Sarah Palin's Alaska: Disaster or Genius?

Sarah Palin has become quite the TV darling. First, her infamous interview with Katie Couric in 2008 which led to Tina Fey's impersonation of her. Next, Palin herself appeared on SNL, and now, she has her own reality show. When the show premiered in 2010, many thought that the reality show: Sarah Palin's Alaska was created to help her gain favor in the 2012 presidential election, but its 2011, and Palin has shown no signs of running - was it the reality TV show that hurt her?

While the reality show is not the sole reason Palin isn't running for president, it definitely fueled many of her critics. In her book Entertaining Citizens, author Liesbet Van Zoonen tackles the role of politics in the realm of entertainment. In a conversation with USC Professor Daniela Baroffio she helped explain the major theme seen in Van Zoonen's book in relation to Sarah Palin. Van Zoonen articulates that:

"politicians have to commute constantly between the different requirements of politics and entertainment  in order to maintain their position and status in the political field, as well as their relevance to everyday culture" (69).

In other words, Van Zoonen means that a politician must be both proximate and distant or a political leader is both "one of us and one of them." I agree with Professor Baroffio in that Palin's failings as a politician is a result of her being too proximate.

All throughout the 2008 presidential campaign Palin tried to gain favor by relating only to the "hockey mom" types through her casual jokes and familial display and didn't spend nearly enough time gaining national favor by showcasing her true political knowledge. However, it is not entirely her fault. One of the flaws in McCain's shaping of Palin is that his strategists firmly believed that the role of the politician had been transformed solely into that of a celebrity. Yes, people did become obsessed with everything Palin said, what she wore, etc, but the strategists did not prepare for the backlash. Where and when did the backlash occur? In my opinion, it happened when people realized that Palin was unable to transition back and forth between her personal and public image: yes, Palin could make jokes but could she answer the hard-hitting questions?

Even after the backlash during the presidential campaign, Palin still decided to go ahead with her reality television show, a program that showed the "true Sarah Palin." In my mind what makes this whole situation so ironic is that America has already seen so much of Palin's personal life (i.e. Bristol's pregnancy) so why would exposing the public to more of it make people take her more seriously? She would already get the votes from the viewers that would take her show seriously, while only further alienating her haters by providing them with a forum to mock her once again.

This Palin disaster symbolizes a serious shift in the role of modern day politics. The fact that some politicians (and strategists) are more concerned with their status in pop culture rather than engaging in actual intellectual discourse is a troubling mindset. While Americans want to know their candidates, they also need to have faith that they will be able to lead our country (state, city, town, etc) to greatness and watching Palin on a snowmobile definitely isn't a convince Americans of that. In the upcoming presidential campaign I would like to see a return to the "issues" - I don't want to see candidates on SNL or exploring the wilderness, I want to see them at the podium making speeches. I do want to know the candidates personalities, but more importantly I want to know where he/she stands on the issues.

Can Reality TV Fix the Bullying Epidemic?

In the September 12th New York Times Article, "These Celebrities Feel the Hate, and Confront It", author Brooke Barnes talks about the CW's TV show H8R - a reality program where celebrities confront their cyber bullies. This show, Barnes details, along with MTV's If You Really Knew Me and Bully Beatdown attempt to combat the cyber bullying kids (and adults) encounter on websites such as twitter and facebook. While the President of the CW Network, Mark Pedowitz says that the intended message of the show is to “think before you type and don’t believe everything you read on a blog", I find the whole concept of the show quite laughable.

The CW Network is trying to increase ratings by putting B, C, and D list celebrities on camera to confront their bullies. Showing washed up reality TV stars sand low list celebrities trying to reveal their true identity to their "attackers" just gives bullying a bad name. One of the episode in particular I find to be quite offensive: The Snooki Episode. Snooki confronts her bully saying, “I just saw you rant about me. What is wrong with you? You have no idea who I am as a person.” Wait - I'm sorry, who doesn't hate Snooki a little bit? She has only made a fool of herself on national television multiple seasons in a row, has been arrested for public intoxication, and gives Italian Americans in general a bad name. But, Reality TV is supposed to be real isn't it? So why shouldn't the world think of you (Snooki) as that type of person and why shouldn't we dislike you for it? The confrontation and reconciliation that occurs on H8R is far from what happens in real life and does nothing to help the real victims of bullies.

In the real world things are messier. Scared, helpless victims of bullying hardly ever confront and resolve problems with their attacker, and viewing this show won't provide actual help and advice to those who need it most. If one is looking for a more realistic picture of bullying I suggest turning to Glee. While Barnes dumps the show into the list of reality programs I mentioned above, Glee deserves to be in a class of its own. While the spontaneous musical numbers and ridiculous characters scare some people away, the issues creator Ryan Murphy addresses are real and heartfelt. In season 2, Kurt (played by Chris Colfer), terrorized by a homophobic bully is so traumatized by it that he has to transfer schools - not even the glee club could help him stand up to his bully. Murphy takes the storyline a step further by exposing the weak side of the bully, showing that he is really the one who is insecure and afraid. When Kurt returns to McKinley at the end of season 2 and confronts his attacker with kind words and a helping hand, the bully accepts and they become friends. While I realize this resolution is definitely not what happens with most bullying cases in the real world, Glee is certainly more truthful than H8R.

How much does the CW network really want to help victims stand up to their bullies? I don't think very much. While the show did decline Hiedi and Spencer Pratt's ('The Hills') demand for a "six-figure appearance fee" others guests such as Eva Longoria and Kim Kardashian hardly have anything in common with real life victims of bullying. Part of being a celebrity comes with the acceptance of haters because not everyone can be liked by everyone, and passing that dislike off as bullying just isn't right. If the CW must broadcast a show about bullying they should focus on helping actual victims, instead of passing celebrities off as them.

There is Always More to be Said...

Correction:
Regarding my September 8th post about President Obama's speech on jobs - The unemployment rate is holding steady above 9% - not falling.


Also, in regards to my September 10th post, Here are a few photos I thought applied to my profile of Susan Faludi:

  

The Modern Day Public Intellectual

A Critical Profile of Susan Faludi 

Public Intellectuals: an inner circle of scholars, the intelligentsia of the world, experts in their field, and a voice that the general public listened and responded to. Before the rise of the internet and the creation of the millions of blogs that now exist, the definition and the role of the public intellectual was much more identifiable.  But, with the rise of the blogosphere, America’s democratic voice has taken full force as millions of people publish opinions that were formerly only tackled by said public intellectuals. 

Despite this new platform, the vast majority of bloggers and authors are not true public intellectuals. However, today, the democratic voice is challenging the role and the importance of the public intellectual. As detailed in The Brecher Brief’s post: The Decline of the Public Intellectual, Richard Hofstader believes that the social, economic, and cultural capital of education is so rooted in the American Dream, that American’s who do not believe they have such capital are hostile of those who do. Furthermore, Hofstader believes that many Americans feel that action and experience are better indicators of knowledge and intellectualism rather than simply writing about it. Today, these “experienced” intellectuals are able to voice their opinions at the click of a button, however this easy access leads to a greater problem: how do people sort out the real intellectuals from the “fake” ones? Is the youth of America going to trust the voice of a much older Pulitzer Prize winner, scholar, and author over a “regular” person who has experienced the events that said Pulitzer Prize winner has only written about?

There is a way to salvage the role of the true public intellectual. The Brecher Brief is correct in saying that the role of the public intellectual can be redefined if Americans stop looking at public intellectuals as a stogy and elitist class, but rather decide a public intellectuals importance based on the function of their work. Public intellectual, Susan Faludi, could be judged by mainstream America as simply an elitist, intellectual member of society, with her Harvard (1981) education and journalistic ventures at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other prestige worthy newspapers. But, instead of allowing her education, the places she has worked, or the social circle she “runs in” determine her qualifications as a public intellectual, let’s examine the actual work she has done.

