Layne's Weblog

                Every week I think about writing about Britney Spears, and every week I decide against it. While she is a stellar example of a public relations dream turned nightmare turned Schizophrenic mania, I cannot bring myself jump on the Britney crazy train.

                 After all, doesn’t she have a 17-year-old pregnant sister we should be worrying about?

                 Anyhow, I feel more can be said about the institution breeding these super stars? Is there not a problem when Mariah Carey, who has surpassed Elvis with number one hits, has a break down? Or when Dave Chapelle, enjoying the greatest fame of his life, escapes to Africa?

                After watching an episode of MTV’s “Rock the Cradle,” I began thinking about the culmination of these blog posts, my PR Entertainment class, and my future in this industry. Will I one day be doing publicity for shows like this one, that tells the children of famous rock stars their success depends solely on escaping their parents’ shadows. Or will I work for the children and their families, doing whatever it takes to promote the child push him or her into fame? I’ve realized the line between publicity and over-promotion, and the effects the latter can have on celebrities.

             “Rock the Cradle” gives average teenage viewers a taste of life they only imagined. The rock star kids filmed commercials highlighting some of the craziest parts of growing up with a famous parent. The show seeks to answer whether musical talent is genetic. Like American Idol, viewers at home eventually choose the winner. “Rock the Cradle,” however, is more about publicity and promotion than true talent.

            First, MTV and publicists had to spin the show in a way that would deter audiences from thinking, “Why should I support this child who has already received every opportunity in life?” They also created persona for every rock star child. All of the kids have their own “Rock the Cradle” Web page with a brief biography of them and their famous parent.

            Unfortunately, these kids do not sing quite as well as expected. In fact, a couple of the kids are just downright bad. My favorite is Chloe Lattanzi, Olivia Newton John’s daughter. The poor thing makes you wonder how beautiful people have disastrous looking children (Dee Snider’s son Jesse makes you wonder the opposite). Chloe’s voice might be the worst on the show, and she received the lowest scores. She cried on both episodes. Jesse Money, daughter of Eddie Money, was told that she “just doesn’t have that something that made her father a star.” Am I the only one who sees this show as a gross exploitation of the insecurity these kids already feel with famous parents?

            If the voices are sub par, the performances…rock. It’s as if these children were bred to perform. For me, they channel an early Britney Spears who never had the best voice. Lattanzi’s performance on the last episode almost hid her terrible voice.  One of the judges even compared Laura Johnston, daughter of Doobie Brother’s Tom Johnston, to miss Britney Spears at age 17. Scary?

            M.C. Hammer’s daughter has a powerful voice, and Crosby Loggins has a unique style. I have no doubt that some of these kids could have broken into the industry without this show. I do wonder what spurred the superstar parents, knowing the brutality of this industry, to exploit their children to insensitive American teens. I know how much fame and recognition a show like, “Rock the Cradle” can bring to these kids. It worked for Ashlee Simpson. I feel, however, that there is a point of no return once young stars fall victim to over-promotion. Promoting children and teenagers must be handled with a more delicate set of rules. Many times these young people have not developed the skills to handle fame, and the criticism that comes with it. Even the most popular child stars can snap, and their childhood’s, or lack thereof, can come back to haunt them. Case in point: Ms. Britney Spears. 

He’s Baaaaaaaack! Our favorite prankster is back in the game, and oh, how the tables have turned. Ashton Kutcher and his production team have taken the idea for the hit show “Punk’d” and given it a facelift, Hollywood style. This time the gossip gobbling media are the targets. “Pop Fiction” on E! teams up with willing celebrities to stage outlandish scenarios in the hopes of “punking” the media. Not too long ago, the photogs went wild following Paris Hilton and her date with a strange, gray haired, long-bearded guru. She apparently told the paps, “He has changed my life.” According to USA Today, the story quickly spread toTMZ.com, and the New York Daily News. Even E! jumped on the story that was completely fabricated by “Pop Fiction.” The celebrities involved and the scenarios planned are kept extremely hush-hush in order to trick as much of the media as possible, and no one is safe.

 So far, the celebrities are eager to scheme. Eva Longoria helped spread the longstanding rumor that she and Mario Lopez are an item, and Avril Lavigne posed with a “baby bump” for the paparazzi. These celebs claim that they want to point out that one cannot always believe everything he or she sees or hears. Well, obviously. I hope its safe to assume that most people over a certain age know that, but I’m afraid I might be giving a little too much credit. Anyhow, I think this show makes statement that has long gone unsaid. America’s growing obsession with Hollywood happenings is sick. While “Pop Fiction” aims to fool the paparazzi, the avid celebrity consumers are really the ones fueling the fire. If we didn’t buy the OK and People magazines every week, then the paparazzi wouldn’t flock to every possible story like pigeons on breadcrumbs. In just the past five years the public has been intimately involved in many celebrities’ most private affairs. We watched Britney Spears lose her mind and her children, we saw Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt lose their marriage, and we followed countless celebrities into rehab, and out again, and in again. When do we become too involved? How much is too much?

