Tag: ideology
Entertainment’s Place In Post-Attack Rebuttal

Entertainment’s Place In Post-Attack Rebuttal

By Steven Zeitchik, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

Global tragedy strikes these days with a kind of wearying familiarity. The pain is fresh, but our thoughts — as they did after Madrid, London, Mumbai and elsewhere — return to a well-known place.

As the Paris attacks and their aftermath have played out this weekend, once again we stare dazed at the cable news screen, facing questions we never imagined — questions we suspect have no answers, even as the scouring of CNN for motives and details and revelations provides a comforting illusion otherwise.

And once again, those of us immersed in entertainment — as producers, as distributors, as chroniclers, or even just as devotees — are left to ask where it fits in. Cultures have been grappling for centuries with how much space to allow levity in the place of a tragedy. But the relevance and even the defensibility of entertainment has lately been thrust forward as never before. These are new and confusing times, an age when mass civilian murders are common and our individual responses to them, thanks to social media, widely known. The proper reaction remains unclear; the rules of collective grief are still unwritten.

Was going to the movies, for instance, acceptable this past weekend? Was it OK to tweet about a television series or college football game? Was there a palatable way to return to, or justification for embracing, the shows, sports, movies, music and other pursuits that fill our typical weekends?

Was doing some of these things perhaps even an act of noble defiance — the attacks, after all, had taken place in part at a musical performance and seemed intended to strike at the freedom to enjoy life in such a manner — or an act of unsavory and even heartless self-distraction?

Would it be OK to wait 24 hours and then resume such activities? What about 48? Was the very idea of a statute of limitations untoward?

Entertainment companies faced their own dilemmas. Lionsgate weighed how to proceed with a Los Angeles premiere for its new Hunger Games movie on Monday, ultimately deciding to hold the event without a traditional red carpet. Saturday Night Live also scaled down but didn’t step out: It scrapped its usual comedic opening this past weekend in favor of a touching salutation, in English and French, from cast member Cecily Strong, then carried on with the show.

A friend at a Hollywood publication said he was in a quandary over whether to overhaul an upcoming issue to focus on the attack. On the one hand, Paris was all we were thinking about, and it would be insensitive, even inaccurate, to carry on with the coverage of ratings and box office and first-look deals as if we weren’t. On the other hand, the Paris attacks were not fundamentally an entertainment story, and wouldn’t it be tone-deaf to pretend that they were?

And yet through it all, entertainment may have already been playing a role in our processing mechanism. In movie theaters these past few months, films have, in their own oblique way that seem clearer after Friday, already been speaking to the issues underlying the attack, to the perpetrators and the victims, to the dangers posed and the values threatened.

The season has brought the high-wire-walking story The Walk and its spirit of unbridled humanity, whose main character uses ingenuity and showmanship to enhance lives instead of diminishing them, a fitting antidote to what happened in Paris. That said character was French and was walking between New York’s twin towers that themselves would become a target and symbol only underlines the comparison.

There is the new release Spotlight, an abuse drama in which truth-seeking journalists push forward and try to do what we all hope to do in the face of cataclysm: find justice, and maybe a little comfort for the afflicted, even as they are tempered by the knowledge their actions will always be insufficient. They press on while Sept. 11 strikes right in the middle of their efforts.

There has been The Martian, which in its own Hollywood escapist way has showed the power of countries and people around the world to band together when life is at stake, differences of nationality and ideology suddenly irrelevant.

There are, of course, literal attempts in Hollywood at understanding militant attacks, as with the upcoming 13 Hours and Patriots’ Day, each about those trying to prevent the murder of innocents. But comprehension also comes more subtly, as with the current Spectre, in which disparate acts of mass murder are chillingly realized to be emanating from a common source.

The movie seeks to fathom what could drive such bloodthirsty nihilism (while also depicting the struggles of democratic governments to contend with it). Like many other examples, Spectre is part of a feedback loop that circles between our brains and our screen, fears of an attack making their way from the first to the second, then coming back to us in a different form once such violence takes place in real life.

The question after attacks like Friday’s is whether to allow entertainment back in. But perhaps that elides the real issue. Perhaps entertainment has been here all along.

When it comes to a post-tragedy pop culture, there are the easy calls to make — the French distributor that decided to pull an upcoming movie in which Paris was under attack, for example. Most choices are harder. There are no answers — certainly no one-size-fits-all answers — on how entertainment can fit in during these shocking after-hours. Personal choices remain that way.

But whatever the response, there may be some comfort is not seeing these activities as separate. Asking the too-soon question may be, in a sense, asking the wrong question. Maybe entertainment shouldn’t be treated as a distinct refuge to which we tentatively crawl back when it is safe to do so and after we sheepishly check to make sure no one is looking. Maybe it’s something that can and should be part of the understanding of the attacks in the first place.

In its purest form, entertainment is built into the process — part of a post-attack rebuttal that allows us to stand up for a life of choice and freedom, sure, but also a way we’ve been understanding the tragedy all along, comprehending those who plot to kill, and the humanity they would seek to destroy.

©2015 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Shinya Suzuki via Flickr

Poll: Number Of Liberal Americans Hits All-Time High In 2013

The percentage of Americans who describe themselves as “liberal” has reached an all-time high, according a Gallup poll released Friday.

The poll finds that 23 percent of Americans self-identify as liberal, the highest such number since Gallup began measuring ideology in the current format in 1992.

