Halloween gives the young (and the young at heart!) a chance to dress up, play a role, wear a mask, and be something or someone they’re not. For a day. That’s the key.
On this Halloween, I’ve assembled a list of top five media masquerades. These “masquerades” are the people and issues that (for the most part) bug a faith-based fan of pop culture like me because they are always in the media or always covered by the media.
5. Non-stars that get treated by the media like real stars. Like Paris Hilton. I mean, really, what has she really ever done that’s redeeming, even on the surface-y Hollywood scale?
4. Non-inspirational shows that pretend to be authentic inspiration. Notably, many televangelist shows and, most notably, the time they spend selling product.
3. Any Halloween movie claiming to be the champion of all other Halloween movies. John Carpenter’s “Halloween” (1978) is still the original and the best Halloween flick. It’s complete with neighborhood flavor, homegrown fears, and hometown heroes. In some ways, it actually plays better now as an older flick, though interestingly, it’s not being shown on TV this Halloween season.
2. News reporters who don’t behave as serious newsmakers. For example, this year a media corps surprised by McCain’s VP choice took it personally and their bias has (again) shaped our future. The media corps was so angry that some anchors (led by CSNBC) even got mad at each other. On the air! Where is the Fifth Estate to watch the Fourth Estate?
In a different spin, this last masquerade is my favorite, and it’s one that actually shows the positive side of media coverage.
1. “Saturday Night Live” masquerading as weekend comedy fare. ”Saturday Night Live“ continues to be a smart, satirical, and steady voice of commentary on cultural situations. The crew was brilliant during this election season, bringing both roaring laughs and intelligent cause for reflection.
What other media masquerades have you noticed? What are the negative and positive ones you see?
posted November 1, 2008 at 6:25 pm
This is on most people’s mind, however they find it difficult to talk about, and that is the supposed same gender mariage, I feel that if you can bring forth a life without the help of science and medical help, because you do not posses the ovem and the sperm between you, than you have no right to get married, what is next, I love my dog, my horse, and what will they want next, this is unhealthy for a Nation, and also against Natural law, ADAM & EVE, not adam and steve or Sally and eve.
They allready have the same rights under mens laws, where rulings are made not keeping what God wants, but what we want, after all we are most powerfull and trancend every law that we find in the bible, but that is not clear enough for some, and feel the need to legislate and do away with the Bible, You can change any law you want and make it so if you can show me any person who is immume from dead, we will have to answer, you too, not just me
posted November 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm
You gotta be dead to talk to the dead or see them move. Always been in same time frame and state of being. Know anyghosts personally ?
Bob Moseley Sr. of Calvert county,Md.
posted November 4, 2008 at 9:11 am
I assume that you mean “if you *can’t* bring forth a life without the help of science and medical help”, you have no right to get married.
Which of course brings up the question of whether you believe a heterosexual (straight) couple should be prevented from marrying if one of them is infertile. If I don’t actually release eggs, or if he doesn’t produce enough sperm to cause a baby, does that mean neither of us can ever marry? After all, we can’t bring forth a life without the help of science and medical help . . .
I love babies, but I think that if marriage is ONLY about making them, there’s a problem there. I wish people who were anti-gay-marriage would think more about actual love and less about which part gets inserted where.