09 July, 2008
I caught the tail end of an alleged story on Channel 7’s The Morning Show with Larry Emdur and Kylie Gillies. They were interviewing some egregious twit from one of the Australian celebrity magazines. She shall remain nameless because I decline to publicise her or her vile publication further.
The subject was celebrity children. That is the non-famous children of celebrities. There was some discussion about how much paparazzi can get for a sought-after snap of a celebrity’s child. No discussion of the morality here, just some mindless chatter about comparing the looks of the famous person’s child with one’s own.
I mentioned this to a colleague at my workplace (Media Dell ‘Arte, Fremantle). She expressed some satisfaction with magazine stories showing Angelina Jolie with a big packet of chips and her many kids in tow. She argued that seeing a big Hollywood star having to bribe her kids with junk food gives aid and comfort to other frazzled parents out there.
Even so, isn’t the act of getting that photograph somewhat dodgy ethically speaking? Shouldn’t children be off limits for media hype and speculation? Remember the case of the Lindbergh baby?
Revisiting The Morning Show, the magazine person went on to say that the most sought-after children were those of two famous parents. She expressed this by saying, “When two A-List Celebrities get together its like a perfect storm.” Yes, and when several worn-out phrases are poorly strung together, you’ve written a story for her magazine.
She then went on to slag Kevin Federline and Britney Spears’ kids for their relative unattractiveness. “They’re seen more as victims rather than glamorous celebrity kids,” she burbled, possibly unaware that she was part of the victimisation process. Kylie, showing some common decency, attempted to defend the children by saying she thought they were cute. The magazine rep would have none of this, “They look too much like Kevin for me.”
Can it really be part of this person’s job to use the public airwaves to call someone else’s children unappealing and attractive? Standards, anyone? There’s gossip and there is idle, mean-spirited chat that should never enter the public realm.
Who’s actually the unattractive one here?
01 July, 2008
Before he became a murder trial celebrity, Phil Spector was more celebrated for producing some of the greatest hit records of the 1960s and for inventing the so-called “wall of sound.” Spector reportedly held out against the innovation of stereo sound for some time. He was said to play the songs he produced through a tinny little speaker as a kind of final test to see how they would playback on an average monophonic transistor radio.
This is more or less what I have in my vehicle in 2008. Every song undergoes the Phil Spector test. Naturally most songs are “produced” in a way that was unimaginable in Spector’s heyday. You can hear everything quite clearly, even when you don’t want to. Train’s “Drops of Jupiter” comes to mind.
Can you imagine no first dance,Yeah, its that “best soy latte” line. I know not everything has to be universal, but that particular lyric has always struck me as way too specific. Don’t most people despise soy milk? I’ve been putting it on my cereal for the last three months and I still have to fight my gag reflex every morning.
freeze dried romance five-hour phone conversation
The best soy latte that you ever had . . . and me.
Look, even with the one speaker turned way down it doesn’t actually sound like Elton is singing “Hold me closer, Tony Danza.” My friend Andrew is particularly fond of this. He’s from Rockingham and they see the world a little differently.
So what for why am going on about this? Well – my question is – should I get a new car radio?
I’m pretty sure the answer is no. I guess if it was good enough for Phil Spector 40 plus years ago, then it’s damn well good enough for me.