Jay Leno's Primetime Debut

Jay Leno made TV history last week as the debut of the new "Jay Leno Show" on NBC marked the first time any big Network ran a series five nights a week during primetime hours. Anticipation for the new show was markedly high as more than 18 million viewers tuned in for the big debut.

The show's ratings dropped throughout the week, but even though Leno faces stiff competition in the ten o'clock hour- from shows like "CSI Miami" and "The Mentalist"- NBC hopes that the low cost of the show will help generate higher profits. "If you've watched promos for this new show 'Trauma,' we can do three shows in what it takes to blow up the helicopter in the promo," Leno joked in a conference call last week.

"The Jay Leno Show" features some of the tonight show's most popular elements from "The Tonight Show," including "Jaywalking" and Jay's opening monologue, but the new show intends to focus more on conversation and comedy. Some critics have dubbed the show a near repeat of "The Tonight Show," but USC students seemed impressed by and excited about Leno's new changes.

For more reviews of "The Jay Leno Show" click here.

Discovering My Online Identity

I know you’ve done it. In the privacy of your bedroom, you're all alone, you’re feeling curious, a little bored and all of a sudden you take the plunge and... google yourself. Prompted by a recent class on Online Media I started to question how my name looked online. I've always believed in the importance of maintaining a positive reputation. But what happens when your reputation is out of your hands and suddenly in placed the hands of anyone with computer access? Well, my discovery begins...

This tale starts out tragically. As I took to google to type in my little anonymous name I expected maybe some articles on me from high school or facebook information. Instead I found wretched and devastating news: my name is famous... and not by my doing.

As I frantically considered the consequences of this finding, I started examining this "other" Jessica Hagy (seen on the right) and realized that much to my dismay she is actually a hilarious and talented writer. Her sketches have really insightful observations on pop culture, politics and other topics. With the taste of bitterness still fresh I trekked onwards on my online adventure and got more specific.

That's when my information started trickling in. My online footprint is pretty lacking, but it did give me-pretending to be a judgmental stranger- some input. The most informational results were my facebook and twitter accounts. Links to these accounts were uncomfortably personal and I never really considered the fact that keeping my twitter account open means that every single person on the internet knows when I'm walking my dog. My facebook account is private but I still have close to two thousand friends (and I just weeded out everyone I didn't know this summer... which leaves me wondering how is it possible to know 2,000 people?!) I've often considered deleting my facebook but in the end I cannot break the sick addiction that consumes me. Also, how would I keep in touch with the people that aren't quite phone-conversation-worthy? You know who those people are: the kid that grew up on your street that you haven't seen in 8 years, the high school crush that is on year 6 in college and worsens with age (much to your happiness), the frenemy you love to stalk that's living a fabulous life abroad. Isn't it just integral that I know what these very important people did last night and what their favorite movies are? Definitely.

In the end, after perusing a few other search engines, I realized that having a famous namesake has some perks. If anyone googles me, even with specific information, this bifocaled name-twin pops up in every single result. My 8 results are buried under her accolades and that's just fine with me because hopefully my less flattering results will be buried too. I was surprised at how little information there was on the web about me but I was also quite relieved. The juiciest bits I found were pictures of me as a Debutante in 2006... no need to scream with excitement. Of course I'm devising ways to outshine the "other" Jessica Hagy and claim the throne as the most important, but until then I'll live happily as a slightly anonymous online identity.

Tire Swing Princess

Once aloft my tree, I passed my

Royal time. Beneath the yawning

Oak leaves- my palace ‘neath the sky.

 

Ladies and Knights from ancient lands-

Cul-de-sacs afar, beheld my

Sacred song, bringing gifts- a rubber band,

Or a butterfly jarred.

 

Perched I chirped and twirled about

Those below would gasp,

“Behold the princess of oak tree palace”

As I swung and flew right past.

 

The aching oak held back the sound

Of mother’s yells and brother’s groans.

I did not care ‘bout those on ground

When up upon my rubber throne.

 

The jester squirrel would dance along

Earth-covered leaves kept beat and time,

Dancing to my royal Queen song,

As backup wind would softly chime.

 

When dusk drew near and arithmetic called

The royal court would retreat ‘neath the front yard

Wall and the Oak’s sappy tears would fall.

I dismounted my throne and then was small.

 

 By Jessica Hagy

April 2008

 

Can't Miss Vintage: Shock and Soul

Set right near the bustling alley of London’s Camden Passage lies the Mecca of 80’s apparel and punk flair: Shock and Soul vintage.

Filled with racks of neon, white washed denim and worn black leather, the shop is a kaleidoscope of color and quirks.

Shoulder pads stick playfully from racks as glittering dresses flirt with customers and stunning vintage chairs invite shoppers to relax.

The usual customer is someone “who wants to be different or unusual, doesn’t want to look the same as everyone else, and likes something exclusive that’s vintage,” manager Bex Ward says.

On a Monday afternoon the shop is definitely full with those who “want to be unusual,” but it is equally full of the very usual-looking schoolgirls and soccer moms; the reincarnation of Joan Jett stands directly beside Martha Stewart’s greatest fan and no one seems to mind.

The welcoming of a myriad of personalities seems to be due to the appeal of the apparel, but it might also be due to the persona of Shock and Soul’s owner.

“She’s got a great eye and a good sense of humor. She projects a lot of her big personality into the shop,” Ward says.

The shop began on EBay and only translated into the Islington High Street store a year and a half ago.

Though Shock and Soul items can still be found on EBay, the store has taken precedent.

“We do EBay but it’s hard to concentrate on that with the shop cause the shop’s been so successful,” Ward says.

The success of the shop is clearly evident in the bustling store. Customers shop breezily and most leave happy.

According to Ward, Shock and Soul really values the shopping experience.

 “We leave space in the rail so you can actually see the goods and everything’s in really good condition. It’s all washed and steamed and hung and checked for repairs before it goes out so where as in a lot of other vintage stores it’s the rummaging through that takes up the time, we and try and take the headache out of that for the customer,” Ward says.

 In fact, Shock and Soul doesn’t consider itself a traditional vintage store at all.

 “We do really pride ourselves on everything being quality. There are a lot of other vintage shops but we consider ourselves to be more of a specialized boutique,” Ward says.

Specialized service is also valued at the shop.

“If someone comes in the shop and they’re not really sure what they’re looking for, we’ll style them in the shop and take them around to the pieces that we know will look good on them,” Ward says.

Though this treatment sounds quite special, it’s known that store attendants tend to be on overly kind with wardrobe assessments when it comes to possible sales.

“We are very honest with our customers as well and I think that brings people back. We would never try to sell them something that doesn’t suit them,” Ward says.

Though style may differentiate between customers, the definitively 80’s theme has been a huge selling point for the shop in the past few months.

 “Eighties is in high demand. We do try and sort of maintain other eras throughout the store as well but obviously when the customers are coming in specifically looking for the eighties then that’s what we’re going to supply for them,” Ward says.

 So this may not be the place to pick up a new fifties cocktail dress or a seventies maxi gown. But Shock and Soul does have some other surprises up its (sequined and beaded) sleeve.

 “The corsets are a new addition and they’ve been doing really well, they’ve been really popular which is quite a surprise but because its got that very vintage look its been really popular,” Ward says.

The stunning but completely unpractical lingerie seems like a strange purchase, but lo and behold shoppers buzz about the corset display like bees on honey. Perhaps it’s because they love lingerie, but more likely it’s because the corsets are new and different and the shoppers trust Shock and Soul’s sense of style enough to go with it.

But if previously worn intimates aren’t your thing, the shop also boasts some never-been-worn finds.

“We’re really lucky to have a stock of original 80’s earrings that have never been worn. So they’re really popular, we’re quite well known for the accessories as well,” Ward says.

Though it’s the quality and uniqueness of the products that may draw shoppers in, it’s the attention to detail and reputation that keeps customers coming back.

“We’re always on the up. We’re always doing better and better as the reputation of the shop spreads because we don’t do a lot of marketing in terms of advertising and stuff like that. We try to let the shop speak for itself,” Ward says.

I imagine that if a shop could really speak for itself, this one might yell out some 1980’s Madonna lyrics and pump its leather fist in the air.

 This eccentricity is evident from the sparkly pumps on the floor, to the patent leather clutches hanging from the ceiling.

It seems, that in the end, Shock and Soul cares about its customers, but really cares about the integrity of the clothes.

 “With vintage it’s very personal, we need people to look good in that particular item. Id rather see it go to someone who’s going wear it than for it to sit in someone’s wardrobe,” Ward says.

That passion for the clothes is evident in Shock and Soul, and even if you don’t possess an innate love of the 80’s, once you leave the shop you’ll be humming Madonna’s “material girl” too.

Shock and Sole Vintage 

100 Islington High Street

London N1 8EG 

020 7359 1490

Religion and Hollywood: No Common Ground?

A recent phone survey of 1,000 Americans conducted by the Anti-Defamation League found a noticeable discord between Hollywood and the religious views of Americans. The "American Attitudes on Religion, Moral Values and Hollywood" survey found that Americans generally believe Hollywood is out of touch with the morals of America. The survey focused on issues of censorship, moral values, lifestyles, and varied religions. The survey touched upon an important issue of relevance not only to those in the entertainment industry but also to all entertainment consumers. While exploring the blogosphere for reactions to this study, two blogs stood out as especially informative and stimulating responses to the findings. The first, Survey: Hollywood Out of Touch, written by Gregg Kilday of The Hollywood Reporter, succinctly presents highlights of the survey and also features quotes from the ADL national director. The second, Americans Feel Religious Views Attacked, written by Matthew Wagner of The Jerusalem Post offers a more in-depth look at the survey in relationship to previous studies on similar issues. While I have commented on both of these blogs, I have also included my responses below for convenience.

Comment:

"Survey: Hollywood Out Of Touch"

Thank you for an interesting and unique post on the discord between American morality and Hollywood. I thought you were especially successful in highlighting the most important findings and results. I also thought it was effective that you included quotes from Abraham H. Foxman, especially his statement that "the belief that religion is under attack underlies the drive to incorporate more religion into American public life. Disturbingly, 43% of Americans believe there is an organized campaign by Hollywood and the national media to weaken the influence of religious values in this country." While I disagree that there is intent to weaken morality, I do believe that there is blatant disregard for morality in most of Hollywood's productions today. It is through this disregard and the lack of incorporation of morality and religion that Americans' morals are unfairly neglected in entertainment. If 43 percent of the country believes that Hollywood is trying to minimize religion then almost half of the nation does not identify with the entertainment offered to them. This is either a failure on behalf of the entertainment industry to connect with its consumers or it is clear that moral issues don't produce great ratings. Even though more than half of the nation considers Hollywood immoral, these people are still tuning into watch "immoral" shows. Ultimately, what seems to be missing is a moral counterpart, another option. Additionally, I like how you incorporated the fact that 49 percent of Americans surveyed believe the United States is becoming "too tolerant in its acceptance of different ideas and lifestyles." This is a strong finding and I believe Hollywood may be responsible for presenting many of these alternate ideas and lifestyles. In a time when it is not uncommon for shows and movies to feature homosexual characters, graphic sexual scenes, extreme violence and other issues that were previously taboo in entertainment it is clear that sometimes the rest of the nation might not be as radical as Hollywood just yet. I would have liked it if you incorporated some more quotes from ADL leaders to discuss some of the specifics in their findings. Also, this post left me wondering what your own opinions on the survey are. I would have loved it if you had included some of your own perspective as someone extremely familiar with the workings of the entertainment industry. Do you think these findings are surprising at all? Do you think that Hollywood will ever offer moral alternatives to appease the more religious half of the nation?

Comment:

"Americans Feel Religious Views Attacked"

Thank you for a well-developed and informative post on the morality of Americans in relation to Hollywood. I enjoyed how you approached the recent survey from a variety of angles, including political, past, and Jewish. I think your post was especially effective in its use of results from past surveys, including your use of the information that since 2005, more people feel morality is under attack. Your use of previous study results was also extremely interesting when you referenced the first survey on Anti-Semitic attitudes that the ADL conducted in 1964. I was surprised to learn that in 1964 almost half of Americans believed Jews, compared with the 22 percent that felt that way today, ran Hollywood. I had never even been aware that there was a notion that one specific religion controlled Hollywood's productions and think that may be because my generation features only a small percentage of people that believe such an idea. You also brought an interesting fact to the forefront when you mentioned that 40 percent of Americans believe dangerous ideas should be kept from children but the same number believe censoring books is an old fashioned idea. This was obviously an inconsistency in the results, or the surveyed people didn't fully comprehend the definition of censorship to begin with. I wonder what you would account this discrepancy to? Even though I would have loved to know your opinion on the matter I thought it was important that you included Abraham H. Foxman's response to the findings with his statement that "it (approval of censorship) shows that in this age of pervasive media and the widening availability of the internet, many Americans still maintain a very parochial view toward the information age, and even believe in censorship to 'protect morality.' If anything, it points to the need for greater awareness of the fundamental role that the First Amendment has played in helping religious freedom in America to be sustained, and indeed, to flourish." This quotation clearly sums up an important part of the survey's findings and gives the religious sector of America, as well as the entertainment industry something to reconcile. Overall, I was very impressed with the background and supplemental information used in your reaction to the survey and felt the only thing missing was your own developed opinions to further the discussion of the relationship between morality and Hollywood.

