheerlead the run up to the awards. And I think that's giving the Emmys a seriousness that they just haven't earned. When they do, if they ever can... that's an interesting question. And one worth pondering. For such a pretty award, it's a shame it's just so... silly.

Ted Williams And The Magical Solution

Amidst all the media and cultural self satisfaction being expressed for "finding" Ted Williams, a homeless man in Ohio with a wonderful speaking voice, ought to get a reality check.

And the reality check is this: It's wonderful that one man has been found and appreciated for his talents, and possibly been lifted out of poverty and homelessness... but one "magical" story does not this nation's deep poverty and affordable housing problem, and to pretend otherwise is to encourage dangerous fallacies about our society and all we do not actually do to help those in need.

A wonderful "human interest" story, well timed to the general news lull that happens around the end of the year, the discovery of Ted Williams and his voice fits a frustrating pattern about society's need to feel that we can "do something" for the less fortunate, especially when a special taent is involved. Another slightly sad, somewhat nice example of this is Susan Boyle, the middle aged woman with the talent for singing who went on to win Britain's X Factor (and a reason to worry more: "X Factor America" launches this spring).

This storyline is not new, not in America, and probably not across a much longer and wider span of history. It probably matters somewhat that we live in these sped up, viral, internet driven times where one video can suddenly be everywhere, all at once. But the idea of public fascination with a slightly freakish talent, and a story of isolation or poverty, is all too familiar.

Like most anyone, I'm glad to see that Ted Williams has been able to find work, a place to stay, to be reunited with his family. What's disconcerting, for me, was the cheery way both the CBS Morning News and the Today show, the very next day, both congratulated themselves for "saving" Mr. Williams and trotted him out to put on display. At the top of their shows. As if nothing else in the world mattered quite so much.

Neither show, naturally, could be bothered to examine homelessness or poverty, or other relevant topics (like, maybe, addiction or mental illness) to put Mr. Williams' situation into a context, and to raise awareness of just how much need there is across this country.

We are, painfully, in a moment where many local and state governments are considering major cuts in their budgets, cuts that will likely mainly and disproportionately affect people in poverty. At the federal level, a newly resurgent Republican party, driven by conservatives who believe firmly in "self sufficiency" arguments about poverty and homelessness, plans to do little to support people in need.

The magical story of Ted Williams is simply the latest story in which Americans get told that it's fine to not worry about homelessness and poverty, or to feel that we do enough if one case, an exceptional case, is found, rescued and saved. Patronizing, simplistic, the worst flaw in this is that the storyline is simply not true. No one, really, has been "saved." One person has simply received an extremely lucky break. One that most people are unlikely to find, or receive, or be chosen for.

And helping Ted Williams is in no way a national plan to address our poverty problems. And the problem is... I think Americans like to believe it is.

The Media Is Still The Problem; Ignoring Them Is Not A Solution

One other post-election observation, which doesn't really have a winner or loser - except, maybe, Sharron Angle: the press may be a problem in our election process, but running from them, literally, does not work.

Across the country, candidates who refused, or deeply limited, dealing with the press paid a price. That includes Linda McMahon, Sharron Angle, certainly Christine O'Donnell, as well as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. These women, and a number of others, decided on strategies that emphasized advertising, and media appearances mostly on Fox, and some right wing radio talk shows. As a collective approach, that left most of these folks out of public view and at the mercy of negative coverage.

This "Fox news plus my ad dollars" strategy needs to be killed, if only because success with it will seriously damage an already seriously broken system. Too much of the electorate is too easily swayed by advertising messages, to be sure, and not well informed about issues and policies and positions as is. Proving that Fox News alone, or advertising alone, can win an election will mean trouble... not to mention Sarah Palin running for President.

This was a year, though, when the media was not especially well distinguished in most of its coverage. Not enough work was done trying to get candidates to answer the hard questions, and as a result, for instance, we have Republicans promising to "cut spending" but never mentioning a specific cut (except the politically attractive but meaningless threat to defund NPR). And as cries of "foreign money" and "secret donors" cropped up and became a (weak) liberal rallying cry, almost no work was done to try and find out who these "secret" or "foreign donors might be; that, sadly, speaks to the defenestration of newsrooms around the country, and the death of good investigative journalism.

And, more worrying still, blogs, touted as a big solution to a variety of media weaknesses proved to be less than their promises; this was the year that my own scanning of blogs, left and right dwindled away. In part, it was the polarization of blog sites that left right and left sides talking mostly past each other, mostly about inconsequential topics. The Tea Party romances of the right wing blogs led to a lot of unrealistic expectations and frankly rosy scenarios about candidates like O'Donnell and Angle, whose unseriousness was readily apparent to, well, at least a majority of voters. Left wing blogs, meanwhile, alternated between blinding denial of the obvious problems and anger brewing in the electorate, and gloomy assessments of the coming losses without any real examination of what went wrong, or why (that didn't involve, as I said previously, calling voters idiots or sheep).

