On Saturday nights, you can typically find my roommate/best friend and I studying at home. This past Saturday was no different. But as we diligently worked away and dutifully sipped our coffee, a blip presented itself in our routine.
She sent me a link to a four-minute video from this season’s The Bachelor.
I hit the play button even though I knew it was a bad idea. I knew that, if I pressed that play button, I would effectively be rendering my hard-earned productivity that evening useless. Needless to say, what ensued after that four-minute video was two hours of catching up on the episodes we had missed thus far, notes strewn haphazardly across our desks. By the time we emerged from the rabbit hole, it was two in the morning.
Let’s talk a little bit about season 20 of The Bachelor. Ben Higgins, a software salesman, is the star of the show. Ben Higgins is also a very handsome man. Now, I am not a “Bachelor” aficionado, by any means. The extent of my knowledge comes from a couple of episodes during high school sleepovers and the occasional perusing of magazine articles at Shoppers Drug Mart. But Ben Higgins has a quality about him that immediately captivated my roommate and I (plus millions of other women, no doubt). Besides his pretty face, Ben has a seemingly genuine desire for love that many people hope for in their significant others. He is also well-spoken, endearing and hopelessly charming. He just seems like an all-around good guy. Of course, reality television never portrays actual reality. But Ben Higgins has a cool, relaxed vibe makes him feel very real. This is precisely why he sells.
Besides a certifiably great choice in the candidate for The Bachelor this season, the makers of the show should also be commended for the measures they took to ensure that, even at season 20, The Bachelor remained far from stale. In the batch of seriously gorgeous women this season, there are your typical drama instigators and soft-spoken crowd favourites. But there are also a few very crazy ones and even a set of identical twins, Emily and Haley Ferguson. It’s interesting that, while every other woman has an occupation listed under their name, Emily and Haley only have the word “Twin.” (Incredible, I know.)In addition, during the first meeting with Ben, one of the women (a dentist) decided to give the bachelor a teeth cleaning in order to prepare him for a potential kiss. Unsurprisingly, he did not kiss her. On the first one-on-one date, the pair were accompanied by Kevin Hart and Ice Cube on a “Ride Along.” Reportedly, these first two episodes pretty much set the tone for how the rest of the season will play out – very strange, but also very entertaining.
It’s easy to sit here and debate over the subjectivity of what is good television and what is bad television. However, it is widely agreed that The Bachelor is not a good television show by its own merit. No matter how attractive Ben Higgins is or how entertaining the story line becomes, I know this. My best friend knows this. Society knows this. Good television series exist far and wide, but The Bachelor is not one of them.
I am certainly more predisposed to watch shows like Transparent over The Bachelor. Often, fundamentally good television shows (such as Transparent) or movies explore deeper themes and require more attention or emotional investment. While those are always fantastic to watch and gush over, it may not be a bad idea to revisit an old childhood movie (She’s The Man, anyone?) or a “trash” TV show when you’re just seeking a much-needed break from the daily stresses of school and life. It’s important to spend time being entertained over something as silly as a dating show; while it may not be a “good show,” it’s worthwhile simply in its ability to help you let loose. Spending time to be mindlessly entertained every now and again – or spending time for yourself at all – is something society has engrained within us as wasteful and inefficient. But it’s really important to not feel guilty about taking a breather; it is both a rejuvenating and regenerative activity that may benefit you in the long run.
My best friend and I met at the beginning of first year and have been inseparable ever since. Both of us are in the same program and have a pretty aligned set of values and interests. In fact, many people who meet us fall into disbelief when they realize we only met a year and a half ago and have not known each other since childhood. She is endlessly caring, kind, assiduous, intelligent… I could go on forever. I trust her to the world’s end; there are few things I wouldn’t do for her.
Lately, however, we have both been so busy that we rarely see each other despite living in the same apartment. Maintaining a healthy balance of school, extracurricular activities, work and friends is a massive challenge that many of us are tasked with. When other areas flare up, particularly school, it’s easy to let others sit on the back burner for a little while. Recognizing this, both my best friend and I have decided to make some changes in our respective schedules to fit in a time each week, no matter how brief, where we spend time unwinding together. Now, we have a date every week to watch the new episode of The Bachelor.