Hollywood Tax Breaks: The Best Incentive to Keep Hollywood at Home?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent call to "stop the bleeding" of California's economy includes the aim to keep Hollywood at home by "providing tax incentives to new film and television production located in California and production that has left the state, to return to the state." The last-ditch effort to keep the film industry within state bounds is part of Schwarzenegger's proposal to increase taxes by $4.4 billion. Though it is unlikely that State Legislature will receive the incentives with open arms, they are ultimately necessary in order to keep a huge part of California's economy, film and television production, alive and contributing. Without these proposed incentives, California becomes incredibly less desirable to production companies who are ultimately concerned with the bottom line costs. 

The reality is that the movie industry is finding better opportunities outside of California. Since 1997 there has been a forty percent decline in the number of film production days shot on location in Los Angeles. Unlike 40 other states, California does not offer a tax credit program to lure filmmakers to shoot their movies in the golden state. An industry turning point occurred when the show "Ugly Betty"recently left Los Angeles in favor for New York in order to "take advantage of the Albany-passed package of fat rebates." Jon Favreau, an actor-filmmaker and the director of Iron Man, is lobbying for the tax breaks and incentives to be passed. "When it's cheaper to film in Manhattan than it is here, it's pretty obvious it's reached a point where people who have resisted this should question some of their preconceptions," Favreau said. In an effort to show tangible support for the entertainment industry staying in California, Favreau has also worked to have Marvel Studios agree to buy a studio in the Los Angeles area and to make four films here through 2011 that have combined budgets of $600 million as long as significant tax incentives are put in place in California.

So what does California stand to lose if these incentives are not put in place? Millions of dollars that would greatly benefit everyone in show biz, but also in the state. When shows like "Ugly Betty" leave California they also ditch hundreds of local crew members and California loses major business. As blogger Nikki Finke said on her blog "Deadline Hollywood Daily," "that production,"Ugly Betty," bought lumber, paint wallpaper, cabinets, office products, fabric, film, backdrops, furniture...It used the services of dry cleaners, caterers, restaurants, security ... it paid for permits and use of property, police and fire department personnel, etc." It's not only the big wig moguls that are affected by a show's move; every step in the movie and television production process requires of dozens of people behind the scenes doing things that few people would even think of as relevant to the entertainment industry. To put it in more tangible terms, one figure cited that in three weeks of filming Memoirs of a Geisha, more than $4 million dollars were generated for California's Sacramento and El Dorado counties. These vendors and tradesmen are not in the highest tax bracket looking to hoard some more cash; they are small businesses making a living off of one of California's most historic and fascinating industries. Furthermore, California also stands to loose tradition if the film and television industries fully migrate elsewhere. As a state that is usable because of its huge variety of landscapes within hours of each other, California will always be a great spot for filmmaking... in the golden state, entertainment production is as much about landscape and convenience as it is about tradition and that sparkling California pizzazz.

Though California will always have a Hollywood history that no other state can compete with, history and pizzazz mean little when placed next to millions of dollars. And while other states are continuing to increase incentives California has remained stagnant. New York recently upped their showbiz tax credits on below the line expenses for qualified productions up to 30 percent (from 10 percent). Louisiana is also another state enjoying the millions of extra dollars that are dripping into its economy due to film production. It is obvious that production companies are headed to other states in order to save money and meanwhile the cost of living and pretty much the cost of existing in California continues to rise and rise. Land is more expensive, food is more expensive, services, and real estate all continue to climb. In wake of all these expenses it is obvious that something needs to be done in order to keep production in state. The only thing that truly benefits California more than other states is its convenience aspect. A huge number of producers, directors and actors live in the state and the cost of travel is therefore significantly less within California. This convenience is also an attractive feature to the actors and showbiz people that would rather not relocate for months at a time.

But convenience for movie stars is not enough to keep show biz in Hollywood. Without tax breaks and incentives production will continue to migrate, especially in the face of the rising price of living in California. Schwarzenegger's efforts may have come just a little too late and some accuse the actor-turned-politician of neglecting his own trade. As Finke said, "When he leaves office and if he tries to return to showbiz, he'll be seen as a latter day Nero for fiddling while Hollywood burned." Though Hollywood may not seem like a charity case that needs its costs cut, the entertainment industry's wide scope and importance in California's economy makes the tax breaks a pressing and important issue that needs to be addressed. Here is to hoping that Hollywood stays put at least long enough to see the Governator make another movie.

'Saturday Night Live:' The New Presidential Platform?

