Headlines I couldn't make up, even if I wanted to...
Hayden Panettiere rings in her 21st birthday with Oompa-Loompas, seven foot chickens and even some sheep!
Wow. I thought what happened in Vegas, stayed in Vegas. Tiger Woods and the various women whose company he 'enjoyed', have set a terrible precedent with regards to reporting the goings on that happen in that wonderful city.
Now $5m man The Situation lands $400,000 deal to promote 'ab-building' vodka
On a side note, seriously, The Jersey Shore is being shown in the United Kingdom?!? Also, the one thing that had been missing in my life that I didn't know I needed until it finally came to market was protein infused vodka. Other Jersey Shore inspired products awaiting approval, strawberry-flavored fortified sparkling wine with your daily Valtrex medication, spray-on tan/mosquito repellant, and of course, a brand new line of Jersey Gelatto, a perfect melange of traditional Italian frozen desserts, mixed in with a juicy dose of both anabolic steroids and human growth hormone!
Stick-thin Whitney Port's sister makes a Twit of her on trip to coffee house
Here's today's dose of Daily Mail paparrazi shots taken in my humble little home town of Santa Monica. It's rare for a day to go by where this paper doesn't pick up a shot of some minor to major 'celebrity' going about their daily business. Usually it's a woman, and most of the time some sort of comment is made about their clothing, or body. The attitude in their "Femail" section regarding body types and body image are all over the map. While they often celebrate 'real' women, they also focus a absurd amount of attention on stupid non-flaws that no sane person would even consider (see, for example this recent, SHAKIRA HAS STRETCH MARKS! article, which every other place that posted the exact same picks instead focused on the, 'look at how ridiculously sexy Shakira looks' angle, rather than picking out some super-minor, nearly impossible to see, and most likely a result of sweat and running make-up rather than stretch marks, and even if they were stretch marks, who the hell cares?)
And a note to Whitney, instead of hitting the Bean, try one of the many small independent coffee houses along Broadway, the stalkerazzi seem to not bother anyone there, if you hit the shops on Montana or Main, you will get snapped, just some friendly advice next time you visit this sunny seaside town.
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Mail. Show all posts
16 October 2009
BLOGTOBER 2009: Britons Not So Great Anymore, But At Least Their Government Takes Bovine Hapiness Seriously, Edition
Today's edition of You Couldn't Make It Up comes from Yorkshire, where a farmer has been fined £150 for 'failing to meet the psychological and ethological needs' of a cow.
I still can't believe I've just written that sentence.
Ronald Norcliffe's offence was to keep his cattle in a barn without electric light. When did that become a crime?
Richard Littlejohn speaks truth to bureaucrats in his latest "Debate" piece for the Daily Mail.
Gobsmacking.
(and I feel so mature for not making any "Dick Littlejohn" jokes, though I know there's a 'Dick Littlejohn is Daily Mail's Master Debater' joke in their somewhere)
29 July 2009
Your Daily Photo (Three Cheers for Long Lenses Edition)
Using all 200mm of the 55-200mm zoom lens. Much safer than trying to get the close up this person snapped (as the croc snapped back)
(and my pic is of a gator, not a croc)
28 May 2009
My Promise to You, That Within the Voluminous Number of Pictures I Post on Flickr, Nothing Will Be as Cheesy as Rosie and Aaron's Stuff...
Daily Mail has an article about some perfectly romantic, or perfectly dreadful (depending on your perspective) photo collaborations between two romantically entwined photographers/artists who share a passion for photography and each other, but don't share a time zone, or even continent.
As you can guess by the title of this post, if you were to chart their actions on a line with romantic on the far left, and dreadful on the far right, I'd peg their work (especially the one with the frames) well to the right of center.
Here's Rosie Hardy's flickr photostream, she's 18, takes a good photo, and is a bit too addicted to photoshop, but nothing wrong with a comely lass posting lots of well posed and composed pictures of herself on the internet.
Oh yeah, and here's that douchebag Aaron Nace's flickr photostream. I don't know for certain that he's a douche, but check out the pics and decide for yourself. Also, generally speaking, 25 year olds who date 18 year olds are douches. He's a talented photographer, however, I'll give him that.
As you can guess by the title of this post, if you were to chart their actions on a line with romantic on the far left, and dreadful on the far right, I'd peg their work (especially the one with the frames) well to the right of center.