The Bachelor has certainly made me see that watching what is widely regarded as a bad show doesn’t diminish my personality or my other interests in good shows. It debunked my fear that watching it automatically places me in the categorwy of “people with poor taste.” It’s really not that serious. Sometimes bad TV simply makes for a really good time with your best friend.
Header Photo Credit: Star Pulse, in-article: Felicia Graham
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Kaiwen Song
Television programs, with their widespread reach and exposure, can have many beneficial impacts on individuals and society. TV not only provides entertainment, but can also help generate societal acceptance of minority groups such as the LGBTQ community through positive representation. Looking back we can see the impact that TV shows featuring LGBTQ characters, such as Will & Grace and Glee had on the increasing acceptance of queer people in North America. These shows had a snowball effect, with many others beginning to feature LGBTQ characters. Indeed, 2015 saw a plethora of attempts at positive representation. Unfortunately, they often left much to be desired. Here are three major ways in which we could improve LGBTQ representation on television in 2016.
First, give LGBTQ characters enough screen time to fully develop. Creating a character that only says a few inconsequential words every episode — or worse, flashes by on screen for mere seconds — is not enough to leave a lasting impression. One example is Captain David Singh in The Flash. While the show is theoretically highly inclusive, Singh, the gay police captain is only featured in 16 of the 23 total episodes with a total screen time of less than two minutes. Similarly, Teen Wolf featured the token gay lacrosse player Danny for less than five minutes throughout its first three seasons before the character disappeared altogether with no explanation. These token LGBTQ characters are extremely disappointing. How can an audience enjoy or relate to a character they don’t get the chance to know?
Secondly, ensure that your attempts at positive representation don’t end up doing more harm than good. Quantico, one of the most anticipated shows of 2015, had commercials that highlighted the inclusion of a major gay character named Simon — the show held extra promise as it was created by Joshua Safran, who is openly gay. This promise was shattered almost immediately when it was revealed that Simon was only pretending to be gay, meaning that TV was robbed of some potentially fantastic queer representation. Safran didn’t stop there; the other minor gay character on Quantico was depicted as cowardly, running away from a bomb while others stayed behind to defuse it, later committing suicide at the prospect of facing imprisonment after being caught for a crime. Both actions perpetuated the negative stereotype of the cowardly or incapable gay man. Needless to say, LGBTQ characters do not, and should not, have to be perfect human beings, however, with so few representations of queer characters on TV, we must take care that the few rare portrayals of LGBTQ characters on TV don’t buy into pre-existing negative stereotypes.
Thirdly, do not be afraid to show LGBTQ characters engaged in romantic and sexual relationships. Modern Family, a comedy series with several LGBTQ writer-producers, is a success on many fronts: it features a gay couple in major roles and allows them to be both good and bad, nuanced just like the rest of the characters. However, Modern Family has long been criticized for glossing over displays of physical intimacy between its gay character. According to the American Sociological Review’s 2014 study, although people may support civil rights for the LGBTQ community, many are still be uncomfortable seeing same-sex public displays of affection. Thus, it is important for TV shows such as Modern Family to play a role in normalizing same-sex physical intimacy. Seeing characters at their most affectionate and intimate is an important part of seeing them as human.
2015 saw a plethora of attempts at positive representation. Unfortunately, they often left much to be desired.
Fulfilling all three criteria, all the while maintaining critical and commercial success, is not impossible: take a look at How To Get Away With Murder. The show features a lead bisexual character and a major gay character, each with individual strengths and weaknesses, who are part of romantic relationships that are depicted with as much explicitness as their straight counterparts. By taking the time and effort to portray members of the LGBTQ community in a meaningful way, TV shows can be elevated from being simply entertaining to being influential and important. Writers and producers — straight and LGBTQ alike — take note!