After exploring Senator Barack Obama's decision to buy thirty minutes of primetime television on three major networks last week, this week I dove into the political world of television once again. This past Saturday Senator John McCain appeared on 'Saturday Night Live' with his wife Cindy McCain and Tina Fey as a Sarah Palin stand-in. The appearance, seen in the clip below, ignited a storm of debate on the purpose, appropriateness and benefit of the skit. Clearly, McCain needed some airtime of his own in the face of Obama's primetime domination and surely he didn't have to shell out the pretty penny (or 3 million dollars Obama spent) to get his coverage.

Also, with the huge success of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonations it appeared that McCain decided to joke around with his biggest critics. I am sure that the McCain camp made this decision in order to inject a more youthful humor into the campaign but the success of this move is still debatable. In my exploration of the appearance I found two blogs that were extremely impressive and thorough. The first, Maureen Ryan's blog "The Watcher" presents an in-depth look at McCain's appearance and also features an actual transcript of the sketch as well as video highlights. Ryan, a Chicago Tribune contributor, offers the facts clearly, succinctly and fairly. Secondly, James Hibberd's blog "The Live Feed," features an overview of the skit as well as ratings and commentary. Hibberd, a reporter for "The Hollywood Reporter" offers keen insight and interesting information. In addition to commenting on each of these blogs I have included my responses below.

Comment:

"McCain Stops by Saturday Night Live"

Thank you for such an informative, thorough and entertaining post on McCain's "Saturday Night Live" appearance. I thought the entry was especially effective in highlighting the key quotes within the skit, especially in regards to the banter between McCain and Fey-as- Palin. You mentioned that Obama purchased airtime on "seven networks to show his half-hour infomercial," but I believe only NBC, CBS and Fox featured the ad at the cost of $1 million per network. I also appreciated your focus on Fey and Cindy McCain as hilarious side-kicks to McCain's performance. Furthermore, I enjoyed your incorporation of quotes from Ben Affleck, the host of the night's show. I thought your entry did a wonderful job of showing the overall political tone the show took on Saturday and your inclusion of quotes from Affleck and Baldwin were interesting additions that I found to be unique to your blog. Finally, I was impressed with your inclusion of NBC's press release as well as the actual transcript of the skit. I think these elements added a lot to the entry and informed the reader of every hilarious detail of the performance even if they weren't able to catch it on TV. What I felt was missing most from your post was your personal impression of the effectiveness of the skit. The entry left me with a lot of questions: how was the show received in terms of ratings?What did the Obama campaign have to say in response to the skit? Have polls showed an increase in McCain's popularity since the Saturday appearance? All of these components would have made for nice additions to your information and offered a broader view of the skit and its effects. Overall, I found your post to be full of interesting information and successful in determining the highlights of the skit. Your supplemental information also added to this impression and I look forward to continuing to reading your thoughts on political TV campaigning as well as other pertinent Entertainment News issues.

Comment:

"John McCain appears on 'Saturday Night Live'

Thank you for an engaging and informative entry on McCain's SNL appearance. I was really interested to read your opinions on the skit since I follow your blog and know you always have fresh and entertaining information. Primarily, I liked how you focused on the contrast between McCain and Obama. I thought it was definitely a highlight when McCain mentioned Obama's purchase of primetime air versus his appearance on the "QVC" and I am glad you included this in your entry. The quote really gives a context as to why McCain decided to be on SNL: he had to compete with Obama's primetime purchase somehow. I also really enjoyed how you noted that the skit could have been an Obama bashing act but instead only briefly touched on Obama. I agree with you in your assertion that "most of the material had McCain playing off his own image," but I wonder how effective you think this was? I would have enjoyed hearing more from you on what you believed the results of the appearance would be and why you believe McCain should or should not have appeared. Finally, I thought it was great that you featured the ratings from the episode. They put the success of the episode into context and I also thought it was incredibly interesting and pertinent that the episode was the "second-highest rated episode in more than a decade." It seems to me that even if he wasn't on primetime air, McCain succeeded in garnering attention just a few days before the election. Overall, your entry was lively and interesting and I look forward to following your posts in the future.

Obama Does Primetime: Political Gold or Has Hollywood Been Sold?

After an almost three-week wait, sources have confirmed that ABC will not air Barack Obama's half hour ad tomorrow October, 29th. The news comes after the Obama campaign purchased thirty minutes on NBC, CBS and Fox for almost $1 million per network. The ad will air less than a week before the election and the day before the start of the November sweep. The purchase of a national primetime ad is a unique choice on the Obama camp's part and also a decision that has stirred some controversy in the television industry and over on McCain's side of town. I have to wonder, in the wake of accusations of being too much of a celebrity and too little of a public servant, will it really help Obama to put his face on primetime television instead of visiting swing states? Furthermore, what is the ethical duty of the T.V. networks? and have they been bought out by a politician? Perhaps Obama needs to get off of primetime and spend more time on a personal level with the voters that could affect his election most.