Here's Rosie Hardy's flickr photostream, she's 18, takes a good photo, and is a bit too addicted to photoshop, but nothing wrong with a comely lass posting lots of well posed and composed pictures of herself on the internet.
Oh yeah, and here's that douchebag Aaron Nace's flickr photostream. I don't know for certain that he's a douche, but check out the pics and decide for yourself. Also, generally speaking, 25 year olds who date 18 year olds are douches. He's a talented photographer, however, I'll give him that.
01 March 2009
Lies, Damn Lies, and the Usual Lying Statistical Claims Not Based in Facts . . .
Daily Mail in an article about the potential problems facing returning Afghan vets (there's no data about actual cases, just speculation about potential down the road problems) quotes a hoary old statistic that may have been close to the truth at one point in the early 80s, but here as we quickly approach the second decade of the 21st century is utterly ludicrous.
No, 44% of homeless are not Vietnam Vets, that's absurd on the face of it. I live in Santa Monica, "Home of the Homeless", and I can tell you that the vast majority of homeless are not old enough to have served in Vietnam (though plenty claim to have, though I guess enough have been busted on their accounts of being in Vietnam that they tend to update their tales of harrowing experiences that inexorably forced them to a life on the streets to the 1st Gulf War). The kind of PTSD inducing combat that might leave somebody forever scarred largely ended by 1973, and we were completely out of Vietnam by 1975, so unless you were born before 1955, it's impossible for you to have experienced combat in Vietnam. 44% of homeless people in the United States are not over the age of 54, and of those that are homeless and old enough to have served in Vietnam, nowhere near 100% of those folks did.
After some quick googling, I can't find any study that states such a high number, for current populations of homeless (again, 25 years ago, a number like that would seem plausible, but not now). Seems the last big federal government study about homelessness was done by HUD in 1996 (and updated in 1999), and even 13 years ago, homeless veterans constituted less than 25% of overall homeless, and in other studies from 13 years ago, even then Vietnam Vets were around 40% of the total of male homeless people (women veterans rarely end up homeless, interestingly), and in the intervening 13 years, I'm certain there's been attrition to that number (this table from HUD is of people using their services, but they speculate based on other surveys that there numbers are in line with the total figures)
If I threw out a statistic claiming that 20% of British Seamen suffered from rickets, I bet you could go back through the historical record and find a time when 20% of limey sailors suffered all sorts of wonderful diseases, but that's not the case now, and if I were using those old statistics to make a claim about the scope of a future problem, then I'd hope anyone reading would laugh off my ridiculous suggestion.
And as far as the gist of the article, I'm not understanding why it matters whether British Veterans get their free health care from the NHS or from the military. What difference does it make? Either way, the government is picking up the tab, and a psychiatrist is a psychiatrist, whether they work on a military base, or in an NHS run clinic. If anything, an NHS based service should be more convenient, and more easily accessible than if veterans could only seek care from military specialist.
This shouldn't be viewed as a problem at all, unless NHS doctors exhibit anti-military bias (which wouldn't be surprising), and the general service at NHS clinics was sub-standard (again, wouldn't be at all surprising).
Combat is traumatic, always has been, always will be, societies have differed in how to help combatants to recover from their experiences, and social mores have sent troops into conflicts with differing skill sets in how to process their experiences to begin with. It's inevitable that combat leaves a mark, it's not inevitable that it leads to an inability to reintergrate with society at large, and most veterans have found a way in which to carry on with their lives and function even with the memories of what they did and what they faced. We need to honor those that defend our freedoms, and give them all the help they need, but we shouldn't be so quick to lump all combat veterans into the 'ticking time bomb' stereotype that pervades Hollywood and the rest of media, cause history and experience shows that stereotype as being false and pernicious.
In the U.S., it is estimated that 44 per cent of all homeless people are Vietnam veterans.
No, 44% of homeless are not Vietnam Vets, that's absurd on the face of it. I live in Santa Monica, "Home of the Homeless", and I can tell you that the vast majority of homeless are not old enough to have served in Vietnam (though plenty claim to have, though I guess enough have been busted on their accounts of being in Vietnam that they tend to update their tales of harrowing experiences that inexorably forced them to a life on the streets to the 1st Gulf War). The kind of PTSD inducing combat that might leave somebody forever scarred largely ended by 1973, and we were completely out of Vietnam by 1975, so unless you were born before 1955, it's impossible for you to have experienced combat in Vietnam. 44% of homeless people in the United States are not over the age of 54, and of those that are homeless and old enough to have served in Vietnam, nowhere near 100% of those folks did.
