Category Archives: Television/Media

Oprah Encourages Audience to Pity Leno, Not Conan

Posted on by Colleen Claes
7

The media and the public have been going crazy about Jay Leno’s interview with Oprah yesterday. You can find people tweeting about it even today, and the “I’m with Coco” Facebook page has received almost thousands of comments regarding the Oprah show. (Beware: Some of the comments say nasty things about both Jay and Oprah. These people are hardcore.)

As someone who considers herself on Team Conan, I made a point to watch the show yesterday morning. The interview itself was obviously supposed to redeem whatever’s left of Leno’s “everyday nice guy” image, and many writers have been referring to the episode as a means of “damage control” for Jay. For the general public and the media, it didn’t work. People are still siding with Conan. But for Oprah and her stage audience? Well, that’s a different story.

Since Leno came off as aloof, unemotional, and an NBC puppet, the interview was not as enlightening as I had expected it to be. The most dramatic part was probably when Oprah told Jay she thought the jokes at Letterman about his infidelity were “beneath” him, and Leno lied saying he only told one Letterman joke all week. (False. He told more than one.) And the only tough question Oprah really asked was why Leno didn’t just pack up and leave after NBC “fired” (more like pandered to) him twice. Jay responded that he’s just a guy who got fired from his job, and when offered his old job back, he took it.

“And really, who can blame him?” is what we are supposed to think after watching this. But as far as I can tell, the only people who fell into this trap were the people in Oprah’s audience for the after-show debate about the late night controversy. You can watch the whole video on Oprah’s official website.  For Conan fans, it will be truly infuriating to watch.

In a nutshell: The audience has watched the already-taped interview with Leno, and Oprah opens up a floor of discussion that’s supposed to include both arguments in favor of either Conan or Leno. For the next half hour or so, Oprah shoves the Leno bias down her audience’s throats, saying constantly after explaining something, “Do you all understand that? Do you realize that’s what happened here?”

She won’t let up, and then the audience turns out to be almost completely on Leno’s side. In fact, the only people who get applause after their arguments are the ones defending Leno. Oprah repeats her arguments in favor or Leno, and basically ends up regurgitating what Jay already said in the interview.

Highlights of points from both Oprah and her audience are listed below. (The parentheses include my commentary):

  • Jay Leno is just a guy who lost his job.
  • Jay Leno is just a guy who took back his job when it was offered to him.
  • Jay Leno does not consider himself a talk show host; he considers himself a stand-up comedian. (Except he’s not funny, so how do you figure that?)
  • Jay Leno “wasn’t done yet” when NBC told him to pass the torch to Conan.
  • Jay Leno deserves 30 years just like Johnny Carson. (Dear God, help us all.)
  • Jay Leno was No. 1 on the Tonight Show for many years after 17 years.
  • After 7 whole months, Conan was NOT No. 1! What a failure!
  • Conan just couldn’t get the ratings. TV is about the ratings.
  • Leno doesn’t own himself – NBC does.
  • Unlike Leno, Oprah owns herself.
  • “Team Coco” should have watched the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien while it was on the air, instead of just supporting him after he was about to leave. (Okay Oprah, I’ll give you that.)
  • Jay Leno is a nice, funny guy.
  • David Letterman is a bully.
  • No one should feel sorry for Conan – he got 40-something million dollars. (And, as proof that he’s a better person than Leno, shared it with his whole staff.)
  • Many people in the audience really had no clue what happened in the Late Show War except for what they saw in the Oprah interview. (Great. And now you’re getting air time to debate the issue.)
  • Asked multiple times by Oprah: “Raise your hands if you changed your mind after watching this interview.”
  • As far as O is concerned, you damn well should have changed your mind after this interview.
  • NBC handled this whole thing poorly and was unfair to both O’Brien and Leno.

And, my favorite repeated point from Ms. Winfrey:

  • That’s just how TV works. Tough.

What a crock of…Ahem. Sorry, Team Conan coming out. I don’t want to start hating on O, but basically, the degree to how one-sided this whole group discussion was really disgusted me. I wish I had been in that audience, so I could’ve pointed out all the things in defense of Conan that were conveniently left out of the conversation.