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
As some of you have already noticed, and have vehemently tweeted at us about, The Silhouette no longer Livestreams every SRA meeting.
“What?! How could you do this? What did the SRA ever do to you?” The answer to these questions is: yes it’s true; we did it following the guidelines of the MSU constitution and Silhouette bylaws; the SRA did nothing to hurt us, this is simply a decision of content management.
It has been brought to my attention that there has been some miscommunication about this decision, as well as some misinterpretation of The Silhouette’s role as a news outlet on campus.
According to the MSU’s operating policies, The Silhouette “shall remain completely autonomous in terms of the editorial content and the basic format of the newspaper” (Operating Policy 1.3.1- The Silhouette, section 2.9). Being autonomous means that we have the freedom to cover what we want without the influence of the MSU. This is not limited to our print product, it also includes social media such as Livestream.
Every year The Silhouette changes its social media to reflect the feedback and interaction we get from the year past. This year, we chose to add three forms of social media — Snapchat, Instagram and we joined Reddit. We also decided to stop using one form of social media — Livestream. We made this choice because we found it was a waste of our money and effort. It costs $504 a year to have a Livestream account, and when we hosted a stream of a meeting or debate, on average our links to the stream only recieved a single digit number of clicks on social media (like our last SRA meeting Livestream which peaked at 8 viewers). Compare this to the hundreds of views we get on our own videos and the thousands of clicks we get on written online articles, and it is clear that this is not the most effective form of media to get a message across to students.
We don’t hate the SRA. We cover their meetings in whatever form we deem most appropriate — whether that is with an article (in print or online), an infographic, a series of tweets or a Livestream recording.
We would have been happy to Livestream last week’s meeting as it discussed an important student issue that we have been keeping up with online and in print, but I did not feel comfortable sending one of our staff members into a meeting before having made a concrete and written decision about the long and short term plans for the future of Livestreaming. Based on the emails I have received, the messages that have been sent to us over Twitter, and the conversations I have had in person, there is a clear misunderstanding about The Silhouette’s rights, and I was not going to send my staff members into a space where they would be bullied for exercising their freedom and editorial autonomy. Instead, this week we had a reporter cover the meeting in person, and they left a recorder to get the full meeting, since they had other school-related commitments to attend to on the night of the meeting. And for the record, no one from our staff promised to cover this meeting. I mentioned that we would consider it while at our Oct. 29 Board of Publications meeting, but no one reached out to me to confirm whether we would be there or not. If someone told you otherwise, you have been misinformed.
Just as The Silhouette acts to hold the MSU and SRA accountable, these two bodies also hold The Silhouette accountable in terms of our spending and budget. The argument for consistent Livestreaming has been that a portion of the budget has been allotted specifically to this cause — this may have been true in the past, but this is not true this year. This year we have a reduced subscription budget due to a few changes within the organization, we have not allotted any money towards purchasing equipment, and none of our job descriptions require that our staff Livestream any meetings or debates as a mandatory part of their job. It is simply not true that we are going against our budget or constitution by stopping the Livestream of these meetings.
I understand that having a Livestream of SRA meetings is important for accessibility, but making SRA meetings accessible is not The Silhouette’s job. We will make news about the meetings accessible, as well as any criticisms or praise of decisions made during the hours of meetings — but the meetings themselves? That falls on the shoulders of the MSU and the SRA. The MSU needs to make its services and decisons accessible to the public. We hold them accountable for this. This being said, The Silhouette is happy to lend its equipment to the MSU when or if they decide to do this.
The Silhouette will be covering some of the future meetings with Livestream, and other meetings through a medium of our choice. But, since The Silhouette does have autonomy, we do not need to say yes to demands related to coverage from the MSU, unless they are in writing as part of our operations. If we begin saying yes to these demands, at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we stop being a paper whose coverage is run editorially independent of the MSU? At what point do we become a mouthpiece for the MSU’s agenda and become a paper that is unable to hold our university and its students union accountable?
