"The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY. It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM. The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program. Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice. WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed. You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com. Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi. All Rights Reserved. You like what you see? Drop me a line and we can talk.Program scripts from week of March 4, 2013
My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media. TV, radio, the movies and more. I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion. Call this the View from the Phlipside. Variety Fades This is one of those oddball stories that just feels like it needs to be shared. Another iconic print publication has found itself on the ropes and is downsizing and moving more emphasis to the online publishing. In this case it’s a publication that you have probably never held in your hand but you may have seen several times. What is it? It’s Variety magazine.
Variety may not always have been the top dog in reporting on Hollywood but it’s hard to imagine that any of its competitors are better known outside the movie capital. Over the years it has been a favorite device in the movies for quickly moving the plot forward in movies about the stage or screen. You may remember them in the movie “White Christmas” for example. The other reason to use Variety headlines is that Variety was known for its snappy headline style often involving what was called “slanguage”. Thus you got “Sticks Nix Hick Pix” in 1935 over a story about how rural audiences did not like pictures about rural themes and “Good Book Books Boffo Biz” in 2004 over a story about the box office success of “The Passion of the Christ”.
Variety began as a vaudeville magazine back in 1905 published in New York City. In 1933 they added “Daily Variety” which was headquartered in Los Angeles. It probably published the very first movie review in 1907. That “slanguage” of Variety’s helped to popularize words like “sitcom”, “sex appeal” and “striptease”. Pretty good for a magazine aimed at a pretty focused market.
In the end all the usual problems arose. The magazines and associated web sites were sold late last year to the Penske Media Corporation for about 25 million dollars. To try and keep the icon ticking Penske announced they are ending the Daily Variety, going back to just being a weekly (that’s how the magazine started) and putting more emphasis on the online reporting. In an interesting twist they also announced that they will eliminate the paywall at Variety.com. The big question now is how will they replace the income after losing both the daily subscription and sales PLUS the paywall income too. Penske also owns one of Variety’s biggest online competitors “Deadline.com”.
One way or the other it’s the end of the line for an American icon. We can only hope that they came up with an appropriately pithy headline for their last daily edition.
Social Death Have you ever opened up your favorite social media site and found that one of your friends there was threatening to quit? Just walk away from the whole deal and never post again and close their account and they’re serious this time? Happens to me a couple times each year. They almost never go through with it but something has just made the experience less than warm and fuzzy for them and they think about quitting. Most of the time you just shrug it off or maybe even laugh it off. I’m sure that’s what the staff and owners of the social network do.
Turns out it’s actually something they need to pay a little more attention to if they know what’s good for them.
A second question (and yes it’s related to the first I promise) do you remember the web site Friendster? Friendster is probably the granddad of the modern social media. It was founded the year before MySpace and two years before Facebook. At its height it boasted 100 million users and snubbed a thirty million dollar buyout offer from Google. And in 2009 it basically curled up and died. Friendster still exists but as a gaming platform.
So what happened? According to a group from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich what basically happened was it simply become too much of a hassle for its users and they left. The group did what is being called a digital autopsy. The results showed that following some technical problems and an unpopular re-design users simply decided it was more trouble than it was worth and left.
Now here’s where your friends come in. YOU may think that the network is just fine. But if enough of your friends leave the study shows that you will leave too. That’s exactly what happened to Friendster. A critical mass of users left, their friends left with them and suddenly you have social media death spiral. These are SOCIAL networks. If your social group doesn’t hang out there any more why would you?
It’s a lesson that current social networks need to heed. The problem as I see it is that the folks designing a lot of this are technophiles who really want to jazz the site up with some nifty new whiz bang. Most of the users simply want the darn thing to work they way they expect it to work. Most of us don’t care if our social network is the latest word in programming. If it makes the experience even slightly more difficult it may be a tiny step in the direction of digital death. Something Facebook should probably keep in mind.
Why Swimsuits?
I have no doubt that this topic is going to get me a fair amount of disbelief and abuse from my fellow men. In fact I expect at least a few of them to hold that I am in fact betraying my gender by taking the position that I am. I will in fact even admit to a small amount of conflict within my own person about this issue. With all that said I’m still not sure I can honestly answer this question:
Why is there an annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue?
Let’s start by acknowledging the purely business argument in favor. It sells a ton of issues and makes lots of money. It is popular enough that there are SI Swimsuit calendars and videos and TV programs. It’s a money maker. I am willing to stipulate all of that.
But I still keep coming around to the original question. Sports Illustrated is a SPORTS magazine. So why an annual issue that has become quite simply about parading beautiful young women (and they are beautiful and yes I like looking at beautiful women, in photos or in person) in as little clothing as you can? The new thing for this issue is to in fact have the women in no clothing and to substitute body paint for the clothes.
And this is sport related how?
Back in 1964 when the first swimsuit issue came out they at least tried. The headline on the cover of that issue read “A Skin Diver’s Guide to the Caribbean”. In very short order this predominantly male read magazine (out of the 23 million readers each week over 18 million are men) staked out its claim to women’s fashion? Am I reading that right? Today there isn’t even an attempt to pretend that this is anything other than what it is. An appeal to the prurient interests of the male readers. It has nothing to do with sports and has very little to do with women’s fashion. It also has little to do with a mature view of women in general. The Swimsuit issue has its roots firmly in the sweaty palmed, furtive sniggering of adolescent boys trying to sneak a peek down a girl’s blouse.
Jumping back to the financial arguments it should probably be noted that SI turning a profit for the first time and that first swimsuit issue occur within a year of each other. Take that for what it’s worth.
Call me a traitor to my gender but there’s just not much of defensible rationale for this issue from this magazine.
Call that the View From the Phlipside
"The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY. It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM. The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program. Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice. WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed. You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.com. Copyright 2013 by Jay Phillippi. All Rights Reserved. You like what you see? Drop me a line and we can talk.Program scripts from week of February 24, 2013
My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media. TV, radio, the movies and more. I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion. Call this the View from the Phlipside. Lines Not to Cross I had not planned on doing anything with the Oscars this week other than note that I think they’re overrated for picking “the best” each year. Then when I woke up on Monday I heard about the fiasco with the satirical web site The Onion and Best Actress nominee Quvenzhane Wallis. And it just wouldn’t let me alone.
If you have somehow managed to not hear about it the folks at the parody website were doing some live tweeting during the broadcast. For reasons that remain obscure to me they chose at one point to use a derogatory word for a woman which I can’t even hint at here for the 9 year old actress. The Internet yelled and screamed and the tweet was taken down in an hour. The following day the CEO of the online satire site published an apology.
Now I’m generally a fan of The Onion. While I’m sorry that they made such a bonehead mistake they handled it the way it should have been handled. Take down the tweet and apologize. What really puzzles me has been some of the reaction to those decisions. Because some people are outraged that the CEO didn’t stand behind the original post.
Let me get this straight. A nasty, derogatory, misogynist term is used (which is bad enough on its own) against a NINE year old and some of these mouth breathing morons don’t have a problem with that. They bring up all kinds of adult examples and say “Why aren’t you outraged by these?”. Well the reality is that I don’t much like those examples either but that misses the point. This is a NINE YEAR OLD CHILD.
Seems some folks thought she came off a little full of herself. Let’s see - she’s nine, in an original Armani outfit and she’s been nominated for a Best Actress in a Leading Role Oscar at age nine. If there was ever a moment in someone’s life to be a little full of yourself that is probably it. But even with that there is no justification for the word that was used. Not for an adult and especially not for a child.
The greatest failing of the Internet is that it makes narcissists of us all. We fall into the trap of believing that anything we say is profound or clever or witty. Far more often they are snarky, shallow, ill informed and cruel.
Even satire should have lines over which you dare not pass.
Future of Journalism Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I got started in the media world in the world of journalism. Back in the day when you got started in radio at Edinboro you started by doing the news. I did news when I got my first job in commercial radio as well. There was no way I was going to spend my life as a journalist (I’m just not designed for that life) but my roots are firmly grounded in journalism. Because of that I have always been a little more focused on that side of the media. Which is why I’m growing ever more disturbed by what I see in that arena.
