At this time last week, what were your thoughts of Whitney Houston?
Assuming you were in the camp that didn't ignore her problems and thought she wasted away her early successes as a singer on drug use...flash forward a day later - are you still thinking those same thoughts?
Maybe I'm just not connected to people's conversations about musicians and pop culture all that much or I'm watching/reading the wrong coverage, but everything I've heard about Whitney Houston before she died was nothing at all like the thoughts that are coming out now.
When someone with her recent problems passes on, the conversation changes from her being a talent that withered away amid substance abuse issues to forgetting about the problems altogether and just focusing on her career and positive things in life.
With my dad off of work and his habit of watching those Hollywood-heavy shows like Extra and Inside Edition on the boob tube, I could not count how many times I heard a news segment begin with "Annnnd IIIIIIIIIIeeeeeeeIIIIIIIII willllll always love youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, ohhhhh" in the past week while working downstairs. Every major network was covering this story as she had never done anything wrong.
A similar situation occurred with the death of Michael Jackson, where the simple mention of his past allegations of child molestation would give you nasty glares from many people in the room, arguably some of his fans.
I never understood why the complete story of people isn't presented when someone dies. Well, I do understand - we want to preserve a positive memory of someone as our first thought when that person's name is mentioned.
But isn't telling the complete narrative (the good and the bad) important to tell? Shouldn't it be mentioned more that the last decade of her life that saw her devolve from one of the world's greatest singers to a person with a substance abuse problem?
I'm not trying to take anything away from what she did as an artist in the 1990s, but for hardly a peep to be mentioned about the whole story of her life puzzles me. It's like the 2000s never happened.
If you were to ask someone who knew little of Whitney Houston to base their opinion of her off the coverage the past week, you'd think she was a saint her whole life.
side note: If Michael Jordan is to pass away in about 10 years and he continues to suck as an NBA owner, I believe it should be noted in the stories about him that he was bad as a basketball executive. But we all know that the Powers-That-Be would write the fluff pieces like they have always wrote about him. The only thing that media people have felt comfortable critiquing him on was his baseball experiment. You hardly ever heard anything about his womanizing or gambling for fear that a media member might lose access to the guy.
I digress.
When it comes for my time to pass on from this Earth, I'd expect people to remember me for the good AND bad of my life. Granted, the bad in my life might be limited to a few moments/time spans in my life. I'd prefer the entire narrative of my life be told, not just the good parts.
In my case, the bad moments in life were the prequel for better moments that were on the near horizon that had a "redemption/comeback story-feel" to them. Some people aren't as fortunate to bounce back from their bad moments to live and tell about it.
That doesn't mean we should ignore that it ever happened. Instead of making all of these pop stars out to be Statue-esque Idols who are above all humans and could do no wrong, let's present them as the humans that they are - a complicated blob of success and failure, littered with good and bad decisions, events and moments along the way that made them the person they turned out to be.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
2/16/2012
Linough is Linough: The True Comparisons Made Between Lin & Tebow
Since I took my sports blog hiatus a couple weeks ago, a new "Mania" has emerged in the sports world. Just when ESPN and other media outlets thought that they were going to lose ratings/viewers with the disappearance of Tim Tebow from the news cycle, a new world-wide phenomenon started his ascent in the city that already dominated the news cycle earlier in the month with a Super Bowl victory.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Jeremy Lin.
The undrafted Harvard point guard was out of a job on Christmas Eve when the Rockets released him right before the regular season. The season before, Lin was buried on Golden State's depth chart behind such guards as Stephen Curry & Monta Ellis and saw very little playing time.
A few days after being released, the Knicks picked him up - but they played him very little. Lin played in just 9 of the team's first 23 games, playing in less than 55 total minutes in that time.
By many accounts, he was close to being released again due to the Knicks' depth at the guard position. Luckily, injuries forced Mike D'Antoni's hand as the Knicks coach gave Linn some playing time.
In the 7 games he has played significant minutes (past 6 have been starts), the team has been undefeated. In his 6 starts, he averaged almost 38 minutes per game while averaging 24 points and 9.5 assists in helping lead the Knicks back to the .500 mark and the playoff race.
Comparisons to Tebow
As a result of this performance, Lin has dominated the social media news cycle. Any casual sports fan with a television on in the past two weeks has seen at least a handful of highlights if only watching TV minimally.
.JPG/220px-Tim_Tebow_(Broncos).JPG)
With ESPN and other major media outlets shoving the story down our throats, comparisons of the coverage have rivaled that of Tim Tebow. In this madness, people have also gone out of their way to say that their careers have had similar arcs.