Advertising, yes, is problematic in our elections - there's too much, much of it is too negative, and ad copy is no way to provide the kind of nuance on complex issues that they, and we, as voters, deserve. But cries by Democrats about the "perilous influence of corporate money and foreign dollars" were ludicrous, when the top spender on ad dollars this cycle was the Public Service Employee's Unions. Democrats may have been more present, generally, and willing to speak to the press, but little of what they had to offer provided the kind of  appealing message that would convince voters to give them another chance.

The big question, of course, remains what Republicans learn from this cycle, whether the lesson is "don't run away like Sharron Angle" or the reverse idea of "try harder to hide while appearing to be more visible." Conservatives have spent years flirting with the idea of  a world of conservative media that would allow them to end-run the traditional inquiries of newspaper and TV news reporters. So far, that hasn't worked... but I'm not sure that conservatives believe, even now, that the strategy can't work ever. And I doubt anyone on Fox News will ever ask Sarah Palin about that.

There Are No Accidents

I've been wanting to acknowledge something from comments a few days back - Valhalla, one of a few visitors who's been kind enough to drop a comment here or there, pointed out on my healthcare post (where I mentioned blogs I read):

Give Corrente a spin, please. Lots of info, reporting on activism (esp. single-payer), and connecting the political issues involved in the health care debates with other current politcal issues.

I wanted to bring that forward, because I do read Correntewire (as does J in B), and I've greatly appreciated that blog (especially Lambert) offering supportive links and blog mentions... and I haven't had a chance to say it. The things is, I don't think of Corrente as a "health blog" per se, and I think it's important to make the distinction: there are places to get some important info on the shape of our healthcare crisis... and then there's places like Corrente, which do a brilliant job of breaking down the problems, specifically, within our lefty politics.

And I bring all of this up, because I've found Lambert's connecting of dots, around the realities of corporate interests, the media elite and the Democratic establishment, to be a good tonic for the "how did this happen?" kind of logic that's cropped up in the first year of the Obama Administration.

It's well past the time, I think, to admit that clearly we have not gotten what we needed from the Obama folks, a reality that I agree should have been apparent during the election cycle. People who seem surprised or disillusioned, now, are really very late; what has happened - on the economy, in terms of financial "reform", and surely in the healthcare debacle - were all in the cards well before we came down to Obama vs. McCain (a choice which, I'll say again, left only Obama as any kind of option for any sensible lefty).

This week has seen a, well, confluence, of events that point to the deepening disillusionment: whether it's the sinking poll numbers on Obama approval (a trend that seems all too real and clear, despite any number of denialists), or the incredibly dense tempest-in-a-teapot debate that's developed over an otherwise unremarkable piece from Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone this week pointing to Obama's economic team as major-bank-connected-and-driven apologists... the sense that Democrats are in a problematic place and sinking can't be ignored or wished away.

But at the same time... there are no accidents: we're here for a number of reasons, not least of which is a reality that many observers, not to mention many ordinary Democrats seem to continue to deny: that the Democrats have become the majority of the educated, upper middle class elite. And what follows from that reality is, well, everything we've gotten from the Obama Administration - a concern for proposals and positions which benefit the Democrats true base, and pay lip service to traditional Democratic ideals.

Because I Thought We Spoke Out About These Things

UPDATE: I'm going to push this back to the top, because there's been a couple of developments, and because I do, still, find the relative silence fascinating. Apparently, Jill at Feministe finally said something on June 9, and while it's pretty straight up, it strikes me as late (and note that her commenters aren't nearly so clearly outraged). Adam Serwer noted that last night, and complained that conservatives giving liberals a hard time for not speaking up about it were wrong. In addition to Jill, he cites Pandagon (links below), and Jezebel, who, it should be noted, really was throroughly outraged early, and loudly. But that, of course, is all there is... Adam couldn't even note that neither Dana nor Ann at his own site have still said nothing. All of that noted, I should  also note that I did get a response from Melissa at Shakes, pointing out that she has been taking a blogging break. I wish her Godspeed. We need her teaspoon.

I've debated bringing this up, but I don't think I can just stay silent.

If someone published a list, online, of women who ought to be raped... don't you think someone would notice? Or protest? Even if - or especially if - it was from a popular adult site?

Apparently not... if the women on the list are conservatives.