The Obama camp seems to think the buy is a vital move for the Senator's campaign. The purchase is a smart move on Obama's part, Larry Sabato, a political analyst and director of the Center of Politics at the University of Virginia said, "Obama's theme is not just change but unity, so he's appealing to the whole nation, rather than just a handful of tossup states," Sabato said. "He wants to win the popular vote by a good margin." In attempts to address the whole nation, this year has also been the year of national broadcast TV advertisements on behalf of both parties, with Obama purchasing $5 million dollars worth of ads during the Summer Olympics telecasts, and McCain purchasing about $6 million. But the shift away from homegrown campaigning in swing states, right before the elections may be a gamble for Obama. It seems that after the presidential debates the nation should be familiar with his policies and that Obama would benefit more by concentrating his efforts on the states that need some extra persuasion. Furthermore, it is interesting that Obama has chosen to buy primetime minutes instead of clustering ads around local news, as is the more conventional wisdom. Obama seems confident in this decision, as he has poured about 40 percent of his TV cash into primetime.

With three large networks airing the ad, there has been large speculation about why ABC is left out of the mix. Has the network felt some tinge or moral obligation to offer viewers both sides and therefore declined the million dollars? Is it confident that its primetime show Pushing Daisies will defeat Obama in viewers? An ABC spokeswoman told the TV Column yesterday, "We were in discussion with the Obama campaign and had offered them the half-hour, but at this point that's not happening and Pushing Daisies will air in it's regular time slot." ABC has also begun airing ads telling viewers, "Wednesday night you have a choice--get political with the other networks," or watch a new episode of Pushing Daisies at 8p.m. But let's be honest, Pushing Daisies doesn't stand a chance and there seems to be an undertone of bitterness coming from ABC, who seems to have lost a lucrative opportunity.

But whatever the reasoning behind ABC's dismissal, one thing remains, Obama will have domination of the 8 o'clock hour tomorrow night. The buy will move CBS's comedy The New Adventures of Old Christine to 8:30 p.m. and NBC will probably throw in an 8:30 comedy repeat in lieu of the hour long "Knight Rider" which usually airs from 8 to 9 p.m. My real interest is to see how Obama will use his half hour of primetime. Speculation has arisen from many arenas, including "Saturday Night Live," which has already created a mock ad in which Barrack and Michelle Obama host a thirty minute variety show, complete with Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Many viewers, including myself, may tune in just to see how Obama can fill a half an hour...but then again we all know politicians can talk.

While Obama's $3 million dollar purchases have garnered attention, they have also reignited arguments over Obama's decision to reject public financing of his presidential run. In reality, Obama is at greater liberty to make such large purchases late in the game because of his rejection of public financing-- a move Sen. McCain has criticized. McCain told ABC News "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson in an interview on Thursday, "He wrote down on a piece of paper that he would take public financing for his presidential campaign if I would. He betrayed the trust of the American people there." Though all three networks have said they would offer McCain the same amount of time at the same price, it is unlikely that McCain would have the budget to purchase this time because of the restrictions within his public financing campaign. Knowing this, are CBS, NBC and Fox acting upon a bias by accepting Obama's offer? If they know McCain cannot afford their airtime are they purposely promoting only one candidate? Most likely, this is yet another case in the entertainment industry in which money talks, and talks so loudly that it drowns out other influences.

Ultimately it is obvious that Obama's primetime purchase will offer him more exposure and a chance to speak to the American people without interruption. The question that remains is whether or not this TV appearance will increase the public's trust or whether it will portray him as a glossy actor that has bought his airtime. And in the end, loyal fans of "The New Adventures of Old Christine" and "Knight Rider," will probably be cranky that some politician took their weekly joy away. Everyone knows new TV episodes are more important than new Presidents.

An Entertainment Blog Treasure Hunt: The Search for Industry Gems

This week I decided to treat my self to some scholarly fun and navigate the world wide web in search of outstanding and interesting Entertainment Industry blogs. Using the Webby and ISMA criteria, I discovered twenty blogs that piqued my interest and covered the industry in thorough and entertaining ways. In choosing my favorite blogs I considered content, structure, aesthetics, and interactivity. I have added these blogs to my link roll to provide my readers with outside references that will supplement the entries on my blog and I also thought it would be appropriate to evaluate each link in an entry. Primarily I decided to consider general news sources in my search and found what I believe to be the most relevant Entertainment sources in CNN, and World News. CNN focuses on celebrities, movies and TV and succeeds in entertaining the reader with easy to access videos and subcategories within the entertainment industry. I wish, however, that the site provided a little more content, the page seems to be slightly empty. World News on the other hand provides an incredible amount of content, at the risk of being overwhelming. It's points of information are marked by images and divided into very specific categories and I almost feel as if I am shopping for information.

