Tuesday News: OJ book?, Snopes in trouble, Comic-Con, and dissing older women
O.J. Simpson too toxic for a book deal . . . major publishers say – I know, I know. Just get all the lols out and then check this out. Publishers who, for example, were ready to publish Milo Yiannopoulos, won’t touch O.J. Simpson’s potential manuscript. OMG I cannot even type that without laughing. Now, the claim that publishers fear backlash is probably true, but if you read between the lines here, the real issue seems to be that such a book won’t be profitable enough:
Another reason he’s considered toxic is publishers don’t see people rushing to put money in O.J.’s pocket, because the public still considers him guilty of double murder. As Keith Urbahn, president of publishing giant Javelin, put it … “Consumers won’t spend 20 bucks on a self-aggrandizing book about how he’s turned his life around.” – TMZ
Although couldn’t you argue that any money would ultimately go to the Goldman’s, thus mitigating the ‘profiting from his crime’ logic? In any case, I don’t believe this for a millisecond. If there is money to be made, I think publishers will be leaping over each other to cash in.
One of the most prominent sites calling out fake news may shut down because it’s being held ‘hostage’ by ad vendor – You’ve probably heard by now that Snopes is in danger of shutting down, but do you know why? It’s apparently because of a bad investment deal. The story is far from clear, but it appears that in 2015, Mikkelson hired Proper Media to “provide web development services to help grow the site and add advertising revenue.” However, when Snopes founder David Mikkelson divorced, Proper Media principals bought his ex-wife’s 50% share of Snopes’s parent company, Barlov (requiring a large loan). While it would be a huge loss to see Snopes go, before you send money to their GoFundMe, you might want to read up on the legal mess this has become.
But in the months since the purchase, Mikkelson clashed with the company, which he felt was siphoning off too much advertising revenue from Snopes, and which he claimed was not performing essential services like sharing ad revenue in a timely fashion and sharing web traffic information. . . .
And counter to Mikkelson’s claim, last week, Proper Media released $100,000 to Bardav recently with a judge’s stipulation that Mikkelson would not be allowed to manage the money.
“This case involves unlawful jockeying for ownership and control of the fact-checking website said in a May complaint filed in San Diego. “But while Snopes is built entirely around the concepts of transparency and truth, its founder, Defendant David Mikkelson, has engaged in a lengthy scheme of concealment and subterfuge to gain control of the company and to drain its profits.” – Business Insider,” Proper Media
The Best Moments from Comic-Con 2017 – Of course there are quite a few stories covering Comic-Con San Diego, and I like this Los Angeles Times coverage because it includes the epic Gal Gadot moment. i09 also has a good rundown of some of the highlights in cosplay, and on a less happy note, United Airlines somehow decided comic books could not be checked in travelers’ luggage, blaming the decision on an allegedly nonexistent TSA rule. United later seemed to indicate that they had “misunderstood TSA’s instructions” for Comic-Con attendees, which suggested that travelers place comics in checked bags to avoid potential luggage searches. Still, the issue went on long enough to become a major problem for United travelers leaving San Diego. Does anyone actually choose to fly United anymore?
As The Consumerist reported yesterday, United posted a notice telling “Comic-Con attendees [to] remove all books from checked bags.” When people complained on Twitter, United confirmed the news. “The restriction on checking comic books applies to all airlines operating out of San Diego this weekend and is set by the TSA,” a spokesperson wrote. From there, things got even weirder: it told one confused attendee that only comic books were banned in checked baggage, while regular books were “A-OK.” But then, the TSA categorically denied this rule’s existence, saying that all books were fine in both checked and carry-on baggage. . . . – The Verge
Friday essay: double standards and derision – tracing our attitudes to older women and beauty – Why is Cher lauded for looking so good for her age, while Madonna is mocked and derided? Michelle Smith looks at a number of issues, including the way cosmetics, advertising, and consumer culture helped frame judgments about older women who used cosmetic means to make themselves look more youthful. Women with obvious signs of cosmetic surgery often garner similar judgments, and the pressure to look young has led to surgical over-correction (and thus a “botched” appearance). Although it’s interesting, because Cher has notoriously complained about aging, and she is hardly a stranger to enhancing her appearance. So there are clearly other issues in play around who is viewed disdainfully and why.
A closer look at women’s magazines from the 19th century — the era in which modern advertising and celebrity culture were born — reveal the origins of many of our hang-ups about older women and beauty.
In the first half of that century, beauty was understood as God-given or natural. Beliefs in physiognomy also suggested that the inner character of a woman might be visible in her face. . . .
This dismissal of cosmetics is typical of attitudes that saw beauty as a quality that a woman was either born with or not and its loss inevitable. In the final decades of the 19th century, however, women’s magazines transformed this belief.
With the growth of advertising and beauty advice columns, there was gradual acceptance that fading looks should be combated by almost any means necessary. For older women, being visibly made up gradually became more tolerable, though the degree to which the cosmetics might be detectable was a point of contention. Women who foolishly attempted to recreate the charms of their youth were still harshly judged. – The Conversation