On Monday, Playboy.com published a list of "So Right It's Wrong," listing 10 conservative women that, as the author put it, he'd "like to hatef*ck". The list of Michelle Malkin, Mary Katherine Ham, Megyn Kelly, Elizabeth Hasselback, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Dana Perino, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Amanda Carpenter, and Pamela Geller was taken down some time after it went up (a cache of it starts here), but not before Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico published the list of women, calling it "Playboy's Top 10 Conservative Women We Hate To Love."

Mullins, too, was forced, first, to admit that she'd made a mistake in the comments... and eventually took down her post and replaced it with an apologia, of sorts, saying "the Playboy article also included an offensive section that was not included in the blog, but has caused outrage in some readers who believe the blog agrees with all of Playboy stances. This is not true. So the blog has now taken down the link and greatly apologies. No ill will was meant." Mullins continues to refer to the piece as "10 conservative women 'they love to hate'" .

You know... if, by hate, you mean brutalizing sexually. Or was that love? Oh... never mind.

I have my issues with Michelle Malkin, and I even lose patience with some of her complaints about unpleasant attacks (as she tends to be somewhat extreme as well)... but this... is this really a hard call (or how about this)? A Playboy writer calls for brutal sexual assualts on 10 women and we're... not sure how to react to it? Seriously?

Bonnie Erbe at US News, asked by a conservative blogger to comment was about as equivocating as one can be -

A couple of caveats are in order. First, I probably disagree politically with much of SmartGirlPolitics.org's agenda--I know I disagree completely with the group's position on abortion rights. But as a nonpartisan, I'm also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith.

I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her "routine" are so venomous and predictable, in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.

Others on the list, however, are not venom-spewing at all. One woman mentioned on the atlasshrugs2000 blog is a regular guest on my PBS show. Amanda Carpenter, on the show at least, eschews personal judgment of people with whom she disagrees politically. So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly.

But at least Erbe said something. I forwarded Malkin's own blog post about this to Melissa McEwan, with no response so far. There's also been nothing, so far as I can tell on any of this from feminists I know who care about this - not Feministe or Feministing, neither Ann Friedman nor Dana Goldstein at The Prospect. At least Amanda Marcotte did, sort of... oh wait, so did Jesse, and boy was his link helpful. And so, I figured, to stay silent was to agree that somehow, this didn't rise to the level of importance, or somehow required qualifiers. And that's not true, at least not for me. I think this is unconscionable. I can't believe no one is speaking out about it (okay, to be fair, I'm not alone), simply and clearly.

And so... I thought I'd try and do something about it. We'll see what develops.

Morning Morsels: Weekend Edition

In which I attempt to clean my palate - and my browser - of a chunk of post-vacation chunks, mainly of the financial or "Hollywood Minute" variety:

• My pal J in B pointed me towards this New York article about the wake up call to Wall Street's dynamos, and how they're adjusting to the new economic morality. Not well. Unwinding this stuff, though, is kind of fascinating to watch.
• Instead of reading the mistake-ridden cliches of the overvalued... for some real insight into the Freddie Mac CFO suicide, check out this unlikely source. (via Erick Erickson at Twitter).
• Ken Lewis (CEO, Bank of America) says Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson made him keep quiet about problems with buying Merrill Lynch. Bernanke says... of course not, that would be wrong.  I say... we won't have Ken Lewis at B of A by the end of the year.
• This week in Auto News: GM near bankruptcy, plans to close Pontiac. World is going to hell. Chrysler can't seem to figure out how to even go bankrupt successfully, and Fiat says we'll run it, if we get it for free. Fiat also says it will by Opel from GM... all while losing money. Ford also says it's losing money... but hey, that's the good news: it's $21 billion in hock, but it doesn't need a government bailout! whee!!!
• I have almost nothing to say about Jane Harman and the supposed phone call... except to point out that for all the talk about how tension between Harman and Nancy Pelosi "isn't a catfight", it's amazing how people still frame it as... well, a catfight. (For what it's worth, I think Harman - still - is pretty awesome; and I'm less than keen on Pelosi's leadership in the House. Bu either one is vast improvemen over your average white male Republican, if you ask me.)
• I don't have a lot to say about Susan Boyle; what older woman singer who fame passed by wouldn't be well suited to "I Dreamed A Dream"? Boyle's got a lovely voice, people make too many snap judgments off of appearances... yada, yada. The real dubious distinction, it seems to me, is these "[Nation's] Got Talent" TV shows that Simon Cowell's people have dreamed up, which mix in the occasional find like Boyle in with junk, and hope audiences are too stoned to notice. Don't believe me? Check out this bit from Sweden's Got Talent... if you can, since it's decidedly NSFW
• My boyfriend got to swim with Michael Phelps!
• Brian Williams does satire on 30 Rock... and right wing just doesn't get it.

