j swift

But, to use your example, it is like people be entertained or outraged that Jerry Falwell Jr had a threesome with a Miami poolboy, rather than being flabbergasted the National Inquirer exposed the tryst as a favor to Trump because Falwell did not endorse him in the primaries (according to Ronan Farrow's book). Again, I think the failed opportunity of the H&M doc was demonstrating how we all get caught up in the gossip and miss the message about how a story serves a larger purpose. It's not just that Royals seek to exchange access for coverage, it is how tabloids propping up the ideals of British nationalism are used to sell everything from biscuits to Brexit.

So why do people seem more angry at Meghan than they are at being continually manipulated by the press who do not honor the best interest of the citizens of the UK? Obviously people can be outraged by more than one thing at time. However, I think H&M's point about the agenda of the tabloid press gets lost when it seems like they're whining about being photographed rather than exposing an example about how the press works in general. Especially because their family and friends have been complicit in the support of British nationalism to sell goods and services for years.

I guess the thing that surprises me is that the social media narrative still focuses on Meghan's veracity, rather than the obvious media manipulation by the tabloids, given that "Meghan's a liar" has trended on my twitter feed for the past month. Especially, when UK citizens know that they have been manipulated by the tabloids into supporting political policies that aren't in their best interest (e.g. Tony Blair & Iraq, Brexit, and promoting fallacies about the NHS). I mean, it's totally believable that Kate, (a girl from a social climbing, nouveau riche, family that owns the UK equivalent of Party City), would look down on an American actress joining the firm. But, The Daily Mail has spun a narrative about Meghan from day one, (based on their economic desire to fuel a rivalry that sells papers and promote aspirational values and nationalism, in order to appease advertisers) that few on social media ever question. On the other hand, Meghan and Harry feed into the narrative by emphasizing the impact of the tabloid journalism (whose influence has declined with fewer people buying print newspapers), rather than focusing on their brand values like increasing respect for British veterans and gender equity. If this series focused on the charities that they support, it would be boring, but at least we would learn more about the needs of people who rarely get media attention. I think a lot of the vitriol is that most people don't see having negative press as much of a price to pay for living a life of luxury.

So, I have all kinds of theories/fanfic about why Kate and Meghan fell out at Charlotte's fitting before the wedding. But, it is undeniable that Kate re-wore her outfit from George's christening to the wedding in order to appear more thrifty than Meghan who wore Givenchy couture, which always struck me as a little petty. Just as it is undeniable that someone sympathetic to Kate leaked the story to the press. I mean Kate's outfit was not cheap, and re-wearing it one time, after spending millions to remodel her Kensington Palace apartment (while H&M were stuck in a two-bedroom cottage), is hardly an imposition.

I've got no beef with Meghan as a person, and I thought her point about not being treated as if she was a black woman until she joined the royal family was thought-provoking; even if it wasn't completely true. However, her podcast is so out of touch and wrong for the genre that I found it cringe-inducing. Podcasts are best when they are personal takes, because the nature of listening to people speak is intimate. However, Meghan uses her platform to promote an agenda, rather than tell about her experiences. Her season finale had Andy Cohen, and they talked about her favorite subject, how women are portrayed on TV. As if the most important issue for women today is not salary inequity or lack of opportunity based on gender, but the fact that there are shows about women arguing with each other. But, it's not even an interview because podcast staff cuts up the dialogue and then allows her to comment on the subject's answers. However to me the biggest offense was when she referred to Gloria Steinem as "Glo" (the same with how she calls her husband H). I have an a-hole rule, that you know someone is an a-hole when they casually drop a name using the their nickname in order to infer that they know them better than you. Next season if she refers to the late Queen as Lilibet, I may throw up. So, while I get why people find her unlikable, I still don't approve of vitriol that she receives. And, given the huge ratings, it is preposterous to assume that most people feel negatively about the couple.

