AMEN to Jennifer Anniston! As I’ve said elsewhere, I CAN’T STAND HER! People like her because Brad “wronged” her, by (IMO) “trading up”. Yes, how he went about it was sleazy, but he ABSOLUTELY traded up, in EVERY way.
If you are a Sirius XM radio listener, the answer if Howard Fing Stern. I don’t listen to his channel, but many of the other (I won’t say all, as I don’t listen to them all) channels mention the Howard channel often. As in the on air personality is obviously plugging the Howard channel between songs.
If I 'm listening to “The Spectrum” which is a channel on XM that plays stuff like Natalie Merchant, Mumford and Sons, etc., am I really a good target market for Howard Stern???
God, I hate him.
I think Aniston is hotter than Jolie so ehh.
I dunno. I’m pretty plugged into pop culture. I follow celebs on twitter, I browse TMZ and watch MTV and VH1 and I can’t think of anyone I feel is crammed down my throat. There are people I dislike, like Daniel Tosh but I mean, he has a show on Comedy Central so if I’m watching Comedy Central, I do it with the mindset that I’m probably going to see a commercial for his show and if that’s going to bother me, I should do something else. And sometimes I do.
I have never watched Jennifer Anniston in anything but Friends (I have probably watched about 5 or 6 episodes of that show, in total, over the years and have never seen her act in a movie) and know very little about her personal life except for seeing her on the occasional talk show (Conan, Jay Leno, etc.) but in terms of sheer physical attractiveness alone, I think she is much, MUCH more attractive than Angelina Jolie, who in my opinion looks SO artificial and in fact somewhat alien-esque.
That said, Jennifer Anniston is by no means any Great Beauty, (attractive? certainly-stunning? not even close) but at least she looks human, which ol’ Angelina Jolie seems to be getting further away from day by day…
I saw what you did there.
Tossing in another vote for Aniston. Poor thing. It’s not like she’s the *worst *actress ever. I’m sure she’s a lovely person and her friends and family adore her. If it weren’t for the persistence of her publicist and the slavish devotion of the media, she wouldn’t have tens of thousands of people on the internet cursing her name and saying horrid things about her.
Yeah, it’s her fault people on the internet are assholes.
The answer used to be Tony Danza. The TV networks seemed convinced that America wanted more of him. We didn’t.
Except you’d lose the excellent scene where she flips off everyone in the T.G.I. Friday’s-type restaurant. I loved that part I’m pretty neutral on Jennifer Anniston, otherwise.
I am pretty tired with the media’s current obsession with Charlie Sheen. Unfortunately, nothings sells magazines or draws TV ratings quite like a celebrity of the verge of a flame-out.
Sarah Palin. She can’t complete a sentence, much less a term in office. Why does she have followers at all?
Kim Kardashian. Sooo? What’s her point?
Paris Hylton. Why does she even exist?
Justin Bieber. Okay, I admit I’m probably just too old to get him.
At least to me, the entire cast of “The Office” nicely fits this category, as damn near every other movie, TV commercial, or talk-show seems to have one or more of the various cast members involved at some point.
Although I have not watched a single new “Office” episode since the Jim and Pam wedding episode, I think most of the actors on the show seem like decent people, (Steve Carrell is supposedly a very nice guy in real life, and the guy who plays Jim recently got married to uber-hottie Emily Blunt) but it seems like they are all lining up for each and every possible opportunity to get their faces in front of a camera.
Finally, I guess I should add that for actors or others in the public eye, it would be a mistake NOT to strike while the iron was hot, so to speak, so I can’t really blame them for making the most of their newfound success. Fame is fickle, so I imagine that you would want to do all you can to maximize your exposure.
As a final aside, what I REALLY can’t figure out is how the actress who plays Pam (Jenna Fischer) somehow became the “hot” Office female cast member. At least to me, in terms of physical attractiveness, the women who play Erin, Jan, Holly and even Angela are all WAY better looking than she is…
(“Jan” and “Erin” are both quite gorgeous, in a somewhat quirky, offbeat way)
Apparently the mediocre needed a voice.
That was exactly who I intended to mention. Why do I even know the name?
From what I gather, it was the same reason as Kim Kardashian.
I’m assured that he has some genuine amount of talent, but then so did his child star predecessors.
I’m a little curious about how celebrities are being shoved down anyone’s throat. Where exactly is this happening? In issues of People or Entertainment Weekly? On E! and the Jay Leno show? That’s like complaining about how Playboy magazine keeps making you look at naked women.
I’m sure it’s possible to avoid 99% of celebrity news by avoiding celebrity-based journalism. You can read the Economist, Foreign Affairs, the National Journal, Parameters, Progressive, Reason, the Utne Reader, and the Washington Monthly and a dozen other magazines like these without seeing a lot of stories about Lady Gaga.
When you go to the grocery store and get in the check-out line and there are five or six Charlie Sheens staring back at you from the check-out racks, that’s an example of him getting shoved down our throats. Also (even though I don’t generally watch these shows), my mom tells me that his crazy interviews have been popular morning show fodder recently. God forbid you should switch on the TV in the morning and expect to hear any actual news.
Well, that seems to be because, in your case, they’re NOT crammed down your throat. Rather, you seek them out and hoover them up with no cramming necessary.
If you want to follow celebrity Twitter feeds and browse TMZ and watch MTV and VH1, that’s your prerogative. Similarly, if i don’t want to follow that stuff, i don’t have to.
It’s when these celebrities and their “troubles” and “scandals” receive 3-minute stories at the top of regular news broadcasts that i start to get pissed off, and feel like they are being crammed down our throats. The nightly news should not be just another opportunity for television stations to advertise their celebrity bullshit, and news organizations should spend time doing actual journalism about things that are actually important.
Actually, as i suggested above, local news broadcasts have been dealing extensively with stuff like the Charlie Sheen meltdown.
On the one hand, you could argue, “Well, why not just turn off the local news and get your information from a decent source?”
And i often do that.
But local news, if done properly, can and should be a valuable resource, one that informs citizens about what is going on not only in the world, but also in their region and their town. Towns and cities in America are facing a variety of problems and issues that could be the subject of excellent journalism: declining tax income, budget deficits, debates over spending, concerns about crime, problems of homelessness and unemployment, housing foreclosures, etc. And that doesn’t even address the good things that are happening in many places, and that constitute news.
It’s precisely because i can easily find out about Charlie Sheen from *People *and Entertainment Weekly and TMZ and E! News and Twitter that i don’t want him taking up space at the top of the local news hour.
No offense taken. You make some very valid points.
There are certain parts of her I wouldn’t mind having shoved down my throat, but that’s not important right now.
I have to agree with Simplico and Little Nemo here. I am constantly listening to NPR, read the SDMB, and I read a local paper (Jersey City Reporter) and Jersey City-oriented websites. Charlie Sheen isn’t being shoved down my throat because I don’t consume bullshit media, like TV news.
Betty White. Seriously, I have nothing against her- she just keeps popping up everywhere as if she’s some kind of cultural icon.
This, of course, completely and conveniently ignores the fact that there’s no requirement for TV news to be bullshit. Sure, one can ignore it, especially if one has access to the internet and is willing to be discriminating, but there’s nothing inherent in the medium that requires TV news to be crappy infotainment. I’m not complaining about it because i am unable to avoid it; i’m complaining about it because it seems to me that improving it is a worthwhile (though perhaps rather unrealistic) goal.
Also, do you really need to quote four long posts in order to contribute a grand total of two lines of text? I’m sure we could have grasped the substance of your argument with the quotes.