Is it a good sign that yesterday I said I wouldn't be writing much about "Entertainment Weekly" and now my first post back is about "Entertainment Weekly"?
Well, remember that you can't spell "credible" without "l-i-e," and besides, I want to make an important point this morning. I am as guilty as anyone of offering snark for its own sake, but in my defense, I am not a major global print magazine with circulations in the millions, and plus I want to cut way back on that sort of thing. Here is what I don't want to do: Go out of my way to dis a celebrity just because he's not "cool" anymore. If he's a jerk or if someone else is being delusional about it, maybe, but if there is no harm, why call foul?
Case in point: The other day I looked at "EW's" Bullseye column, the regular back page feature in which it stuffs lots of pictures and smart-ass text into one infographic that purports to tell us what's HIP and what's NOT HIP at the moment. I know I shouldn't get worked up about this--it's just what "EW" does, after all--but at the bottom left of the page, and therefore on the periphery of pop culture--see, what's relevant is in the center of the page--is a picture of Tom Wopat's album cover with an accompanying wisecracking caption calling him "obsolete."
OUCH! Does the guy really deserve that? I didn't even know the album existed until they decided to rip it. It's not like we had to sit through a big Super Bowl ad hyping it right after kickoff. Really, what has Tom Wopat ever done to hurt anyone, apart from a DUI arrest and arguably a tacit endorsement of racism through driving around with the Stars and Bars plastered on his roof?
You know what? Come to think of it, IS he obsolete? He's a steady presence in stage and screen, including, you know, actual Broadway plays and stuff. He's in "Django Unchained," for crying out loud! But in spite of an ample and expanding post-"Dukes" resume--heck, post-"Cybill," for that matter--, someone thought it would be funny to take the cheapest of cheap shots and make fun of this work for existing because, hey, it's Tom Wopat, and won't that be a riot?
This is snark for its own sake. Do I, a blogger with an often sarcastic bent, want to take these kinds of potshots at hard-working celebrities?
Well, yeah, sure, of course I do!
The thing is I want to do it in conversation, maybe a private e-mail, the occasional one-and-done skywriting excursion...not on my blog. In short, absent a larger purpose of some kind, I don't want to rip Tom Wopat just for being Tom Wopat...unless he joins the staff of "Entertainment Weekly." Then he's fair game.
[SIGH] Here I am complaining about "EW" already. It's only a matter of time before I share a gripe about RTV's weekend schedule, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment