I’ve writtenbefore about pieces of mash-up media that are so conceptually perfect that simply by virtue of the number of people creating media now they will inevitably exist. Yesterday three or four people joked to me that this should exist. This morning, it does:
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am and is filed under funny, media, politics, tech, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The cleverness of this mashup and the wonderfulness of internet media notwithstanding, please explain how its content isn’t sexist and inappropriate for today’s political dialogue. Seriously, I want to know.
I had that red flag, too, but after thinking about it couldn’t really say why it would be. Can you? I mean, stupid is stupid at a certain level, right?
At a basic level, absolutely stupid is stupid. But then let’s just call her stupid, not “stupid like a blond beauty pageant competitor (and by the way that’s what she once was so how could we ever take her seriously?).”
Just the Couric interview by itself does it. Or if you really want to go for ridicule, do something non-gendered (for example, when she stutters or has trouble coming up with an answer, just have cricket sounds in the background).
Ya, I mean, we didn’t make the video. I just found it online. So I don’t disagree on what would be strategically better. My point was one about internet culture more than the politics.
And I think your concerns about sexism are valid, but it doesn’t quite stick for me as the primary motivator or even a necessary interpretation. I don’t think anyone in any official capacity should stand behind it as content because there is that element, but I think it works without sexism, and doesn’t work primarily because of sexism.
Comments
The cleverness of this mashup and the wonderfulness of internet media notwithstanding, please explain how its content isn’t sexist and inappropriate for today’s political dialogue. Seriously, I want to know.
I had that red flag, too, but after thinking about it couldn’t really say why it would be. Can you? I mean, stupid is stupid at a certain level, right?
At a basic level, absolutely stupid is stupid. But then let’s just call her stupid, not “stupid like a blond beauty pageant competitor (and by the way that’s what she once was so how could we ever take her seriously?).”
Just the Couric interview by itself does it. Or if you really want to go for ridicule, do something non-gendered (for example, when she stutters or has trouble coming up with an answer, just have cricket sounds in the background).
Ya, I mean, we didn’t make the video. I just found it online. So I don’t disagree on what would be strategically better. My point was one about internet culture more than the politics.
And I think your concerns about sexism are valid, but it doesn’t quite stick for me as the primary motivator or even a necessary interpretation. I don’t think anyone in any official capacity should stand behind it as content because there is that element, but I think it works without sexism, and doesn’t work primarily because of sexism.
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.