Subtle undermining
October 13, 2011 4:38 AM Subscribe
Strange captions (and photos) appear on the Globe and Mail's Celebrity photos of the week gallery. How long will they last?
This post was deleted for the following reason: It seems like this a post about a prank that isn't actually a prank so much as the intended editorial content, and "G&M posts quirky photo set on purpose" isn't really post material on its own. -- cortex
Um, did no-one read the editor's note above them?
"Editor's note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn't an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun."
posted by dowcrag at 4:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
"Editor's note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn't an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun."
posted by dowcrag at 4:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
I think they will last forever because I think they were put there with the full knowledge of the editors.
posted by robcorr at 4:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by robcorr at 4:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I saw this thanks to someone's twitter feed last night, and was very amused. But looking back at some earlier editions, it seems that it's always done rather tongue-in-cheekly.
posted by Flashman at 4:58 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by Flashman at 4:58 AM on October 13, 2011
Editor's note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn't an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun.
Associating the Occpy Wall Street protest with vacuous celebrities and silly captions pretty much puts you in the same political position as Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
Get a clue or be honest about it Globe and Mail.
posted by three blind mice at 5:20 AM on October 13, 2011
Associating the Occpy Wall Street protest with vacuous celebrities and silly captions pretty much puts you in the same political position as Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
Get a clue or be honest about it Globe and Mail.
posted by three blind mice at 5:20 AM on October 13, 2011
As an (albeit small) newspaper editor, this gives me a bad feeling. If you've got something to say about Occupy Wall Street, say it on the editorial page. Don't hide it in the fluff section. You can be tongue-in-cheeky without editorializing and making fun of people for their career choice and success.
posted by Brodiggitty at 5:21 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Brodiggitty at 5:21 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Associating the Occpy Wall Street protest with vacuous celebrities and silly captions pretty much puts you in the same political position as Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
Really?
For me, comparing these reinforces the vacuity of the red-carpet celebrity shots and it cleverly makes the point that "Real News Is Not Being Reported".
kudos, I say.
posted by seanyboy at 5:26 AM on October 13, 2011 [10 favorites]
Really?
For me, comparing these reinforces the vacuity of the red-carpet celebrity shots and it cleverly makes the point that "Real News Is Not Being Reported".
kudos, I say.
posted by seanyboy at 5:26 AM on October 13, 2011 [10 favorites]
these are not all that strange actually
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 5:27 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 5:27 AM on October 13, 2011
I love the idea but wish they had chosen someone either college-educated or clever and with a basic grasp of spelling to do these captions.
posted by Mooseli at 5:29 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Mooseli at 5:29 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
This looks like a mix of both - the captions are supposed to be snarky, but it seems to generally be the usual celebrity snark, looking at past editions. The usual jokes are mostly about the clothes and the way the photo was taken (such and thus has used a child as an accessory, look at all those sequins, look at the huge bouncer dude in the background, etc.)
I think the attempt at political snark is what's out of the ordinary here, and it's what warranted the re-tweets and the eventual disclaimer from the paper.
posted by Wylla at 5:29 AM on October 13, 2011
I think the attempt at political snark is what's out of the ordinary here, and it's what warranted the re-tweets and the eventual disclaimer from the paper.
posted by Wylla at 5:29 AM on October 13, 2011
The joke is that there is no joke. Get it?
posted by blue_beetle at 5:34 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by blue_beetle at 5:34 AM on October 13, 2011
Internet, you disappoint me. This has been getting G+ shares and it's been posted to reddit with the same take- "look at these crazy captions before they get taken down!" They're not going to get taken down. They were put up explicitly for the purpose of having crazy captions. I don't know if this post is uncritically repeating something it saw somewhere else, or if it was an independent mistake, but in either case it would behoove people (The Internet, I'm looking at you!) to actually read what they're about to share with the rest of the world.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 5:35 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 5:35 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
For me, comparing these reinforces the vacuity of the red-carpet celebrity shots and it cleverly makes the point that "Real News Is Not Being Reported".
I started out with that feeling but about picture 12 I thought, "Why am I looking at pictures of these vapid people?" It felt more like a stunt to get click-throughs than an actual political message and it certainly wasn't amusing enough to keep me going.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:36 AM on October 13, 2011
I started out with that feeling but about picture 12 I thought, "Why am I looking at pictures of these vapid people?" It felt more like a stunt to get click-throughs than an actual political message and it certainly wasn't amusing enough to keep me going.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:36 AM on October 13, 2011
For me, comparing these reinforces the vacuity of the red-carpet celebrity shots and it cleverly makes the point that "Real News Is Not Being Reported".