I'm Running Out Of Witty Ways To Say "Change"

...which is a shame when the word is so appropriate to today's news: my blog-pal Redstar has a new gig, and it's up and running: she is part of the force at Change.org, a new set of linked blogs dedicated to encouraging activism and, well, change, on a number of topics. Red is covering poverty issues in her usual clear-eyed way, so I recommend checking her out.  Also the site offers all kinds of ways to get involved, which I also recommend.

As always, I have to remind Red that she has a welcome home here to post about anything (and, too, that I hope she won't give up entirely on her own Redstar Perspective, if she can make it work). But I know a new venture like this can eat up all your energy and time. So I wish her the best... and hopefully, I can tell her that in person, soon enough.

The Change That's No Change Is The Change We Can Believe In

If it was pretty clear before the election, it's crystal now: the idea that the blogosphere offers a lot of diverse opinions is still kind of a dream waiting to happen.

Yeah, there's your basic left/right split and all, but look within the two, and you find... pretty much the same things.

It's easy enough to point out that the young, conservative white men of the Corner loo, and sound, a lot like the young conservative men at RedState, look and sound a lot like the young conservative men at The Weekly Standard look and sound a lot like the young conservative men at Commentary... and then cite Michelle Malkin as the exception that tends to prove the rule. Conservatism is marked by its doctrinaire approach (more on that later today), and the interchangability of its commentors is, after all, what leeps Fox News freshly annoying, hour after hour.

On the left we like to think we're more diverse than that; this election, though, atually laid bare how baldly untrue that lip service was, and a number of organizations - probably the Atlantic and American Prospect, most prominently - had to scramble to actually get the exciting election of the black man covered, you know, by black people.

I've written before about the narrowness of the mainstream left's blogs, but last night it hit me how narrow a post-Obama world will be - how interchangable the blogs of Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Talking Points, TNR, Kevin Drum, and The Washington Monthly have all become.  The same issues, the same opinions, the same reactions (largely cheerleading) for every move the Obama team makes. Oh, and let's not forget My DD, Open Left and Daily Kos (certainly in Kos himself, but others as well).

Sure, we're getting this range of agreement because so many things, finally, seem to be going our way; and it's nice to know, for a moment, that liberals are on the same page.  But the liberalism I know and love isn't so easy, and doesn't march in lockstep. Already, we're trying to paper over disagreements, and dissent, and hard questions we ought not to lose sight of. The debate over gay marriage, for one thing, roils these notions of simple unity.

It's not that I want us to be at each other's throats; it's just that I think, and my blog, at least, is all about the idea that we need to see more than one side of things. I urge you to seek out alternative voices in the blogs, and to challenge the party lines. Ask the hard questions, don't settle. I won't. Let's challenge the Lefty Blog Establishment - ask them to do better, try harder, be more than what they are.

And if you have suggestions on interesting, less heard voices, share them... I'd like to make this an ongoing project. 

Gone Fishin'...

As previously announced, the NYC Weboy will be on a hiatus from blogging here for the rest of August. Please scroll down, as it's likely that J in Baltimore and RedStar may fill in the gaps with musings, links and photos of their own. You may also find me blogging some critical things over at newcritics. I will not be checking this blog on any kind of a regular basis, but I can be reached via e-mail (nycweboy at nycweboy dot com)... and I do welcome correspondence. I will resume blogging the Tuesday after Labor Day. Yes, that means I will not blog about the Democratic Convention... but just assume I liked Hillary's speech, that the VP selection is not my favorite choice, and I wasn't all that impressed with Obama's speech.

Have a great summer. Enjoy.

Shameless Self-Promotion: Redstar Election Edition

While Weboy prepares for tonight's movie extravaganza (he likes to arrive early, get settled, there's a post in here somewhere in which he lays it all out) - I thought you all might want to take a look at the brilliance I've been leaving behind at The Hillary 1000.  I'm not sure how many of you are partisan enough to pop over there regularly.

Check out this post about that Boston Globe article criticizing public-private affordable housing developments done on Obama's watch in Chicago and how it relates to Obama's donors failing to live up to his pledge to help retire Clinton's primary debt.  I found the Globe piece "salacious" and overreaching, but also think it, along with this donor problem, points to a problematic lack of follow through by the Senator.  (There's also a worthwhile link in there re: Obama's urban policy proposals.)

Check out these two pieces breaking down Obama's campaign donors, by gender, organization and industry. 

And my H1K co-blogger Red Queen and I were interviewed by The Black Snob about our preferences for Obama as former Clinton supporters.  The Black Snob just won The Best New Political Blog and The Best Political Blog Overall by Black Politics on the Web, so you might want to leave her a shout-out while you're over there. I LOVE TBS, though clearly she wasn't up against our man Weboy in that race!

- Redstar