After some quick googling, I can't find any study that states such a high number, for current populations of homeless (again, 25 years ago, a number like that would seem plausible, but not now). Seems the last big federal government study about homelessness was done by HUD in 1996 (and updated in 1999), and even 13 years ago, homeless veterans constituted less than 25% of overall homeless, and in other studies from 13 years ago, even then Vietnam Vets were around 40% of the total of male homeless people (women veterans rarely end up homeless, interestingly), and in the intervening 13 years, I'm certain there's been attrition to that number (this table from HUD is of people using their services, but they speculate based on other surveys that there numbers are in line with the total figures)
If I threw out a statistic claiming that 20% of British Seamen suffered from rickets, I bet you could go back through the historical record and find a time when 20% of limey sailors suffered all sorts of wonderful diseases, but that's not the case now, and if I were using those old statistics to make a claim about the scope of a future problem, then I'd hope anyone reading would laugh off my ridiculous suggestion.
And as far as the gist of the article, I'm not understanding why it matters whether British Veterans get their free health care from the NHS or from the military. What difference does it make? Either way, the government is picking up the tab, and a psychiatrist is a psychiatrist, whether they work on a military base, or in an NHS run clinic. If anything, an NHS based service should be more convenient, and more easily accessible than if veterans could only seek care from military specialist.
This shouldn't be viewed as a problem at all, unless NHS doctors exhibit anti-military bias (which wouldn't be surprising), and the general service at NHS clinics was sub-standard (again, wouldn't be at all surprising).
Combat is traumatic, always has been, always will be, societies have differed in how to help combatants to recover from their experiences, and social mores have sent troops into conflicts with differing skill sets in how to process their experiences to begin with. It's inevitable that combat leaves a mark, it's not inevitable that it leads to an inability to reintergrate with society at large, and most veterans have found a way in which to carry on with their lives and function even with the memories of what they did and what they faced. We need to honor those that defend our freedoms, and give them all the help they need, but we shouldn't be so quick to lump all combat veterans into the 'ticking time bomb' stereotype that pervades Hollywood and the rest of media, cause history and experience shows that stereotype as being false and pernicious.
21 February 2009
Quick Quiz: Name the Country Referenced in the Following Quote . . .
18 January 2009
I Was Expecting a Bit More, Really (It's Female Orgasm Chat TIME!!!)
Daily Mail does what Daily Mail does and turns a teapot into a tempest. This time it's a BBC newsreader reading the news a bit breathlessly.
Because Tasmin Lucia Khan is a hottie, I'm willing to accept the explanation that she was having a little 'personal fun time' just as she went to air. The official explanation given was that she was late to work, and was gasping from exertion.
Luckily, the clip is on Youtube, so let your own ears be the judge. Though, women reading news as if they were caught in a moment of passion might be one way to bring viewers back to news on network and cable TV.
For whatever reason, I don't think women get the same degree of titilation from hearing men engaged in what sounds like sexual endeavors. Wonder why that is?
Idle speculation on my part, women don't need to guess when a man has reached his moment, but men aren't afforded the same luxury. We (for the most part, there are some unmistakeable and unfakeable physical cues, too) have to take the word of our partner that she has been satisfied, so the auditory cues of the approach of that moment are a signal that we've done something right and will likely be rewarded with future and frequent access to more happy fun together time, which is why when men hear women making those noises, even in an unrelated context, we get a bit excited.
Speaking of orgasms, howabout this article regarding wealth and getting off?
True, load of bollocks, or just another poorly designed study meant to reinforce the presuppositions of the people who conducted the study?
Without actually hooking these women up to devices that measure the physical manifestations of an orgasm, it could be that women with wealthy partners simply assume that any sort of sexual peak is close enough to an orgasm that they call it an orgasm, while women with poorer partners demand a greater degree of physical satisfaction before they admit to being satisfied. Also, what about lesbians? If the comparative wealth of your partner is a key factor in female arousal, then does that mean the partner with the bigger salary is the one with the less satisfying sex life in a lesbian relationship? Back to straight relationships, is this effect comparative, and based on the upbringing of the woman? If you were raised in a impoverished household, then some guy making $100K a year might rock your world, but if you were daddy's special trust fund girl, then any man bringing home less than $5M a year might seem poor to you, and therefore doesn't set off the evolutionary biological response that this study claims to have uncovered. Is this why Madonna (allegedly) cheated on Guy Ritchie with A.Rod? A.Rod had a bigger 'bank account', so that made Madge more receptive?