Yes, but the Globe is a NEWSPAPER. Report the news. This is guilt by association. Rich bankers are not rich actors. And how many of these actors are even rich? Does a starving artists have more cred than a successful one?
posted by Brodiggitty at 5:38 AM on October 13, 2011
Yes, but the Globe is a NEWSPAPER. Report the news. This is guilt by association. Rich bankers are not rich actors. And how many of these actors are even rich? Does a starving artists have more cred than a successful one?
posted by Brodiggitty at 5:38 AM on October 13, 2011
For me, comparing these reinforces the vacuity of the red-carpet celebrity shots and it cleverly makes the point that "Real News Is Not Being Reported".
Depends on if you read this as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on celebrities or on the Occupy Wall Street protests.
As the G&M clarifies straight off that they are "not making an endorsement of any political position," it would seem they are well aware that this is a blatant political commentary.
I don't see how they are not taking any sides when mocking stupid celebrity participation in the protests is exactly - just for fun - is precisely what Limbo and Hannity do.
The right never changes. It's the same old "Hanoi Hanna" meme used against Vietnam protesters. 100.000 people would show up - 99.999 and Jane Fonda - and all you heard about was Jane Fonda.
posted by three blind mice at 5:39 AM on October 13, 2011
Depends on if you read this as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on celebrities or on the Occupy Wall Street protests.
As the G&M clarifies straight off that they are "not making an endorsement of any political position," it would seem they are well aware that this is a blatant political commentary.
I don't see how they are not taking any sides when mocking stupid celebrity participation in the protests is exactly - just for fun - is precisely what Limbo and Hannity do.
The right never changes. It's the same old "Hanoi Hanna" meme used against Vietnam protesters. 100.000 people would show up - 99.999 and Jane Fonda - and all you heard about was Jane Fonda.
posted by three blind mice at 5:39 AM on October 13, 2011
Depends on if you read this as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on celebrities or on the Occupy Wall Street protests.
And this depends on whether you know how to read. It's clearly making fun of celebrities (which is what the column does). It's also making a pretty great statement about the absurdity of the whole 'entertainment news' process in the face of the real desperation of these protests.
"What the hell?!? How did this photo of an Occupy Wall Street protester in Los Angeles taken the day before the polo match get in here? Our apologies. [CWP is investigating; soothing photo to follow]"
"Cherie Walters, 58, wore one shade of unironic defiance to the Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York City last week."
"A couple of complete nobodies attend the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York on Monday."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:47 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
And this depends on whether you know how to read. It's clearly making fun of celebrities (which is what the column does). It's also making a pretty great statement about the absurdity of the whole 'entertainment news' process in the face of the real desperation of these protests.
"What the hell?!? How did this photo of an Occupy Wall Street protester in Los Angeles taken the day before the polo match get in here? Our apologies. [CWP is investigating; soothing photo to follow]"
"Cherie Walters, 58, wore one shade of unironic defiance to the Occupy Wall Street demonstration in New York City last week."
"A couple of complete nobodies attend the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York on Monday."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:47 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Remember the time the Globe did this same snark-laden thing with pictures from Tea Party rallys?
Oh right.
posted by Ron Thanagar at 5:48 AM on October 13, 2011
Oh right.
posted by Ron Thanagar at 5:48 AM on October 13, 2011
Left-leaning actor/director George Clooney attends the after-party for the premiere of "The Ides of March" in a swank and exclusive club in Manhattan last week. He said last week he would pay more attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement were he not so busy attending events like this. Seriously. That's what he said.
I almost believe that.
That said, it must be noted that 99% of the profits made from most movies go to people who have no creative talent (and when the creative people have major leverage and 'profit participation', it goes down to maybe 90%)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:53 AM on October 13, 2011
I almost believe that.
That said, it must be noted that 99% of the profits made from most movies go to people who have no creative talent (and when the creative people have major leverage and 'profit participation', it goes down to maybe 90%)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:53 AM on October 13, 2011
Um, did no-one read the editor's note above them?
"Editor's note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn't an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun."
That explanation would make sense if the captions were funny.
posted by DU at 5:56 AM on October 13, 2011
"Editor's note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn't an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun."
That explanation would make sense if the captions were funny.
posted by DU at 5:56 AM on October 13, 2011
I don't see how they are not taking any sides when mocking stupid celebrity participation in the protests is exactly - just for fun - is precisely what Limbo and Hannity do.
Yes, yes, Three Blind Mice, Globe caption-writers are exactly like Limbaugh and Hannity. Congratulations.
If you were to, for instance, read the captions, you'd see that the bulk of them aren't mocking celebrities for taking part in the protests; they're mocking celebrities for existing in a silly bubble world that's totally disconnected from what's going on. And it also mocks journalism itself, offering a satire of every vapid celebrity gallery out there.