Oh, and by the way – Happy Birthday, Oprah.

Sandra Bullock over Gabourey Sidibe: What is Hollywood Thinking?

Posted on by Colleen Claes
5

The Golden Globes last Sunday announced many awards, but the one most problematic for me was the “Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama” category. Thrilled over Mo’Nique’s win for her supporting role in Precious (and not to mention her wonderful speech), I was almost certain that Gabourey Sidibe would win for the starring role. I predicted wrong, and I watched with much disappointment and confusion as Sandra Bullock went up to accept the award for her role in The Blind Side.

Now, I’ve seen both films. Precious because I knew it was a very important work of 2009. And The Blind Side because – well, frankly – my mother dragged me to it. The latter movie was not as awful as I expected it to be, though I found it to be too preachy. Bullock’s performance as a rich Southern housewife (though based on a true story) came off as campy, and yes, sometimes humorous. The Blind Side may deal with issues of race, acceptance, and social class, but come on – it’s no Precious. I think we can all agree on that. Without making this a two-in-one movie review, I just found Precious to be unlike anything I’ve ever seen before: unnerving, uplifting, raw, emotional, revealing, gritty, and beautiful all at the same time. It hit me in a way that no film has ever hit me before. And while many of the performances and aspects were incredible, I believe it was Sidibe’s first-time performance (ever) as Claireece “Precious” Jones that made it so uniquely impacting.

And yet, there I am, watching Sandy hold up the Golden Globe and give her acceptance speech. Initial reactions that ran through me included something along the lines of, Are you kidding me?! and She better not win that Oscar over Gabby… While the Globes don’t always act as a prelude to the Oscar nominations and wins, it’s a definite possibility.

To further my agitation more, Sandra Bullock won for “Best Actress” at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards this weekend. Once again, Gabourey Sidibe was in the list of nominees. The SAG Awards are a big deal for actors in the industry, and it makes me wonder why they would also pick Bullock over Gabby. Do the panels think that Sidibe is too young and inexperienced to merit anything more than a nomination? Or do they really believe Sandra Bullock’s performance as an exaggeratedly ballsy Southern Belle is more deserving of the award? Part of me wonders if these people feel sorry for Bullock’s previous career, so they’re proud of her for doing something less mediocre this year.

I think it’s safe to say at this point that the Oscars will have to choose between the two. With the nominations announcement coming up on February 2nd, the 82nd annual Academy Awards have a chance to flip it on the rest of Hollywood and award the deserving and incredible Gabourey Sidibe. But alas, there’s a great chance now (especially with all the hoopla) that the Academy will also give it to Sandra Bullock instead.

I hope for the sake of cinema that the Oscars choose to turn things around and give it to the star of Precious. It would be glorious to see the young woman up on stage holding a statue for that role. Sure, Bullock did a good enough job in The Blind Side. But overlooking Sidibe’s first shot at acting with her powerful performance as one of the most challenging and socially important characters we’ve seen in years? That would just seem like a huge step back for film.

A Tribute to Conan O’Brien: I Grew Up with ‘Coco’

Posted on by Colleen Claes
5

The now famous image around the internet in support of Conan O'Brien. Author: Mike Mitchell.

With tonight being the last one of the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, I figured it was only appropriate to write a tribute to a man I’ve been watching since the fifth grade. Interestingly enough, Conan’s mix of subtle, clever, and (self-aware) stupid humor entertained me when I was ten and entertains me now at twenty-three.

With the announcement in 2004 that Conan was replacing Leno on the Tonight Show in 2009, it was bittersweet news. It was great that he’d be on the air indefinitely at an earlier time slot with more of a budget and a bigger audience; but it also worried me that Conan might be forced to become vanilla, lame, and not funny. Why? Because with Jay Leno being the host for seventeen years, what else was I to expect?

“Indefinitely” turned into seven months for Conan, while his late night predecessors obviously had several years. This whole drama with NBC, O’Brien, and Leno is certainly not the most important thing going on in the world right now – and Conan makes a point of mentioning this every show while asking his audience to donate to help Haiti. But as far as television goes, it’s a major disappointment.

