Thursday, December 18, 2003

I am in the process of catching up by watching the tapes of my TV shows from the last three days [I've been distracted] and I just came across something sick. It's the NBC Today show from Monday - you know, the day after the capture of Saddam. Anyway, as you can imagine, it's wall-to-wall coverage, which means that they cancelled any celebrity interviews they had scheduled in favour of the 'important' stuff. Now, I don't have such celeb-focussed tunnel-vision that I can't possibly handle a morning show without one. That is not my complaint. This is. You see, even while no celebs could possibly appear on such a day as this, because that would just be too improper and anyway they should all be cowering in shame at the frivolous nature of their pursuits, Bill O'Reilly was still welcomed and interviewed about his new book. I am seething. This cretin is only there to spruik his crap, yet he is treated like an esteemed authority whose opinion propriety dictates be sought, and whose appearance in no way jars with the overall tone of the program for that day. This is insupportable! I bet you they bumped Liv Tyler or something [insupportable!] because they just couldn't countenance talking about something so extraneous as a film. But that is just so lame and blind, people! Really, what is the difference between Liv Tyler and Bill O'Reilly? [Hearty apologies to Liv, but I'm talking in terms of relevance to the subject of Saddam]. I almost didn't notice how fucked up the thing was because the NBC people [shame, Matt Lauer, shame] didn't skip a beat or change their 'newsy' tone when they spoke to, or about, Bill. Instead, they talked about "getting Bill's perspective on the capture of Saddam" in the same way that they talked about an upcoming interview with the General in charge of the division who actually did the capturing. They might as well have said, "And later, we'll get Elmo's perspective on the capture of Saddam", but, you see, they didn't, because that would be weird. PEOPLE ARE CRAZY! And then, when Bill comes on, he is also afflicted with the madness. He doesn't seem to feel that his appearance is incongruous in the least, even though the first thing mentioned is his new book, before "but we'll get to that in just a moment". This exchange amazingly follows; "Bottom line, how much of an impact on the situation in Iraq does the capture of Saddam Hussein have?", to which Bill replies, "It's huge. It's an enormous victory for the USA. All Americans should be happy about it. [turns head like a hawk to look straight down the camera and speak directly to all the 'guilty' viewers at home] And those of you who aren't happy about it, you oughta look into yourselves". Who the fuck is this guy? He's there 'taking a stand' against some phantom element of America unhappy about Saddam being found, without a flicker of doubt in him about what the hell he is doing there in the first place using the success of 'our fighting men and women' as a platform to get the word out about one of his money-spinners. What a cunt. It's so fucked up. See, what I'm thinking is, why can they talk to Bill O'Reilly about Saddam, and not Liv Tyler? Both would pretty much have the same authority on the matter. So why get his perspective on any and all the possible implications of this news, but run screaming from the prospect of talking to Liv Tyler about it alongside a Lord of the Rings interview? I just hate it that anytime something 'real' happens, people in the arts have to disappear because what they do is too small and self-interested to be considered alongside such HUGE IMPORTANT matters. And yet pundits, who are simply unrefined views with a profile [and no less self-interested] only gain strength from HUGE IMPORTANT news. They get to take over when big shit goes down. They move to centre stage. I am sensing a major double standard here which goes against sense. I mean, both groups rely on their celebrity, but actors actually work for a living, so doesn't that make them more 'serious' than those who get by simply for being blowhards? Why is the more flimsy group treated as the more serious one? What is up with that? Crazy mad.

No comments: