Which one gets the pants fish?

April 25, 2005 7:22 AM

Celebrity Mefi? Arianna Huffington is starting a "celebrity group blog." Contributors will include Walter Cronkite, David Mamet, Albert Brooks, Nora Ephron, Warren Beatty, James Fallows, Vernon Jordan, Rob Reiner, Diane Keaton, Norman Mailer, Bobby Kennedy, Tina Brown, John Cusack, Gary Hart, Mike Nichols...etc. According to a leaked email, Arianna is pitching the "Huffington Post" (ugh) to contributors as "a collective endeavor that can enliven — and possibly even shift — the national conversation."
posted by CunningLinguist (104 comments total)

Has Arianna forgotten rcade?
posted by asok at 7:28 AM on April 25, 2005

This is important. We don't get to hear rich and famous people talk nearly enough.
posted by jonmc at 7:29 AM on April 25, 2005 [1 favorite]

Ug. Not only do the rich and famous get to spout their uninformed nonsense on the Television, they now get to do it together on the "blogosphere".

An innovative group blog where some of this country’s most creative minds will weigh in on topics great and small
By "creative", I assume that they mean "My friends, and other Rich Hollywood A-Listers who are divorced from reality."

The saddest thing... I think it'll probably work out for them.
posted by seanyboy at 7:35 AM on April 25, 2005

Celebrities-- is there anything they don't know?
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:39 AM on April 25, 2005

Celebrities-- is there anything they don't know?

Well, they don't seem to know how to just shut the fuck up and look pretty.
posted by jonmc at 7:40 AM on April 25, 2005

C'mon, people. Don't you see the possibility for some real gems here? Like Norman Mailer and John Cusack arguing social security policy? David Mamet on foreign policy? Walter Cronkite on ... wait. Walter Cronkite's still alive?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:44 AM on April 25, 2005

I just noticed that Rob Reiner is apparently going to be involved. Where the hell is Carroll O'Connor now that we need him?
posted by jonmc at 7:50 AM on April 25, 2005

MAILER: Don't you get it? Oswald couldn't have acted alone!
MAMET: STFU, Mailer! GYOFB!
CRONKITE: LOL
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:50 AM on April 25, 2005

I thought that Bobby Kennedy was dead. Blogging from beyond the grave?
posted by veedubya at 7:53 AM on April 25, 2005

Warren Beatty. Ha. Hu-hah. Warren? Pbb-buh buh HA! Warrenbeaaah ha hah ha haaaaaa! Beatty? Buh, Bwaaaaaah ha ha hah! He has, hee hee hee has, something to, to, tee hee hee, to say? HA!

Who is this Arianna Huffington, anyway? She some kind of celebrity?
posted by breezeway at 7:54 AM on April 25, 2005

I might actually be interested in what some of these people have to say. Some of them (*cough* Warren Beatty *cough*) I'd like to see attempt to support their positions naked but for their words. It could be a beautiful trainwreck. And the celebrity selection could have been a lot worse. These people, for the most part, seem somewhat thoughtful and informed.

But why is Maggie Gyllenhaal included? I have nothing at all against her, and I liked her in Secretary, but from what (very little) I know about her, she doesn't seem to fit into this list.
posted by crumbly at 7:56 AM on April 25, 2005

Celebrity Mefi?

Heh. Good call. That's exactly what I thought when I heard about this. They wish.
posted by soyjoy at 7:59 AM on April 25, 2005

Don't celebrities have the same right as the rest of us to sit around all day in their pajamas typing inane blather into the internets?
posted by spilon at 8:00 AM on April 25, 2005

No spilon, they don't. It's a crime to use freedom of speech once you can actually reach a fair chunk of people with it. (or is the assumption "I bought a ticket to one of your films one time, so shut up. I own you, and I want you back in the kitchen scrubbing dishes"?)

Sarcasm aside, I'm not looking forward to this new site. Low expectations, you know. ^_^
posted by Tuwa at 8:12 AM on April 25, 2005

But why is Maggie Gyllenhaal included?

Well, with any luck, she'll get drunk with her digital camera and post naked pictures, thus making the whole enterpreise worthwhile.
posted by jonmc at 8:15 AM on April 25, 2005

It's a blogging "We Are The World."