Conan may be a generational thing. After all, my generation happens to largely prefer O’Brien to Leno, or even Letterman sometimes. In a way we grew up with him. He was able to make us laugh all these years while we were going through puberty, sneakily staying up later than our bedtimes to watch him even though we had to get up for school at 6 in the morning, graduating high school, and throughout our formative college years when we officially became young adults.

Really, it’s no wonder this “Facebook and Twitter” generation has paraded the streets and the internet in defense of Conan O’Brien near the end of his show. So on behalf of all of us, I’d like to say thanks to “Coco” for all the laughs. We sure as hell hope they continue on another network in the near future.

Best and Worst of the 2010 Golden Globes

Posted on by Colleen Claes
8

BEST:

  • All of the NBC jabs. From everyone.
  • The opening jokes from Ricky Gervais about the differences between the British and American Office
  • Mo’Nique winning for Precious. Totally deserved it. Her speech was touching also.
  • Alec Baldwin winning for 30 Rock
  • Ricky Gervais: “I enjoy a drink as much as the next man…Unless the next man is Mel Gibson!”
  • Christopher Waltz winning for his performance in Inglourious Basterds
  • Martin Scorsese’s cute speech sounding more like a film school lecture than an acceptance speech for a career achievement award
  • This tweet from Lizz Winstead of The Daily Show: “James Cameron is looking more and more like Bea Arthur.”

WORST:

  • Most of Gervais’ hosting
  • Alec Baldwin not being present to accept his award for 30 Rock
  • Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side over Gabby Sidibe in Precious. Yes, you read that right. SANDRA BULLOCK won over PRECIOUS’s Gabby Sidibe.
  • James Cameron winning Best Director and then quoting his own movie in the “Na’vi language”
  • The poor layout of the awards ceremony making it difficult for anyone to get up to the front to accept their awards
  • Cuing the music for everyone EXCEPT Meryl Streep
  • A lack of awards for Inglourious Basterds, which I had expected
  • A lack of awards for Precious, which I hadn’t expected
  • A lack of George Clooney, just in general
  • Chloe Sevigny’s dress, which apparently “got stepped on and ripped,” even though you couldn’t tell a difference because it was kind of a mess

I never regret watching the Globes, but this year I think I enjoyed baking cookies during the show more than I enjoyed the actual awards ceremony itself. (Crunchy fudge cookies, for anyone who’s wondering.)

The Downfall of NBC Late Night

Posted on by Colleen Claes
1

When I was a little boy, I remember watching ‘The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson’ and thinking ‘Someday, I’m going to host that show for seven months.’

That’s a joke from Conan O’Brien, the current (but possibly not for much longer) host of The Tonight Show.

As everyone knows by now, NBC decided to make another poor decision for late night when they announced that they wished to move Jay Leno’s horrible new show to the 11:35 pm slot. Thus, The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien would be bumped up to 12:05 am. And thus, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon would be bumped up to an even later time. Conan announced in his perfectly clear and honest statement that he did not wish to move The Tonight Show or Late Night up to later time slots.

Part of his statement read:

For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

Here’s what I don’t get: NBC would screw over both of these shows – even the long-standing and respected Tonight Show – just for Jay Leno because his new show is failing miserably? I mean, do we as an audience really need or even want Leno on television anymore? I sure as hell don’t. But NBC can’t let go, and that just may be the downfall of their late show program.

Apparently, Leno is upset too, which came through in his monologue on January 11th. But I can’t really find the sympathy for him. Yes, NBC screwed up big time. But I’m over Leno, and I’m not sure that many other people would miss him once he’s gone.

I’d much prefer that they let Fallon keep his Late Night spot, and more importantly, just give Conan O’Brien a chance to fulfill his long-time dream of being the host of The Tonight Show. He was always a better host and interviewer than Leno, and I think NBC could have found themselves a modern-day Johnny Carson if they had just played their cards right.

Overall? It’s a damn shame. Though we’ll have to wait and see what kind of agreement or settlement O’Brien and the network come to, it’s not lookin’ good for NBC’s late night.