In her three books, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Woman, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, and The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an Insecure America, Susan Faludi explores feminist issues and the role of women in American culture and society. Faludi’s book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Woman is particularly interesting because it examines how the American woman was reflected onscreen during the Reagan Era. During this era motion pictures depicted a false image of how women were supposed to act and be treated in American society. As Faludi details in the introduction of Backlash, Movies such as ­­­­Fatal Attraction (1987) painted a loving picture of the stay-at-home mom while punishing those women who chose to be independent or to have a career. Fatal Attraction, a thriller about a single woman (Glenn Close) who goes insane after having one night stand with a married man (Michael Douglas,) dramatizes the challenges women faced in real life during the Reagan era. To portray a single, professional woman as clinically insane and the wife (Anne Archer) as the martyr, Faludi believes, was an attempt to scare women out of the workplace and back into their home: during this time women were told that they could not be both a wife and professional.

Apart from Faludi’s exploration of cinema, in Backlash, she also explores the written material presented to women during the Regan Era. Faludi attacks the critically acclaimed self-help book: Smart Women/ Foolish Choices, which argued that, “a woman’s distress was an unfortunate consequence of feminism,” Through Faludi's examination of all facet's of American culture during this time she proves (with the aid of film, print, and legislation) that the material presented to women during the Reagan era (such as Smart Women/Foolish Choices) did more harm than good. Faludi doesn’t stop there, she also points fingers at the lawmakers, detailing that “The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography even proposed that women's professional advancement might be responsible for rising rape rates.” The Attorney General justified this claim by explaining that because more women went to college, the more of an opportunity they had to be raped - A claim which Faludi attributes to the Government's push to have women return to the home. Faludi’s pointed and detailed exploration of the Reagan era shows that not only has she “done her research” on the era, but she also incorporates other esteemed political and intellectual figures into her argument. A public intellectual doesn’t just blame and call attention to a problem, but rather, a public intellectual is a critic that criticizes with factual evidence and poses a possible solution. 

Faludi certainly drew critics to her work as she released all of her books at crucial times in American history. Backlash was released in 1991, only two years after Regan left office, Stiffed in 1999, before the impending Y2K and possible “end of the world,” and finally The Terror Dream in 2001, post September 11th. But, in true public intellectual style, Faludi was not afraid of criticism.

The Terror Dream, Faludi's most controversial book, argues that 9/11 caused a return to old-fashioned gender roles created a divide amongst critics. Pulitzer Prize winner Michiko Kakutani thought that The Terror Dream is: “the sort of tendentious, self-important, sloppily reasoned book that gives feminism a bad name.” While New York Times cultural critic John Leonard believed that the book is: “a splendid provocation of a book, levitating to keep company with Hunter Thompson's fear and loathing, Leslie Fielder's love and death and Edmund Wilson's patriotic gore." The critical conversations that arose from Faludi’s book shows that she has succeeded, substance wise, as a public intellectual: she researched, articulated, and criticized which in turn allowed others to respond and criticize her work. Furthermore, the rise of the blogosphere, allows American’s to reflect and criticize her work further, which keeps the importance of Faludi’s work ever present. 

Another point that The Brecher Brief raises in defense of the public intellectual is that they are not paid publicists and they aren’t in the “pocket” of officials: their job is to critically look at an issue and respond to it. Susan Faludi is a great example of this, because she is an equal opportunity critic. Although her attack of Regan is read as a liberal interpretation of women’s rights, her other articles point out the faults of republicans and democrats alike. In Faludi’s Time article The Mythical “Security Mom,” she responds to pollster David Winston’s (GOP affiliate) articulation of the 9/11 attacks. Winston states: 

"My first inkling that 9/11 would have more than just a passing impact on women came only a month after the attacks. As Congress considered legislation to allow the arming of pilots, I did a survey for the Allied Pilots Association and United Se­niors Association. One finding surprised a lot of people: Married women with children were the biggest proponents of putting guns in the cockpit—favoring the idea by a whopping 78 percent, five points higher than men."