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sasha Dhesi
With cultural diversity growing in the West, our media is slowly but surely also becoming more diverse. Minorities have carved out their spots in most forms of media, whether it be music, dance or television, but there is one part of the art world where diversity has plateaued: the modelling world.
Diversity in the modelling world is abysmal: the FashionSpot, an online fashion magazine, reported that during February’s New York Fashion Week, the shows were overwhelmingly white, at 77 percent. Of the remaining 23 percent, 8.7 percent of the models were black, 8.5 percent were Asian, 3.5 percent were Latina and the remainder were composed of other ethnicities too small in percentage to list.
Even when ethnic minorities are included, they tend to be gimmicks, something to lure consumers in by their momentary diversity only to fall back into their usual homogenous white blur the next season. More often than not, companies will throw in one non-white model and consider their job done, because apparently every ethnic group darker than “NW15” is the same. Ethnic minorities are considered a monolith that can be used at random to improve a company’s PR at the drop of a hat. Consider H&M’s recent fall campaign, which included a woman wearing a hijab. While it is a huge achievement in our current society, I found it a little too convenient that the company decided to do this now following scandal after scandal that they endured over their incorrigible working conditions in a mostly Muslim country.
And this isn’t a trend exclusive to racial minorities. Despite being over the so-called “heroin chic” of the 1990s, the modelling world is still hesitant to use anyone who doesn’t fit this waif criterion. There has been the occasional editorial where a plus-size model will be used, but once again, it tends to be a gimmick meant to reflect well on the company over actually celebrating body diversity. For the most part, companies still manage to only use women with flat stomachs and hourglass figures. The stereotypical model is still thin, white and young. Anything else must be explicitly stated: the trans model, the plus-size model, the model of colour.
You may ask, why any of this is important? Does it really matter? And my answer is yes, it does. Modelling is a big part of how we establish beauty standards, and by continually using a very specific mould, companies insinuate that there is only one “look” that is noteworthy. Even when fashion houses decide to use a minority en masse for a campaign, it tends to be in an insultingly obsessive way, like the way the fashion world is currently uncomfortably obsessed with the genitals of trans models. Although helpful in representation, the obsession does not equal celebration.
This isn’t to say that there isn’t variance in the modelling world: after all, some of the most popular supermodels have been women of colour. But they are exceptions to the rule, who often had the good luck of being in contact with the few progressive designers that are willing to hire them, which was the case for model Naomi Campbell, who credits her career to Yves St. Laurent’s willingness to use black models during the 1960s and 1970s.
Lucky for us, things are slowly changing. Although mainstream designers like Chanel and Dior stick to their blur of lily white waifs, up-and-comers like French brand Koché are making waves through their mix of high couture and sportswear, and use a mix of minorities in their shows to reflect the diversity of Paris’ underground scene, away from the Disney illusion that North Americans have come to know. And who could forget Kanye West’s Yeezy x Adidas collection, or his more recent surprise Yeezy 2 collection, both of which included an array of minorities in nude bodysuits? The rules of modelling are slowly being challenged, arguably not fast enough, but challenged just the same.
Models like Neelam Gill, Fei Fei Sun and Joan Smalls, to name a few, are examples of the elegance that is left untapped by our society because some are uncomfortable changing their notions of beauty. But to do so, minorities have to be used in shows and campaigns in a genuine manner, and not as tokens so the brand can improve its street cred, something very doable. A celebration of the beauty should be inclusive of all beauty, not just one. Once established, the fashion world can grow and change like the rest of the world.
Photo Credit: AFP Photo/Joshua Lott
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sarah Jama
Over the past few weeks a picture has been floating around on my social media feed. From my understanding, it went viral because it captured an act of compassion. It showed one man — known only as Robert — who initiated hand holding with a stranger who allowed and reciprocated it. Godfrey Coutto, the stranger in question, is a McMaster student.
Believe me when I say I understand why this picture went viral. When on the HSR, most of us barely look up from our cell phones, let alone conduct acts of kind-hearted physical contact with people we don’t know. Not only was this moment a rarity, it also reminded a lot of people about how simple and momentous an act of kindness can be.