And we all realize how effective that was.
posted by Dagobert at 8:15 AM on April 25, 2005

I don't have much hope for this project being of much interest to anyone beyond those involved...
posted by clevershark at 8:16 AM on April 25, 2005

well, Albert Brooks i love, and most of them are smart cookies. We'll see.

Fuzzy Monster : >
posted by amberglow at 8:20 AM on April 25, 2005

This blog was set up a few years ago, involving some entertainment industry writers. Same idea, probably more interesting than the current lineup.
posted by Danf at 8:23 AM on April 25, 2005

Intelligence Brief: Huffing
posted by R. Mutt at 8:24 AM on April 25, 2005

According to a leaked email,
How was it leaked?
Iirc, Warren Beatty was telling the press which article I posted within another thread over a week ago. Though Warren was selling the blog as the liberal bent.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:26 AM on April 25, 2005

It's a honeypot for right-wing trolls.
posted by PlusDistance at 8:31 AM on April 25, 2005

I think they realized we created our own celebrities on the blogosphere and are scared that the democratization here in the Internet will lead to less demi-god worship of them on the outside. Yeah, that’s it. I can’t wait until blogs start coming with a round seal proclaiming them to be part of Oprah’s Blog Club.
posted by Staggering Jack at 8:33 AM on April 25, 2005

It's a honeypot for right-wing trolls.

what, plusdistance, you think that they're actually going to let regular people participate in their mutual fellation fest? Please. There'll be some digital velvet rope up to allow us all to look in the window, but we won't get to dance.
posted by jonmc at 8:36 AM on April 25, 2005

Ooo danf, I missed that. That's one I'd like to read.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:42 AM on April 25, 2005

Are you saying Maggie Gyllenhaal will be fellating John Cusack, jonmc? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.
posted by breezeway at 8:43 AM on April 25, 2005

well, that'd be the optimum outcome, breezeway. Sadly, we'll probably wind up Albert Brooks fellating Gary Hart.
posted by jonmc at 8:49 AM on April 25, 2005

Sadly, we'll probably wind up Albert Brooks fellating Gary Hart.

Albert Brooks: OH NOES!!1!!1!
Gary Hart: w00t!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:03 AM on April 25, 2005

Meathead fellating Carroll O'Conner, you say???
posted by basicchannel at 9:06 AM on April 25, 2005

Well, that's one way to stifle him.
posted by jonmc at 9:08 AM on April 25, 2005

So Meathead gives Carol O'Connor his "meathead" so to speak?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:18 AM on April 25, 2005

Is there a fight? Do we have to fight people? 'Cause I came here to blog an' chew gum, and I'm all outta blog ideas.

Don't make me destroy you. /Vader
posted by bdave at 9:24 AM on April 25, 2005

This is P-G's fault.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:24 AM on April 25, 2005

How dare these celebrities start a blog! HOW DARE THEY! Why, the internet is solely the realm of ugly, poor people!

Good god, you'd think they were forcing you all to read it. Personally, I'd take that lineup over most of the blowhards on here.
posted by mkultra at 9:25 AM on April 25, 2005

And christ, no-one's fellating Carol O'Connor. Ech
posted by bdave at 9:26 AM on April 25, 2005

How self-absorbed would you have to be to be part of that? Wow. As only an amateur egotist (Brechtian) I stand in awe of the consummate professionals.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:26 AM on April 25, 2005

Who is this Arianna Huffington, anyway?

She's a Greek waitress who George Braque slapped once when she failed to get his order right. Something like that.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:32 AM on April 25, 2005

How dare these celebrities start a blog! HOW DARE THEY! Why, the internet is solely the realm of ugly, poor people!

Well, that's the general pattern of things, dude. Ugly, poor people invent cool stuff, then pretty, rich people find out about it, get into it and take credit for it. Fuckin' bastards ruin everything. It's not like these people are in dire need of a place to be heard, for crying out loud.

And if you get some validation out of the fact that some celebrity shares your opinion on something...well, then you need to check yourself.

And christ, no-one's fellating Carol O'Connor. Ech

Not even the dingbat?
posted by jonmc at 9:33 AM on April 25, 2005

I honestly wonder how people take Arianna Huffington seriously. I have trouble thinking of anyone who's been more blatant about basing their career on surfing public opinion. She used to wear American-flag shirts while posing with Newt Gingrich; now she's believable as a progressive activist? Have you ever read any of her books? They're just these ongoing series of paragraphs of hollow invective, each one ending with some tired-ass cliche.