I suppose you can make a case that it's TRF that bring in a ton of tourist $$$ to the UK. Do they deserve the handouts they continue to get from the taxpayers for this. No but maybe some see it as just compensation. Forget how many centuries their colonialism raped and pillaged billions of dollars to add to their wealth I guess. I've always thought the logical counter argument has less to do with how much wealth the Royals bring into the country and more to do with who should be given the authority to take away their wealth. There's no precedent, beyond a revolution, which would allow the government of a country to take away property from its wealthiest family, in order to appease the concerns of a minority of the constituency. That's a big job, and giving any governmental faction the duty of nationalizing wealth opens the door to controversy that could preclude Russians and other European families from wanting to invest in English real estate (especially considering that 40% of London is owned by foreign nationals). I mean, if you're a billionaire, would you want to buy a multi-millionaire dollar estate in a country that could take away your rights of ownership at will? Just as if you were a middle-class Londoner would you want the Labour government to be able to throw you out of your house because they don't approve of your grandfather's politics? You can't trust a government with the right to take away property from just one family, without giving them the right to take it away from all land owners. Its a very slippery slope. So, while it's all well and good to debate the historic moral rights of the royals, doing something about it has a ripple effect which could ruin the economy and the civil rights of its current citizens.

Are we certain Liz doesn't have a head injury? 😉🤨 First of all that's not how sleepwalking works, except in cartoons. And, she suppressed the memory of a woman she barely knew failing down the stairs, but has clear recall of the millions of other tragedies that she's encountered?

Speaking of Liz, have I lost the plot or did the whole thing start with someone gaslighting Liz and did we ever find out who that was? Was she sleepwalking or wasn't there something about stuff being moved around her living room?

Although, to be fair, Valentine's backstory is reaching John Black levels of re-writes and retcons, as evidenced by the fact that he is a far cry from the threatening force that caused Helena such distress when he was first mentioned on screen.

Yeah There's an odd message that they'll make fun of a woman in a wimple this week and then have everyone look longingly at the Christmas tree next week, as if the two images have nothing to do with each other.

I wonder if it was always the intention to have Eric secularized? Again, I never know who wrote what and when, but if Eric was introduced as someone who was meant to leave his vows for the lure of physical romance, that's kind of f#%^ed up. As opposed to if one writer wanted to write him as reformed moral guide, and the next writer wanted him to be romantic hero. I'm not personally offended, but the way DAYS mocks Catholicism seems like it would ostracize a portion of their audience, and it would not be tolerated if they picked on another minority group. As a Jewish man, I wouldn't like it if they had Jewish characters only speaking in Brooklyn accents and eating matzo, or celebrating Christmas just because they preferred the decorations. So, I think portraying women in old-fashioned nun's habits for humor, using old men with Irish accents as priests, and having a male character give up his vows just because he gets a stiffy, seems a bit disrespectful.

On a sidenote, can we talk about how many mental hospitals there are in the Port Charles vicinity? For a town with only one hotel and diner, they have Ferncliff and D'Archam (no need to be a Batman fan to know that reference). There's a psych unit at GH, and The Misgavige Center where Nina recovered (arguably a neurological center not a mental hospital, but again the reference is obvious). It's odd that it is easier to get group therapy than a hot dog in this shipping town.

@Vee I appreciate your post as I value this dialogue as an outlet for our reactions to the show. I felt compelled to respond (not to @vee in specific), but to the general discussion about this SOD critique because I think that maintaining Liz's viability as a sexual being with some agency over her relationships is evidence against the idea that the production or writing teams feels resentful toward the actress. I fail to understand the logic that writing and marketing a plot about the backstory of a long term character is somehow an affront to Becky. We may not find this mystery compelling, but they are using history to try to entertain long term viewers. The alternative of sidelining or ignoring the long held questions about how Liz came to live in Port Charles seem much more like evidence that GH would rather disregard Liz than what I am watching on TV this week.

While comparing torture is grotesque, I also think most Americans are prone to be neglectful of what it would be like to be a person of color in a Russian prison as opposed to a white man. Our country is so accustomed to the idea that 40% of prisoners are black, they we may forget how rare that would be in Russia, and how much race, gender, and sexuality would effect their treatment.