But something was off. Robert’s name was scarcely mentioned online in the shared posts, and only barely touched on in the news articles about the photo. He was never interviewed about the incident, and the only thing mentioned about him was that he was a man who has Cerebral Palsy (a mobility related disability) and a hearing impairment. In contrast, Coutto’s name was always mentioned in the first three sentences of the news articles. The articles written about this photo also tended to frame Robert as a person with “special needs,” but did nothing else to illustrate his character, or touch on why he initiated the hand holding in the first place. It would not have been difficult for the people writing these news articles to find American Sign Language interpreters (as Robert is fluent in ASL) and ask him these sorts of questions. On the off chance that he was approached and did not want to give a statement, this could have been communicated easily in the article.
I want to know what kind of dialogue Robert and Coutto had while holding hands on the bus, if any. I want to know why Robert wanted to hold Coutto’s hand. I want to know if Godfrey reminded Robert of someone he cared deeply for. I want to know why he enjoys riding the HSR for hours as his family has stated he does, and what his favourite stops in Hamilton are. Most of all, I want to know how he feels about the photo and the articles written about him. Not telling readers what Robert was thinking at the time this was taken tells us that he is more useful when silent. That he is to be used by society to teach others a lesson about compassion, as opposed to having his own personal intentions behind his actions. It says that even though the story would not have gone viral without him, he wasn’t an important piece of it.
When people with disabilities aren’t given the opportunity to have a say in the way they portrayed in the media it strips away at the pieces of autonomy that people with disabilities have fought to have for years. Canada has a hushed history of institutionalizing people with disabilities, taking them away from their families and putting them in homes, because people with disabilities were considered burdens on society with zero autonomy. It was only recently, on March 31, 2009, that Ontario closed the last three of its large-scale government operated institutions meant for people with disabilities.
In a lot of places around the world — mostly because of our warped tendency to view human productivity (and our limited understanding of what that entails) as the standard of who deserves to be treated with respect in society — people with disabilities are hardly given the space to voice their opinions. Considering that the leading cause of disability in Canada is old age (which is inevitable for us all), and considering the fact that people with disabilities exist in every culture, race, religion, region of the world and can have any sexual orientation, making them the largest minority in the world, we need to be careful that when covering acts of kindness in the media, we aren’t accidently erasing the identity of people with disabilities along the way.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
There are few people in the world who can liken their 12-year-old selves to “a middle school Hare Krishna,” and make you go, “yeah, sure, I could see that.”
Mindy Kaling is one of these people. On the first page of her sophomore novel, Why Not Me?, Kaling begins to tell the story of her early life by describing her childhood attempts to please everyone around her (“I brought a family-size bag of Skittles to homeroom”) — a trait that has followed her into her adult career. The book of essays by the actress, writer and your dream best friend, is a fun, informative and hilarious tell-all about her personal life, the world of celebrity and Kaling’s early adventures manoeuvring through Hollywood.
Although styled similar to her first novel, Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me (And Other Concerns), the book is still a unique treasure trove of stories told with her iconic blunt and self-deprecating humour.
The book jumps into her stories head-on with details about her relationships (both high and low-profile), lists chronicling double standards in Hollywood, and even includes a detailed collection of imagined emails that would exist if she didn’t go into television and instead became a high school Latin teacher.
With Kaling’s removal of the self-censorship that causes many celebrities to hold back details in their autobiographies, the novel is full of relatable anecdotes and honest experiences that address the question so many of us ask ourselves in terms of careers and relationships, “Why not me?”
After The Mindy Project was cancelled by FOX and received some mixed feedback from fans, I thought Why Not Me? May have been Kaling’s comedic swansong. Lucky for us, the show got picked up by Hulu (with hilarious new cast members and uncut Internet humour) and the book is far from the last we’ll be hearing from this talented actress. Kaling has already signed a $7.5 million deal for a third book that she will be writing alongside former The Office co-star and ex-boyfriend, B.J. Novak. The book will detail their failed romantic relationship, once again asking “Why not me” in the most lucrative way possible.
