Celebrity Blog

As much as it pains me to admit, there is one celebrity that immediately comes to mind when talking about media manipulation. The Queen of media: Kim Kardashian (and family). The family relies entirely on the media to maintain interest in their family thus giving them celebrity status. 

Now Kim isn't a typical celebrity by most standards. She doesn't have a commercial or runway body structure for the fashion industry. She is a self labeled "celebrity personality". The Kardashians are great at making lemonade out of whatever they're given.  The Kardashians have used Kim (and Khloe)'s weight to support healthy body image in women. The mother, Kris, used her bladder problem which was the center focus of an episode about accepting old age to score an endorsement deal with Poise pads. Ironically, both Kris and her husband Bruce are notorious for their face freezing botox. Kim attempted to use her celebrity status to break into the acting scene and music business, both which failed. She has been more successful as a guest star on several dramas and sitcoms (although most shows use her appearance as a joke or punch line)—such as How I Met Your Mother "Benefits"where Kim is "the girl who they can never remember why she is famous". Because the truth is, no one really does. Through their mix of connections, media, luck, and lots of manipulation, this family is considered a "celebrity family".

The family was origianlly famous because of father Robert Kardashian, Kim, Kourtney and Khloe's deceased father, famous for representing O.J. Simpson. However Kim's fame came in 2004 after she was hired as a stylist for the R&B singer Brandy. During that time, a sex tape of Kim and Ray J, Brandy's brother and famous singer, was leaked putting Kim's name in blogs and tabloids. After that, Kim dated several NFL players, did a spread in Playboy, and was seen around with Paris Hilton, all making more tabloid headlines (along with financing the Kardashian lifestyle). In 2007, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, originally focused on Kim and her career, aired on E!. They have since gone on to create spin offs Khloe and Lamar, Khloe and Kourtney take Miami and Kourtney and Kim Take New York as well as the special 4 hour event for Kim's wedding to Kris Humphries. 

Since 2007, the Kardashian show has changed drastically. Although always absurd, the family's attempt at playing up 'family traditions' and 'good morals' has increased significantly, with episodes where Kendell donates toys to charity or Kim meets with a girl who's "Make a Wish" is to meet Kim Kardashian. The way the show is edited labels and makes each Kardashian into a separate character type. Now each episode is structured on "family values" and appreciating their family. They even use their show to clear up rumors about them—such as Kim's alleged butt implants.

Over the years, Kim went from scandalous sex tape girl stylist to a big hearted, hopeless romantic, celebrity personality doing endorsements and front covers. The sister's have transformed this little scandal into their entire lifestyle. Being outrageous is what brings their audience back every week. They're paid for each tabloid photo taken. Kourtney and Scott got paid recently to sit poolside while a paparazzi snapped photos of them on vacation. Word is, the two have an exclusive deal with US Weekly for the scoop and photo of their new baby. With Khloe's quick wedding to Laker, Lamar Odem, and Kourtney's scndalous baby daddy drama, celebrity gossip blogs, shows, and tabloids can't get enough of these girls. Kris, the matriach, is even trying to exploit her two younger daughters from second marriage olympian Bruce Jenner, into carrying on the legacy (and paycheck). 

All the Kardashians use twitter to promote their brands, endorsements, and maintain interest in their show. The show is what got the Kardashians the status they have now. Social media makes it much easier to be a celebrity. Facebook is one of the ways Kim's co-owned business ShoeDazzle advertises to a young adult audience. Social media like facebook is the ultimate gossip chain which keeps ridiculous celebrities drama alive. Without cable and social media, Kim Kardashian would have burned out years ago. Because of all these mediums, society has completely redefined 'celebrity'. Back in the day, I would have thought celebrity would be famous for a reason—like a television or movie star or famous athlete. Kim Kardashian has no specific talent (sorry Kim). She's created an empire based on gossip around her. Which I admit, I have to give her credit for. 

Summary: Media and press are 100% responsible for the Kardashians being a household name. It's a vicious cycle: Media itself makes them famous and media then pays for them to be famous. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Kardashians but when I sit down to think about how they maintain their lives—like selling the first photo of your baby to a tabloid—I really feel like I shouldn't love them so much. 

Week 2 Critic Blog

The three critics I chose are Robert Bianco from USA Today, Nancy Franklin of The New Yorker, and David Edelstein of New York Magazine and CBS Sunday Morning.