I'm guessing that this study is a load of bollocks, and I'm basing this claim primarily on the above photo that one of the study's authors has up on his CV page (sorry, I just can't trust the research of any Ph.D candidate with a freakin' eyebrow ring, sorry, dude, just not credible, and the Daily Mail article describes Pollet as already having a Ph.D but his CV describes him as still being a Ph.D candidate, and lists Daniel Nettles as a Prof, but couldn't find Nettles on Newcastle's website, so don't know what that means, but do see that Nettles and Pollet are listed as co-authors on quite a few papers, and I know much excellent research has been done by grad students and Ph.D candidates, so that doesn't factor into my negative suspicions regarding this particular study, instead, it's my personal antipathy towards survey based studies, that douchy smirk, and that damn eyebrow ring)
Because Tasmin Lucia Khan is a hottie, I'm willing to accept the explanation that she was having a little 'personal fun time' just as she went to air. The official explanation given was that she was late to work, and was gasping from exertion.
Luckily, the clip is on Youtube, so let your own ears be the judge. Though, women reading news as if they were caught in a moment of passion might be one way to bring viewers back to news on network and cable TV.
For whatever reason, I don't think women get the same degree of titilation from hearing men engaged in what sounds like sexual endeavors. Wonder why that is?
Idle speculation on my part, women don't need to guess when a man has reached his moment, but men aren't afforded the same luxury. We (for the most part, there are some unmistakeable and unfakeable physical cues, too) have to take the word of our partner that she has been satisfied, so the auditory cues of the approach of that moment are a signal that we've done something right and will likely be rewarded with future and frequent access to more happy fun together time, which is why when men hear women making those noises, even in an unrelated context, we get a bit excited.
Speaking of orgasms, howabout this article regarding wealth and getting off?
True, load of bollocks, or just another poorly designed study meant to reinforce the presuppositions of the people who conducted the study?
Without actually hooking these women up to devices that measure the physical manifestations of an orgasm, it could be that women with wealthy partners simply assume that any sort of sexual peak is close enough to an orgasm that they call it an orgasm, while women with poorer partners demand a greater degree of physical satisfaction before they admit to being satisfied. Also, what about lesbians? If the comparative wealth of your partner is a key factor in female arousal, then does that mean the partner with the bigger salary is the one with the less satisfying sex life in a lesbian relationship? Back to straight relationships, is this effect comparative, and based on the upbringing of the woman? If you were raised in a impoverished household, then some guy making $100K a year might rock your world, but if you were daddy's special trust fund girl, then any man bringing home less than $5M a year might seem poor to you, and therefore doesn't set off the evolutionary biological response that this study claims to have uncovered. Is this why Madonna (allegedly) cheated on Guy Ritchie with A.Rod? A.Rod had a bigger 'bank account', so that made Madge more receptive?
I'm guessing that this study is a load of bollocks, and I'm basing this claim primarily on the above photo that one of the study's authors has up on his CV page (sorry, I just can't trust the research of any Ph.D candidate with a freakin' eyebrow ring, sorry, dude, just not credible, and the Daily Mail article describes Pollet as already having a Ph.D but his CV describes him as still being a Ph.D candidate, and lists Daniel Nettles as a Prof, but couldn't find Nettles on Newcastle's website, so don't know what that means, but do see that Nettles and Pollet are listed as co-authors on quite a few papers, and I know much excellent research has been done by grad students and Ph.D candidates, so that doesn't factor into my negative suspicions regarding this particular study, instead, it's my personal antipathy towards survey based studies, that douchy smirk, and that damn eyebrow ring)
31 July 2008
If You Want Local Coverage, Best Go 5437.37 Miles Away . . .
Los Angeles Police Department Chief of Police, William Bratton, proving that you can take the boy out of Boston, but you can't take the Boston out of the boy, stepped in it with his comments regarding the attempts to pass a new anti-paparrazi law.