Liz Lemon: Feminist Icon (Havin’ it All)

Posted on by Colleen Claes
20

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jason_ff/ / CC BY 2.0

I got to thinking about female television characters after reading Salon.com: Broadsheet’s commentary, “Carrie Bradshaw: Feminist Icon?” I recommend giving it a read whenever you get the chance, but basically: Writer Tracy Clark-Flory debates whether or not the character of Carrie Bradshaw from Sex and the City (played by Sarah Jessica Parker, of course) can be considered a role model for modern-day women.

And then it occurred to me…Liz Lemon (played by Tina Fey, of course) of 30 Rock has to be, truly, one of the best female icons on television right now.

Essentially, Liz Lemon is a lot like Tina Fey (except “more of a loser,” as Fey herself once said.) But they seem to represent the same concepts and ideas, and the similarities are obvious when comparing Lemon and Fey’s careers and histories. (For instance, Fey started out in improv in Chicago, and this is often mentioned on 30 Rock in regards to Lemon’s past.)

There are oh so many reasons why us women looooove Liz Lemon. She strives and struggles to “have it all!” as a creative writer, business woman, single woman on the New York dating scene, and a sometimes “clock-a-tickin’” wannabe mother. While jokes are made about Lemon attempting to “have it all,” she fairs pretty well, while also pointing out to us – comically – the hardships of a successful urban woman having to date, maintain friendships, and be respected as a boss and a professional.

Women say they can relate to Lemon because they “eat like her,” or are “dorky” like she is. Or they get nervous around men like she frequently does. We can relate to her. We see her at home, not made-up, hair a mess and lounging around in un-sexy sweats eating blocks of cheese late in the night. In fact, she’s a welcome relief with her eating habits. Because unlike the Sex and the City women, you’ll never find her ordering a salad. (But instead: a meatball sub.)

Liz Lemon may be what we call an “accidental hero”: She never really set out to become a positive role model for women, but she’s become one anyway. And she’s my personal pick for the feminist icon of the small screen. Hell, maybe even beating out anyone on the big screen at this rate.

She’s smart. She’s funny. She’s independent. She’s not perfect. And she’s like us. What more could you ask for in a fictional feminist icon?

Just a Thought on Amanda Knox

Posted on by Colleen Claes
7

AP Photo/Luca Bruno

I would like to make it very clear that this post is in no way my saying that I believe Amanda Knox is guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher. I want to make that known because, basically, I don’t know whether she’s guilty or not. The more I read up on it, the more conflicted I feel.

Rather, I’d like to bring up some questions that have been concerning me:

  1. What if Amanda Knox was not white? (Meaning: Black, Hispanic, etc.)
  2. What if Amanda Knox was unattractive? (Meaning: not pretty.)

Yes, of all the questions to ask about this case, these are the ones I’m asking. Because frankly, the media is not addicted to this story only because they seek out justice. Sure, that’s part of it – Americans think she’s innocent and should not spend 25 years in Italian prison, and Italians are convinced she’s guilty based on evidence that really isn’t evidence at all and think she should rot in prison.

Americans, in the meantime, are adamant that this is a patriotic issue. “Italians hate Americans” is one of the reasons you hear constantly about why Amanda Knox has been such bait for the Perugia government.

So Americans can’t stop talking about how much they love her and want her innocence proven, and Italians can’t stop talking about how much they hate her and know she’s guilty. If Amanda Knox wasn’t a seemingly-wholesome and pretty white college student, would our media still be so hung up on her case? And likewise, would the Italian media still be so obsessed if they couldn’t say things like, for instance, she has “the face of an angel, but the eyes of a killer”?

Again, not saying she’s guilty or not guilty. I’m also not saying that I don’t feel sorry for her, because honestly it is eerie to see a girl my age (also in love with Italian culture) going through all of this, sentenced to 26 years in a foreign country, with the possibility that she may not be guilty at all. I don’t know how to feel about the crime, but I know how I feel about the media’s obsession with it.

Our media has been called out on spending too much air time on white females who are murdered or go missing. (See: “missing white woman syndrome”.) So if Amanda Knox wasn’t white, young, and beautiful, would the intrigue and passion for the case all but disappear? Or is it really an issue of patriotism and justice?

