Does Kanye West Make A Good Point?!?

Matt Lauer & Kanye West

The always lovely Mr. Kanye West appeared on the Today Show two weeks ago. He sat down with the Today Show host, Matt Lauer, to speak out about all his controversial actions that took place within the past few years. Kanye was also on the Today Show promoting his new album, "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" (which is AWESOME by the way). Unfortunately, controversy always follows Mr. West, seeing as the Today Show interview did not go so well with Matt Lauer.


Kanye West appeared on the show, hoping to revive his image and address issues such as his controversial statement in which he called George W. Bush a racist on live TV during the Katrina fiasco.  You all remember that when he said..."George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People"...refresh your memory? Just in case it doesn't..watch the video below.




Kanye was also on the Today Show to speak about his infamous microphone grab from country sweetheart (but in my eyes country night mere) Taylor Swift at the MTV Music Video Awards last year in which he said "Taylor imma let you finish, BUT Beyonce had one of the best music videos of ALL TIME". Just in case you want to visit this memorable moment. Here is the video below:)




Now that you are all caught up about Mr. West's past controversies, let's get back to the disastrous Today Show interview. Here's how it all went down. Matt Lauer asks Kanye about the George W. Bush comments, seeing as Bush spoke out in a interview with Matt Lauer claiming that Kanye's comments were the lowest point in his whole presidency. When Kanye was answering the question, the Today Show played the interview clip where George Bush tears up. Kanye West had a problem with them playing the clip to "prompt" his emotions. He said he didn't need all the TV jazz.

The next point where Kanye feels the Today Show is being inappropriate or trying to present him in a negative light is when the they played the clip of the Taylor Swift incident while Kanye was talking. Kanye stops and asks how he is supposed to talk while they are playing the clip.


After the Today Show interview Kanye West vented his frustrations on his Twitter page. This is what he had to say about the Today Show. (There's a lot of them)

"I went up there to express how I was empathetic to Bush because I labeled him a racist and years later I got labeled as a racist,"

"While I was trying to give the interview they started playing the 'MTV' under me with audio!!!!!!!," he wrote, before firing off a string of emotionally charged tweets about his hurt feelings. "I don't mess with Matt Lauer or the Today Show ... and that's a very nice way for me to put it! ... HE TRIED TO FORCE MY ANSWERS. IT WAS VERY BRUTAL AND I CAME THERE WITH ONLY POSITIVE INTENT ... I feel very alone very used very tortured very forced very misunderstood very hollow very very misused ...



"I don't trust anyone but myself! Everyone has an agenda. I don't do press anymore. I can't be everything to everybody anymore ... I can't be every body's hero and villain savior and sinner Christian and anti Christ! ... I can't take anymore advice!!! I create, I'm creative, I have a good heart, everyone will see and understand one day."


 "Everything sounds like noise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" again lamenting that he can't trust anyone and saying he felt "very judged," scrutinized and criticized. "I want everyone to know I have lows all the time but I make it through them!"

He continued lashing out at Lauer, asking if he "thought that sh-- was cool ... He played clips of Bush and asked me to look at his face while I was trying to talk to him. I wish Michael Jackson had twitter!!!!!!"
"This is rock and roll life my people ... you can't stop the truth you can't stop the music and I have to be strong or 'they' win!!!!"


Kanye West also cancelled his Today Show performance that was supposed to take place the next day. But the real question is about this whole situation is does Kanye West have a legitimate point about how the media tries to construct and shape the image of an individual in a certain light? Was it necessary for the Today Show to play the clips while Kanye West on the show or did the Today Show play the clip in order to give the audience context about the incidents? Did the clips of George Bush and the Taylor Swift during the interview act as a reminder of what Kanye West did and did it just reinforce what he did? This example shows how most interviews are conducted in the media, where Kanye went on the show to clear his image but instead came off looking worse than he did.


Kanye West & Taylor Swift

 I give him kudos for saying something and speaking up as most people would just sit there and take it. He refers to playing the clips as "TV jazz", which is interesting because isn't that was the media is essentially? Sensationalistic and overshadowed by so much "other" stuff that steers the viewer away from the actual story. In this interview, do you think there should have just been a standard sit-down interview back and forth with no clips? Was playing the clips considered as a form of propaganda?