I happen to agree with him that a new law isn't needed to protect celebs from the actions of over zealous paps, just enforce any existing laws that these idiots break while trying to get a shot should do the trick.
(I don't agree that Lindsay Lohan's gayness or not gayness has anything to do with anything he's talking about, or Britney's relative sanity and clothedness level at any given moment while in public)
But I want to point out that, the LAT just has one blog post, nothing in the actual paper, and yet the Daily Mail over in London has a full article, with background info.
Most of the LA City Council are asses (actually, I take that back, ALL of them are, sorry for any confusion my first statement may have caused), but Dennis Zine is especially asseriffic, so it's nice to see at least one paper singling out his douche-baggery for comment, even if it doesn't make it into the actual local paper of record for Los Angeles. And I say that even though he's one of two Republicans on the council, an ex-LAPD seargant, and most likely much closer to my own views on most subjects than any other council member. Despite all that, a tool is a tool, is a tool, even if that tool happens to agree with some of my own personal political philosophy.
So this post isn't really about City Council douchebaggery, rather this is about the LA Times utter lameness. If Sam Zell wants to make money with that rag, he should get tabloid-y with it, emulate the Daily Mail, the NYPost, and the Sun, and go ahead and actually cover the gossipy crap that is happening in their own back yard. Also, a Page 3 girl would be nice, if any city in the United States is ready for exposed nipples in their daily paper, it's Los Angeles.
UPDATE:
The LAT did cover the story the following day, which given that the initial comment was uttered early in the AM on Thursday, is only natural. However, the Mail had it posted up on their website within hours of the incident and hearing, whereas the LAT waited until their normal publishing schedule and the story didn't hit the web until after 1AM (UPDATE within an UPDATE: it's possible they posted the story earlier than that, the last time I checked was about 8pm, and the first time I checked this morning was 9:30am, so all I know for sure is it was posted within that window, though their usual pattern is to post the entire day's paper around 1am and not post any bits earlier, unless it's a really big story like some Manny fella coming to the Dodgers). That's part of the problem that newspapers have, some get this right, some don't. In a 24 hour global news environment, you can't wait for the lead reporter on a story to be ready to post the completed and fully edited version just prior to the locked down copy for the print edition. Do that, and you'll get scooped on events that happen just down the street (as the LAT did). The rushed Mail report isn't demonstrably different than the LAT more leisurely produced piece, although I do like this one paragraph in the LAT:
Hmmm, "celebrity- saturated communities", I'm thinking celebrities aren't always mixed in easily and require more effort and mixing than mere saturation would suggest, I recommend using the phrase "celebrity- emulsified" instead.
Also, to prove my point about Councilmember Zine being an utter douche bag, here he is calling for an investigation of Chief Bratton
There are already too many laws to deal with too specific of issues, why not try and get these paps in trouble on 'hate crimes' violations? Claim that 'celebrity' is a protected class, and these pap-swarms are a form of anti-celebrity harrassment. There are already plenty of bad laws on the books that could be taken advantage of, if that's what they want to do, passing new bad laws won't make the problem vanish.
I happen to agree with him that a new law isn't needed to protect celebs from the actions of over zealous paps, just enforce any existing laws that these idiots break while trying to get a shot should do the trick.
(I don't agree that Lindsay Lohan's gayness or not gayness has anything to do with anything he's talking about, or Britney's relative sanity and clothedness level at any given moment while in public)
But I want to point out that, the LAT just has one blog post, nothing in the actual paper, and yet the Daily Mail over in London has a full article, with background info.
Most of the LA City Council are asses (actually, I take that back, ALL of them are, sorry for any confusion my first statement may have caused), but Dennis Zine is especially asseriffic, so it's nice to see at least one paper singling out his douche-baggery for comment, even if it doesn't make it into the actual local paper of record for Los Angeles. And I say that even though he's one of two Republicans on the council, an ex-LAPD seargant, and most likely much closer to my own views on most subjects than any other council member. Despite all that, a tool is a tool, is a tool, even if that tool happens to agree with some of my own personal political philosophy.
So this post isn't really about City Council douchebaggery, rather this is about the LA Times utter lameness. If Sam Zell wants to make money with that rag, he should get tabloid-y with it, emulate the Daily Mail, the NYPost, and the Sun, and go ahead and actually cover the gossipy crap that is happening in their own back yard. Also, a Page 3 girl would be nice, if any city in the United States is ready for exposed nipples in their daily paper, it's Los Angeles.