Faludi calls Winston out on his claims, arguing that Winston’s claim is incredibly narrow in relation to such a large statement about cockpit safety. Winston only used one 2004 study on safety concerns to justify his claim, which Faludi argues is simply not enough proof. Despite Faludi’s call for reconsideration, both democrats and republicans used the idea of familial safety in their 2004 campaigns. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA in 2004 that “[women] want someone who will do what it takes to protect America.” But what about men? Aren’t they equally concerned with the safety of America? Similarly, on the Republican side, Bush’s “W Stands for Women,” based on the same platform of familial safety, targeted the emotional tendencies of women. Faludi's critique of both sides shows that she has no obligation to a particular party, but rather she is only concerned with the delivery of her message.  

Susan Faludi is a true representation of a “modern day” public intellectual. Her devotion to her area of expertise outweighs the old school, elitist image of the public intellectual. Faludi's allegiance is to her work, rather than any type of political or social affiliation allows her to be equally critical. With the rise of the democratic youth it is most important for public intellectuals to write without bias, thus providing an equal opportunity to criticize and be criticized. 

The Modern Day Public Intellectual

Major technical difficulties, see post above.

What Will September 8th Bring?

September 8th, 2011 is a much anticipated day. Not only is it my birthday, it is also when President Obama will make a speech about the job predicament in America. As the unemployment rate continues to fall, this speech and the actions that follow are pivotal for President Obama. While, many agree that Barack Obama is a charismatic and inspirational speaker, Republicans (and even some Democrats) have been concerned with Obama's ability to actually solve important matters that threaten the stability of America. During Obama's presidential campaign he won the hearts and minds of the people through his powerful speeches and the use of all forms of media. He launched campaigns which empowered and mobilized Americans, especially those that had never been reached out to before. But what has happen since then? Did Obama's power of speech and utilization of the media not have the longevity it needed or did people simply grow tired of all the promises? 


Although I have been a loyal Obama supporter since he began his presidential campaign, I have begun to feel disheartened. I understand that progress takes time and being president is a balancing act, but, in my opinion the job predicament should have been addressed long ago. During his campaign, Obama promised the creation of a new job market and in his 2008 acceptance speech Obama excited the crowd with his call for hope and his powerful phrase "yes we can." Obama futher fueled the crowd by detailing a "new energy" that needed to be "harness[ed]" in order for "new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair." (See Obama's full speech.) That night the people of America felt hope. 


But what happened to that hope? Maybe it was lost when the Republicans blocked the Health Care bill at every turn, or when our stock market suffered the largest drop in over a year, or any other number of things that Obama "has done wrong" since he assumed the presidency. Despite all these complaints, the most important thing now is to achieve something more then just hope. Obama's passionate words need to be both heard and put into action. Congress needs to stop gunning for Democratic or Republican wins, but rather American wins.


The reception of President Obama's speech on Thursday will be crucial in gauging the amount of fallout Obama has had in the past three years. But, my hope is that he will propose great and doable plans and that Americans will once again believe in Obama's three little words : Yes. We. Can. 

What is Cinema Saying?

Nowadays, cinema is more then just pure entertainment. This escapist and pleasurable pastime has transformed into a forum for social, political, and cultural discussion - whether one realizes it or not. Movies today make statements about all aspects of our lives: Remember the Titans, whose white narrator distorts the image of the civil rights movement and integration, Bridesmaids whose slapstick humor and dirty jokes represents a shift in the females role as "the damsel in distress," and The Hurt Locker, a politically charged film directed by a woman and set in a "masculine orientated." But, who is dictating these statements? Is Hollywood distorting the true sentiments of American's through their films or are they representing today's issues through comedy, melodrama, and action? My blog will look at current events through the lens of the consumer and hopefully shed light on the powerful relationship between current events and cinema.