Arianna Huffington cares about exactly one thing: maintaining the high profile of Arianna Hiffington, Activist. Everything else is a secondary means to that end.
posted by COBRA! at 9:36 AM on April 25, 2005

Ok. We've had the posters that bash the celebrities. We've had the posters that bash the posters that bash the celebrities. Here's my take:

If these folks want to state their opinions, they certainly have the right to do so. However, I certainly don't respect them, given that they are relying on their names rather that their actual content. If all these people cared about was giving their opinions, they would use pseudonyms, like most bloggers. That way they'd be judged by the things they say rather than the movies they've been in. As it is, by doing this in the way that they are, they're saying to us: "You should listen to us because we're famous." And that doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned. I'll stick to blogs that are written by people with intelligence and writing ability rather than fame.
posted by unreason at 9:36 AM on April 25, 2005

What's so different about reading the uninformed opinions of a group of rich and famous celebrities, and reading the uninformed opinions of a self-appointed hipster brain trust of yuppie tech people? The hipsters have better links about Ruby on Rails, and the celebrities have better stories about shooting heroin through a porcupine quill with the cast of Cannonball Run. Both can get old real fuckin quick.
posted by Hildago at 9:38 AM on April 25, 2005

mkultra writes "Why, the internet is solely the realm of ugly, poor people!"

Speak for yourself...
posted by clevershark at 9:43 AM on April 25, 2005

i think the value of this will depend on how the big names interact with each other ... if they're all on their own blogs, talking to the public and not each other, then it's going to be another web magazine ... that might be alright, but it won't be anything special

i have the feeling that even if she doesn't manage to make this work the way it should, someone else will take the idea and fly with it ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:48 AM on April 25, 2005

Meathead, dingbat... yikes Jon. You keep settin' em up and I'll keep knockin'em down.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:48 AM on April 25, 2005

From the article, it sounds as though it will have a heavy news and politics slant. Fun to joke about celebrities, but there's a good mix of names on that list and I applaud this and any other efforts to reclaim communication channels from the ever-growing radical right echo chamber. There were lots of naysayers about Air America and celebrity involvement when that launched too. Maybe it will suck, but I'll withhold my judgement.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:50 AM on April 25, 2005

It actually will provide the rightwing bloggers with an easy target, taking the heat off normal people online. I'm sure there won't be open commenting at all, which sucks. If they just want to pontificate, there's Entertainment Tonight, and Extra, and every "News" channel, and People and US and In Touch....

I think it'd be hysterical if they all joined here under aliases. It'd be more real, and less that they're trading on their celebrity.
posted by amberglow at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2005

Will the actors on the list being blogging in character? I'd love to see Hank Harris' Pumpkin Romanoff debating Walter Cronkite and Sinead O'Connor about the Social Secutity trust fund.
posted by Cassford at 10:18 AM on April 25, 2005

If they just want to pontificate, there's Entertainment Tonight, and Extra, and every "News" channel, and People and US and In Touch....

Exactly. The appeal of the blog world is that any schmuck can get up and start positing his thoughts and have a chance at being heard. These fucking people already have a soapbox.
posted by jonmc at 10:19 AM on April 25, 2005

David Mamet on foreign policy?

well, about a year and a half ago I heard him talk about many things, Iraq included. and it was exteremely interesting -- he has this way of saying quite harsh things (like "stolen election", "war crimes", "impeachment trial") in a soft, polite tone that I really appreciated. not to mention, he signed my copy of "Glengarry". and his wife is totally nice.

re: Arianna -- I'd be more interested to read Michael Huffington's blog anyway
posted by matteo at 10:20 AM on April 25, 2005

Maggie Gyllenhaal is not afraid to express an unpopular opinion.

The resentment at celebrities expressing opinions does often seem to come from folks who resent their own interest in celebrities. Having said that, I still need to be convinced that Arianna Huffington deserves my attention.
posted by liam at 11:11 AM on April 25, 2005

Well, I was going to wait to actually read the site before declaring it the worst thing to ever happen to blogging, online communities and life in general, evar!!!11! but Mefi has shown me the error of my ways.