The Today Show definitely enjoyed the controversy and played off of it. It kind of seems like the Today Show wanted a reaction out of West and they promoted the interview based on his outburst instead of the actuality of what he was saying about his past. The whole point of why he did the interview was totally dismissed and was focused on him speaking up about playing the clips.

I think the media has the power to construct and frame everything to their liking, very easily, by playing clips during an interview to remind the viewers of his actions. Watch the interview and you be the critic. Was Kanye West overreacting or was he making a legitimate claim against how the media operates? Watch the video below. You be the judge.

MUSLIM OPT-OUT?

Laura Ingraham - Fox News Correspondent

And....that is the headline I read on the Fox News website! The headline refers to TSA's new screening procedures enforced in all airports and the concerns raised by the Muslim community who are speaking out about the new polices. 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations claims the new procedures are an invasion of a Muslim woman's personal space when it comes to patting them down in certain areas, including the groin. The headline is followed by a "lovely" picture of a Muslim woman wearing the hijab (head covering). The issue I have with the picture is the generalization and perception that all Muslim women wear hijabs. As a Muslim woman myself, I do not wear the hijab and half of the Muslim women I know do not wear hijabs. The media classifies Muslims as a homogeneous group with the men who have beards and wear traditional clothing and women who wear hijabs or burkas. Along with the physical image of what a Muslim looks like, comes the negative connotations of the word hijab which is associated with oppression.  These generalizations reinforce stereotypes in the West about Muslim women and embed a one-dimensional perception of the "other".

What I found even more disrespectful and biased is not only the headline but the video that is supposed to "clear up" the misleading headline. The journalist, if you want to call her that, is Laura Ingraham who is abrasive, obnoxious, and very disrespectful to Zahra Billoo who is a spokeswoman for CAIR. You may think I'm being a bit harsh but these representations of, not only Muslim groups, but other marginalized groups has a great impact on how the West perceives the "other", which creates hate and racism. But what do you expect? It's FOX News and they are known to be a very right wing/conservative news station. However, you'd be surprised how many people actually watch and believe Fox News.

Ingraham begins the newscast by stating that "Americans" are fed up with the screening procedures then she continues and says that in a "surprising twist" the most spoken complaints come from the Muslim community who are seeking "special treatment". Are Muslim people not considered Americans if they live in America and have an American passport? This terminology is what creates a divide among groups, they could use a hyphenated term Muslim-Americans etc. Furthermore, other words such as complaints, special treatment, and surprising twist attach negative connotations. 

Zahra Billoo came on Fox News to present her side of the story regarding the TSA's new screening policy but she was not given a fair chance. Ingraham interrupted her several times, offended her headscarf, and spoke down to her as if she was not even interested in what Mrs. Billoo had to say and only wanted to push her agenda forward. Ingraham goes even further and ridicules the whole situation and clearly does not understand the cultural and religious implications behind the concerns of the Muslim communities. For example, when discussing the concerns of some of the Muslim women who would like the option to pat down their own body, Ingraham says "That's kind of like a self-exam right? I'm going to feel myself on my groin". This statement is just ridiculous and is patronizing Mrs. Billoo and the current issue at hand. 

Zahra Billoo - Spokeswoman

  Mrs. Billoo mentions several times that they are not seeking treatment  and it is TSA policy to follow these guidelines and respect Muslim women. But, Ingraham jumps in and says "well that's a stupid policy". How professional and thought-provoking right? Mrs. Ingraham also makes an attempt to make all Muslims look like hypocrites and is clearly asking questions to make Mrs.Billoo come across in a negative light. Ingraham states that CAIR didn't want the airport profiling people based on ethnicity and now they are profiling everyone and now the Muslim community wants to be excused from the screening. Mrs. Billoo states that other groups are speaking out against these new procedures as well, not only Muslim groups, such as flight attendants, unions, doctors, nurses. However, the media chooses to focus on the Muslim community, which is supposed to represent every single Muslim in the eyes of the Western media. 

The most prejudice and discriminatory aspect of the interview was when Ingraham ignorantly asks "When you go through screening and you are in your full hijab and your, you know, your robe -- I'm not sure what you call the thing around your neck". Ingraham is clearly ignorant and blatantly rude to Mrs. Billoo. Referring to her neck scarf as a "thing" represents Mrs. Billoo as an alien from another planet, which further feeds into the notion of the "other".