In addition to news sources featuring entertainment news, several news sites feature blogs from their own reporters and contributors. I found these blogs especially interesting and relevant because I knew they were coming from very informed sources- writers who spend all day in the business. The first of this type of blog that I found was the Chicago Tribune's "The Watcher" written by Maureen Ryan. The blog offers an in-depth look into every TV show imaginable and I have to wonder how Maureen can function as a normal person while watching the tube as much as she does. A more logical person might assume that other people watch the shows for her and Maureen reports. I on the other hand, for amusement's sake, prefer to picture her glued to her TV set. The next such blog that I found was Entertainment Weekly's "Pop Watch" which successfully covers music, TV and pop culture. I found the blog to be a little random at times but I thought the aesthetics and layout of the blog were able to engage the reader very well. James Hibberd's, a reporter for the Hollywood Reporter, definitely lacks engaging aesthetics in his blog "The Live Feed," but manages to make up for it with his impressive content. His entries are academic and feature a multitude of outside sources that are very helpful. CNBC's Julia Boorstin also offers a very academic look at the Entertainment Industry in her blog "Media Money."I decided to add this blog to my link roll specifically to give my readers a different angle on Hollywood.

Boorstin's blog is interesting because it focuses on entertainment from a business perspective and is impressively updated several times a day. Time Magazine reporter James Poniewozik also blogs at the speed of light on his blog "Tuned In." The site is very aesthetically pleasing with great use of images and a simple format but i found Poniewozik's entry titles to be too obscure and unhelpful. The Huffington Post's Entertainment blog presents an array of images and somewhat lacking "quick reads" to accompany the pictures. Though obviously a well informed and interesting site I was left wanting more information. Finally, I found USA Today reporter Whitney Matheson's blog "Pop Candy," which aims to take a hip approach at the industry. Matheson, seen right, presents loads of interesting content but loses the reader in her blog's boring and almost unprofessional layout. Unfortunately in Matheson's case hip translated to amateur.

Finally, my blogosphere treasure hunt led me to many independent blogs about the Entertainment Industry. Best Week Ever, a website accompanying VH1's hit show "Best Week Ever" presents readers with a hilarious confection of pop culture news and commentary about the Entertainment Industry but also lacks a certain level of legitimacy. Buzz Sugar also lacks a certain level of seriousness but presents readers with tons of content on a wide range of topics in the TV and film industry. The site is also very easy to view and navigate unlike Deadline Hollywood Daily which overloads readers with text and is lacking aesthetically. In stark contrast to that is Jeffrey Wells' blog Hollywood Elsewhere which presents professional and easy to read entries and is bolstered by Wells' academic and sarcastic tone. The Hollywood Wiretap throws all other blog layouts aside and offers a distinct, all text-headline esque take on blogging. Though the text can be overhwhelming at first, the blog is full of important content and refreshingly different. Movie City News, a blog claiming to be Hollywood's homepage, gives readers an in-depth look into the movie industry and narrow focus benefits the reader as impressive content is produced. The blog layout and design seems dated though and even makes the entries feel as if they lack timeliness. Reality Blurred's web page also appears outdated but once past the initial reaction the site offers a hilarious take on the television industry and offers well-researched posts. The Hollywood Reporter's website which accompanies the Hollywood Reporter magazine is also a very valuable source that covers every aspect of the industry from film to technology to the world to television to finance and to music. The site is not the easiest to navigate but surely offers more relevant content than most of the other blogs on my link roll. Finally, TV Newser offers interesting information with statistics and graphs revealing how network ratings fall daily. The blog offers an interesting angle and is impressively professional.

In addition to the scholarly news sources and interesting independent blogs I discovered, I also included two informal gossip blogs on my linkroll in order to put into context the character of Hollywood culture and the sensational stories that surround celebrities daily.

The primary site I included is Perez Hilton, written by Perez Hilton, seen left, a site that has become infamous and hugely popular for its celebrity bashing and gossip. Interestingly enough, the site also has breaking celebrity news, often before other sources, and has impressive observations, though informal, on the industry. Another similar blog is Defamer which comically comments on celebrity culture and happenings. Overall, my finding this week offered an interesting look into the entertainment world that left me informed but also looking for more.

The Business of Entertainment: Recession Resistant?

