Broadway theatre has always been pertinent part of my life, having been exposed to musical theatre at an early age. Andrew Lloyd Webber, Frank Wildhorn, and Claude-Michel Schönberg all filled my household with their musical sensations with the frequency and volume of an unwanted in-law. I loved the passion of the songs, the dynamics of the characters and stories, but almost above all else, the glamorous nature of show-business! So when NBC announced the release of it’s show ‘Smash,’ a series that follows the creation of a musical based on the life of Marilyn Monroe, my heart leaped. I hadn’t been this overcome with excitement and musical nerdy-ness since “Chicago” won the Academy Award for best picture!

After watching the pilot episode, I immediately went to my friends raving about the quality of the show, how fun and exciting it was, only to be met by a large number of people who thought it was garbage. I was heartbroken. My dream had been shattered like a porcelain figurine. But what made it worse was not the disagreement with my opinion, but the realization that many of the same people who swore that Smash was unoriginal, boring, and bland had a secret (and by secret I mean I have to fill you in with exposition because they didn’t mention it in the scenario I described above). They regularly kept up with Jersey Shore, with Teen Mom, with, dare I say it, Hoarders. 

I didn’t let it bother me, but it did linger in the back of my mind like a parasite feeding off of my growing paranoia about the future of entertainment. But what did this experience say about the people I knew? About my peers as a whole? As the week progressed I pried my colleagues minds. How many people viewed reality television as quality entertainment, while condemning shows like ‘Smash’ as boring? It seemed to me that the wheel of hypocrisy was slowly beginning to grind. How can one justly criticize the artistic quality of a television show, or any form of cinema for that matter, when they deem several drunk New Jersey residents parading about the club scene in a manner not fit for a burlesque show as legitimate, quality entertainment. 

My mind was uneasy. Had our culture really come to this? Had we given up on fictional stories and settled for MTV and VH1’s warped rendition of reality? Everywhere I looked I could not help but see my friend’s obsessing over Real World. I used to be appalled when my peers would describe how brilliant shows such as Gossip Girl and 90210 were, but in retrospect, I would give anything to return to that. We have lost our sense of taste for the banquet of television. It seems that my generation is settling; settling for anything that is placed in front of them like a pack of starving canine waiting for a scrap of meat.

How can one offer a valid review of a scripted production when dysfunctional couples dueling it out on a ROPES course is there idea of satisfactory programming? They cannot. It seems harsh, but it is the truth. I understand that one may claim that reality TV is their “guilty pleasure,” but that argument is invalid. A drug addict cannot offer an acceptable opinion on personal health, even if heroin is just their “guilty pleasure.”

American culture has been robbed of dignity, and it horrifies me to see that very few have noticed. We want immediate satisfaction, we want sex, we want violence, we want to see others with miserable lives to make ourselves feel better. This approach to humanity is unsustainable and will lead down a narrow road the intellectual decay. Will people stop watching reality TV? Unlikely. But the most we can hope for is that the fan base of Teen Mom 2 will broaden their taste to include something will actual flavor. Or stop bashing my favorite TV shows. Either way.

It’s days like today that I will casually gloss over the TMZ website at the array of interesting stories about just how dysfunctional a family can get, or how long one can hide a pregnancy, or, my favorite, why it’s ok to call Angelina Jolie too skinny, but calling someone too fat is just WAY over the line. After glancing through the news, I just wanted to quickly compile an analysis on how to make sure the public see’s you in the worst light possible (**Note, this mostly applies to celebrities. Because they are significantly more interesting than you).

1) Pick up drug use, but don’t go to rehab. Or do, but then fail out of rehab. 

2) Be physically, emotionally, or verbally abusive with ANYONE (unless of course you are Chris Brown, in which case just wait a few years and put out some songs. People will get over it).

3) Co-star with Nicholas Cage. That man is toxic, and will destroy everything he touches (he has what I call “Reverse Meryll Streep Syndrome”). If you want people to like you, don’t accept a role in “Ghostrider 2.”

4) Have kids. Now I know you may think that the opposite would be true, that in fact the public will love you even more. But you would be surprised to find that people love hating on how weirdly celebrity kids are treated. Britney was partly hated for being deemed a bad mother, Tom Cruise (among others) got flack for naming his kid something that’s only acceptable for Dr. Suess stories, and Snooki is feeling the heat simply because people assumed she was as barren as an underwater volcano. Don’t bare offspring unless you’re a pro. 

5) Star in a reality TV show about just how wacky your family life is. People say they love you, but they don’t. They really feel that you’re worth less than the blankets homeless people sleep on.

6) Get a divorce and then marry someone more attractive than your previous spouse. 

