The LA Weekly has found a new way of (a) speculating about Tom Cruise's sexuality and (b) driving traffic to its website. (I wonder which of these two goals is uppermost.) 5 signs that Tom Cruise is Gay (June 2012).
5. Gay men fancy him. But then so do a lot of straight women. Perhaps straight women sometimes fancy men who turn out to be gay, perhaps gay men sometimes fancy men who turn out to be straight. The LA Weekly describes a scene in which Cruise dances in his underpants as "homoerotic", presumably because gay men find this scene erotic. (I should not like to speculate whether the journalist is speaking from personal experience.) But if straight women also find this scene erotic, wouldn't this scene also count as "heteroerotic" or "metroerotic"?
The LA Weekly provides a helpful link to the scene, for those readers who want to test their own erotic response to it. Will it conclude that those readers who click on this link are probably gay?
4. He is fit. Oh dear.
3. Sexuality might be one possible explanation for joining the Church of Scientology.
2. An ex-wife made some caustic comments about his sexuality. Ex-wives often try to maintain a dignified silence about their ex-husbands, but the occasional barb may still slip out.
1. Family Guy jokes about Tom Cruise's sexuality. Actually, lots of people joke about it.
Like many other successful celebrities, Tom Cruise has a well-constructed image, which brings him a great deal of publicity and admiration from both sexes. This image is co-created by Cruise himself and his agents on the one hand, and by the media on the other hand. An ambiguous sexuality is probably an asset, and his publicity agents might advise him to be careful not to provide convincing evidence one way or the other. The signs produced by the LA Weekly may tell us something about the Tom Cruise image and the public reaction to it. Only an obsessive fan would believe or care whether this image is a truthful reflection of the true Tom Cruise.
Celebrities often lose the ability to distinguish themselves from their own public image. We know this only because some of them recover from this state, and are able to talk about it in later life.
What I'm interested in here is the nature of the argument produced by the LA Weekly, and what it implies about the LA Weekly worldview. The alleged signs are not only inconclusive but reflect a backwards causality - confusing cause and effect.
Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Celebrity Opinions
My son watched @RustyRockets appearance before the Parliament Home Affairs Committee on 24 April 2012 with some delight. Mr Brand is not the first celebrity to be invited to present his opinions to a select committee - we have recently seen several celebrities pontificate on privacy and press freedom, including the actor Hugh Grant.
Brand's opinions on drug addiction are based largely on his own experience as a former addict, and he presented these opinions eloquently and with considerable wit, sometimes at the politicians' expense. He argued that taking drugs should not be seen as a criminal or judicial matter, and users should be shown more compassion.
Not surprisingly, his appearance is widely reported in the media, but from different angles.
The Telegraph columnist Damian Thomson was guardedly positive.
The Guardian columnist Marina Hyde had already made the same point, calling this "an exercise in publicity-seeking".
But let us think more broadly than this. Brand's opinions are unlikely to change many minds. Those who are already sympathetic to Brand's position may be entertained; those who are hostile to his position will be disgusted by Brand's manner as well as by his opinions, and this will reinforce their opposition to them. Thus the political effect of hearing Brand's evidence may be to make it harder for the governent to adopt the kind of policies advocated by Brand (as well as by large numbers of experts whose evidence receives far less publicity). Brand's advocacy is therefore probably counterproductive, in the sense that it weakens the political will to change.
Brand is a comedian, not a politician, so it may be unreasonable to expect him to understand the political effects of his actions. But what about the politicans on the Select Committee? Are they really so vain and stupid that they cannot appreciate the political effects of their actions, or have they calculated these effects as a cunning plan to preserve the status quo?
Even the BBC is not immune to the cult of celebrity, as @mjrobbins argues. Everything that's wrong with BBC Question Time in one graph (Guardian 14 June 2013)
"Scientists on Question Time? Boring!" says @RatParl, arguing that "The QT circus isn’t the right place for scientists." (Rational Parliament November 2013). Instead, he advocates a separate forum where experts of all disciplines could point out the folly of the celebrities and populist politicians on the Question Time panel. (Although one can often achieve much the same effect by following intelligent and well-informed people on Twitter.)
Russell Brand calls for more compassion for drug users (BBC News 24 April 2012)
Russell Brand says drug addiction should be treated as a health matter
(Guardian, 24 April 2012)
Marina Hyde, Why bring Russell Brand to testify to a select committee instead of an expert witness? (Guardian, 26 April 2012)
Amanda Platell, Brand and a pathetic Commons cabaret (Daily Mail, 27 April 2012)
John Sutherland, Studying Russell Brand at A-Level? Boring! (The Telegraph,, 7 May 2014)
Damian Thomson, Even Russell Brand understands that you can't sell cocaine like tobacco (The Telegraph 27 April 2012)
Lord Reith appears as @BBCExtraGhost (Storify November 2012)
Updated 10 June 2014
Brand's opinions on drug addiction are based largely on his own experience as a former addict, and he presented these opinions eloquently and with considerable wit, sometimes at the politicians' expense. He argued that taking drugs should not be seen as a criminal or judicial matter, and users should be shown more compassion.
