Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Kardashian Barbie

Recently, I've been subject to some very late nights (not the good kind, I assure you), a houseful of sick people and a couple of very selfish cats. In light of all things half completed, I've plagiarized my alterblogger-ego. I think I would have anyway; sick kids or not. This topic is pretty eye-opening. Enjoy (and please, share it forward!): 

The Kardashian Barbie Doll

I'm a recovering Barbie-addict. I played with them until I was like 16, and I still would if I didn't have all boys. I'm a little burnt out on trucks, pirates and Spiderman, so anytime we're at someone's house and they have little girls, I'll immediately wonder if they have Barbies. I even have a method:

  • I'll make eye contact with the girl. Whether she's across the room or simply in the seat next to me, eye contact will be made
  • I'll smile sweetly and gesture for her to come closer. 
  • Once she's within my reach, I'll pull her closer and ask--without moving my lips, mind you, in case there's a mean older sister not minding her own business--if she has any Barbies. 
(Huh. I've never actually written it out before; it kind of reads like someone trying to score crack.)

That said, I have to say the prospect of a Kardashian Barbie Doll creeps me out. I don't care if it's the only doll in a sea of excavators and superheros, I won't touch it with a ten-foot pink brush. Sure, Barbie is no stranger to controversy. The Dallas Cowboys Barbie caught a lot of flack:

(But comparing a professional cheerleader to a sex tape goddess isn't even a logical argument.)

"Cher in Bob Mackie Barbie"

(Let's be honest: Bob Mackie gets away with stripper garb because he's Bob Mackie)

"Jazz Barbie"

(I've been to a jazz show on Broadway. Yes, they dress like this. And yes, like Barbie, they look like strippers.)

"Tramp Stamp Totally Tattoos Barbie"
Tramp Stamp Barbie
(Much to my husband's dismay, I like tattoos. I even have a few. But there's no way I'd get near a Slag Tag.)

Regardless of how many poor choices the marketing team at Mattel has made, short of a "Playboy Barbie" line coming out, nothing tops the poor message that a Kardashian doll sends. Can you imagine the conversation?

Little Girl: "Mommy, who is Kim Kardashian?"
Mom: "Well, she and her sisters are on TV."
Girl: "Why?"
Mom, chewing lip uncomfortably: "Well, because they're famous."
Girl: "Are they singers?"
Mom: "No."
Girl: "Do they play sports?"
Mom: "Uh, nope."
Girl: "Do they dance?"
Mom: "Technically yes, but not in the way you're thinking."
Girl: "Well, why are they famous?"
Mom points across the street: "Look!  A firetruck!" 

Indeed, Kim's sex tape and the need to carry $10,000 handbags brought them much fame and wealth, but it's not the best message to send young, impressionable girls. Point is, do not buy the Kardashian doll.Send a message to MattelOr call them at             1-800-524-8697      . Let them know they can do better than this.


 I mean, come on. Her as a Barbie??? 


Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Equinox Gym Ad Crosses the Line?

Look at this photo:

Flex Appeal

Outside of hiring an under-aged teen for an adult film, anything else come to mind? How about a gym membership?

This ad is for a national print and billboard ad for the swanky Equinox Gym franchise. Admittedly, sex sells in the advertising world. From Bratz Dolls to the completely untalented Kardashians, the crux of most successful advertising campaigns rests on sex. But Terry Richardson, the photographer for this campaign, really takes 'sexy' to a new low. Terry is the twisted talent behind the infamous and pedophilia-pushing Glee photo spread (see my news appearance discussing it here). Give the guy a Google (or Bing/Yahoo/et al, thank you SOPA/PIPA) and prepare your gag reflex.

Contact Equinox.  Call them. Write on their Facebook Page. Let them know that if it's memberships they seek, perhaps a tamer approach might work better. Or even a healthier one. I mean, it's a health club for cripes' sakes, not an underground Ecstasy-fueled nightclub.

Me? I'm going to let them know that an anorexic and coked-up looking underage model doesn't make me think "treadmill". It makes me want to run in the opposite direction, to a gym where people don't look like she does.

Monday, January 16, 2012

My Debate with Media Lawyer: Who Won?

In case you missed last week's post covering the suit before the Supreme Court, I discussed it on my local news with a media lawyer. His argument was flimsy, at best, citing some nonsense about networks having no idea what 'indecent' material could be viewed as. We did agree on one point, however: The free market will make sure any over-the-top content aired on broadcast television is not aired. Advertisers don't want to be associated with what the mass public views as offensive, and if consumers aren't happy, no one wins. Let's be clear about one thing: This lawsuit isn't about freedom of expression. It's about money.


What say you? Do the federally-funded public airwaves demand the same attention and accountability as any other commodity we invest in? Should advertisers and networks be held to a higher standard than paid cable?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Broadcast Indecency?

Media junkies everywhere are discussing the upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, which could be devastating for families everywhere (or not, depending on the family). In the FCC vs. Fox TV,  The Federal Communications Commission filed suit against Fox TV for a number of expletives used by not-so-classy celebs. (See story here).

Ironically, I'm on my way out the door now to go tape a segment for our local news. It's regarding an upcoming episode of Modern Family, where a bleeped 'F'-bomb will be dropped multiple times. This very week, our country could see television move to a directions where bleeps could be tossed out the window, along with bans on nudity.

Opponents of the suit say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to decide what can or cannot be said on TV. Advocates say it's unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to not decide what can or cannot be said on TV.

I'll present the facts and let you decide:

The *"Family Hour" was enacted by network heads and members of the FCC as a safeguard for families. Meant specifically to prevent anything indecent being said on public airwaves during a time when families-specifically children-are most likely watching, it has been laughingly and arrogantly ignored for the better part of the 80's until present time.

The real kicker though, is that you pay for it. You may hate shows like American Dad, Family Guy, or Glee, but you have no choice but the fund its content. These are shown on broadcast television, which is about as public as your local post office or library. Which you pay for with tax dollars.

So you tell me: Is it unconstitutional? The SCOTUS, who are federal employees, bankrolled by us, is set to decide what can or cannot be said on public airwaves. The public airwaves are federal, which are also bankrolled by us. I don't know about you, but I happen to think it's amoral for the government to take my money, and tell me to change the channel if I don't like what I paid for.

But that's me.

*The previous post stated The Family Hour was a bill signed by congress. This was incorrect. Corrections have been made.