7) Make racist or sexist comments on any form of social media. It’s almost worse than saying it on the radio. Do yourself a favor, and hire a starstruck intern to manage your twitter account. 

8) Discuss politics. Chances are, as a celebrity, you aren’t exactly the most knowledgable when it comes to political theory, foreign relations, economic policy, or military strategy. So when you chime in on national television that you “feel” the government should act a certain way, most people don’t take you seriously. You seem pompous, uneducated, and silly. Is it wrong for you to speak up? Absolutely not. But people will probably still resent you for it. 

9) Host the Oscars with James Franco.

Social media has been on a steady rise in years of late, much like the purchases of hybrid cars or the production of reality TV shows. Wherever you go, corporations, schools, non-profits, and even your mother in-law are asking you to follow them on Twitter, or share their Facebook page. You begrudgingly roll your eyes like a put-upon teenager asked to clean their room and hit the ‘accept’ button. And thus began the era of social media awareness and the need for constant Internet attention, harmoniously coming into creation like a gentle rainstorm in the mid April.

And then we get to now, the present, the delighting, deceiving, and unavoidable present. 

You are now eager, nay, OVERJOYED to check your social media accounts. Mankind has never been happier to spend several hours a day updating statuses and “liking” pages. One might say that it has become, in a way…addictive. Just kidding. That’s a little too dramatic and analytical for the sake of this argument, which we will eventually get to. So to set the stage about my run-in with a particular site and the double-edged sword that it is, let me summarize by saying that social media is something we look forward to, hope for, and dream of. 

So imagine my surprise (or lack there of) when my friends told me of a brand new social media site I absolutely had to try (when in reality, I would be just fine without it). It was called “Pinterest” (I imagine this is a hybrid of pin board and interest. Clever, really clever). In its most basic form, it is essentially an online pin board where you can pin and re-pin images, links, articles, and so forth onto your own personal pin-boards for millions of others to see. The kicker? You had to receive an “invitation.” You submit a request to join, and then wait as the gods of social media decide your fate (or so I imagine). Once you have received the ability to start pinning, you go Lindsay Lohan crazy and start pinning away. Images of dogs in hates. Pictures of inspirational quotes superimposed over a photo of a sunset. It was all there, in this one magical realm. It was almost too good to be true. And it was/is. 

I was regularly pinning a few items, not paying much attention to it, but still maintaining my presence on the site because I didn’t wanted to be ostracized by the social media intellectual elite (which just to clarify, are fictional). But one day a quaint little article appeared on the news feed for another social media site I actively use (one of 14, to be exact. And yes, I know I have a problem). The article basically explained that the use of images on Pinterest is or can be violation of copyright laws if you don’t have permission from the owner of the image (I can guarantee that maybe 10 people on Pinterest have that permission, because they are in fact the photographers that post these pictures).

This means that if someone wants to sue you because of what you pin, they are completely allowed to, and Pinterest is in no way responsible. Don’t believe me? Read the agreement and terms of condition on the site. I sat in my chair, mouth agape in horror (or just shock) that this was how such a large, widely used website was run. I mean, it makes absolute sense since we are theoretically publishing copyrighted material without the author’s permission, but it is still alarming. And the number of friends who I know that use the sight and have no idea is almost more terrifying. It almost seems that Pinterest is just tempting fate. Sure, it is very unlikely that the photographer of some generic beautiful landscape picture will hunt you down with a zealous reserved only for the most avid Justin Bieber fans, but in the back of mind is this fear that I will be the one; the one who gets sued for pinning a picture from a photoshoot I thought was inspiring. 

Needless to say, I deleted my sparsely decorated pin boards. Will I continue to view others? Of course, because clearly I have enough free time to do so (this statement is false). But it intrigues me how we have come to a place in the evolution of social media where the lines that divide fun and lawsuits is so blurred and hard to find that we can be legally repremended for something we think is just some creative ole’ fun without any warning (assuming you, like myself, just didn’t even bother to read the terms of agreement and hit “accept”). So lets learn a lesson here, and start doing some research on anything we plan on dedicating approximately 1-4 hours a day doing (it’s Pinterest, you can’t just go on for 5 minutes). 

Why do people do good deeds? Why do people engage in coversation with others? Why, when we clearly aren’t actually that interested, do we ask others “oh, how’s your day?” Or “How are you doing?” The Answer? Because we hope that in turn, someone will do the same unto us. It’s that simple. For one to think that this the process of returning the favor is complicated, I would say you’re an idiot. Harsh? Maybe. True? More than likely.

Now that I’ve gotten the terminology and technical details out of the way, I can digress into the part where I start name-calling and slandering others. 