Not surprisingly, his appearance is widely reported in the media, but from different angles.
The Telegraph columnist Damian Thomson was guardedly positive.
Like lots of supposedly cutting-edge comedians, Russell Brand is actually as pleased with himself as any of those bow-tied light entertainmentBut Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell was scornful.legendswho spent their sunset years on Celebrity Squares. Also, he’s a recovering addict, so that’s another layer of smuggery. But this week he appeared before a Commons select committee and – incredibly – talked a certain amount of sense about drugs.
When Russell Brand appeared before Keith Vaz’s Home Affairs Select Committee, which is reviewing drugs policy, it was hard to determine which of the pair of them was the more stupid, self-regarding or publicity-seeking — the comedian or the MP. Brand turned up late, looking as though he hadn’t washed for a month, in torn jeans and a tatty singlet, draped with more crucifixes than you’d find in the Vatican. His contempt for the workings of Westminster could not have been expressed more eloquently.By taking evidence from celebrities, Parliament is perhaps creating the unfortunate impression that it regards the opinions of the rich and famous as more important than those of the rest of us. Having thoroughly dismissed Brand's argument, Platell then criticizes the committee (especially its Labour chairman Keith Vaz) for inviting Brand to give evidence in the first place, calling this "a silly, self-aggrandising gesture" and suggesting that Vaz is a man "who craves the limelight almost more than his star guest".
The Guardian columnist Marina Hyde had already made the same point, calling this "an exercise in publicity-seeking".
Chaired by the odious Keith Vaz, whose advance towards the red benches appears to be as ineluctable as it is sensationally ill-deserved, the committee this week followed up its decision to call Amy Winehouse's father to discourse on the cocaine trade with an invitation to Russell Brand to address them on drug addiction. To substitute one genuine expert with a tabloid celebrity may be regarded as unfortunate; to do it twice begins to look like a clear strategy.The Government has a long history of ignoring expert scientific advice on drug policy. So what is the purpose of inviting celebrities instead? Hyde and Platell share the view that publicity is the sole purpose - the medium (as someone once said) is the message. My son had never watched Select Committee proceedings before, so I guess it's an achievement of a kind to make something accessible that is usually excruciatingly boring.
But let us think more broadly than this. Brand's opinions are unlikely to change many minds. Those who are already sympathetic to Brand's position may be entertained; those who are hostile to his position will be disgusted by Brand's manner as well as by his opinions, and this will reinforce their opposition to them. Thus the political effect of hearing Brand's evidence may be to make it harder for the governent to adopt the kind of policies advocated by Brand (as well as by large numbers of experts whose evidence receives far less publicity). Brand's advocacy is therefore probably counterproductive, in the sense that it weakens the political will to change.
Brand is a comedian, not a politician, so it may be unreasonable to expect him to understand the political effects of his actions. But what about the politicans on the Select Committee? Are they really so vain and stupid that they cannot appreciate the political effects of their actions, or have they calculated these effects as a cunning plan to preserve the status quo?
"Scientists on Question Time? Boring!" says @RatParl, arguing that "The QT circus isn’t the right place for scientists." (Rational Parliament November 2013). Instead, he advocates a separate forum where experts of all disciplines could point out the folly of the celebrities and populist politicians on the Question Time panel. (Although one can often achieve much the same effect by following intelligent and well-informed people on Twitter.)
Russell Brand calls for more compassion for drug users (BBC News 24 April 2012)
Russell Brand says drug addiction should be treated as a health matter
(Guardian, 24 April 2012)
Marina Hyde, Why bring Russell Brand to testify to a select committee instead of an expert witness? (Guardian, 26 April 2012)
Amanda Platell, Brand and a pathetic Commons cabaret (Daily Mail, 27 April 2012)
John Sutherland, Studying Russell Brand at A-Level? Boring! (The Telegraph,, 7 May 2014)
Damian Thomson, Even Russell Brand understands that you can't sell cocaine like tobacco (The Telegraph 27 April 2012)
Lord Reith appears as @BBCExtraGhost (Storify November 2012)
Updated 10 June 2014
Saturday, February 04, 2012
The Exception Proves the Rule - Gender
Last week, a story appeared in several papers about a woman who was described as a sex addict. Crystal Warren (42) claimed to have slept with over a thousand men.
Earlier this week, the woman was interviewed on breakfast TV. The interviewer, veteran presenter Eamonn Homes (52) caused some outrage by asking her whether she had ever considered charging for sex.