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Commie (and Friend, Gay Dentist Hermey)

Posted on by Colleen Claes
6

I’m a strong believer that there’s nothing wrong with questioning what we’ve been showing to kids. The fact of the matter is, these films can have hidden (or not so hidden) messages filled with racism or hate language. I mean, Disney’s Aladdin, anyone? I watched it many times as a kid. And while it didn’t make me grow up hating Arabs, it disgusts me now that those kinds of images were flashed in front of my eyes on a regular basis and I had no awareness of their significance. Not convinced? Just go ahead and read the lyrics to the theme song, “Arabian Nights.” (Or just Google “Aladdin racist” and see the plethora of results.)

Some may argue that you’re drawing conclusions from nothing. That those messages aren’t there and we’re just projecting them onto the subject. But I think it comes down to this: There are two types of people – those who care about the hidden messages in all forms of media (which are undeniably there), and those who don’t. I happen to fall into the category of those who do care.

Which is why I’m going to take this opportunity near Christmastime to delve into the hidden meanings and euphemisms behind a stop motion animation holiday classic, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964). Here’s my theory: Rudolph is the Red Scare, and Hermey the Dentist is quite possibly a homosexual.

For those who don’t know the story of this animated TV special, here’s the short version: Rudolph – though a reindeer with noticeably good flying skills – is an outcast in his Santaland community because he has a glowing red nose, which only comes out at certain times (like when he’s excited or nervous.) Then there’s Hermey, an elf who hates making toys because his lifelong dream is to become a dentist. (Don’t ask why, but that’s what he wants.) The two become friends because they’re both different than the others in their community. They escape to a land called The Island of Misfit Toys, and there’s a bumbling but contextually frightening Yeti monster called The Abominable Snowman.

In the end, Hermey gets his own dentist shop, the Misfit Toys find children to love them, and Rudolph is summoned by Santa to lead the sleigh with his bright, shiny nose.

That bright red shiny nose is what I can’t help but analyze. For starters, it’s red – the color of communism, obviously. For another, this movie was made in the early half of the 1960s, in a period of post-50s Red Scare mania in America. Rudolph is blacklisted and cast out of his community, even by Santa (the “President,” you might say). Everyone (especially Santa) makes Rudolph and his parents feel as though they should be ashamed of themselves.

It’s also interesting that the redness only comes out every once in a while. And when it does, everyone is scared. Yes, they are scared by the fact that it’s “different.” But I can’t help but wonder…were the writers trying to tell us something? Did they purposely use Rudolph’s story to create an allegory of communism during a time of retrospect on the matter? To me, there seems to be an eerie connection between Rudolph’s “shameful” red nose and the hush-hush nature of being a Communist in the 1950s, fearing that someone might out you.

Speaking of “outing,” I’m going to argue that Hermey is gay. Sure, he wants to be a “dentist,” but no one in Santaland knows what that is and he has trouble with the other elves because of it. Watch this clip and tell me you don’t feel – with your adult senses – that the word “dentist” could easily be replaced with “homosexual.” For instance…

Hermey: Hey, what do ya say we both be independent together, huh?

Rudolph: You wouldn’t mind…my…red nose?

Hermey: Not if you don’t mind me being…a…dentist.

Listen to the lyrics of the song by the Misfit Toys, Hermey:

A jack-in-the-box waits for children to shout,

‘Wake up! Don’t you know that it’s time to come out!’

But Hermey does know that it’s time to come out. And Santa and his elves don’t like it one bit. “Don’t you like making toys?” Hermey’s co-workers seem to say with heavy judgment. What kind of a person doesn’t like making toys? But Hermey just doesn’t like toys – they aren’t for him. Even though he doesn’t practice the profession or own his own shop yet, he is a dentist. (See all the euphemisms going on, here?)

Aside from the cheap crack I could make about Hermey’s voice sounding just like Harvey Milk’s (a truth, but probably an analogy that was not intentional), I’d like to end this with Rudolph’s last words to his friend:

Goodbye, Hermey…Whatever a dentist is, I hope someday you will be the greatest.

Alas, Rudolph has the innocence of a child. And because of that, he has no clue what Hermey is, socially or politically speaking. What he does know, though, is that Hermey is a good person and a good friend.