Overall the book is an entertaining read that can get most readers laughing. Kaling’s trials and tribulations make for good feminist fun and capture real-life emotions and challenges with a light-heartedness that she pulls off perfectly.
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sunanna Bhasin
Lady Gaga’s video for her latest song “Til It Happens to You” opens with a trigger warning explaining that it contains graphic content but “reflects the reality of what is happening daily on college campuses.” In other words, this video needs to be seen. The video challenges common views regarding sexual assault. There’s no “obviously-shady-looking character” that initiates the first attack.
Gaga reveals the truth behind many sexual assault cases: the perpetrator is often a friend or someone close to the victim. It also calls out those who question the victims when they come forward. The irony is that the victims should feel supported enough to speak out, yet the reason they often don’t is because of people – who, in most cases, have never experienced sexual assault – shaming them for getting involved in such egregious acts, implying that they had a choice.
In the music video, a young woman is raped by a colleague in her music studio. In this way, Gaga brings the notion of victim blaming to the forefront: would you really think to blame a girl who is attacked by someone she considers a friend in a work environment?
The pop singer doesn’t stop there. In fact, she explores the stereotypical party setting in order to question the common accusation victim blamers tend to make—“oh, well she shouldn’t have been drinking.” To this Gaga argues, no, he shouldn’t have drugged her drink. This exact instance of sexual assault is depicted in the video when a young man drugs two women at a party by slipping pills (Rohypnol, no doubt) into their drinks. This case is all too familiar to anyone who pays attention to the news. Gaga captures almost every case involving male perpetrators and female victims. While these do not comprise all rape cases, they do make up the majority.
While some may criticize Gaga for excluding scenarios where men are raped, it is imperative to understand that she does this purposely. She makes it clear that she is focusing on sexual assault (which describes less violent cases as well) on college campuses. While she could have broadened the scope of her video, the message she leaves behind can be applied to either of the aforementioned situations: support victims, and don’t be too quick to make assumptions about what happened because you won’t understand “‘til it happens to you.”
Although the video starts out overwhelming and heart wrenching, the most beautiful aspect is the solidarity you see towards the end. Slowly, the victims come together to share their traumatic experiences, and then the community begins to reach out. At the end of the video, the victims march out of a college building together confidently with male and female supporters urging them forward. Gaga encourages viewers to be among those who listen to the victims and try to understand them, but she doesn’t allow you to become complacent just because she has proposed one small solution to a much larger problem. When this group of survivors leave the building, there is the silhouette of a victim who hasn’t been able to speak out yet looming in the background. Gaga’s lesson is clear – make sure that no victim feels isolated or blamed for what happened. This is demonstrated by victims, who had previously tattooed self-hatred on their arms with messages such as “I am worthless” and “Believe me”, writing words of encouragement and love on their bodies: “I am worthy” and “I love myself”. One in five college women will be sexually assaulted this year unless something changes. It’s a haunting statistic mentioned at the end of the video which has resulted in positive changes at McMaster, such as the #consent campaign during welcome week. As the issue of sexual assault becomes more large-scale, international superstars like Lady Gaga address it openly. However, as a McMaster student, I encourage all of you to understand the urgency of dealing with this atrocious rape culture that has encroached onto college campuses across North America and ask yourselves: which role will you play?
[adrotate banner="13"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
I found myself ending off this past summer vacation seeking out new niches in the music world. One genre that really caught my ear was something that is known as “industrial.”
Industrial music—if I had to try to define it—is an experimental genre that is a chaotic cluster of lo-fi, harsh noise. The key ingredient to the industrial sound is distortion—not only of instruments, but also of voices and voice clips. Most notably, Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, SPK, Genesis P-Orridge, and Boyd Rice are prominent contributors to the industrial music genre.