My opinion is very different. I would surmise that if Becky Herbst looked at other actresses who have been employed for twenty-five years she would be grateful for her current storyline. Regardless of the lack of cohesion of the writing, how many other women her age on a soap are still portrayed as the object of lust for more than one man? How many other ladies who have played the same part since they were in their early 20s are still driving story and aren't being pushed aside as a supportive voice for younger actresses? How many characters whose scene partners have quit or been fired over the years are still getting new sets and having established names begin cast as part of their story. Look at Jackie Zeman who started in 1977, 25 years later in 2002 she had been backburnered numerous times, she was soon playing a great grandmother, and most of her plotlines were nostalgic nods to old loves like Roy or Scotty, who were arguably the focus of those stories. In fact, the whole criticism that this current plot has more to do with Finn than Liz is an age-old truism on all soaps that men are usually the main character of most stories no matter who is the headwriter. I'm not offended on behalf or Ms Herbst, an arguably serviceable actress who has never given an extraordinary performance, nor has she ever been reported as having other acting opportunities outside of GH, while maintaining more appearances per year for two decades than most secondary leading women in the 40s on the soaps. And to those who don't like the story I would paraphrase from the memoir of Kim Zimmer who thought the clone story was ridiculous but was grateful for the exposure after so many years on GL, in order to remind us that actors want to be seen on TV, and they don't always care about whether a story makes sense.

If race was not an issue, the culture would be thrilled at the idea of a thawing of the diplomatic relationship with Russia that could be used to solve the crisis in Ukraine, rather than arguing if other prisoners were more worthy of freedom. We have elevated the voices of the fringes of our society to the point where it feels like everything is subject to debate. When in reality those are the opinions of a very small, racial charged, minority who fear that any opportunity given to a lesbian woman of color (even being released from a forced labor camp) alters the focus away from their agenda.

Never let it be said that for a small mid-western town Genoa City didn't have a lot of nightlife options. But, if Kevin hadn't been such a pyromaniac they all would still be going to Gina's. Where everyone from CEO John Abbott to local doctor Snapper Foster might break into song at any moment.

I would add some practicality to the formula. Jessie, Audrey, Leslie, and Diana were needed for stories within the hospital, so, if they had toddlers at home, there would need to be constant dialogue about who was caring for their kids. Edge of Night was similarly work-based and they also had very children in their cast.

It is interesting that in contrast to Sami and Brady, Eric seems isolated from his mother and father. Has he told Roman or Marlena about the abortion, or his troubles with Nicole, or even that he was arrested? Brady would have been crying in John's chest all week. I mean they can't even get Brady to move out of the penthouse for more than a few months at time. Meanwhile, Eric doesn't seem that close to his parents.

Does that mean the Salem City Council President looks just like Julie's half-brother Steven Olsen?

It's such a soapy thing to make the distinction between Megan and Kristen being that one is not a Dimera by blood. Megan only knew she was a Dimera for about 12 minutes before she died, whereas Kristen has not only been a part of the family for the past thirty years, but she was actually close enough to Stefano to have him scheme on her behalf!

according According to this source, and Entertainment Weekly, Marlena's return made an immediate impact of a 10% increase in viewers, but I checked Jason's page and they finished 1991 in 7th place increase in viewershttps://tIwitter.com/Jo I think it's odd that a 10% increase could cause a show to go from #8 to #2 in 1991, but the shows were quite close in ratings and after the initial interest fell off the ratings dwindled. All things considered they really fumbled that opportunity. I'd be interested to know how many viewers Hope's 1994 return pulled in, but I can't find that information as quickly. eiscool1981/sta tus/1289982420905730049?s=20&t=fsJ7ktvVuJwOHMM0bnxreAps://twitter.com/Joeiscool1981/status/1289982420905730049?s=20&t=fsJ7ktvVuJwOHMM0bnxreAhttps://twitter.com/Joeiscool1981/status/1289982420905730049?s=20&t=fsJ7ktvVuJwOHMM0bnxreA

The People's Choice Awards are on TV tonight. While admittedly they were always the lowest rent awards show; does anyone else remember when they had soap opera categories and Julia Roberts made a point of saying that she was a fan of DAYS? This year they'll award :Social Star of the Year, Beauty Influencer of the Year, Social Celebrity of the Year, and Animal Star of the Year. One doubts that more than 1% of the people would choose these winners, let alone recognize them if they walked into a supermarket.