UPDATE:
The LAT did cover the story the following day, which given that the initial comment was uttered early in the AM on Thursday, is only natural. However, the Mail had it posted up on their website within hours of the incident and hearing, whereas the LAT waited until their normal publishing schedule and the story didn't hit the web until after 1AM (UPDATE within an UPDATE: it's possible they posted the story earlier than that, the last time I checked was about 8pm, and the first time I checked this morning was 9:30am, so all I know for sure is it was posted within that window, though their usual pattern is to post the entire day's paper around 1am and not post any bits earlier, unless it's a really big story like some Manny fella coming to the Dodgers). That's part of the problem that newspapers have, some get this right, some don't. In a 24 hour global news environment, you can't wait for the lead reporter on a story to be ready to post the completed and fully edited version just prior to the locked down copy for the print edition. Do that, and you'll get scooped on events that happen just down the street (as the LAT did). The rushed Mail report isn't demonstrably different than the LAT more leisurely produced piece, although I do like this one paragraph in the LAT:
As the dispute between officials churned on, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and representatives from celebrity- saturated communities, including Malibu, Beverly Hills and Calabasas, listened as the famous witnesses detailed their encounters with photographers, which they described as frightening.
Hmmm, "celebrity- saturated communities", I'm thinking celebrities aren't always mixed in easily and require more effort and mixing than mere saturation would suggest, I recommend using the phrase "celebrity- emulsified" instead.
Also, to prove my point about Councilmember Zine being an utter douche bag, here he is calling for an investigation of Chief Bratton
Later, Zine asked the mayor and the Police Commission to investigate Bratton's comments. He cited the assessment of Lohan's sexual orientation as particularly inappropriate. A police officer who said similar things would be investigated and possibly disciplined, Zine charged.
"I am just absolutely shocked at his obstinacy. We are trying to do something positive," Zine said.
Bratton brushed off suggestions that his remarks were insensitive. He said that he had a long record of supporting gay rights and noted that his sister is a lesbian.
There are already too many laws to deal with too specific of issues, why not try and get these paps in trouble on 'hate crimes' violations? Claim that 'celebrity' is a protected class, and these pap-swarms are a form of anti-celebrity harrassment. There are already plenty of bad laws on the books that could be taken advantage of, if that's what they want to do, passing new bad laws won't make the problem vanish.
15 September 2007
"She developed a weakness for British fare"
Really?
Scarlett Johansson loves British pub food? (that sounds as likely as her showing up at my house and wanting to challenge me in some topless Wii Sports, which Scarlett, if you are up for it, so am I)
The country that hasn't found a meat they couldn't turn into a pudding?
Nobody is saying she looks bad, just that there's a continuity problem with her fluctuating weight on the historical biopic film she's shooting in England.
If anything, she looks better heavier, but since they shoot out of sequence, and since she's so tiny, that kind of stuff can be noticeable.
Scarlett Johansson loves British pub food? (that sounds as likely as her showing up at my house and wanting to challenge me in some topless Wii Sports, which Scarlett, if you are up for it, so am I)
The country that hasn't found a meat they couldn't turn into a pudding?
Nobody is saying she looks bad, just that there's a continuity problem with her fluctuating weight on the historical biopic film she's shooting in England.
If anything, she looks better heavier, but since they shoot out of sequence, and since she's so tiny, that kind of stuff can be noticeable.
14 September 2007
More British Birds Without Much Clothing On . . .
. . . this time it's in the form of a little game.
Daily Mail had an article written by an improbably named woman who used to edit Esquire (Rosie Boycott), and she was complaining that the depiction of scantily (or completely unclad) clad women in the current generation of "Lads' Mags" was more demeaning and reinforcing of inequality between the sexes than her more tasteful and equality affirming depictions of hot women with little covering. Her article doesn't just attack the mags, though, she's also critical of young women for willingly exploiting themselves, and confusing freedom with sluttiness (or is that sluttiness with freedom?).
I'm not going to argue the merits of her argument, I'll just link to it. Reading the article I noticed that one of the most popular (and raunchy) of the "Lads Mags" NUTS, has just started a TV channel. They also have a website at Nuts.tv.
There's a variety of video and content aimed at the young male Brit audience. They've got lots of discussion regarding "footie", some stuff about "gear", and of course, plenty of young women, plenty uncovered.