And if this story is trying to tell me that gays, Commies, and other minorities should be viewed as people above all else, then damn it, that’s the spirit of Christmas. Ultimately, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a story of acceptance written by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. But good for them, because they took it upon themselves to subtly incorporate these messages within the context of a movie that children and adults have been watching at Christmas for five decades.

As for the communism part, I can’t further this argument much more because everyone winds up embracing Rudolph for his red nose and actually considering him more useful than the other reindeer.

If there’s any lesson in this regard, it must be that – at the end of the day – Communists fly better than Capitalists. (Don’t quote me on that though.)

Things to Look Forward to in 2010, #3: Golden Globes

Posted on by Colleen Claes
3
 

 

Photo by: Peter Dutton, 2009 // CC BY-SA 2.0 (Wikipedia Commons)

Yesterday the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced their nominees for the 2010 Golden Globe awards.

Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air (starring George Clooney) led the award nods with six nominations. Precious followed close behind, earning three nominations, including Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. Both of the films are up for Best Motion Picture, along with Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds.

You can see the nominees for all of the categories on the HFPA Golden Globe website.

I’m looking forward to the Golden Globes in 2010 for the same reason I look forward to them every year; and that is, they’re much more fun than the Oscars. The celebrities drink, mingle, and have a good time. And of course, you get to root for your favorite television series in addition to your favorite films during the ceremony.

Ultimately, I hope 30 Rock wins Best Comedy/Musical Television series (again), that a woman wins Best Director (Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker), and that Precious gets some major recognition. Other than that, I’ll just enjoy watching the celebrities relax and enjoy themselves in a way that they would not if it were the uptight Oscars.

TLC and the Celebrity Family

Posted on by Colleen Claes
6

Kate Gosselin and her eight children. Photo credit: INFphoto.com

Yes, TLC is an acronym for “The Learning Channel,” but within the past few years, you might as well call it, “The Famous Families Channel.” (Though I’m not sure how catchy the acronym TFFC is.)

How did this all start? Well, Jon & Kate Plus 8, of course. Before it was a full-blown weekly series, it was a few specials. Back then (in 2007), Jon and Kate Gosselin were just two parents with two sets of multiples. They let the TLC (or Discovery Health, previously) cameras into their home and hospital rooms. They seemed…normal. An average couple with an extraordinary circumstance.

TLC caught on quick – “This makes for good TV.” Thus, the series. But what most people probably didn’t expect was the fame, the tabloids, the paparazzi, the diva stories, the public controversy. All of a sudden, it was as if TLC’s relatable big family from Pennsylvania was on the same step of the Fame Ladder as Mariah Carey.

Now Jon & Kate Plus 8 is no longer, with the series finale airing on November 23. A “spin-off” – Kate Plus 8 – is probably going to happen though. Fans can’t get enough of The Gosselins, yet they are disappointed in their fame-induced corruption all the same.

With The Gosselin family no longer really contributing to the “wholesome” family image that TLC wishes to present, the network has brought on some other options.

Just when it was looking bad for The Gosselins, 18 Kids and Counting started to become more marketable for the channel. The Duggar family seems more religious, more humble, and far less destined for paparazzi doom than Jon and Kate.

The other, Table for 12, sounds eerily close to being a desperate replacement for Jon & Kate Plus 8. The official website’s TV show index even describes the show with the following snippet: “Betty and Eric Hayes are raising three sets of multiples, totaling ten children.” The show is fairly new and currently in its second season.

I don’t know which question to ask – What happened to family? or What happened to television?

With the success (or failure, depending on how you look at it) of Jon and Kate Gosselin, is this the new trend? Parents with multiple children going on TLC for hopes of the same fortune? When did the media start caring about families in this way? Do you just have to have a lot of kids and a controversial divorce? Or are we so disillusioned with family life that we’ll sit and watch anyone with more than 2.5 kids?

And when did you get to become a celebrity just by being a parent on reality TV?

I have a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of sincere confusion and discomfort about the whole situation. Whatever the answers are, I’m afraid that they all point to a modern-day lack of understanding of the importance of family, as well as a lack of original content and creativity on television.

I do have one suggestion for TLC though: Why don’t you put a gay-parented family on air already? Seriously, try it. Your viewers might actually learn something.