As someone who thrives on communication with others, I love getting to interact with people, hang out with them, invite them over, work together, ask how they’re doing (even if I don’t care), and all the general inter-workings that go into a human relationship (unless you’re Charlie Sheen, and the only relationship you have is that between your nose and the line of cocaine on your hooker’s chest). So what irritates me to no end (well, there is an end. It’s where I violently erupt and start calling you a slut, fool, or any other vulgarity) is when people fail to reciprocate. They don’t try and put back into a conversation. They don’t invite you over to hang out, even after you have done so for them. They don’t give a shit darn. They create false pretenses, pretend to be friends, and then when the time comes for them to act as such, they fall through faster than Jessica Simpson’s acting career. 

So to all you passive aggresive people who pretend to be friends with people, but then don’t put in your share to the friendship (that includes those who ‘conviently’ don’t text back when you need a favor, or those that only text you when they need one), I can honestly say you are semi-despicable. You’re not horrible, cause there are many worse offenses (murder, theft, going to see movies starring Michael Cera). But you’re not great. In fact, you kind of suck. 

Lets pose a hypothetical situation. You’re out and about your respective city (just for reference, I’m picturing Manhattan) and you suddenly come across a store display that is selling flip flops in a really desirable style. You realize you need flip flops (it’s summer, duh) and the ones they have in stock are nice, high quality, and affordable, lets say $50. But then you gaze down the street a little bit further and there it is: ________ (insert pretentious brand name here). They also have flip flops. They look nice. They’re probably high quality. They’re $800….

This scenario, while seeming highly improbable, is not far from the truth. While no one will pay $800 for a pair of flip flops, there are plenty of people who will pay that price tag for a pair of new Manolo Blahniks (this is a designer shoe brand). You may be asking yourself “Why in God’s name would anyone spend that much money when they can get a great pair of shoes for less than half of that price?” Excellent question. It’s because people are told that it’s acceptable. From movies to magazines, consumers (mainly women) are constantly exposed to the message that it is necessary to have the latest and the most “fashionable.” It’s all about image. A girl can find a nice pair of heels for closer to $100, but she’ll still shell out the dough for the iconicity that accompanies the designer heels. Fashion magazines have no problem pushing an expensive product. But it just goes to show how the media (in hand with clothing companies) have made what was once a luxury into almost a necessity.

And it goes for youth as well. People are willing to spend $300 on a pair of jeans when in reality they could spend $50 and get an equal, if not better, quality pair. Does anyone actually think that True Religion Jeans are higher quality than Levi’s, the ORIGINAL JEAN? It’s just fascinating that people can put so much money into designer brands when the quality difference is, for the most part, almost non-existent. Yes, there is a difference between a faux-cashmere scarf and its authentic counterpart, but for the most part, designer brands really only offer one thing more moderately priced brands don’t: the ability to feel better than others…and having less money to spend on food. It seems that the Devil does, in fact, wear Prada.

In the world of Public Relations, if someone screws the pooch, pretty much everyone screws the pooch. RE: BP oil spill fail.

Trust: a simple, five-letter word that has more significance than many would like to think. Human beings, as a social creature, would find it difficult to live without it; and the media is no exception. As an industry, it relies all on pieces of puzzle working together and trusting each other to accomplish what needs to be done. Television networks trust that their programs will follow through in bringing in viewers. Newspapers and magazines trust their staff to accurately report and write the content of said mediums. Even the Internet comes down to trust. Do you trust Facebook to protect your information? Do you trust Google Mail to make sure your emails are properly received and sent? If you use either of these programs than the answer is yes.

On an even grander scale, we trust the media to accurately portray the world to us, and to not deceive us.  I theorize, however, that the reason for this trust and belief in one another is far from the goodness of our hearts or that we actually do in fact trust each other. I believe in many ways it comes down to one thing and one thing only; fear.

There’s a saying that trust is earned, not given. But is this entirely true? It is true that many people share intimate levels of trust and that the intimacy of that trust is what makes it special. But is all trust this way? I sincerely doubt it. I think that in both social interaction and in the media, trust in large amounts of people is a result of being afraid of potential failure. We trust our friends, it’s true. Yet not everyone deserves it. Many people trust in someone, afraid that if they can’t convince themselves that the trust is real, than the relationship must not be real either. Why else would people trust in those that continually disappoint or hurt them? It’s because we’re afraid that if our we realize that our trust was misplaced, we’ll also realize our judgment may not be as accurate as we hoped it was.

This theory also holds true for our relationship to the media. When the mass audience reads a newspaper, or sees a story on CNN, we, for the most part (there are always those smart enough to question) assume that what we’re being told is the honest truth. In the United States alone, millions of people take what is served on their plate and don’t look twice. Is this because as people we have become so naive that we have lost the ability to question what we are told, or what we are shown? I don’t think so. I think the problem stems much deeper than that. I think that we know we should question it, but we have spent so much of our lives trusting the media, and trusting the talking heads, and trusting the powers that be that we’re afraid to admit to ourselves later in life that our judgment was less than adequate and that our trust was misplaced. No one wants to admit they were wrong.