At the end of an argument, I love nothing more than being right. Thus it makes sense that I like critics who affirm what I already believe. Robert Bianco is that critic for me. From what I have read so far, we have yet to have a major disagreement about a show. In his Article about Glee from march of this year, I found a similar view from mine about how Glee is gone off the track of good writing and interesting semi-realistic story lines. His article backed my opinions and gave me more specific reasons as to why I wasn't feeling Glee anymore. I loved the first season. It was organic and new and a musical in a television show! Then suddenly there were guest stars, covers of super new pop songs, and more ways of selling out to a teen audience. Now it feels like an after school special about acceptance and learning life lessons. Its almost like 7th Heaven or Secret Life, where each episode has a moral about growing up. Robert Bianco's review agreed with me and validated my reasons for giving up on Glee last season. In another article about new girl, Bianco explained to me why I was enjoying the series more.  Initially, I watched it for the strong female character Jess. After a few episodes, I was starting to get turned off when her quirkiness just came off as crazy and annoying. Then in the Thanksgiving episode when a new plotline came along I suddenly started to take more interest. I just assumed it was my attraction to any kind of love story, but Bianco's article explained that he saw it as a plotline which gave Jess's character some real substance instead of being random episodes about her weird quirks- now she had a goal.

The second is New York Magazine's David Edelstein. I've actually been watching him for years on CBS Sunday morning. So I went and re-watched one of his reviews from last Sunday. His reviews have always been very conversational since I've been watching him in video form. But now that I've read his written word, it sounds exactly the same as his spoken reviews. I enjoy his honesty and his poetic wording. Movies like Hugo, which I would have never given a chance and now am genuinely interested in. I trust David Edelstein's words because he's conversational as well as well read. He has experience and it shows in his reviews. If a movie confused me or I felt in some way unsure about my feelings on a more complicated, intellectual film, I'd trust Edelstein to set me straight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek0r3xzGoxc&feature=related

The third was Nancy Franklin of the New Yorker. One, she's a woman, so I like that. Also, it was a review to Pan Am, which is currently one of my it shows. I like that it is a different perspective on shows such as Pan Am- which is a female power show at its finest. This review talks about the newer trend this past fall of Female power shows. This trend makes me SO happy. There was Mad Men which was a similar type of show- 60s theme but technically based around men- but with some great female characters. After that there was the huge cult following of the Walking Dead- which in case you didn't know is kind of sexist. Pan Am is true female empowerment- which Franklin points out. I think the concept of the Pan Am show is unique and surprising it hasn't been tapped into yet. Franklin disagreed and said that Pan Am's pilot episode had better framing than the actual content. I had been so distracted by the Pan Am glam which the pilot portrayed that I missed the symmetry which paralleled men and women- putting women on top in the end. Without Franklin's input, I would've completely missed that. 
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2011/10/03/111003crte_television_franklin

Assignment #3

I never looked very far into the background of Television Criticism until this article so I found it very enlightening. My favorite example from the first article was the metaphor of television criticism verse restaurant criticism. In this metaphor, I really saw how television criticism has evolved. It is silly to go to the same restaurant every week so why has it become this in terms of weekly reviews? Shouldn't all reviews just be by reviewers and recaps just be by recappers (or Tosh.O)? I wish television reviews were more simplistic like book reviews or movie reviews, just overview and give an opinion on the movie instead of analyzing every little aspect of the show. The line that really spoke to me was when Levin wrote that certain weekyl reviewing critics simply "validate your interest in the shows you're already watching" which doesn't really make much sense at all in the big picture. I see there is a fine line- if any- between a review and their opinions. A critique is a personal testament to liking or disliking something so it makes sense these reviews come with strings attached. Almost no writing is objective in the end anyways which was the point of the follow-up article. 

One link I followed was one of Alan Sepinwall's reviews of one of the final episodes of FNL. Texas Forever- I clicked on this purely to see if this man had a heart of Texas after watching FNL for season after season and alas it did. It took me through a truly poetic version of a pretty emotional FNL episode I watched last year. The writing was definitely a mix of commentary as well as articulating the plot points in a very stylistic and artistic way. His critique is very conversational and feels like gossiping on the phone with a friend. 

The second link I followed was Myles McNutt's cultural learnings blog. I clicked on it out of curiousity of what a pop culture scholar was (and how can I become that?!). I immediately liked his choices in shows and started to go further into his reviews on Parks and Rec- one of my newer favorites.