I see now that by merely stepping in front of a camera or having your name printed in a tabloid magazine you are instantly rendered stupid, worthless and boring. No celebrity could ever possibly have anything interesting to say. Why don't they go back to their mansions where they belong and keep their big mouths shut? Because you know, if I want to hear a celebrity's in-depth, well thought out commentary on the issues of the day I can turn on Entertainment Tonight. Mary Hart asks such intelligent, probing questions you know. But no. Here they are forcing each and every one of us to read their little weblog. Why, it hasn't even gone live yet and it's already ruined Christmas.

The celebrities have gone too far and ruined the intarweb. Burn them!
posted by LeeJay at 11:15 AM on April 25, 2005

I see now that by merely stepping in front of a camera or having your name printed in a tabloid magazine you are instantly rendered stupid, worthless and boring.

Ah, yes all shed some tears for the overpaid, over-pampered, over-indulged genetic freaks we call celebrities. They're victims of such horrible repression and silencing.

Cry me a fucking river.
posted by jonmc at 11:17 AM on April 25, 2005

Ah, yes all shed some tears for the overpaid, over-pampered, over-indulged genetic freaks we call celebrities. They're victims of such horrible repression and silencing.

All sarcasm aside, jonmc, what is with your burning hatred of celebrities? Did a Golden Globe winner kick sand in your face at the beach or something? They're just people who, through either talent or luck or enthusiastic fellatio, landed on TV or film. I don't think they're any better than you or I but you seem to think they're all a lot worse. Why?
posted by LeeJay at 11:25 AM on April 25, 2005

re: Arianna -- I'd be more interested to read Michael Huffington's blog anyway
It would probably be like BoifromTroy's blog

LeeJay, it's that we've all heard from them on every possible subject, for years, i think, in every possible form of media. Why is it that the media gives this star-studded thing so much press, while ignoring so many real bloggers doing incredibly great work? Why is it that we're even discussing it here now? Just because they're famous names. That's kinda messed-up, if you think about it.
posted by amberglow at 11:28 AM on April 25, 2005

why?

because it's very punk rock to do so. the only celebrities jon can stand are the ones who play electric guitar

amberglow -- exactly!
posted by matteo at 11:30 AM on April 25, 2005

oh, and porn stars, too
;)
posted by matteo at 11:30 AM on April 25, 2005

Also, wasn't the whole blogging thing to get more voices and every voice heard, not to just give the same old voices a new platform?
posted by amberglow at 11:31 AM on April 25, 2005

I believe that jonmc has a quite healthy disregard for anyone who is blatantly having more sex then he is.
posted by chaz at 11:32 AM on April 25, 2005

I don't think they're any better than you or I but you seem to think they're all a lot worse. Why?

Because they're people who are rewarded with a sickening overabundance of material wealth and adulation, while contributing almost noting of value.

the only celebrities jon can stand are the ones who play electric guitar

And most of the ones of those I admire are hardly household names.
posted by jonmc at 11:33 AM on April 25, 2005

/your favorite celebrity sucks -- unless he has jon's imprimatur & plays in an obscure band in the Lower East Side
posted by matteo at 11:36 AM on April 25, 2005

my favorite celebrities suck too.

I don't think they're any better than you

That's contradictory. If the world didn't think celebrities were better than the rest of humanity then there wouldn't be any celebrities, would there?
posted by jonmc at 11:40 AM on April 25, 2005

LeeJay, it's that we've all heard from them on every possible subject, for years, i think, in every possible form of media. Why is it that the media gives this star-studded thing so much press, while ignoring so many real bloggers doing incredibly great work? Why is it that we're even discussing it here now? Just because they're famous names. That's kinda messed-up, if you think about it.

Well, I don't think that the media does ignore "real" bloggers in favor of celebrity bloggers. 99% of the news I read about blogging revolves around people who have never set foot in front of a camera and are only known because of their blogs.

I do think it will be interesting to read what these people have to say. Not because they are inherently more fascinating because they've been in the pages of People but because I feel that the more voices engaged in open conversation the better. I don't care if you're famous or not. If you have something interesting to say I'd like to hear it.

I'm just a little amused that so many people are willing to instantly write these people off before even hearing what they have to say just because they're famous. Seems a little shortsighted to me. And it feels like it has a lot more to do with resentment than anything else.

I won't argue with you though that the culture of celebrity in the mainstream press is just a bit over the top.
posted by LeeJay at 11:40 AM on April 25, 2005

I don't think they're any better than you

That's contradictory. If the world didn't think celebrities were better than the rest of humanity then there wouldn't be any celebrities, would there?