There’s a couple things. First of all in sports journalism many of the professional sports leagues are trying to control their media exposure to a greater and greater degree. If you’ve ever read your ticket you’ll notice that by purchasing the ticket you give up ownership of the photos, videos and audio recordings you may make at the event. Well journalists are finding that the sports organizations like the NBA, NFL, NCAA and NASCAR are trying to do the same thing. Journalists are now finding those leagues want them to sign over the copyrights to all their work as well. Additionally they are asking journalists not to post more than 3 pictures, not to tweet or broadcast during the event. Somewhere along the line the distinction between publicity and journalism seems to have gotten a little vague.
That’s not the only place. Indiana University last summer announced it was thinking about merging its independent Journalism school with the Communications and Media department. Now there are lots of places that do it that. What stood out for me in this discussion was the comment by the University President Michael McRobbie who said, and I quote,
“There’s no point in saving a school that trains people to manage fleets of horses if the motorcar has taken over horse-drawn transportation.” That’s one of the more profound instances of missing the point.
Journalism is more than the medium that conveys it. It has survived the shift from print only to radio then to television. Journalism will also survive the shift to new media as well. Just as long as those entrusted to teach it continue to understand it and those they teach continue to fight for it.
Oscars? Who Cares?
I write and record these programs usually the weekend before they air. This sometimes leaves me short when it comes to comment on events like Sunday night’s Oscar awards. I will occasionally cheat and record a program on Monday morning to include the event. I probably would have done that for this year’s Oscars except for two things.
First I’ve only seen one of the movies nominated. So it’s hard to have an intelligent opinion.
Second, and most importantly, I heard an interesting question last week. Why should we care about the Oscars? That was a question that stopped me dead.
Why should we care?
The process of winning an Oscar amounts to winning enough of the votes of the 6,000 eligible members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. That doesn’t always lead to objective, scientific results. Like 1976 when “Rocky” beat out “Taxi Driver”, “All The President’s Men” and “Network”. I love “Rocky” but seriously?
And we can’t say that commercial success helps you. Looking at the Box Office Domestic numbers “Lincoln” was the most successful movie of the nominees finishing 19th, “Argo” was 25th, “Life of Pi” at 32 and “Django Unchained” was 39th. The other 6 nominees finished outside the TOP 50! Now some folks will point out that a lot of these movies debuted late in the year so gross box office isn’t a fair standard. OK fine. But these are supposedly the best movies of 2012 shouldn’t we be judging them by their performance in that year? Apparently not.
So what we’re left with is a popularity vote only by insiders who are deluged (as much as the rules allow) by campaigns from the studios. And their track record is just odd enough to make you wonder.
If you want to watch the Oscars as a celebration of the movie industry go for it. It’s great for doing just that. But just remember that Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock never won one in their primary category.
Draw what conclusions you mayCall that the View From the Phlipside
(Starting this week I am combining my three scripts into a single blog post. The task of creating multiple posts to be published on different days and then trying to remember to link them on my Facebook page is just more than I want to deal with any more. I've inserted breaks so you can scan quickly for each topic) "The View From the Phlipside" is a media commentary program airing on WRFA-LP, Jamestown NY. It can be heard Tuesday through Friday just after 8 AM and 5 PM. The following are scripts which may not exactly match the aired version of the program. Mostly because the host may suddenly choose to add or subtract words at a moments notice. WRFA-LP is not responsible for any such silliness or the opinions expressed. You can listen to a live stream of WRFA or find a podcast of this program at wrfalp.comOscar Movies Sadly over the last couple years I have not been able to see as many of the Oscar nominated movies as I’d like. In fact prior to last week I hadn’t seen ANY of this years nominees. Then in the span of about 6 days I saw two of them. I was struck by them both, their similarities and their very profound differences.The two that I saw were Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life” and the black and white mostly silent film “The Artist”. There was no plan to seeing these two virtually back to back but it created an interesting comparison.Both movies are homages to the art of movie making. And both are brilliantly executed. At that point however the two movies take off in radically different directions.The Tree of Life is obscure, symbol filled, visually stunning and did I mention obscure? This is more of contemplation of opposing forces in life than a traditional movie. The movie that keeps springing to mind for me as a comparison is Kubrick’s “2001 - A Space Odyssey”. Except that 2001 actually has a story that you can mostly follow. After 2 plus hours of watching the movie you’ll have an experience at the movies you’ll never