And the winners at media manipulation are: Jodie Foster and Lance Armstrong

[quote]She is gay, he's a dope-cheat: we know this. But what makes them stars, and us mere mortals, is that we buy their 'revelation' Monday 14 January 2013 Jodie Foster is gay and Lance Armstrong is a doper. These are the large stories of the day – at least, the stories that people in the media are having serious palpitations about. Of course, there is no news here. Foster has lived openly with a partner and their adopted children, then broken up just as publicly: all in all, a quarter century or so of being indubitably gay. Indeed, her coming out at the Golden Globes was, in fact, a coming-out to say that she had long ago come out. Nevertheless, paroxysms of media attention and praise. Armstrong has been meticulously investigated, found guilty, and stripped of all his awards, standing, and reputation. He's now pretty much the last word in steroids. And, to boot, we've discovered that he really isn't very nice: he's sports' nastiest guy. But he is taping with Oprah for a much anticipated show on which he will admit that he's a doper. And everybody, at least everybody in the media, is on the edge of their seats. Two fabulous nonstories, with no reveals (as they say in the reality television show business) whatsoever, and everybody, everybody in the media anyway, is gaga, intent on reporting that … Jodie is gay and Lance is a doper. This is the news. Except this is really not the news. Rather, what's going on here is our fascination – that is, our fascination as media people – with how we are used and manipulated. That's what's mesmerizing. In part, this may be because we are masochists. We are drawn to people who seduce and use us. But it's admiration, too: people like Foster and Armstrong are the ultimate media people, more adept at playing the media than even we are in the media. That's what makes a star. How is it that Jodie Foster, openly gay at the dawn of celebrities being openly gay – when the culture was undergoing a revolution and there was a whole journalistic subgenre of outing people who were barely hiding – managed to avoid being a fabulous and groundbreaking story? For media people, it is almost more interesting to us when stars avoid being the story than when they are the story. When they hide in plain sight, when they baldly lie, that's talent. In a sense, of course, that's their ultimate job, and what separates them from other celebrities: their ability to handle and control the media. In Armstrong's case, his denials will go to the hall of fame of denials. Even among liars and convicts, his denials are statements of ultimate chutzpah. They were denials of such verve and certainty that even when everybody – everybody in the media – knew he was absolutely lying, they were willing to believe him, or at least maintain a straight face. For Foster and Armstrong, there has been, on our part, a kind of self-censorship. Not to protect them, per se, but to protect the audience. We believed that the audience was not quite ready to know what we knew. Or rather, both Foster and Armstrong had such strong public images and followings, that we in the media were not taking any chances with an abrupt and rude unloading of the full truth. That's media power – when we think our audience trusts our subjects more than it trusts us. However, we are not resentful about this or, frankly, even itching to tell the truth. Instead, we are admiring of how certain people commanded our restraint. Again, this is a star. Even as late as this past August, Buzz Bissinger, one of the most famous sports journalists in the nation – as famous a sports journalist as Lance Armstrong was an athlete – wrote a Newsweek cover story on how much he continued to believe Lance. While his literal belief is not credible, it is reasonable that he believed Lance Armstrong would get away with it, and that therefore Lance's counterintuitive virtue could make an effective Newsweek cover. So much for Newsweek. [More at link]:

http%3A//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/winner-media-manipulation-jodie-foster-lance-armstrong



• I don't agree with conflating homosexuality with doping. When JF was growing up, homosex was on the books as a mental illness.

• Foster wasn't outed because of Pat Kingsley, who was really the one who knew how to manipulate the media.

  Anonymous

• OP, How many more of your rant filled threads will you be posting today? You're littering up the fucking site with this shit. Take your pills.

• there are at least a dozen Jodie foster threads on DL now so her fame whore attention grab seems to be working nicely for her.

  I%20WANT%20PRIVACY%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%2

• The Guardian editors and/ or OP should rot in hell. Well, probably just OP. Context is everything

• On one hand a lie is a lie, but on the other hand Lance Armstong didn't just lie, he was the kingpin of doping in the bycicle sport industry. Did Jodie do something similar?

  http%3A//ronireports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/jodie-foster-and-kristen-stewart.jpg

• [quote]Foster has lived openly with a partner and their adopted children, then broken up just as publicly: all in all, a quarter century or so of being indubitably gay. Yeah, um no. And fuck this article for comparing being gay to doping.

• r6 has a good point

  http%3A//24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wfe6RwAE1qfx2jdo1_400.jpg

• [quotte]How many more of your rant filled threads will you be posting today? You're littering up the fucking site with this shit. Take your pills. Well, it's the news of the day. Live with it.

• [quote]You're littering up the fucking site with this shit. Really! The last thing we want on a GAY website is a bunch of threads about gay people. I mean c'mon!

• I'm more concerned with how bad I thought Jodie looked. The hair style was unflattering and it made her face look too chiseled. Of course, maybe that is the look she wanted. The other issue I had with Jodie is that if she wanted privacy, why did she make such a big deal of the fact that she told her friends and people she actually knew about coming out long ago. If she wanted privacy, she should have simply thanked them for the award and recognition and then shut up. Her speach was made with the purpose to chastise the media and gossip sites (likely the DL). Of course, she was probably in a no-win situation; had she said nothing, the media would have gotten on her for not coming out. Honestly, I don't know why the DL is so obsessed with her actually saying she is gay.

• Her kids aren't adopted are they ? As that article says?

• This article is the definition of nonstory. There is no story. Christ, its an article regarding a proclamation that it's a nonstory? WTF?

  paid%20by%20the%20letter%3F