By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, AndyDisco on Twitter
Congratulations ESPN, you managed to once again reprove that you suck.
They re-violated my Duke Lacrosse Scandal Theory (toward the bottom of the article). The short version of that theory is that if you never talk about that sport (like college lacrosse, in my eponymous example) then you don't have the right to cover a scandal about it (rape allegations at duke university's lacrosse team). For example, if a scandal breaks out between two members of the United States fencing team, we shouldn't have to hear about it, since we don't know any of its participants. But since ESPN talked about Tiger Woods at every opportunity before his scandal, they are permitted to talk about his scandal.
ESPN violated that rule today while talking about the murder of an Iowa high school football coach. When did ESPN start caring about Iowa high school football? Oh right, when there's a scandal. If ESPN continues on the scandal-for-ratings ethos, we all lose because that just shows how close to MTV ESPN has become. If we wanted scandal news, we'd read US Weekly or a newspaper. What if I wanted just sports news? Didn't ESPN used to be a channel for that?
Even if I did want scandal news, I wouldn't go to ESPN to get it. I'd go to a publication with more experience in covering criminal cases. With the economy as it is, the last thing America needs is Bob Ley going all Nancy Grace on us.
That's how I roll.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com
Remember in April how I wrote that real buzz around Susan Boyle was that people, (subconsciously, or consciously) thought, "No way! Someone can have such vocal talent but be that ugly!"?
I'm standing behind that still and I think that the latest buzz about her being in the loony bin helps with that. As I'm sure everyone has heard, she lost on her British Idol show and then apparently cracked up and was calling out for her cat while being rushed to the nuthouse. While I understand it's newsworthy because she was such an instant media-sensation, I think part of what gives legs to that story is still our subconscious surprise about her. I think people were still thinking, "this is so weird she's talented and so weird and ugly. Maybe after a makeover she'll be really pretty and this will all make sense."
Then she lost and was rushed to the nuthouse and now people are thinking, "Ohhhhh. I knew she wasn't a true celebrity, or even a normal one of us! Silly of me to think an ugly person could ever leave her caste system. Turns out she's just one of those wacky idiot savants who drools on their sweatpants all day but is freakishly talented at one thing. She probably has like 87 cats too. She totally tricked me!"
And while I'm on the topic of Pop Culture drivel that I just don't understand people's interest in: Is the following analogy correct?
Octomom:Angelina Jolie :: Kate from John and Kate + 8::Posh Spice
I never watch the show or read about it, but I can't help avoid the coverage. I do know that she has a very Nebraska-tastic version of Posh's hair and she seems to think she's one sexy bitch. I could be totally off base.
Lastly, the coverage of this scandal really pisses me off for the same reason that the coverage of the Duke Lacrosse team rape allegation pissed me off: If no one cares about those people (John and Kate, Lacross players) when they're free of scandal, don't expect us to be enraptured in stories about their scandals.
For instance, ESPN devotes about 11 minutes of coverage a year to lacrosse. People just don't care about it. Yet they spent at least 20 hours a week discussing it during the peak of the scandal. That doesn't make sense to me. The buzz with Kobe's rape allegation I get because there is a ton of buzz from a scandal-free Kobe as is, so throw in a scandal and it's huge.
I get the story value of, "Media darling in scandal. Will they be taken down a peg or two? Stay Tuned!" but not when its, "Did those people you don't care about do something immoral??!!! You'll never believe what happened!" There has to be some proportion between the non-scandal coverage and scandal coverage.
Is adultery among people I've never heard of really something I'm expected to care about? If you're gonna talk about scandals that strangers have done at least make them awesome.