When looking for recommendations, I had a song called “Turn Me On Dead Man” suggested to me, which was performed by the latter-most on that list. After the first 30 seconds of that three-minute video, I excitedly began to look up other songs by this artist—also known as Non—because he had the exact vibe I was looking for. After a quick Google search, I was overwhelmed by the results that popped up about this artist. Rice is best known for being a racist, misanthropist, sexist, nihilist, and last—but not least—for playing a large role in Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan. I paused the song I had been listening to so that I could focus on reading an essay he had written, titled “Revolt Against Penis Envy.” By the end of it, I was hoping to find out that what I had read was a satirical piece, but I was wrong. The ideas about rape, maintaining superior status to women, and general ideas of oppressing less privileged groups were so outlandish that I could hardly believe that someone genuinely had these ideas and published them on public forums. Unfortunately, the aforementioned essay was written in earnest; every problematic statement featured in this piece really was a recurring ideal that appeared in Rice’s interviews. I was in a nervous sweat by the time I got to the end, which Rice punctuated with reiterations of his philosophies: “Long live oppression! Long live love! Long live rape!”
The unfortunate thing with this sort of situation is that it’s very common in all facets of media and art. Many, many artists are problematic. The spectrum of problems is wide and far; there are perpetuators of archaic ideas, and further enactors of despicable actions. Whether it’s Woody Allen with his adopted daughter, Sean Penn with Madonna, Chris Brown with Rihanna, or Lena Dunham with just about everything, us consumers are faced with making a moral decision: do we value the consumption of art more than we do our own moral standing?
Such a question is difficult to grapple with, since the idea of the artist is intrinsically linked to the piece of art itself, which we more often than not happen to take for granted. Really, this question is not one that is answered consciously, but through the act of being ignorant and passive about what is being consumed. It isn’t always necessarily the case where an individual is decisively consuming a problematic piece of media—often, when the problematic history of an artist is brought to the attention of this consumer, they become open to learning about who this artist is as a person and what that means for the art they produce.
The problems come in when an individual is educated about the producer of art, yet chooses to ignore the situation. There is a revisiting of this question posed earlier: is the consumption of art valued above an individual’s moral standing? And if so, why? The argument that art can be separated from the artist and subsequently appreciated by an audience relies heavily upon the idea that a work of art is not an extension of an artist. To assume that an artistic piece is not a reflection of the artist’s ideals and interpretations of his experiences is absolutely unreasonable. I argue, absolutely, that any piece of art is a direct reflection of the artist himself.
In conversations along these lines, I can’t help but bring Roland Barthes into the equation. His essay titled “The Death of the Author” touches on this very issue. Essentially, Barthes argues that the image we get of an author is through his writing. According to Barthes, an author—Barthes is referring to writing, specifically, in his piece, but it is easily applied to all media—is born through his writing: we cannot conceive of the writer without first reading his work. The writing only exists through the interpretation of the reader. In Barthes’ opinion, interpretations of the piece of art as a whole are the basis of our understanding of the author. The author’s role in producing a body of text is a misconception of productivity. The author does not produce the text – he is influenced by many factors.
Through a metaphor posed by Barthes, the author is traditionally thought to “nourish” his writing, much like a “father to his child.” However, Barthes argues that the author is born “simultaneously” with his work. The main idea I am pulling from Barthes’ essay is that the author is a product of his writing, which is then interpreted by the readers. The entire work hangs on being read, and this reading colours the reader’s perception of the artist who has produced the work.
Needless to say, in lieu of all of this, I had to drop Boyd Rice from my slow-growing collection of industrial artists. The good news, though, is that there are many other talented artists in the same vein for me to explore. And fortunately, that can also be said about every other art form.
Photo Credit: VICE Media
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
[adrotate banner="12"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Fabricating fictional stories to pass off as news is simply unacceptable for serious journalism. It diminishes the credibility of the media, it spits in the face of anyone affected by these events, and it makes fools of the public.
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams is under investigation for claiming he was in a helicopter that had been hit with a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq in 2003. Williams recently admitted he was never on the attacked helicopter. The military news site called Stars and Stripes also brought forward a claim from one of the crew members on his helicopter that they were an hour behind the one that was actually attacked. Williams’ response was, “and that’s the first I’ve heard of that. I did not think we were in trail by that far.”