In a further twist, the woman is now revealed to have been born a man, and to have had a sex-change operation in 2005.
Earlier this week, the woman was interviewed on breakfast TV. The interviewer, veteran presenter Eamonn Homes (52) caused some outrage by asking her whether she had ever considered charging for sex.
In a further twist, the woman is now revealed to have been born a man, and to have had a sex-change operation in 2005.
Not only do many of the details of the earlier stories now turn out to be inaccurate or misleading, but some may question whether Ms Warren can serve as a legitimate exception to a presumed general pattern of female sexual desire and behaviour, which had presumably been the point of publishing the story in the first place. Nevertheless, Ms Warren is now a celebrity and This is Somerset proudly announces that Ms Warren grew up in Somerset. Obviously the only way isn't Essex then.
See also Alexander Boot Sex Drugs and Eamonn Holmes, Daily Mail 3 February 2012
Wikipedia: Exception that proves the rule
Saturday, January 07, 2012
God's Purpose In All Things
Following the breakup of their daughter's marriage, an evangelical couple in America is reported as having praised God for the impending divorce. This seems to contradict their previous opposition to divorce.
It is perhaps a natural human reaction to say "Thank God" when your daughter splits up with a bloke you never really liked. Once upon a time, however, this would have been regarded as tantamount to taking the Lord's name in vain - in other words, blasphemy.
But if one reads the actual quote rather than the headlines, it is more of a silver lining than outright blasphemy.
"I'm sure Katy is trending on the internet just to get you to church tonight," said Mrs Hudson, 63. "I mean all over the world, who knows how God is bringing them in? The most important thing is you are here and God wants to put the fire in you in 2012," [Daily Telegraph 6 January 2012]
Twitter Populi, Twitter Dei.
But @katyperry warns us not to regard the voice of the parents as the voice of God.
Vox parentis non putrem a matre distinguit. (Whatever that means.)
It is perhaps a natural human reaction to say "Thank God" when your daughter splits up with a bloke you never really liked. Once upon a time, however, this would have been regarded as tantamount to taking the Lord's name in vain - in other words, blasphemy.
But if one reads the actual quote rather than the headlines, it is more of a silver lining than outright blasphemy.
"I'm sure Katy is trending on the internet just to get you to church tonight," said Mrs Hudson, 63. "I mean all over the world, who knows how God is bringing them in? The most important thing is you are here and God wants to put the fire in you in 2012," [Daily Telegraph 6 January 2012]
Twitter Populi, Twitter Dei.
But @katyperry warns us not to regard the voice of the parents as the voice of God.
"Concerning the gossip, I want to be clear that NO ONE speaks for me. Not a blog, magazine, "close sources" or my family."
Vox parentis non putrem a matre distinguit. (Whatever that means.)
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Purpose of Lists
@Jason_Silva argues that to understand is to perceive patterns. He has produced a list of people he calls pattern seekers - those who he thinks have made a profound impact on the world by extracting meaning from chaos, and discovering what he calls metapatterns.
@milouness asks why do these lists always have so few women. One possible answer to Carmen's question can be determined by looking at the people Jason includes in his list. For example, he credits Watson and Crick for a pattern that was actually discovered by Rosalind Franklin. This is a common error whose explanation is complex - one reason Franklin doesn't receive the popular credit is that she was already dead (of ovarian cancer, as it happens) when Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for their work together. Another reason was that she was more cautious than her male colleagues about publishing speculative models without further empirical evidence. This omission suggests that Jason is unaware of the detail from which his claimed pattern emerges.
Jason's list seems to have been hastily assembled from the obvious intellectual celebrities of the twentieth century, and therefore merely reinforces established celebrity rather than identifying underrated genius. I'm sorry, but I don't see such lists as contributing very much to our understanding of anything. Is a list just a journalistic meme for having nothing much to say?
See also Zeitgeist magazine reveals the top lists of 2011 (Newsbiscuit).
@milouness asks why do these lists always have so few women. One possible answer to Carmen's question can be determined by looking at the people Jason includes in his list. For example, he credits Watson and Crick for a pattern that was actually discovered by Rosalind Franklin. This is a common error whose explanation is complex - one reason Franklin doesn't receive the popular credit is that she was already dead (of ovarian cancer, as it happens) when Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for their work together. Another reason was that she was more cautious than her male colleagues about publishing speculative models without further empirical evidence. This omission suggests that Jason is unaware of the detail from which his claimed pattern emerges.
Jason's list seems to have been hastily assembled from the obvious intellectual celebrities of the twentieth century, and therefore merely reinforces established celebrity rather than identifying underrated genius. I'm sorry, but I don't see such lists as contributing very much to our understanding of anything. Is a list just a journalistic meme for having nothing much to say?
See also Zeitgeist magazine reveals the top lists of 2011 (Newsbiscuit).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)