Speaking of largely uncovered women, this series of videos featuring two well endowed women playing Wii topless is fascinating. There are four (NSFW) videos (part 1, 2, 3, 4), in each you are supposed to guess which sport they are playing on the Wii. It's not too hard to figure out. Wii Sports is the pack-in game with the Wii console and has five sports represented. You can figure out four of them by watching the videos (or just follow the wiki link), but there are only four videos in this Nuts series. I guess they figured their audience wouldn't be interested in watching these two young women play baseball (even topless). Damn provincial of them, don't they know they might attract audience over the web from baseball lovers as well?
This is 'tease' rather than porn. Still rather juvenille, and silly, but it definitely has its place within the media landscape.
Also, to rate the titillation factor of each game, I'd rank boxing lowest as the guard position limits the view, and I'd rank golf the highest, as the ready position for a golf swing (at least as performed by the women in the video) is pleasingly provocative.
Another thing, the popularity and link love sites like Daily Mail and Nuts gets outside of their home market presents a challenge to marketers. The adverts (since we're talking UK, I'll use the UK word for ads) are still aimed at the UK market, even though I'm linking from a USA based ISP. If they want to leverage their non-home market traffic, they need to find a way to serve ads that reflect the home market of the viewer, rather than the content provider. The technology is there, and because of the frequent Drudge links, the US traffic for Daily Mail is high, so US based advertisers would be smart to send some dollars Daily Mail's way.
There's a big revenue stream just waiting to be exploited.
Daily Mail had an article written by an improbably named woman who used to edit Esquire (Rosie Boycott), and she was complaining that the depiction of scantily (or completely unclad) clad women in the current generation of "Lads' Mags" was more demeaning and reinforcing of inequality between the sexes than her more tasteful and equality affirming depictions of hot women with little covering. Her article doesn't just attack the mags, though, she's also critical of young women for willingly exploiting themselves, and confusing freedom with sluttiness (or is that sluttiness with freedom?).
I'm not going to argue the merits of her argument, I'll just link to it. Reading the article I noticed that one of the most popular (and raunchy) of the "Lads Mags" NUTS, has just started a TV channel. They also have a website at Nuts.tv.
There's a variety of video and content aimed at the young male Brit audience. They've got lots of discussion regarding "footie", some stuff about "gear", and of course, plenty of young women, plenty uncovered.
Speaking of largely uncovered women, this series of videos featuring two well endowed women playing Wii topless is fascinating. There are four (NSFW) videos (part 1, 2, 3, 4), in each you are supposed to guess which sport they are playing on the Wii. It's not too hard to figure out. Wii Sports is the pack-in game with the Wii console and has five sports represented. You can figure out four of them by watching the videos (or just follow the wiki link), but there are only four videos in this Nuts series. I guess they figured their audience wouldn't be interested in watching these two young women play baseball (even topless). Damn provincial of them, don't they know they might attract audience over the web from baseball lovers as well?
This is 'tease' rather than porn. Still rather juvenille, and silly, but it definitely has its place within the media landscape.
Also, to rate the titillation factor of each game, I'd rank boxing lowest as the guard position limits the view, and I'd rank golf the highest, as the ready position for a golf swing (at least as performed by the women in the video) is pleasingly provocative.
Another thing, the popularity and link love sites like Daily Mail and Nuts gets outside of their home market presents a challenge to marketers. The adverts (since we're talking UK, I'll use the UK word for ads) are still aimed at the UK market, even though I'm linking from a USA based ISP. If they want to leverage their non-home market traffic, they need to find a way to serve ads that reflect the home market of the viewer, rather than the content provider. The technology is there, and because of the frequent Drudge links, the US traffic for Daily Mail is high, so US based advertisers would be smart to send some dollars Daily Mail's way.
There's a big revenue stream just waiting to be exploited.
10 February 2007
"And Throughout the Dinner Teri Leaned Over and Whispered Sweet Nothings in Georgie's Ear . . ."
That part above, that was my embellishment, but it's only a slight embroidery job on my part.
The Daily Mail really goes the distance in trying to create the impression that there's something more to this than meets the eye.
Slimy, limey, bastards.
The Daily Mail really goes the distance in trying to create the impression that there's something more to this than meets the eye.
Slimy, limey, bastards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)