I'm not sure about that. I don't think people are fascinated by celebrities because they think they're better people. I think we just like the rise and fall, the fairy tale. We like to watch attractive people do attractive things. We also like to see them get smacked around. It's absurd and decadent and appeals to our baser natures.

If this thread is evidence of anything, it's that people automatically assume that celebrities are irrelevant and worthless.
posted by LeeJay at 11:45 AM on April 25, 2005

That's because it's assumed that whatever they have to say is interesting, simply because they're famous. That's the problem, and the celebs believe it too.
posted by amberglow at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2005

If the world didn't think celebrities were better than the rest of humanity then there wouldn't be any celebrities, would there

jon, come on. I'm happy to ceoncede that they're more famous than I am because, say, Brad Pitt is (only slightly, I admit) better-looking than I am, because Sean Penn is a better actor than I am, because Mamet writes better than I do, because Albert Brooks is funnier than I am, etc etc

I don't know how many people would pay good money to watch me act, or listen to me play guitar or sing. not that many, if they have a modicum of common sense

to consider the current celebrities-fetish very lame is one thing, and I agree on that. but come on, there's a reason why these people are in show-business and you and I aren't -- because they're good at something you and I aren't particularly good at.

oh, and Gyllenhaal is the daughter of two writers (one of them a very good one, imo). she's not as dumb /ignorant as you probably think jon. I have it on good authority
posted by matteo at 11:51 AM on April 25, 2005

Known or unknown, actors (bus drivers, dish washers, etc.) are entitled, just as you are entitled, to blather about things they know nothing about. Saying they should shut up is like saying you should shut up.

And most of the ones of those I admire are hardly household names.

Known or unknown -- as if that makes a difference -- your idols are still just musicians, but would you complain if they blogged about other things?
posted by pracowity at 11:54 AM on April 25, 2005

jon, come on. I'm happy to ceoncede that they're more famous than I am because, say, Brad Pitt is (only slightly, I admit) better-looking than I am, because Sean Penn is a better actor than I am, because Mamet writes better than I do, because Albert Brooks is funnier than I am, etc etc

And that's fine if all we're doing is seeing their movies or buying their records. But none of the qualities you listed makes their political opinions any more cogent or valuable than yours, mine, or my barbers. Yet, they're going to do something we've been doing for years, and exponentially more people are going to listen their opinions, simplt because of their celebrity status. That's why a lot of us feel some resentment here.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on April 25, 2005

That's because it's assumed that whatever they have to say is interesting, simply because they're famous. That's the problem, and the celebs believe it too.

I don't assume that. It's obvious that many people here don't assume that. And judging from the harsh reactions celebrities get whenever they speak on anything more controversial than what designer they're wearing, I imagine that a lot of "regular" non-celebs don't think that.

The media assumes it and they must be at least partly right because they sell a lot of magazines and papers and tv shows that way, but I'd wager a lot of people buy and watch specifically to make fun of or roll their eyes at whatever the celeb of the moment may be saying.

My point though is that it seems a little premature to judge whether they're interesting or not before they actually say anything at all.
posted by LeeJay at 11:56 AM on April 25, 2005

But none of the qualities you listed makes their political opinions any more cogent or valuable than yours, mine, or my barbers.

But isn't that what's so interesting about blogging in general? The fact that anyone can open their mouth and babble about shit? If it's interesting and intelligent, people will read and participate. If it's stupid and uninformed then it will either be ignored or picked apart.
posted by LeeJay at 11:59 AM on April 25, 2005

(Disclaimer: I'm fan of AH, who in this day and age is one of the few Lefties who can still call out-and-out bullshit on GOP shenanigans and not sound shrill or whiny doing it)

Folks, I'm sorry, but I'm seeing a whole lot of sour grapes here. Look at the lineup:

Larry David, Tom Freston, Vernon Jordan, David Geffen, Nora Ephron, Bobby Kennedy Jr., Tina Brown, John Cusack, Gary Hart, Mike Nichols, Rob Reiner, David Mamet, Arthur Schlesinger, Norman Lear, George Wolfe, Bill Maher, Jann Wenner, Laurie David, Cory Booker, Jim Wiatt, Haim Saban, Walter Cronkite, Albert Brooks, Paul Goldberger, Harry Evans, Liev Schreiber, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, David O. Russell, Barry Diller, Tavis Smiley, Ari Emanuel, Paul Reiser, Adam McKay, Brian Grazer, Mort Zuckerman, Brad Hall, Prof. Alex Keyssar, Dr. Dean Ornish, and Sen. Jon Corzine.

