Recently, I've been trying to get back in touch with the world. Maybe reading about someone else's misery will make my own life seem more minute and careless.
I love controversy. I love gossip. So I love celebrity news. Sometimes.
Today, 11/24/09, I am sitting here in Ruesink's L112 Biology lecture, I got distracted and went to Yahoo! News on the home page. I read a little something last night about Adam Lambert's "racy performance" and how it was censored for the west coast. I mean, I'm sure they'd censor the performance for the whole country, but it was live, so they can only prevent the west coast from his reign of terror.
See, generally, when I see censorship on TV, I'm extra curious what's going on behind there. I mean, it's like Playboy; people like it because it leaves something to the imagination. I've seen porn out there that's actually censored, and I guess some people like that. But like on The Office, where they actually censor for comedic effects, it's because they are using the ridiculousness as humor. There's things they can't show or say on TV, thus they abuse their position by censoring, and you laugh. More.
So some kid on the west coast is watching the AMAs, and is hoping one of these days he'll be on that stage, except without a drug problem (we would hope). Then Adam Lambert's part is up, and instead of watching another performer on stage, interpreting their music, he see a chunk of mosaic block on TV. If he haven't heard the news, he would be super curious what happened there. So, like any teen these days, hops onto his computer, googles or Yahoo! searches "Adam Lambert censored". Bam! Over a million search results come up, and more likely then not, 75% of those links involve actual fellatio or analingus. How he's tainted and his computer has 203948032 viruses. Thanks for fucking up everything.
Like Adam Lambert said, it is really crass to edit to someone's performance. Music is all about entertainment and expression. Isn't it? Like Lambert said, his music is not for everyone. His show is not for everyone. If people want to watch the AMAs, they would turn to that channel. If Adam Lambert is not what someone wants to see perform, change the channel. If you stumble upon a porn channel, you don't wanna watch it? Change the channel.
Performers are there to entertain. People can choose not to watch. It's that simple. It's simply insulting to censor someone's art. Georgia O'Keefe would be pissed if someone "censored" her paintings and actually make it look like a flower. If you don't want to go to her gallery, then don't.
My judgements towards Yahoo! News are the fact that they would post something like that on their homepage and word the headline as "Lambert on AMA fallout". His performance was not a "fallout", what they did with his show was. As a reader, you would be intrigued or sympathetic by the headline. But sympathy is not what he wants. He's out and he's proud. His show is not a fallout.
Another bone I want to pick with Yahoo! News ("other then the one in my pants" - from Juno) is that, when you click on Lambert's story, there's "related news" scattered through out article. As related news, you can see pictures of other "Gay and Lesbian Hollywood Stars". It's somewhat insulting that gays and lesbians are set aside as a slide show. It's demonstrating that we ("society") still see people based on sexual orientation. Would Hollywood even exist without the plethora of overzealous gay people?
If there was a slide show called "Black People of Hollywood", it would simply derogatory. But sadly I would see Yahoo! News posting something like that. How about "White People of Hollywood"? It would just seems redundant. How about "Jews of Hollywood"? "Scientology of Hollywood"?
Blatant discrimination? Yes.
I mean, what is Yahoo! trying to say? Check out all these faggots and dykes in Hollywood. Look out. Or is it more of a "let's celebrate these people who make this place possible"?
Your decision. Let me know what you think.