I am hear to completely dispel the notion that their careers are parallel as some have been saying. Outside of the media coverage, not much is the same between the two. Since everyone loves charts, I decided to make one that compares the two on many key components of their short careers:
I tried getting through the blog without a Lin pun, but the title itself dispels that notion.
While the chart shows some similarities, the one thing to remember is that the Lin story is changing daily and the mania is likely to level off at some point. That's not to say he can't be a solid point guard in the league for years, but I highly doubt he will maintain his averages once opposing scouts learn of his deficiencies and exploit them.
To say that their careers are similar, particularly when Lin was barely recruited (basically by those two Ivy League schools - a conference not known for their athletics) and Tebow also had an offer to play at Alabama, is hyperbole at its finest.
In either case, for fans of either player, I say the best thing to do is this: enjoy the ride, ignore the critics (including me of Tebow) and hope that their joy rides can last a little while longer.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Jeremy Lin.
The undrafted Harvard point guard was out of a job on Christmas Eve when the Rockets released him right before the regular season. The season before, Lin was buried on Golden State's depth chart behind such guards as Stephen Curry & Monta Ellis and saw very little playing time.
A few days after being released, the Knicks picked him up - but they played him very little. Lin played in just 9 of the team's first 23 games, playing in less than 55 total minutes in that time.
By many accounts, he was close to being released again due to the Knicks' depth at the guard position. Luckily, injuries forced Mike D'Antoni's hand as the Knicks coach gave Linn some playing time.
In the 7 games he has played significant minutes (past 6 have been starts), the team has been undefeated. In his 6 starts, he averaged almost 38 minutes per game while averaging 24 points and 9.5 assists in helping lead the Knicks back to the .500 mark and the playoff race.
Comparisons to Tebow
As a result of this performance, Lin has dominated the social media news cycle. Any casual sports fan with a television on in the past two weeks has seen at least a handful of highlights if only watching TV minimally.With ESPN and other major media outlets shoving the story down our throats, comparisons of the coverage have rivaled that of Tim Tebow. In this madness, people have also gone out of their way to say that their careers have had similar arcs.
I am hear to completely dispel the notion that their careers are parallel as some have been saying. Outside of the media coverage, not much is the same between the two. Since everyone loves charts, I decided to make one that compares the two on many key components of their short careers:
| Name | Jeremy Lin | Tim Tebow |
| Sport | Basketball | Football |
| Position | Point Guard | Quarterback |
| Team | NY Knicks | Denver Broncos |
| Height (according to team site) | 6'3" | 6' 3" |
| Weight (team site) | 200 lbs | 235 lbs |
| Years in Pros (of current/completed season) | 2 | 2 |
| College | Harvard | Florida |
| Other Colleges That Recruited Him | Brown | Alabama |
| Round/Pick that each was picked | Was not drafted | 1st Round, 25th pick |
| Main Reasons for Promotion to Starter | Injuries | Overwhelming popularity/Starting QB Inefficiency |
| Before he started, fans _________. | never heard of him for the most part. | were quite polarizing regarding his future effectiveness. |
| When he finally started, his coach ______. | had him run the offense he has always run as coach | changed team's offense around, saying they'd be screwed |
| if they ran a regular offense | ||
| Team record before he started in 2011-12 season | (9-15) | (1-4) |
| Team's record in first 8 games started after promotion | (6-0 - does not include game preceding streak - came off bench) | (7-1) |
| Notable win streak | 6 wins (current) | 6 wins |
| What each man averaged during streak: | 51% shooting (averaging 17 shots/game) | 50.4 Completion% (averaging 20 attempts/game), 7 TDs, 1 Int |
| averaging 24.3 pts, 9.5 asts, 6 turnovers,3.8 rbs per game | Averaged 146 yards passing/60 yards rushing | |
| Downfall during streak | Turnovers | Low Completion Percentage, Bad Passes |
| Shooting/completion % compared to league avg | 49.7% Shooting - League Average is 44.4% as of 2/16/12 | 46.7% Completions - League Average was 60.1% |
| (includes games not started - 2011-12 stats) | ||
| Most Popular Nickname for Hype | Linsanity | Tebowmania |
| Reasons for Sudden Hype | Long win streak, out of nowhere "feel-good" story | His fourth quarter comebacks (5 total, including 4 in a row) |
| Many Suspect Hype is Based on… | Race | Religion |
| Start of Career Hype resembles that & reminds me of… | Kurt Warner | Danica Patrick |
| Twitter Followers as of 2/16/2012: | 380,057 (@Jlin7) | 1,216,574 (@TimTebow) |
I tried getting through the blog without a Lin pun, but the title itself dispels that notion.