You can nitpick a few of these (Julia Louise Dreyfus? Paul Reiser?), but by and large, it's a well-informed group- hardly a bunch of "celebrities" as we generally know of them. You'd be hard-pressed to find most of these folks in any tabloid.
posted by mkultra at 12:04 PM on April 25, 2005

I wonder if this when blogs "jump the shark" ?

(Arianna should definitely get Henry Winkler to be part of it) ; >
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on April 25, 2005

Who cares what celebrities have to say?

Who cares what bloggers have to say?

On any given topic, the level of discourse is about the same.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding.

Of course, nobody deserves to share a podium with a great humanitarian on the strength of his excellent performances on TV sitcoms.

Of course, some bloggers are smarter than most celebs, and vice versa.

Most celebrities have nothing particularly interesting to say about any given topic. Most bloggers don't, either.

Who is this Arianna Huffington, anyway? She some kind of celebrity?
posted by breezeway at 12:12 PM on April 25, 2005

But isn't that what's so interesting about blogging in general? The fact that anyone can open their mouth and babble about shit?

Yeah. And now these people are gonna come in and make it just another star-clogged mediascape. I got into the blog world to get away from these fucks.
posted by jonmc at 12:15 PM on April 25, 2005

jonmc: Admit it. You're just grouchy because you can't bear to wait another 4 days before you can download the Paris Hilton podcast.
posted by seanyboy at 12:35 PM on April 25, 2005

Well, I hope Arianna gets some quality celebrities like Farrah Fawcett, Pamela Anderson and Kelsey Grammer to join in.

As much as I hate the celebrity machine, I love to hear these people show their true colors.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:37 PM on April 25, 2005

I am proud to say I've never seen Paris Hilton have sex, nor would I recognize her on the street. I don't even know what her podcast is. SOmetimes ignorance really is bliss
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:40 PM on April 25, 2005

exponentially more people are going to listen their opinions, simply because of their celebrity status. That's why a lot of us feel some resentment here.

No resentment from me, I consider myself privileged to be living in a time where my blathering can reach exponentially more people than the non-celebrities of less than a decade ago. Of course, this project seems obviously doomed into becoming an echo-chamber/circle-jerk, and I'd think Arianna would be smarter than that, considering she got most of her own meager fame arguing with Annthrax Coulter on 'Politically Incorrect'. Of course, considering some of the Limo Liberals on this list who throw around their influence more privately than publicly, it might do us all an indirect service by having them put their mouths where their money is.
posted by wendell at 3:27 PM on April 25, 2005

it's not resentment for me so much as it's "why bother?" and overkill. Also, the article has it right about some things--will we learn anything about these people or their industries? Will Zuckerman be honest about anyone he wants his properties to interview or needs access to? Will the actors talk about their flops and the horrible people they've worked with? There are exponentially more bridges they can burn, so they'll have to watch their mouths--esp. bec. it's blogging under their own names. It's a no-win situation, unless it's just to give them one more soapbox for issues that don't affect them as much as others do.
posted by amberglow at 3:32 PM on April 25, 2005

"My point though is that it seems a little premature to judge whether they're interesting or not before they actually say anything at all."
LeeJay, I concede your point, but I disagree with your presupposition. It's really not about posting, it's about the egos and the media bukkake festival surrounding the 'event' of their postings that occludes any decent ideas that might be posted.
I don't know that you actually have to read the (future) site to know what's coming.
For example from the NYT: "Get ready for the next level in the blogosphere."
Or: Huffington is “about to move blogging from the realm of the anonymous individual to the realm of the celebrity collective.”
- Yeah, that's what we've all been waiting for.
"It is essentially a nonstop virtual talk show that will be part of a Web site that will also serve up breaking news around the clock."
My God I can't stop salivating in anticipation!

And finally: "Having prominent people join the blogosphere, Ms. Huffington said in an interview, "is an affirmation of its success and will only enrich and strengthen its impact on the national conversation."
- See because they couldn't join it before. Because we need them in our national conversation. Because they're famous we should all parrot their views. Our simple down home selves are only fit to regard them.
Please. We're being sold something. If that isn't blatantly obvious to you I've got a friend in Nigeria that needs you to help him transfer some finds.

