That there’s enough of a portion of the American population that feels any need at all to “keep up with the Kardashians” by sustaining a television program of the same name is evidence enough that our brains (at least some of our brains) are operating in a different way than they were say, fifty years ago.
Maybe that’s an unfair analysis. Fifty years ago we didn’t have “reality television” let alone the Kardashians. But let’s assume that my quaint memories of this bygone era, while admittedly nostalgic, are populated with a majority of citizens that wouldn’t tolerate such horse shit.
But this is our time. And, of course, we can choose to turn the channel. Perhaps to the news and watch Ed Schultz devote an entire segment to Bill O’Reilly. Or watch O’Reilly devote an entire segment to himself.
Maybe I’ll just read a news magazine.
But which one? How about the one with the four year old sucking on his mother’s teat on the cover?
Film director Barry Levinson once said:
“We’re talking about a very strange time (in Hollywood), to be honest. Writing by committee becomes much less about a vision. It is really about a piece of merchandise. We excuse movies…that really lack logic and say: ‘It doesn’t make any sense, but it’s a ride.’ I thought a movie was movie and a ride was a ride.”
Now I have no beef with a movie that’s a ride, though I do think a little variety between the comic books and sequels wouldn’t hurt. And Mr. Levinson has a point.
I believe he said these remarks over fifteen years ago, so whatever battle he was fighting has probably been lost to “the ride” and looking at our newsstands and Kardashians, this is across the board and not just in Hollywood.
But then again, the line has blurred so much that it’s all Hollywood now, isn’t it? Politics, news, etc News can’t just be news. It has to be entertainment. Hell, people can’t even be people any more, they have to be “brands”.
Now, I’m not saying news must be delivered in a boring way – but must we have the “ticker”? The graphics? The sound effects? The four year old sucking on his mother’s teat?
Now I’m not a prude. I am a father and my wife is nursing now. I believe I was nursed. But I don’t remember it. If you’re nursed til you’re four, you’re probably going to remember it. And if you forget, your face plastered across every newsstand in the country is probably going to help sear it into your memory. My point is, whether it’s “good” or “bad” is not for me to say. I’m sure it’s an interesting story – I can’t make a judgement. I can only speak for my own family in that my wife is turning the spigot off around the year mark and from what I’ve read, that’s perfectly reasonable.
But that cover isn’t about the news story as much as it’s about a drop in subscribers and rather than simply reporting the news effectively, it also has to resort to cheap tricks to sell magazines.
And maybe it works.
Everyone’s talking about it. I’m talking about it. But is something like this like a thin narrative in a film? A story sloppily told simply leaning on the fact that it’s a “ride”.
To be fair, I have no idea if the news story is sloppy or not. I’ve only heard about the cover, the image – not so much about the content of the actual piece. More people are talking about the cover than the story. But I haven’t gotten around to actually purchasing the magazine and probably won’t.
There is an argument that this is what the public wants – A Ride, Reality TV, titillating magazine covers – but at the end of the day, is it possible that these tricks are a resignation that they can’t simply do the job as well as they used to?
Maybe that’s harsh but just how many more magazines are people actually buying?
I don’t know. I do understand that it’s a business. That it’s all a business. And sadly, that it’s all for sale too.
It’s just disappointing that rather than creating an interesting television show or uncover the real depth and complexity of a news story – Ah, hell, maybe they do and in which case, isn’t the story enough?
It just seems that lately, too often we dish out the “Kardashians” and such because a segment of the population actually wants to “keep up with them”, so we defend it by saying we’re giving them what they want…
Just like a four year old sucking on his mother’s teat.
C I P R I A N I 
Leave a comment