What the belated "disclaimer" indicates is that the paper really wasn't intending to stake out any political position here; it was an exercise in caption-writing that went viral, which surprised everyone. Virality is like that: You never see it coming, and seldom can you plan for it. (Yes, I contribute to the paper. No, I have no real inside knowledge.)
I know it's more fun to see a right-wing conspiracy, but for the most part the paper's online staff are too busy wrangling with their CMS to worry about oppressing you with photo captions.
posted by bicyclefish at 5:59 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Yes, yes, Three Blind Mice, Globe caption-writers are exactly like Limbaugh and Hannity. Congratulations.
If you were to, for instance, read the captions, you'd see that the bulk of them aren't mocking celebrities for taking part in the protests; they're mocking celebrities for existing in a silly bubble world that's totally disconnected from what's going on. And it also mocks journalism itself, offering a satire of every vapid celebrity gallery out there.
What the belated "disclaimer" indicates is that the paper really wasn't intending to stake out any political position here; it was an exercise in caption-writing that went viral, which surprised everyone. Virality is like that: You never see it coming, and seldom can you plan for it. (Yes, I contribute to the paper. No, I have no real inside knowledge.)
I know it's more fun to see a right-wing conspiracy, but for the most part the paper's online staff are too busy wrangling with their CMS to worry about oppressing you with photo captions.
posted by bicyclefish at 5:59 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
ever notice how that whooshing of air the obvious makes when it flies over one's head reminds one of the swishing sound a sea of stupidity makes as it circles the drain?
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:04 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:04 AM on October 13, 2011
Yes, yes, Three Blind Mice, Globe caption-writers are exactly like Limbaugh and Hannity. Congratulations.
Well that's not what I said. I said the political position they seem to endorse is the same political position held by Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
Get the difference?
posted by three blind mice at 6:15 AM on October 13, 2011
Well that's not what I said. I said the political position they seem to endorse is the same political position held by Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
Get the difference?
posted by three blind mice at 6:15 AM on October 13, 2011
I said the political position they seem to endorse is the same political position held by Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
While I confess that Limbaugh and Hannity aren't really part of my existence (or many of our existences, up here), I don't think that comparison holds any water, for the reasons I outlined above. I think you've misread the satire there, though as a matter of interpretation we might just have to agree to disagree.
posted by bicyclefish at 6:23 AM on October 13, 2011
While I confess that Limbaugh and Hannity aren't really part of my existence (or many of our existences, up here), I don't think that comparison holds any water, for the reasons I outlined above. I think you've misread the satire there, though as a matter of interpretation we might just have to agree to disagree.
posted by bicyclefish at 6:23 AM on October 13, 2011
Associating the Occpy Wall Street protest with vacuous celebrities and silly captions pretty much puts you in the same political position as Rush Limbo and Sean Hannity.
I have the strangest mental image right now.
posted by hellojed at 6:23 AM on October 13, 2011
I have the strangest mental image right now.
posted by hellojed at 6:23 AM on October 13, 2011
"Host Nacho Figueras arrives at the Veuve Clicquot Polo Classic in Los Angeles on Sunday dressed like a complete tool."
I like this one. Am I wrong to think that the slang word "tool" and its uses are necessarily derived from its slang meaning- "penis"?
posted by beau jackson at 6:28 AM on October 13, 2011
I like this one. Am I wrong to think that the slang word "tool" and its uses are necessarily derived from its slang meaning- "penis"?
posted by beau jackson at 6:28 AM on October 13, 2011
Um, did no-one read the editor's note above them?
No one of Twitter did because it is obviously a recent addition in the face of this going viral.
If you've got something to say about Occupy Wall Street, say it on the editorial page. Don't hide it in the fluff section.
Presumably they are doing both. Like all newspapers do. I mean seriously, do people not read newspapers? Do they not know they are collages from multiple sources of multiple types of writing about multiple subjects? "The Globe is a NEWSPAPER. Report the news." Hilarious.
posted by ninebelow at 6:30 AM on October 13, 2011
No one of Twitter did because it is obviously a recent addition in the face of this going viral.
If you've got something to say about Occupy Wall Street, say it on the editorial page. Don't hide it in the fluff section.
Presumably they are doing both. Like all newspapers do. I mean seriously, do people not read newspapers? Do they not know they are collages from multiple sources of multiple types of writing about multiple subjects? "The Globe is a NEWSPAPER. Report the news." Hilarious.
posted by ninebelow at 6:30 AM on October 13, 2011
« Older Dr Pepper Blew? | This really is our only option out there. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:44 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]