Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Who the hell would ever turn to the Internet for journalism? Look at this -- it's all attitude. There are barely any facts at all. The only research they did was inside their heads. And they didn't even reach very deeply for the few ideas they were able to fish out.
They could have done some real journalism, for example looking into just how many prisoners get early release in LA County jails and who those prisoners are and why they get early release.
There is a real question here -- is Paris being discriminated against by being made to serve her full sentence? Is she only being forced to serve the full sentence because she's too high profile to get early release?
This early release program is extremely embarassing for the tough on crime types who build their reps by sending more people to jail than the jails were built to hold.
So it's easy to see why they don't want journalists asking questions about who really serves a full sentence in Los Angeles County.
Is Paris being made to serve her full sentence because those tough on crime types want to create the impression that serving a full sentence still is the norm?
But investigating these types of issues would be taking the hard way out. The Pulitzers are for people who do journalism the hard way.
The Webbys are for people who haven't the slightest desire to do journalism the hard way, and wouldn't know how even if they wanted to.
Havrilesky & Traister need to know that county jail is not prison and the difference is not one of semantics.
County jail isolation is not exactly the rack. If she were in the general population, she'd be in serious jeopardy because of her notoriety or fame depending on one's perspective.
Is any of this really her fault? I don't mean the conviction and sentence, I mean Paris Hilton herself. She is more a product of the media and the people's perverse obsession with wealth, elitism, and fame.
And, lest we forget, jail is for punishment.
Just a pointer: your [sic] comments are erroneous; I'm from the UK, and that's how we spell here.
I'm not a Paris apologist. I'm simply accepting responsibility for the fact that any emotional reaction at either end of the scale that I have for her is to do with me, not her. Now that I've reached a sense of neutrality it means the projection has been withdrawn.
- S
We are powerless.
As usual, you people take your own inability to distinguish real news from utter shite and project it onto others. YOU may be part of the nationwide wave of people who give a shit about things like this, but please don't make the mistake of thinking we all are. I come to sites like Salon because I want a break from the blaring idiocy of the MSM, but it seems there are those who insist on dragging this time-wasting garbage into every conversation. It's pathetic, and especially galling since the internet is so in need of people who can actually spell and construct a sentence, to discuss things that actually matter. What it doesn't need is more and more drivel.
And by the way, aren't you tired of being so completely hypocritical? I mean, whining about how the media can't shut up about this junk? As Captain Buck Murdock said, "I guess irony can be pretty ironic", eh?
(And in case you're wondering, no, I didn't read the article; just plucked out a phrase near the end that seemed the most egregiously dishonest to me.)
This episode seems to have answered one question about Ms. Hilton, that being, "Is it all an act?" -- answer, apparently not.
I find myself reconsidering corporal punishment and wondering if it's too late for her to be redeemed by Frances Hodgson Burnett's "The Little Princess" and "Secret Garden", not to mention, "Little Women" -- hell, even Nancy Drew... and/or the
American Girls doll series.
To say I view her hystrionics and lack of control COLDLY is an understatement, however the gawker/carwreck portion of her celebrity may be undiminished ... much as some of Anna Nichole's obviously-seriously-impaired (and recently David Hasselhoff's) videos bizarrely received attention of the truely-sick-gawker variety.
Like some giagantic Ponzi scheme, I can't quite figure out where and/or how anyone is making any real money off of Ms. Hilton's celebrity.
She had her chances to avoid jail ... which she used and then abused... she's jailed because that's what happens to public scofflaws -- celebrities or not.
The day after Lindsey Lohan' last car crash, the gossip columns ran fluff pieces about her birthday party ... even as, apparently, arrangements were being made to get her BACK in rehab, and her father's reports of her OxyContin addiction were being prepared to be posted.
Driving while impaired and substance abuse and genuine narcotic addiction should not be treated as "another day in the life" fluff. It's not surprising that so many people believe they are entitled to endless "get out of jail free" cards ...
Chilling.
Ugh. 'Nuff said.
Your celebrity status in this market is tied to procreation. The Christian Fundamentalists have put their influence on us all. In a former age celebrities like Bette Davis and Joan Crawford tried to conceal their family life. (They weren't very good parents, because they just didn't make the kind of money they do now.) In those days it was promiscuity, not procreation that kept your name in the gossip columns.
The rush to either procreate or adopt has left former celebrities like Madonna out in the celebrity cold. If you can solve two pressing issues in one trip you get extra points, like adopting a poor African child. Mulitasking goals is what got our President celebrity in trouble, he thought he could overthrow a dictator, capture some terrorists, and open the oil spigot, all by the single act of invading Iraq. Multitasking goals is another issue altogether.
Anna Nichol understood the importance of motherhood to her celebrity status. Bragelina understands this. THe Vice Presidents' daughter understands this. (Incidentally if you are gay the press won't even refer to the biological father, or the fact that such a person exists, the power of child birth is sacrosanct, so that none dare wonder how the seed got there in the first place.) Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton will figure it out. And certainly with her wealth, she will never have to change a diaper. Hollywood producers who come up with films like "Knocked Up", know this. The royal family has always known this, having bred racehorses and stuff for centuries.
Paris needs her own TV reality show, find a baby for Paris. Imagine the long searches through the sperm banks, the night clubs, looking for the next Larry Birkheart. By the way did anyone really think that the biological father was going to turn out to be Stern, the beady eyed lawyer, instead of the boyish Birkheart?
Now Paris, the road lies ahead of you. Should she call her child Amsterdam if it's a boy, and Vienna if it's a girl?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