 

 

Ingraham repetitively asks Mrs. Billoo "how do you pat yourself down?" and "how about your groin area"? and lastly, Ingraham has something else up her sleeve when she brings up the "Sharia law" to Mrs. Billoo, stating that patting yourself down is against Sharia law where Mrs. Billoo responds to "no it's against a personal sense of privacy". Once again, Ingrahm brings up that Muslims want special treatment. Ingraham is just repeating herself throughout the whole interview and the interview goes nowhere except in circles. Ingraham raises her voice several times and cannot discuss the matter without yelling her questions at Mrs Billoo.

Frankly, this kind of "reporting" should not even be allowed on television and it saddens me that this kind of discrimination on a news channel does not outrage enough people to stop it. But it's just not Fox News that discriminates against a particular group but other news channels do as well but they are not blatantly open about it as Fox News.

Below is the video on Fox News....judge for yourself.

BlOgS bLoGs BlOgS - OUR SOURCE FOR NEWS?

Entertainment blogs are quickly becoming the main source for entertainment news. I have been a long-time reader of entertainment news blogs where I read a variety of blog entries on different websites in order to receive the full story. Throughout the years, three particular blogs stick out in my mind that are vastly different from one another, showing the different approach and opinions of the blogger. Blogging can sometimes be  known as  "citizen journalism" where people who have no journalist experience and are not formally associated with a news organization find and report news stories through their blogs. Some of the questions that I will explore asks, "what is the fascination with reading entertainment blogs as opposed to watching or reading entertainment shows and websites?" Furthermore, I will look at the format, style, and visual experience of an entertainment news blog. Also, I will look at the evolution of a blogger, achieving critical success through blogging.

The first entertainment blog that I will examine is www.perezhilton.com which is probably the most well-known entertainment news blog in the world. The website was created by blogger "Mario Armando Lavandeira" better known as "Perez Hilton", which is a play off of Paris Hilton's name. The website receives millions of hits everyday and was ranked 491's most trafficked website on the Internet with a demographic of females between the ages of 18 and 24. That is more hits than any other news source on the internet, thus makes me ponder the question: What's the fascination with Perez Hilton?

First of all, Perez Hilton is known for his snarky attitude, in which he mocks celebrities and "doodles" obscenities on their pictures.  His negative attitude towards celebrities garners attention for his website and he is also known for outing closeted gay celebrities. For example, he ridiculed and pushed both Lance Bass (former Sync member) and "How I Met Your Mother" star Neil Patrick Harris into revealing that they are gay. People are interested in other people's opinions on celebrities, not a manufactured script that is read off a teleprompter, but an honest reaction and approach on a particular celebrity. This is what attracts people to blogs, seeing as the person behind the computer is not censored because they express what they feel uncandidly. Also, celebrities are placed on a pedestal in society, therefore people are interested and take pleasure in seeing unflattering pictures of them.

The format on Hilton's site is very accessible and visually stimulating, where every individual story has their own template, headline, picture, with little writing, allowing the reader to simply scroll down onto the next story. This type of news format does not overwhelm readers such as other news sources that scatter a ton of stories onto their website, where the reader does not know which story to read first. Hilton makes sure you read the first story then allows you to scroll down if you don't like the story, putting the stories in order of entry, which is convenient and accessible to readers. The website also associates itself with the colour pink, which appeals to its demographic of females.

Not only does Perez Hilton report on entertainment matters but he is also an advocate for gay rights. In 2007, he reported that Cuban President, Fidel Castro, had died and claimed that he was the first news outlet to report it. This news story turned out to be false, in which later Hilton "regretted" reporting on it. This example, makes us question the legitimacy of blogs and if we should take what is reported on blogs as fact. We tend to forget that bloggers do not have journalistic training and we do not know where their sources are coming from, thus citizen journalism is not always accurate....but news sources are not always right either.

Perez Hilton started out as a blogger but the success of his website turned his hobby into a career. Perez Hilton has now hired writers who blog for him, and he has received many offers from ad companies who promote their ads on his website, which ultimately generates millions of dollars for him. Furthermore, he has used his website as a means of promoting himself and proclaiming himself to fame. For example, Perez Hilton has his own clothing line, book, radio show, fitness website, pets website, has made several TV appearances, reality show appearances, guest judge on Miss America Pageant and many more. In fact, Perez Hilton even parties and hangs out with the very celebrities he mocks on his website. This shows that blogging can turn into something more than just expressing your opinion online.





