Jon Stewart discusses Sarah Palin’s new clothes
Jon Stewart discusses Sarah Palin's new clothes here:
Jon Stewart discusses Sarah Palin's new clothes here:
The RNC has presented Sarah Palin with more than $150,000 worth of clothes and make-overs. Palin received more valuable clothes in one month than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. A Democrat put it in even blunter terms: her clothes were the cost of health care…
I enjoyed the photos and commentary at this site. The blogger found a 1977 J.C.Penney catalog and had some fun. The post could have been subtitled: "How to get your ass kicked . . ."
What are we to make of this latest flap over a teen icon revealing herself as a potentially sexual being?
I was only dimly aware of Hannah Montana till the Vanity Fair scandal (if scandal is the word). Now it seems I can’t get away from her, which is, of course, the goal of marketing—to make something inescapable for the general public. There are elements of the incident that require less froth and more examination. The accusations of “whose idea was it in the first place and how was Mylie Cyrus manipulated?” are loud and in many ways naive.
First off, Hannah Montana is a Disney product. I don’t think we’re yet quite comfortable with the idea of a person—even a fictional one—being a “product” like a box of soap or a car, but this is indeed what the character is. Designed, engineered, and road tested, Hannah Montana is a money-making machine for Disney and the various participants in the show and franchise.
Pause for a moment and consider: Disney.
It is difficult to imagine a marketing machine that is better at what it does. Which means the chances of something being done with one of its properties that it (a) doesn’t know about and (b) doesn’t approve are next to zero. Especially when you add to that:
Vanity Fair.
Big magazine, famous magazine, a magazine people in show business lust to get into. In the vernacular, Lot A Bank there.
So we’re talking about two major corporate entities, …
It must be very important that “LiLo” is going to “lose her clothes,” in an upcoming movie, because this story about her nakedness is one of the top headlines on today’s homepage of MSNBC. Here’s the essence of this important “news”:
Set to play a “nymphomaniac waitress” in “Florence,” Lindsay purportedly countered the producers’ request for a topless sex scene with a “full frontal” offer. “She is fully aware of the potential of her body,” a Tinseltown pal insisted. “Lindsay wants to build up an image as a mature, responsible actress.”
Why is Lohan’s nudity so worthy of this prominent headline? Is it because she is pretty? MSNBC includes this photo in case you need to see her to comprehend the story:
Yeah, she’s pretty, but pretty women can be found in many places and most of those sightings are not newsworthy. Is all of this media attention occurring because Lohan is a woman who will be appearing naked? No, seeing a naked woman is cheap and easy (for instance, I’ve heard that one can Google “naked women” and find lots of photos and videos of naked women on the Internet. Caveat: In no way am I suggesting that all of the naked women you might find on the Internet are also pretty).
I think this media attention regarding Lohan is because a lot of people will be “getting what they covet” when they see Lindsay Lohan naked. I’m reminded of being in high school, where one of …