"I'll stick to blogs that are written by people with intelligence and writing ability rather than fame."
*smedleyman cashes himself out*
posted by Smedleyman at 3:41 PM on April 25, 2005

yeah, mkultra's point is pretty central to this argument. This isn't a blog by a bunch of models or something.

A lot of people who are famous in one sphere use that to promote their getting attention in another sphere. Sometimes this is disasterous, sometimes it is nothing big, and sometimes it is a great success. The fact that you usually don't have to start from the very bottom of a new hill once you reach a certain threshhold is true in most circles. It's sometimes called "moving sideways" - if you've been a successful journalist, you'll probably have a leg up in getting someone to read your fiction, e.g. It doesn't mean that people will automatically like it, but they're already convinced that you're capable of certain basic essentials, so will give you a chance, whereas for us unknowns the hardest part can be getting the foot in the door.

So, these guys can start a blog. They have the leg up of being known/respected in various other fields, so people might be more likely to give them a chance than if you anonymously start a livejournal page or whatever. But, if their blog sucks, they will just look stupid. This has as much a chance to have negative consequences as it does to be a plus for them.
posted by mdn at 3:56 PM on April 25, 2005

Who is this Arianna Huffington, anyway? She some kind of celebrity?
Online is the mecca for all things Arianna Huffington. From her twice
weekly syndicated columns to information on her seven published books
Wait, is she the Left's pin up girl?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:18 PM on April 25, 2005

nope. She was a Republican, married a Gay GOP guy, divorced him, ran for CA governor and lost badly, became a liberal, and voila!
posted by amberglow at 4:23 PM on April 25, 2005

You can nitpick a few of these (Julia Louise Dreyfus? Paul Reiser?)

Julia Louise Dreyfus is the daughter of Gerard Louis-Dreyfus the Billionaire (Her money from Sienfeld was considered "pocket money" by her father), and the Granddaughter of Pierre Louis-Dreyfus a famous WWII Fighter pilot and member of the resistance. She went to Northwestern and was a straight A student and is known for a high IQ.

I would think she would have quite an interesting and intelligent perspective on things.

I worked in movies as a grip. I met a few celebs. nothing gets you over their magic spell faster than working on a movie set.

Some celebs are simply famous for being... famous. Most are vapid spoiled children with a short shelf life and not a whit or spark of life to them.

Others - a few - really are smarter, prettier, funnier, faster, stronger or more charming than us mere dirty mortals and are blessed by the gods. They don't even try. They are, for lack of another word, "better" than you.

All of them have as big a right to their stupid opinions as everybody else.
posted by tkchrist at 4:30 PM on April 25, 2005

All of them have as big a right to their stupid opinions as everybody else.

Nobody's denying that, man. I just have this sinking feeling that because of this venture there's going to be legions of people logging on to the Web and saying "Golly Gee, Lookit this neat-o blog thing these celebrities came up with!!"
posted by jonmc at 4:35 PM on April 25, 2005

"Golly Gee, Lookit this neat-o blog thing these celebrities came up with!!"

Probably. Jon let me give you a word of advice, if I may.

Go have a beer and forget about what "people" think. "People" are stupid as shit. You should know that by now.
posted by tkchrist at 4:47 PM on April 25, 2005

I know that, dude. It's just the ones that are smug in their stupidity that make me have to let them know how stupid they are.

And I'm way ahead of you on the beer thing.
posted by jonmc at 4:55 PM on April 25, 2005

It'll be interesting to see if and how this works. Famous people are busy people. Will they take the time to blog the way we MeFites do? Because it seems to me the payoff will have to come solely from the pleasure of the discourse. They aren't going to get paid for it, nor get much attention in real life, thereby advancing their careers. It'll probably take awhile to develop and mature, too, the way community blogs do.

I hope someone posts the link to MeFi when it gets up and running. (Otherwise I'll probably forget to take a look at it.)

And I am amusing myself with the thought that we should offer them one of our own MeFites.... depending on who it is, the results could be quite entertaining. Cat among the pigeons, and all that....
posted by orange swan at 6:07 PM on April 25, 2005

I just have this sinking feeling that because of this venture there's going to be legions of people logging on to the Web and saying "Golly Gee, Lookit this neat-o blog thing these celebrities came up with!!"