The next blog that I am going to explore is www.dlisted.com which takes a satirical approach to entertainment news as opposed to a negative approach like Perez Hilton. Dlisted does not favour certain celebrities over others but bashes everyone instead. The  blogger behind the website is "Michael K", whose sarcastic, humourous, and sometimes over-the-top personality defines his website. Michael K uses sexually explicit writing on his blogs that is meant to be humourous and receives a positive feedback from his readers, as Perez Hilton receives negative responses from readers. Readers often know what they are getting into with Dlisted because it is satirical and meant to be humourous, while Perez Hilton makes his insults personal with celebrities and is often only negative instead of humourous.

 

              VS

Like many typical blogs Dlisted has the same format where each story is presented with a headline, picture, writing or a video, and is posted in sequential order, giving readers an option of scrolling to get to the next story. Michael K's overall writing style is very unique because he uses very explicit writing and obscene comments but yet they are not offensive but very witty and funny, while Perez Hilton just comes off as a bully and Michael K comes off as a funny guy. Dlisted also has a quirky attitude and presence on the website where Michael K will post silly videos or odd things that are on YouTube and has silly contests such as "Hot Slut of the Month" etc. The website can also be seen as a parody, ridiculing entertainment shows, seeing as he makes fun of the very existence of celebrities and replaces them with silly videos such as a kitten eating a pancake. If the public is interested in Lindsay Lohan shopping then they must be interested in a squirrel eating a walnut. Once again, Dlisted is an example of how people love hearing the opinions of others, especially when their opinions are outrageous and uncensored.

Last but not least!

www.imnotobsessed.com is a entertainment website that is completely different from both Perez Hilton and Dlisted because it does not have any negativity in the website but focuses on fashion of celebrities and asks readers for their opinions instead. The founder and editor in chief is Vera Sweeney who is a full-time mom who runs her website from home. At the bottom of Vera's website she states that "I'm Not Obsessed offers work-safe and family-friendly insight into the latest celebrity gossip" while Dlisted and Perez Hilton are the complete opposite. This example shows that gender and the current status of a blogger highly affects the content and structure of the website. For example, Vera "the stay-at-home mom" offers a friendly website, that focuses on fashion, while Michael K and Perez Hilton's websites are not safe for work. This might be an extreme case, but on the other hand, it is just one example of how the blogger affects the content and structure of a website.

Vera gives her "two cents" in every story but does not judge the celebrity and sees the other person's side of things. She offers her opinion but mostly asks her readers what are their viewpoints, in order to generate debate on her comments section of her website. Vera does not show unflattering pictures of celebrities but uses nice ones to show certain fashion styles, offering ways for women to emulate these styles at affordable prices.

The vast difference in these three blogs shows the difference of opinion of a person behind the computer. If you want to read accurate news stories you should visit more than just one website, seeing as some websites such a Perez Hilton's favour certain celebrities, therefore he will only show negative portrayals of people, while Vera's website will show the other side. Citizen journalism can be a liberating to a person, however citizens can falsely report news, thus we have to be careful of what we read and verify the news on other reliable websites. With that said, blogging is a fun medium where people can express their opinions through the web, while remaining faceless and anonymous among their readers. In tribute to Dlisted.com, here is a YouTube video of a kitten making her bed....enjoy:)

WIKILEAKS REVEALS NEW DOCUMENT SHOWING 15,000 MORE IRAQI CIVILLIAN DEATHS

WikiLeaks website founder, Julian Assange, at  News Conference 

 

The biggest news story to hit the Internet this weekend is another scandal involving the U.S army in Iraq. WikiLeaks, a website known for revealing exclusive information regarding many U.S cover-ups such as posting documents of the Guantanamo Bay operation, hacking into Sarah Palin's yahoo account and showing video of American Apache helicopters gunning down 12 people in Baghdad in 2007, have now released a 400,000 documents showing a higher death toll of Iraqi civilians than previously recorded. The man pictured above is Julian Assange, the founder and editor in chief of WikiLeaks, and the man responsible for exposing these documents.