In the recent wake of government bailouts, spiraling stock markets and crumbling banks, Americans are holding on tight to their pocket books...for good reason. Job cuts are imminent and food and gasoline costs continue to remain fabulously high. But as economic panic blankets the country I have to wonder, will the entertainment industry also take a hit? Is a ten dollar movie suddenly less necessary when your bank has just gone under? Is a premium TV set lower on the priority list?

This week I explored the blogosphere in hopes to find opinions about entertainment's current relationship to the economic recession, as well as trends from Hollywood's business past that may dictate possible outcomes. A common theme that pulsed throughout a large number of blogs was the idea that the Entertainment Industry is resilient to a recession because it offers escapism from the bleakness of reality and hardship. For reference, when the technology bubble burst six years ago, the Dow Jones dropped 22 percent but video gaming revenues increased by as much as 43 percent. Two particular blogs addressed the issue thoroughly and impressively, the first being Open Forum Friday: Is the Movie Industry Recession Proof? published by Sean Dwyer, a video game programmer that runs the "Film Junk Blog" which focuses on movies and music. The blog entry insightfully wonders what the fate of the movie industry will be and how the products of the entertainment industry will be comporomised in the face of economic disadvantages. The second blog I interacted with was Julia Boorstin's entry, Is the Entertainment Industry Recession-Proof? on her blog Media Money. Published by Boorstin, a reporter and anchor for CNBC who specializes in the business of media entertainment, the entry considers whether or not entertainment comapnies will survive the economic hardships unscathed. In addition to posting my comments on these blogs I have also posted them below.

Open Forum Friday: Is the Movie Industry Recession Proof?

Comment:

Thank you for posing some very important questions regarding the current 

economics of the film and entertainment industries. I appreciate your ability to shine a stage light on the economic crisis specifically in Hollywood. I agree with you when you write that "when their purse strings are tightened, people will still shell out for entertainment and escapism," but I have to wonder if the current prices for movies are just too high? At about $10 a ticket is it absolutely necessary to sit through a film dedicated to the glamorous life of a Chihuahua? Are Leonardo Dicaprio and Russel Crowe, seen right in their upcoming flick "Body of Lies," even worth $10 when the economy has really hit a low? I think it is also worthwhile to consider the fact that people have become much more dependent on consumer products, like DVD's and consumer services, such as Netflix. These products and services also steal the box office's thunder, not to say that they hurt the industry as a whole. 

I think that ultimately what will determine whether or not people keep spending their money on entertainment is the value of the products that Hollywood produces. An amazing product is obviously harder to pass up and thus more likely to be successful in a rougher economic outlook. I also appreciate your point that in hard economic times "funding for movies become a lot harder to find and studios will be forced to take less risks." It is easy to forget that the studios are also affected, and effectively restricted, like the rest of us during economic hardships. I thought it was a valid and interesting point to bring up the idea that the restrictions placed on the movie studios will result in less creative freedom. In an industry when it is usually all about the money anyhow, when money is tight, it is definitely all about the money in Hollywood. I definitely agree with your opinion that this will be a depressing reality for Hollywood if these economic restrictions do come to fruition. The last thing Hollywood needs is more big-buck blockbusters and fewer significant and challenging films. 

Is the Entertainment Industry Recession-Proof?

Comment:

Thank you Julia for another post that offers a business insight into the media and entertainment world. I always love reading your posts and this entry proves no exception. I thought it was especially interesting how you mentioned that "staycations" are adding to the Entertainment Industry's resilience to recession. Though many people across the blogosphere have hypothesized that just as it was in the Great Depression, (frightening, that our current economy is being linked at all to the Great Depression) the escapism of entertainment will maintain its resistance to a poor economy. You mentioned that you believed television and video games would benefit directly from the consumerism of "staycations" but I have to wonder if television is really that strong right now, especially after generally less-than-impressive season network debuts. Though, as you mentioned, video game sales continue to benefit from the "staycation" cutbacks, I think entertainment will really benefit across the board.

 As News Corps' CEO Rupert Murdoch recently said, "We are no longer dependent on the strength of 

one market or medium." Hopefully, the recession resistance will extend to all entertainment mediums and effectively keep at least one industry "safe" in the current economy. 

I also thought it was interesting that you specifically noted the fact that "the number of TVs shipped to retailers in the U.S. and Canada grew 26 percent to 9.3 million units in the second quarter." With the strength of TV sales and the presumed success of TV and video games, I presume that the film industry must be taking a larger economic hit than TV and video games. Obviously films depend on much larger budgets and expensive advertising; have you noticed a large descrepancy between the recession immunity of the TV industry and the film industry?