That figure, while rising, still lags far behind the number of self-identified conservatives; a 38 percent plurality of Americans say they are conservative, while 34 percent self-identify as moderate.

Gallup Poll

The rise in liberal identification has been led by Democrats — 43 percent of Democrats now consider themselves liberals, up from just 29 percent at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration in 2000. The number of self-described moderate Democrats has fallen 8 percent since 2000, and the number of conservative Democrats has fallen 6 percent.

Gallup Poll Democrats

In what may be a contributing factor to the nation’s increasingly polarized politics, the number of self-described moderates has steadily fallen over the past two decades; 34 percent now use the term to describe their politics, representing an all-time low in the poll.

Thsi is the second Gallup poll this week to illustrate the nation’s changing political attitudes; a survey released Wednesday found that fewer Americans now self-identify as Republicans than at any point in the past three decades.

Fox Hired Palin Because She Is ‘Hot’ And ‘Got Ratings’

Is Fox News really part of a right wing conspiracy to manipulate the news, or is it just a bunch of rich guys looking to become richer? An Associated Press interview with Roger Ailes suggests that the Fox News president places ratings above ideology, especially when it comes to a certain “foxy” Tea Party figure. Ailes makes it clear that, rather than supporting Sarah Palin’s ideas, he was far more concerned about her popularity and physical appearance:

Since 2002, Fox News has sealed the deal as ratings leader, dominating cable-news competition (and tying them in knots) in daytime, as well as in prime time with a murderers’ row of hosts led by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. The past year, Fox News Channel drew an average 1.1 million viewers — more than CNN and MSNBC combined.

Propelled by Ailes’ “fair and balanced” branding, it successfully has targeted viewers who believe the other cable-news networks, and maybe the media overall, display a liberal tilt from which Fox News delivers them with unvarnished truth. Preaching its fairer-than-thou gospel, Fox News leveraged the public’s distrust for the media while positioning itself as the anti-media news-media alternative.

Or so it seems to Fox News’ detractors, who lodge nonstop salvos against a network they decry as a conservative soap box writ large, even a mouthpiece for the Republican Party shaping public opinion on its behalf. These critics came to include Media Matters, a nonprofit group that polices Fox News as part of its larger stated mission to “correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” and filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who in 2004 released the scathing documentary “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.”

From the start, Ailes has steadfastly denied any such political bias or agenda on the part of his network. Politics, schmolitics: “I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings,” he declares.

See? And we all thought he was conservative — turns out he’s just sexist.

Judging female political figures based solely on their appearance isn’t exactly new, and Ailes clearly isn’t the only person at Fox News who seems to be preoccupied with Palin’s attractiveness.

Wake Up And Smell The Politics

Can a coffee kingpin give American politics the jolt it needs to snap out of its Tea Party hangover?

Don’t hold your breath. But Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has made a valiant attempt, by way of an appeal he sent out by blast email and published in full-page ads in both The New York Times and USA Today.

“I love our country. I am a beneficiary of the promise of America,” wrote the Brooklyn-born, self-made industry leader. “I am frustrated by our political leaders’ steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty.”

He continued, listing the concerns that are troubling many average Americans these days: They’re unemployed or underemployed — or afraid of becoming so. Consumers are not spending money. Small businesses can’t get credit. And Congress and the White House don’t seem to get it.

Schultz also called on other American business leaders to join him in withholding political contributions until Congress and the president get their act together, play nice and enact a “transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package … that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security.”

Oh, I know, President Obama tried to sound demanding in his nationally televised speech on jobs Thursday. He raised his voice authoritatively while delivering lines that Howard Schultz would cheer. He said that Americans can’t wait while Republicans trounce every jobs proposal. House Speaker John Boehner barely lifted a sleepy eyelid.

I don’t want to be too hard on Schultz. He seems like a mensch. When it comes to messaging around social conscience, few companies do it as well as Starbucks. It has been adept at letting its customers know that the part-time barista serving up your skinny macchiato of fair-trade coffee beans is covered by a generous health care plan. But he’s out of his league. It’s hard to see what holding back his money and a bit of that of a few rich friends will accomplish.

Washington is a business; its clientele are actually people like Schultz, who have multinational corporations to look after. He may be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court granted CEOs even more political power with its landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. Political action committees, lobbyists and the new “527” advocacy groups, which are able to draw unlimited contributions, are what props up our political class. Congressional committee chairmanships are given to the most proficient fundraisers. If he’s withholding his money from that business, good for him. But he’s not going to reform it anytime soon, not the way he’s going about it.

You don’t fix a broken political system by refusing to engage with it — especially right now, when the critical flaw is a certain asymmetry between the parties. In 2008, the electorate chose an eloquent candidate for president who conjured a future of hope and change and bipartisan cooperation. The reality, once he took office, turned out to be different. Trying to remain aloof from the partisan fray doesn’t produce the best results in the actual game of politics.

Barack Obama’s presidency has not been a total failure. But he has bitterly disappointed many his erstwhile admirers for the simple reason that he seems unwilling or unable to stand up for some basic Democratic principles. During the debt-limit debate, it was left to Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in the country, to take to the op-ed page of the New York Times to beg Congress to raise taxes on rich people like himself. Obama has surrendered the bully pulpit to the better organized, better disciplined — and better at politics — Republican Party.

And it’s going to take more than sharing an artfully prepared latte to change things.

(Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star. Readers may write to her at: Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413, or via e-mail at msanchez@kcstar.com.)

(c) 2011, The Kansas City Star. Distributed by Tribune Media Services