Gossip Rags

Bumped. --Mike

I just read Keli Goff's column on The Huffington Post called "McCain's Perez Hilton Problem". While its a fine read (repudiating John McCain's statement that he doesn't support "gay adoption", defending the notion that LGBT people can provide excellent, loving homes for children), I was a little confused at why she references, specifically, Perez Hilton (who like may other people were outraged by this admission from the presumptive Republican nominee). I thought, from reading the first few lines, she was going to argue that sites like Perez Hilton ("What Would Tyler Durden Do?", "D-Listed", the 'Gawker' sites, etc.) provide a unique opportunity to foment action against regressive policies, causes & candidates among possibly apolitical youth who may have sympathy for progressive programmes. Goff didn't end up arguing that, so I will.

Goff wrote:

"On Sunday, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) selected McCain's statement on the matter as his "Quote of the Day." The quote simply reads, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." At last count Hilton's post garnered around 700 comments, some of which are blatantly homophobic, (which is ironic considering Lavandeira himself is openly gay, which begs the question: if you disapprove of gay people so much why are you visiting a blog run by one?). But for the most part, the comments -- many of which are too colorful to print here -- highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right."

Goff is right is that McCain's previous (though probably overblown) image as a moderate &/or maverick, which attracted moderate Independents & conservative Democrats in the past, is a liability as he tries to sew up the conservative Republican base ... It's a catch-22, because the more he panders to the base, the more he losses the moderates, & vice versa.

But I digress.

Election coverage can be framed in many different ways, & increasingly we've seen the pop-culture-ization of this process, especially with the Obama candidacy, which has spawned a popular movement of young people who may have sat this one out, or simply not cared, if Dick Gephardt was running. (No offense to Dick; he's like number 3 on my list of potential Vice Presidents.) Barack's candidacy has inspired political youth, as well as those who have never been interested in politics before.

& The Obama Team, to an extent, gets this. On example: just look at the Michelle Obama PR-blitz after Barack became the nominee ... co-hosting "The View", making the cover of "US Weekly" ... In other words, reaching out to young women who are probably pro-choice, probably who have a gaggle of gay friends, & could be moved to vote if they feel the candidate (or, in this case, his wife) speaks to them on level other than health care policy positions, discussions of Iraq & banking reform.

The power of celebrity gossip rags, whether in print (US Weekly), on TV (TMZ on Fox) or online, like the aforementioned blogs, when they comment on the political matters, can be enormous. Celebrity gossip is an ascendant medium, drawing huge audiences of mostly young people, who tend to be, at least on social & cultural issues, more liberal. Comment on McCain saying he's against "gay adoption" & there's a good chance you may energize a liberal, though apolitical, young person who reads your blog to say, "Geez, maybe I'll vote for Obama ... This guy is straight-up creepy ..."

That's where I thought Goff was going ... I hope I adequately took you there.