A few thoughts...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/13/barackobama.uselections2008
Cracking Iannucci story about the difference in rhetoric between US and UK politicians. Its seems he shares my view that Obama has become the pied piper of politics and that no woman with a haircut like Clinton's should be allowed control of a can of hairspray let alone the United States of America.
Also noticed that the Mirror is running a campaign to stop underage drinking. Someting like help the Mirror "'Can' Underage boozing". Made me wonder whether you could consider the newspaper crusade as a news value in itself. Other examples include the Daily Mail's "what is the world coming to" campaign which attempted to whip the nation into a fervour of jingoistic wooly-headedness with stories, ney lies, about immigrants being given Rolls Royces and handjobs from the Royal Family once they had rowed up the channel tunnel cunningly disguised in coats made of Euros.
At any rate it pisses me off when newspapers take on these campaigns. They are either making a general assumption that everyone in the country is thinking much the same thing and then having the arrogance to believe that their extravagant headline will actually make a difference. Or they are cynically trying to sell newspapers with cheap issues rather than making the effort to actually go out and investigate news.
"Slow news day - lets try and get everyone to bash a Paki. Or swear at a granny."
The other silly UK news trend, which to be fair has been going on for quite a while now, is to have small bits of editorial appear in speech bubbles launched like vacuous crack pipes from the chemically swollen lips of page three girls. Things such as "Tricia thinks its great London has got the Olympics but worries about where the dosh is coming from"... or "Jamie Oliver may be cute to look at on the telly box but Michelle just can't help but have her heart melt like a gooey chocolate fondant when she see him slobbering all over those fat kids"... they go a bit like that anyway.
Whats the point of this? Well... its just a basic insult to everyone involved's intelligence.
Good night
James
Posts
2 comments:
It is interesting to me how rhetoric on women in extreme positions of power always seems to disintegrate into an attack on hairstyles. While it is all in good humour in this case, I wonder why no one ever seems to be interested in whether John Keys receding hairline will affect his leadership ability or why no one concluded that Don Brash's fashion sense clearly connects him to the exclusive bretheren. It begs the question, what type of image would a woman have to have for her physical appearance to no longer be somehow integral to her competence? If Clinton were a man with the resume she currently holds, I doubt that an African American Obama would have any chance of becoming America's next president. Nice blog though, very witty and astute.
Clinton is going to lose her fight because she has chosen a cautious line in an election where the vote is going to go to the radical who promises change. Especially in foreign affairs... many americans are not happy with how the world sees them and want this to change - only Obama has argued this point strongly (well i say argued - in these US contests it pretty much amounts to who says the word change the most).
As for style - I think Mr Keys is probably very hindered by his slightly autistic manner. He has the stiff wobbliness of an English public schoolboy caught stuffing tuck shop items into his mothers knickers. Helen Clark on the other hand wears her awful dentistry with a sense of pride.
I take your point that there is a higher level of scrutiny of a female in power's appearance but I would suggest that a lot of the criticism comes from other women.
Post a Comment