forget. And quite possibly never understand.On the other hand “The Artist” pays tribute to the early days of the movies, the days before sound when actors had completely different challenges in bringing their stories to the big screen. It is the story of a silent movie star faced with the arrival of talkies and his star being eclipsed by an actor that he had discovered and launched. Plenty of people will hear “black and white” and “silent” and decide not to see the movie. That would be a shame. The cast is exceptional and they bring the story very much alive on the screen. There are in fact two very short sections with audio other than the traditional music score. If you love the movies especially the early days of the industry you should make this a must see. If you know nothing about those days you should see it to better understand and love the movies of today. Some folks are amazed this one got a nod for Best Movie but it’s nice to see a movie that takes a risk to tell the story.Will either one claim the Oscar? Hard to say. Tree of Life probably has the better chance because it can be seen as intellectual rather than popular choice. But Oscar ends up in some peculiar hands some years so we’ll have to wait and see. Still time for me to see a few more nominees too.****************************************The Dark Side of George Lucas Well the day long expected has arrived and now all good people must make their decision and choose their sides. Will you remain on the side of good, virtue and righteousness or will you descend to the Dark Side? There can be no middle ground when it comes to the latest money grab by George Lucas in the Star Wars franchise. Where do you stand on the new 3-D version of Episode 1?Not surprisingly this is a hot button topic among the faithful of the Jedi cult. But it’s not simply the question of 3-D or even the question of whether or not George Lucas has completely slipped a gear with a never ending refurbishment of his signature series. It never is with the Star Wars faithful.Let’s begin with the return of the argument around Jar Jar Binks. Episode 1 returns the almost universally despised alien character. Jar Jar is accused of being a racist stereotype, profoundly annoying and just unforgivably stupid. Then you add in the controversy of whether Han Solo shot first in the bar scene where he kills the character Greedo. Yes, I know that’s in a completely different movie but you need to understand that any time a new version is released ALL the theological arguments immediately are revived. Lucas maintains that Han didn’t shoot first. Which is just patently ridiculous. And I can’t believe we are still having this conversation. But that’s George’s fault as well.For me the choice is clear. I will not be seeing the newest version of these movies. The second trilogy is decidedly the weaker anyway so it’s a somewhat simpler decision. I’ll even grant the Episode 1 contains scenes that might be elevated by 3-D (the racing scenes spring instantly to mind). The problem is that if we keep showing up and shelling out our Galactic Credits to watch his latest demented meddlings he’ll just keep on doing it. And we must do everything we can to make him stop.****************************************************Tweet Reviews Caught this story on NPR the other day and the more I thought about the more I struggled with it. Spin Magazine, one of the premier music magazines of the day, has announced that they intend to review around 15 hundred new music releases in 2012 in the form of a Tweet. This apparently will include traditional album releases, EPs and even Hip Hop mix tapes. The idea is that the old music review has outlived its usefulness and needs to be upgraded. Given some of the truly awful offerings I’ve read over the last 4 decades I probably can’t argue that. Music reviews can be arbitrary and didactic. Maybe that comes from too many years in radio but I’ve had my fill of poly-syllabic polemics extolling the extended artistic values of some band who made noises that one person in a thousand might want to listen to for more than a minute. I always preferred reviews that were more descriptive than those that tried to pass judgement on the artistic merits.But can we really get any kind of value from a review that is constrained to just 140 characters? Remember it’s 140 CHARACTERS not words. So spaces between words count right along with letters. To be honest Spin editor Christopher Weingarten sounded awfully smug as he described doing about 240 extended reviews this year compared to 6 times that many Tweet reviews. Pretty clearly he has decided that this is what’s cool whether it’s useful or not. Of course Weingarten apparently also happily proclaims himself a troll. A troll is generally regarded as the lowest form of online virtual life.It all smacks of hipster posing to me. I will be the first to acknowledge that a huge percentage of musical releases each year are trash. Yet out of that musical mosh pit emerges some great bands each year as they grow in their art. My question is will they get the hearing they may need to succeed if we are reduced review as blurb. In the end most of us make our minds up on music based on what we hear rather than what we read. But once upon a time a very long time ago music criticism was an art form and some of its practitioners were musically knowledgeable AND wonderful writers. The folks at Spin claim that this new review format will make them the go to source for music information. I think it’s far more likely that by offering less information they might just write themselves completely out of this story.