I ventured to every possible news source to see what different approach each network chose to develop with this particular story. The headlines of each article spoke volumes about how each story would unfold and what perspective the network would take in terms of selecting information. The first website I looked at was CBC, which its headline read "Iraqi Death Toll Higher: WikiLeaks". Strong words such as "death" in a headline will capture people's attention, along with stating that WikiLeaks was the source responsible for this information. Overall, the article was pretty neutral because it was not biased and provided a voice from both sides, including Julian Assange (quotes from his press conference) and from the Pentagon spokesman Col.Dave Lapan who states the documents lack context, thus the information can be inaccurate as well, which other news some of the other news sources failed to include.

The next source I looked at was Fox News, oh Fox News, why are you even considered news? I purposely went here, aware of their highly conservative agenda. Their front page headline read "Iraqi Deaths Higher than U.S Count?" The question mark in the headline suggests that the document is plausible and maybe not true, compared to other headlines who stated the death count as a statement, not a rhetorical question. Furthermore, when you click on the headline it will bring you to the full story, followed by another headline that reads "WikiLeaks' Latest Document Dump Suggests Iraqi Death Higher Than U.S Count". The choice of words in the headline outlines Fox's stance on the story, clearly against these allegations, seeing as they collide the word document with "dump" and they once again are suspect about the accuracy of the documents, thus they use the word "suggest"once again steering away from a statement. And of course the word "latest" also reveals that this isn't WikiLeaks first time leaking stories and this is just another "dump" of a story that might not even be true. The title overall mocks these allegations of torture by U.S soldiers. The majority of the Fox News article concentrates on another Pentagon spokesperson, Geoff Morrell, who says these publications are "deplorable" and that they could bring security risks and harm to the U.S soldiers, a different approach from CBC. The article continues to focus on the security risks of U.S soldiers rather than the 150,000 innocent civilians who were killed.

So far, I have looked at a Canadian news article from CBC, a U.S right-wing article from Fox News, and now I am going to take a look at an article from the middle eastern perspective. Al-Jazeera was the only news network that had a separate category entitled "Secret Iraq Files" which contains several up-to-the-minute articles and videos of this particular story, compared to other news stories that only had one or two articles on this story. Al-Jazeera, goes in-depth, about every aspect of the story. For example, Al-Jazeera has a whole article on the checkpoints deaths and a chilling video with graphic war images of some of the incidents. One of the images that particularly stuck with me was of a little boy who was shrieking and covered with his parents blood on him. The article goes into great detail about each incident and death that occurred, giving a personal story and face to each death. I found out more information on Al-Jazeera's website than on any other sites, it was the only website who struck an emotional cord with me, revealing gruesome facts about the victims, such as how U.S soldiers shot and killed a pregnant woman who was rushing to the hospital at a check point. It seems as other websites left out shocking or horrific details of torture, being selective with their information. In this article, there were no mentions of the Pentagon or any spokespeople from the Pentagon. Some of the headlines read as "U.S Turns Blind Eye to Torture", "Iraq Files Reveal Checkpoint Deaths" and "WikiLeaks Releases Secret Iraq File". The first headline could be seen as Anti-American, blaming the U.S for ignoring torture in Iraq or it could be accurate, depending on what your perspective is.

 All three news articles took different approaches as to what they chose to reveal and what they chose to leave out. Also all three articles had a focus where they would concentrate on a specific aspect of the story they thought was relevant or that they wanted to push onto the audience. CBC was neutral as Fox was pro-American and Al-Jazeera was pro-Arab. Overall, these exposed documents shows us what the audience doesn't know about the war in Iraq and how the government is essentially lying to us and concealing information to us. It shows "our heroes" who are across the borders torturing and killing innocent civilians...and for what? Weren't we there to "liberate" and set the Iraqi's "free"... so much for democracy.

News is delayed and takes time for us to find out, seeing as we don't find out everything as they happen. There are many unimaginable secrets and horrors we don't yet know about. We need to inform ourselves and educate ourselves about different events in the world, and as aspiring journalists we need to report truthfully, authentically, even if it means going against what your network wants you to write. The public has a right to know to the truth. I'll end with this quote.

"The fault, dear Brutis, is not in our stars but in our ourselves"

- Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)




Down below are links of all 3 articles and the video provided by Al-Jazeera.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/23/wikileaks-iraqi-death-toll.html


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/23/wikileaks-release-afghan-war-docs/

http://english.aljazeera.net/secretiraqfiles/2010/10/2010102216241633174.html

TMZ VS ACCESS HOLLYWOOD: WHO BRINGS YOU CLOSER TO THE STARS?

   

                        

                vs

Okay, I admit it!

I'm an entertainment junkie who is always wasting time on websites such as TMZ, Perezhilton, People, US Weekly and the list goes on. I want to know what attracts people to entertainment news and why the world has such a fascination with celebrity culture. Are we living vicariously through celebrities and is entertainment news really considered "news"?


I'm sitting on my couch watching, of course, the STAR channel, meaning back to back celebrity news, everything from TMZ to America's Next Top Model. However, my light bulb moment, came from watching TMZ and then an episode of Access Hollywood right after. I began to think about the different styles, approaches, and angles that each show presents.

Let's start with TMZ. TMZ is only a couple of years old and started out as a website first, before it branched off as a TV show too. But already TMZ is making a BIG splash into the entertainment world, breaking some of the biggest stories in history, such as Michael Jackson's death, releasing Rihanna's infamous beat-down photo, and leaking the horrific rant tapes of Mel Gibson. So, the question of credibility is not a problem on TMZ's part but what sets TMZ apart from other news sources is there incredible ubiquitous, interactive, and in-your-face element that TMZ brings to the entertainment world. TMZ brings a voyeuristic and a paparazzi element to their style, following celebrities around with cameras in Hollywood, while catching them off-guard, not in a studio, not photo shopped or prepped but raw footage of them participating in everyday life, from going to the grocery store to walking their children to school. TMZ claims they present a raw, realistic quality to their news, and that their TV show is not scripted and the fun banter between their staff on the show is real. TMZ has a mock-factor to their show, where they are in power and mock celebrities and, in a sense, mock the celebrity culture which is ironic in itself. The laid back, humorous, almost goofy "news" which, at times, can't even be considered as news, draws in a large audience. Also, it doesn't hurt that the show's creator, Harvey Levin, is a former lawyer who definitely uses his expertise to every story involving the law which is 90% of celebrity stories. *Cough* Lindsey Lohan *Cough*.

Now onto Access Hollywood, which conveniently happens to play right after TMZ. Access Hollywood is your typical entertainment news show, and the opposite of TMZ. Although, TMZ is structured, they try to give off the perception to their audience that they are not structured, while Access Hollywood is proud of their organization of their celebrity news. Access Hollywood begins the show, like many other entertainment news shows, with their top stories, junkets, and categorizing each segment from fashion to music etc. Also, the show is very scripted, professional, hardly mocking celebrities but promoting and supporting celebrities. Access Hollywood presents interviews and segments with celebrities that have been pre-taped, therefore the audience will see a pre-packaged, scripted, camera-ready interview, which is completely different TMZ who show celebrities caught-off guard. So the question is, what attracts an audience more? if we look at reality shows, which is a phenomenon among TV, we see that people are attrated to reality, seeing as Jersey Shore is the highest rated reality show in the world right now. So I think it is safe to say that "reality" interests people, seeing the downfalls, personal lives of celebrities intrigues audiences. The public forget that celebrities are people so when they see a dressed down Madonna with no make-up, walking her children to school, people see another side of her which they would rarely see on other shows such as Access Hollywood. I also noticed that Access Hollywood dramatizes many of their stories that are meant to be serious, adding dramatic music and close-up camera shots, to the point where it feels like I'm watching CSI. However, entertainment shows need to dramatize their stories in order to give their stories some substance or relevance. For example, Access Hollywood ran a story about Lisa Rinna reducing the collagen in her lips and did an interview with her to discuss her lips, but everything was so dramatized where they brought in an expert to discuss her lips, which ultimately led to the promotion of her new reality show. If all the glitz was removed from the story, it would ultimately fall flat.

The celebrity fad will never die, thus we will forever be surrounded by entertainment news. Whether your a TMZ kind of person that wants the paparazzi type of following on celebrities news or the Access Hollywood viewer who wants a traditional entertainment format, it is interesting to see the accessibility of celebrity culture and their large following of viewers that the world invests in today, including me. Maybe people turn to entertainment news to get away from the tragedies that international and local news brings, filling their heads with a Hollywood illusion, remaining ignorant about the world around them.

Anyways, that was overly dramatic.  Here is a clip contrasting two of the styles of TMZ and Access Hollywood:)


 

http://www.tmz.com/videos/?mediaKey=bd4cb280-65fa-4abb-b500-c8f03fe65b4b&isShareURL=true - TMZ LINK