I believe that people today, for the most part, are relatively generous in handing out their trust, giving it away like coupons for a cheap restaurant. The reason we hyper-extend our trust to the media and to those we know in general link back together to a common cause. It’s because we’re afraid of the consequences if we don’t. We’re afraid that what we value, prize, and believe in isn’t in fact real. 

Lindsay Lohan is notorious in the media today for her incredible ability to get caught doing things most coked-out  hookers wouldn’t get paid to do draw attention to herself. This once precious and beloved movie star is now more well known for blurring the lines (of coke) between outrageous and inappropriate. We love to hate her, because she is a classic case of self-destructive celebrity. But do we really hate her? Or are we attracted to her spectacle because of an underlying fundamental concept of the media? Lindsay Lohan, despite her lack of self-control, is a perfect example of SQ; Sensation Quotient. 

SQ is the element of media that draws attention, that leaps out and grabs the viewer/reader/listener. Sensation quotient Measures the amount of content in any media product (TV show, CD, etc) that appeals to the senses or to the emotions, not the mind. The four kinds of SQ are violence quotient, sexual quotient, spectacle quotient, and ugly/gross quotient. Whenever one of these categories increase, more attention is drawn. A news story about farming might not get very many viewers on the news, but the story of a politician having an affair is media gold. That is because it plays upon the ‘sexual quotient.’ SQ is designed to be objective, not subjective. You see it, and you automatically know what you think. Is this bad? Not necessarily. But it doesn’t challenge the mind, which makes it easier for us to take in. 

Lindsay Lohan is a prime example of SQ because her lifestyle of doing drugs, getting caught in compromising positions, and drinking until she lands herself in jail draws every one’s attention. The same goes for television shows like Jersey Shore. The show itself has no intelligent subject matter, in fact it may in fact have subject matter that reverses intelligence. Yet it still gets significant views because it puts sex, violence, alcohol, and scandal in the spotlight. It plays upon our desire, our hunger, our yearning for SQ. We simply can’t get enough of it. 

Is there anything wrong with enjoying a bit of sex in a movie, or a good fight scene, or reading about Brangelina’s latest struggle? Probably (hopefully) not. But we must not think there is any true value in SQ. It is like the frosting on the cake. It is visually desirable, sugary and sweet. We want to have it. Yet there really is no substance to it. It gives us an immediate satisfaction that quickly disappears. We need more of it, in increasing amounts in order to satisfy ourselves…

But it will still never be as truly satisfying as the cake that lies underneath it.

Read More

Human beings are incredibly good at communicating with one another, we like to think, especially if you compare us to more ‘primative’ members of the animal kingdom. We can speak, text, or write a letter. We can communicate through ours words and through our own body language. We can even communicate simply by not saying certain things. We have an entire industry (the media) that makes millions of dollars a year simply through effective communication. Yet are we fooling ourselves? Are we truly capable of effective communication?

Think about the last time you were upset with someone, whether it be a friend, a co-worker, a significant other, or even a complete stranger. Was the reason you were mad at them because they said something they shouldn’t have said, or not followed through on something, or because they didn’t react the way you wanted them to? More often than not, I would wager that this is the case. As human beings, we are incredibly fragile in regards to how we interact with others, and even the slightest miscommunication (maybe someone accidentally implied they thought you looked ugly) can shatter our self-esteem. On an even grander scale, can you think of how many national and even global problems find their roots in miscommunication? Many social problems can be linked by the inability of certain groups to establish a proper dialogue. In other words, they are miscommunicating. 

Is it because as humans, we are imperfect and flawed, and thus are incapable of ever being one hundred percent on the ball in regards to how we communicate with others? Quite possibly. But I think that the problem has another side to it; laziness/inability to change. Often, when an error in communication arises, the problem will be illuminated and the parties involved will try to not ‘make the same mistake twice.’ But doesn’t it seem like the same problem rears its ugly head over and over? I believe there is a simple explanation for this. People are lazy. We want to change, but we don’t make the effort to actually do so. We tell the party we’ve hurt/offended/angered that it won’t happen again, yet undoubtedly it does. 

Mankind, despite all of its inventions, technologies, and brilliance, will never be able to perfectly communicate, and that is because in the end, communication all comes down to people. Without us, there is no one to communicate. 

So I’ll end on a simple note. We claim to be the most advanced species on the planet, yet why is it that you never see even the most primitive of animals fighting over miscommunication? Curious. )

Here’s an image that I thought was pretty funny (warning: a tad bit risque) and illustrated miscommunication.