So what you're really saying, is that you hate stupid people?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:23 PM on April 25, 2005

I don't hate stupid people, I just feel better when they're not around.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:47 PM on April 25, 2005

Aren't all of us stupid in one way or another?

Hate all you want but please realize that on a certain level it's self-loathing.
posted by Dagobert at 12:13 AM on April 26, 2005

Come on people, haven't you seen The Breakfast Club? Even the "popular" kids have difficult lives, too. We're all human beings.

It seems funny that anyone who is a recognizable MeFi celebritypersonality, would feel that a blog of famous people was going to somehow ruin the web.
posted by MightyNez at 12:15 AM on April 26, 2005

Huffington Post : The REAL A-List baby!

or

Huffington Post : There is a cabal
posted by fullerine at 1:26 AM on April 26, 2005

Jonmc: And now these people are gonna come in and make it just another star-clogged mediascape. I got into the blog world to get away from these fucks.

They're coming to get you, Jon. Boo.
posted by Termite at 2:41 AM on April 26, 2005

It just got worse for you, Jon. Now the celebrated likes of Gore Vidal, Salman Rushdie, and Johns Malkovitch and Waters are wrapping their brilliant minds and glittery presence around porn (NSFW).
posted by liam at 7:55 AM on April 26, 2005

People like Malkovitch and Waters I don't mind so much, but still, they already have their forum in their work, which already has a ready made audience. I, (and most of the rest of you) have spent umpteen years putting our thoughts on the web as anonymous, ordinary citizens to be judged on their own merits, with no real hope of any kind of reward for it.

Now these people come in and are gonna take over by sheer power of their own swellness. The star system keeps taking over everything: the super smart, the super pretty, the super talented. They're also the super greedy. Can't they leave something behind for us mediocre people, we deserve a place to be heard, too, without their need to eclipse everyone else butting in.
posted by jonmc at 8:45 AM on April 26, 2005

Person One: So I was reading this blog and--
Person Two: Oh, what star writes it?
Person One: No, there's no star.
Person Two: What? That doesn't--
Person One: Think of it as reality programming.
Person Two: Oooooh. Like The Simple Life.
posted by catachresoid at 2:46 PM on April 26, 2005

catach : >

and Gyllenhaal is in trouble apparently--something about 9/11?
posted by amberglow at 2:50 PM on April 26, 2005

Yeah, she decided to take foot A and insert it into Mouth B.

Why are the cute ones always so stupid?
posted by jonmc at 3:32 PM on April 26, 2005

Their discourse can't be half as stupid as demonstrated in this thread, even if they tried.
posted by crunchland at 4:18 PM on April 26, 2005

So, her handlers won't let her blog--or at least not blog freely.
posted by amberglow at 4:24 PM on April 26, 2005

Famous people suck.
Rich people suck.
Attractive people suck.
Smart people suck.

Those four groups of people have all of the worlds goodies. What the rest of us have left is our seeting hatred of them. Don't invade our space to express it.
posted by jonmc at 4:38 PM on April 26, 2005

Roger Ailes (no, not that one) calls it, with links: ...I, for one, look forward to Arriana Huffington's new blog.
The "MSM" has for too long silenced the voices of Jann Wenner, Barry Diller, Walter Cronkite and Norman Mailer.
Tony Blankely for too long has been denied a platform to slander George Soros.
Where else could Conrad Black's dogsbody, David Frum, find a space to suck up to his beleaguered master?
Where else would Michael Medved find an wide audience for his completely sane theory that "oil companies are always anti-semitic." ...
posted by amberglow at 6:58 PM on April 26, 2005

I've been watching End Of The Century the Ramones bio-pic tonight, and at some point someone said that one of the major things about the Bros was that they told the world that for rock and roll, "You don't have to be great, just get up and do it."

Blogging is the equivalent of that to me as a writer. It told me that what I have to say is as important as what any other asshole has to say. So I veiw these people the same way Joey Ramone would veiw Keith Emerson doing a "punk," record.
posted by jonmc at 8:36 PM on April 26, 2005 [1 favorite]

the "Huffington Post"
Coming May 9th
It has an e-mail harvester to keep you updated.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:05 PM on April 27, 2005