Blog Articles Page click here
The Sexiest Man Alive: How Times Change!
by Andrew Stergiou December 31,2008
Slowly waking I stepped into the kitchen to drink some coffee, to make some more coffee, and to smoke my cigarettes, to feed and water the cats. Playing in the background is a National Public Radio broadcast that kept the cats Gomez Addams, Morticia Addams and Pugsley Addams occupied. Though as a rule the cats gave me their undivided attention (at least until I feed them) as when came into the kitchen.
With the crackling static of a radio that I have long replaced with the internet came a broadcast on Lang-Lang the 26 year old Chinese classical pianist, explaining how he had a most wonderful year having playing for billions of people at the Beijing Olympics, and had been named to People’s magazine’s list of the most “sexiest men alive”. Strangely I find that for a serious artist such publicist oriented magazines and articles are demeaning and trivialization of one’s life’s work.
Strangely average every day citizens do not recall People Magazine knocking on their doors to find out if those neighbors are sexy. I certainly do not recall People magazine knocking at my door or any other door in the neighborhood, weither I lived in New York City, New York, West of Egypt Louisiana, Altoona Pennsylvania, or Paris France when I was twenty-six (or at any other age). Nor would any normal headed person expect People magazine to come knocking at their door to discovery the sexiest man or woman alive.
People magazine is perhaps best known for its yearly special issues naming:
"The Most Beautiful People", "The Best and Worst Dressed", and "The Sexiest Man Alive" is a weekly American magazine of celebrity and human interest stories, published by Time Inc., it has a circulation of 3.75 million and revenue expected to top $1.5 billion. (2006). It was named "Magazine of the Year" by Advertising Age in October 2005, for excellence in editorial, circulation and advertising. People ranked #6 on Advertising Age's annual "A-list" and #3 on Adweek's "Brand Blazers" list in October 2006.” (Wikipedia)
The magazine claims it runs a roughly 50/50 mix of celebrity and human interest stories, a ratio it has maintained, according to its editors, since 2001. People magazine’s editors claim to refrain from printing pure celebrity gossip, enough so to lead celebrity publicists to propose exclusives to the magazine, evidence of what one staffer calls a "publicist-friendly strategy” (Wikipedia).
“People has a website, which focuses exclusively on celebrity news. In February 2007, the website drew 39.6 million page views "within a day" of the Golden Globes. However "the mother ship of Oscar coverage" broke a site record with 51.7 million page views on the day after the Oscars, beating the previous record set just a month before from the Golden Globes.” (Wikipedia).
But all in all, People magazine is a vehicle for the commoditization of society, packaging what it calls news and human interest into bite size pieces for sale to the general public in should not be taken at all serious as it is sociopathically inspired and plays on the emotional heart strings of the industrial world.
Strangely National Public International has been attacked for being biased as supporting a liberal slant, but was here catering to industry and profits in a blatant manner. Though of course liberals and conservatives are both expected to serve the interests of industry and capital:
Where is the conservative criticism of Public Broadcasting now?
The question here is why conservatives will not say anything for the most part regarding commercialization of national public radio, the public culture and media’s catering to the lowest common denominators?
I think People is completely full of it as it is one of the most lying deceitful rags with high quality gloss out there which I find more like junk mail in magazine!
If one studies the People magazine’s lists they will most certainly find a correlation between those listed and some new industry release of some production or another. Pierce Brosnan made the sexist man alive list November 26, 2001, one year prior to his making the movie “Die another Day” released November 22, 2002, released almost exactly one year from the date he made the sexiest man alive list in promotion for his up and coming movie. So one can rightfully conclude that if one makes the “Sexiest man Alive list” that is to prepare for some entertainment industrial.
Only one of the twenty-three men listed on Peoples magazine’s sexiest men alive, John F. Kennedy Jr. was not in the entertainment industry.
“In a July 2006 Variety article, Janice Min, Us Weekly editor-in-chief, blamed People for the increase in cost to publishers of celebrity photos:
"They are among the biggest spenders of celebrity photos in the industry....One of the first things they ever did, that led to the jacking up of photo prices, was to pay $75,000 to buy pictures of Jennifer Lopez reading Us magazine, so Us Weekly couldn't buy them.
Many stupor stars pimp their babies photos to People magazine. People magazine, reportedly paid $4.1 million for newborn photos of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. The photos set a single-day traffic record for their website, attracting 26.5 million page views. Recently Jennifer Lopez decided to sell photos of her twin newborn babies (a boy and girl) for $6 million to People Magazine.” (Wikipedia).
Just as Peoples magazine is perhaps best known for its yearly special issues naming "The Most Beautiful People", "The Best and Worst Dressed", and "The Sexiest Man Alive" (published by its parent corporation Time Inc.), Time magazine is likewise well known for its controversy for “Man of the Year” later named “Person of the Year” awards. Those award all seem to coincident with the political issues and historical events of the times.
Despite the magazine's frequent statements to the contrary, the designation is often regarded as an honor, and spoken of as an award or prize, simply based on many previous selections of admirable people.
“However, those such as Adolf Hitler in 1938, and Joseph Stalin in 1939 and again in 1942, and the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, have also been granted the title.” (Wikipedia)
“In 1998, professional wrestler Mick Foley led the online poll to be voted Time Man of the Year however he was removed as a candidate after Time felt he had not done enough to deserve the accolade.”
“As a result of the public backlash it received from the United States for naming the Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979, Time has shied away from using figures that are controversial in the United States. Time's Person of the Year 2001—immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks—was New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, although the rules of selection, the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news, made Osama bin Laden a more likely choice. The issue that declared Giuliani the Person of the Year included an article that mentioned Time's earlier decision to elect the Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1999 rejection of Hitler as Person of the Century. The article seemed to imply that Osama bin Laden was a stronger candidate than Giuliani, as Adolf Hitler was a stronger candidate than Albert Einstein. The selections were ultimately based on what the magazine describes as who they believed had a stronger influence on history.” (Wikipedia)
“Another criticized choice was the 2006 selection of You, representing most if not all people for advancing the information age by using the Internet (via blogs, YouTube, MySpace and Wikipedia). Slate labeled the selection as just stupid however, several other selections have contained large groups, if more discriminate.” (Wikipedia)
Generally the effect of on society by publication Time and Peoples magazines is to undermine a responsible and accountable form of capitalism where the credibility of those publications can be brought into question. Time magazine became part of Time Warner in 1989 when Warner Communications and Time, Inc. merged. In the merger of Time magazine raises other questions of ethics where Peoples and Time magazine self promotes as news entertainment properties of specific actors, actresses and entertainers, while its Warner Entertainment Division benefits from those self-promotion efforts.
The insidious nature of alleged not for profit operations such as Wikipedia in their relationship with the corporate preclude and exclude independent artists from posting of articles by independent artists on themselves preventing the establishment of a record of those artists careers on grounds that they are self-promotions. While the Warner Brothers division of Time Warner through its extensive network of employees and business associates are allowed free and total access for the commercial exploitation or such venues.
How many of the blogs and articles posted online are secretly the products of not just corporate America, but unaccountable monopolistic transnational corporate enterprises?
Where the main bulk of the content generated for the internet was produced by independent producers from the days of electronic bulletin board systems, and web designers. These days it has become difficult if not impossible to distinguish weither or not that information was the product of some commercial enterprise, or derived from the product of some commercial exploitation.
Regardlessly independent producers continue and often piss on the corporate models of the so called right and left as irrelevant obstacles to progress, amongst others.