Witnesses have also come forward stating that his coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 contained inaccurate or fabricated stories, including a story about gangs infiltrating the Ritz-Carlton he was staying at. The story goes that he and the NBC members he was with were all trapped in the hotel by armed gangs brandishing guns and terrorizing guests. He made a break for it to make it outside the hotel, where a gang was ready to take the NBC vehicle they came in. Louisiana National Guardsman then appeared to confront the gang, and ensured that the NBC members could enter their vehicle and escape.
There are inconsistencies with this told story in two interviews between Williams and two separate authors named Douglas Brinkley and Judith Sylvester. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Williams “rushed to the scene only to find that although a group of men had tried to enter the hotel, they weren’t armed and were easily turned back by police.” Other witnesses also claim there were no gangs at all.
There are also investigations into his reporting of events in the Lebanon-Israel 2006 war, including claims that Hezbollah rockets exploded under his helicopter. Williams has told varying versions of this story through the years with inconsistencies pertaining to where the rockets were seen. His written blog for NBC News makes no mention of rockets.
The public deserves the truth from their news broadcasts. I don’t know whether to be impressed that Williams was able to deceive his viewers for this long without being caught or disgusted that it took this long to find out. It is entirely possible that Williams remains employed after these investigations. After all, he is a large part of their ratings as there is an appeal in his confident demeanour and tone delivering stories. He continues to receive support from fans old and young across his lengthy career in the public eye.
This is unacceptable. We must not stand for liars delivering our news. We should demand our public figures tell facts instead of fiction, truths instead of falsehoods, and realities instead of fantasies. While admitting to the falsified Iraq story is admirable in its own way, the repercussions must be strong enough to demonstrate the value of journalistic integrity over ratings. Any credibility that NBC wishes to salvage rides on the decision to keep Brian Williams on their cast. I fear that the wrong decision will be made.
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Update: NBC has announced that Brian Williams will be suspended without pay for six months. Lester Holt will continue to substitute anchor in his stead. "By his actions, Brian Williams has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News," NBC Universal Chief Executive Steve Burke said in a network statement. “His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate.”
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
After sitting down with Cardinals and listening to the banter that occurs during an interview, it is clear that Levi Ryann, Myles Rogers, and Nathaniel Rustenburg are more than band mates. It is not surprising that they have been playing music together since they met in their high school jazz combo, nor that Ryann and Rogers have been friends since birth.
Their friendship is apparent throughout their 2012 EP Farther Than Love, and they feed off each other’s energy during live performances.
“It’s a zone. It’s all adrenaline, because I definitely think there’s something spiritual about playing music and playing music for people, especially original music where the songs are what you’ve created together. And so first of all, it means a lot for people to even like that, and on another level, that’s how you have the energy. It’s not even us, you just kind of tap into it,” Rogers explained.
“I think [it’s important] to not be boring to look at because people tune out pretty quick,” Rustenburg added.
Cardinals’ distinct sound is clearly influenced by a variety of genres, from modern pop and folk to early rock and roll. However, the band stated that while their individual interests differ, collective influences include current Canadian artists, including Sam Roberts Band and the Arkells.
The band’s songs tend to be based on real experiences.
“There are some from when we were just starting to write where you just kind of write lyrics because they sound cool, but as time goes by you realize you’re pouring your heart into things,” Rogers said.
The trio recently moved from their native St. Catharines to Toronto, and cite this transition as the major inspiration for their new album, which is scheduled for release early this spring.
“We still always say we’re from St. Catharines because that’s where we learned everything, but Toronto inspired this whole new album,” Rogers explained.
While they were unable to share the details of the new release, Ryann said, “expect something different.”
Despite their recent evolution as a band, their desire to grow and explore their sound has not been satisfied.
“There have been a lot of times when I’ve felt successful, but I’m still, as an artist, always in pursuit of success,” Rogers explained. “Even though a lot of great things have happened to us and a lot of things have just come together naturally, it’s all about the pursuit.”
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