While the chart shows some similarities, the one thing to remember is that the Lin story is changing daily and the mania is likely to level off at some point. That's not to say he can't be a solid point guard in the league for years, but I highly doubt he will maintain his averages once opposing scouts learn of his deficiencies and exploit them.
To say that their careers are similar, particularly when Lin was barely recruited (basically by those two Ivy League schools - a conference not known for their athletics) and Tebow also had an offer to play at Alabama, is hyperbole at its finest.
In either case, for fans of either player, I say the best thing to do is this: enjoy the ride, ignore the critics (including me of Tebow) and hope that their joy rides can last a little while longer.
7/07/2011
Murder, They Wrote: A Brief Analysis on Why Media Cover Certain Murders & Ignore Others
What do OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Drew Peterson, Scott Peterson and the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey (among others) have in common, aside from having insane amounts of media coverages for their murder trials?
All of the above cases involve a white female victim.
How do the media go about selecting what to make the next "Trial of the Century"? Is it as simple as the victim that is killed? I know that more than just white females are getting murdered, but that seems to be what the media highlight in almost every big murder story. In OJ Simpson's case, I believe his story would have been news no matter who he (allegedly) killed due to his previously gained fame as a hall-of-fame NFL player. In the other people's cases, it's startling that stories of other demographics don't get the face time that these other cases do.
Having been surrounded by, a consumer of, and even once a part-time employee of media, I know that the things that are reported are reported because there is a need to tell news that people want to hear (i.e. stories that will sell newspapers/get viewers). Usually, this is accompanied by images that draw in the reader/viewer. A picture or an image of a young girl that is reported missing or dead will immediately get the attention of an audience.
Is this phenomenon a product of who controls the media moreso than the audience? Probably not, but they probably know that their audience will likely pay attention to something that involves one of their own. For every Casey Anthony situation, there are thousands of other similar murders happening in lower class areas of the country all the time.
Does the fact that "it happens all the time" make it less newsworthy? Perhaps, but it definitely gives an impression that the media are not really covering all of society the same way - which is truth. It seems to be common knowledge that a lot of urban areas around the country are not the safest of areas, so the media say, no need to cover these stories to the same level that we would a murder in the suburbs.
Certainly, that's not to say that there are not local reporters who do a damn fine job of covering these stories as part of their beat. In fact, here in Chi-town, we have some award-winning reporters for such stories working at the Sun-Times.
But these stories will never have a national appeal to them that will catch the eye of the CNNs and Fox Newses of the world. Sadly, I think it has to do as much with the audience that they are targeting as it does with the demographics of the victim.
All of the above cases involve a white female victim.
How do the media go about selecting what to make the next "Trial of the Century"? Is it as simple as the victim that is killed? I know that more than just white females are getting murdered, but that seems to be what the media highlight in almost every big murder story. In OJ Simpson's case, I believe his story would have been news no matter who he (allegedly) killed due to his previously gained fame as a hall-of-fame NFL player. In the other people's cases, it's startling that stories of other demographics don't get the face time that these other cases do.
Having been surrounded by, a consumer of, and even once a part-time employee of media, I know that the things that are reported are reported because there is a need to tell news that people want to hear (i.e. stories that will sell newspapers/get viewers). Usually, this is accompanied by images that draw in the reader/viewer. A picture or an image of a young girl that is reported missing or dead will immediately get the attention of an audience.
Is this phenomenon a product of who controls the media moreso than the audience? Probably not, but they probably know that their audience will likely pay attention to something that involves one of their own. For every Casey Anthony situation, there are thousands of other similar murders happening in lower class areas of the country all the time.
Does the fact that "it happens all the time" make it less newsworthy? Perhaps, but it definitely gives an impression that the media are not really covering all of society the same way - which is truth. It seems to be common knowledge that a lot of urban areas around the country are not the safest of areas, so the media say, no need to cover these stories to the same level that we would a murder in the suburbs.
Certainly, that's not to say that there are not local reporters who do a damn fine job of covering these stories as part of their beat. In fact, here in Chi-town, we have some award-winning reporters for such stories working at the Sun-Times.
But these stories will never have a national appeal to them that will catch the eye of the CNNs and Fox Newses of the world. Sadly, I think it has to do as much with the audience that they are targeting as it does with the demographics of the victim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)