I know the paparazzi madness comes with the territory, but can you blame a celebrity for wanting to be a part of this show? Shouldn’t celebrities be entitled to at least a little revenge?  “Pop Fiction” also helps stars create a buzz about themselves, and probably pays them for doing so. In my opinion, the show isn’t quite as entertaining as “Punk’d,” but it is still getting people talking. And that is just what Kutcher and the celebrities want, right?……Wait…..

 Celebrities have a strange relationship with the paparazzi. They would fizzle without the paparazzi, but they hate them. Stars claim to want the paparazzi to leave them alone, but here they are creating fake stories about themselves. I wouldn’t object if my client wanted to go on the show. It’s a funny idea, and come on, Ashton Kutcher isn’t that serious. I would, however, be on the lookout for harsher media criticism in the future. The paparazzi really are people you need on your side. If I were Kutcher I would also be careful about which celebs I chose for the show.

“We live in a culture that’s driven by media and obsessed with celebrity, to the point where they don’t have private lives anymore. Two people going out to eat turns into, ‘They’re engaged.’ It’s a feeding frenzy. It’s dangerous and it’s irresponsible in some cases. We’re having fun, but we want to say to people, ‘Can you really believe everything you read and see?’”  - Jason Goldberg

Videos:

 Paris Hilton

Eva Longoria

Avril Lavigne

The growing buzz about  “Body of War,” the touching documentary directed by University of Texas professor Ellen Spiro and talk show host Phil Donahue (remember him!) excites me for so many reasons.  This story is one shared by hundreds of Americans and kudos to Spiro and Donahue for having the guts to approach this unnerving, uncomfortable subject. As a radio-television-film major-nerd I’m also jumping for joy that people, and the mainstream media, are giving documentary a chance. Finally, I’m impressed at how well publicity for the movie has been handled thus far.

“Body of War” follows 25-year-old war Veteran Thomas Young who suffered a bullet to his spine after serving in Iraq for only a week. Thomas is now paralyzed from the chest down. The documentary serves as a portal into Thomas’ slow, pained path to acceptance of his disability, and his development of a true, honest voice against the war in Iraq. The film is both inspiring and heartbreaking. Donahue and Spiro boldly give a face to a subject many American’s either don’t know about or choose to quietly ignore.

Thomas Young trained at Ft. Hood in Killeen, only about 70 miles away from Austin. His close proximity to the city helped fuel the support for “Body of War” in Texas, and at the South by Southwest Film Festival. On March 13, 2008 “Body of War” debuted at South by Southwest as an official selection. That night, musicians Tom Morello, Ben Harper, Serj Tankin, and Billy Bragg rocked together in a concert supporting the release of the documentary. Musicians championing “Body of War” has been one of the best forms of positive publicity for this film. Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam wrote the song “No More” for Thomas Young. The album for this film has created almost as much buzz as the movie itself.

As far as anti-war documentaries go, “Body of War” is said to be one of, if not the best because of the way it brings the war home. Through Thomas Young’s amazing, inspiring story, this movie supports the soldiers and veterans while protesting the war. I must commend the public relations team for this film because it has spread the word about the film incredibly well. On the website, one can send media inquiries to josh@barancommunicatons.com. Josh, you have done a great job. The website for the film has a commendable press kit which obviously works. I just saw a clip on VH1 about this movie. Getting a politically charged documentary into the minds and discussions of young people is a great feat, and I’m happy to see it finally done. Inspiring young people to think about the war and how they can make a difference is even better. This film has a great message, and the passion felt by everyone involved shows through the successful public relations efforts. Thomas’ story is one that needs to be shared and the publicity for this film is doing him, and others like him everywhere, a great service. 

 The Mitchell Report, major league baseball’s McCarthy-esque attempt at catching steroid users, blacklisted a couple of Texas’ own good guys, Roger “The Rocket” Clemens and southpaw Andy Pettitte this past December. Senator George Mitchell’s twenty-month investigation found Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte guilty of using human growth hormone to enhance their performances on the field. Although the Los Angeles Times reported that pitcher Jason Grimsley named the two as H.G.H. users in 2006, widespread criticism did not occur until the Mitchell Report came out on December 13, 2007. Almost immediately after the accusation Pettitte issued a public statement admitting that he used the hormone on only two occasions to speed up the healing process of his injured elbow. The hormone was not illegal at the time, but Pettitte recalls, “I was not comfortable with what I was doing, so I stopped.” Roger Clemens, on the other hand, hastily denied the accusation, and has continued to deny it even after his trainer, Brian McNamee, confirmed the allegations. In an interview with “60 Minutes” on January 6^th, 2008 Clemens professed his innocence once again. The controversy took another odd turn when Clemens released a taped phone conversation between he and McNamee to the media. On the tape Clemens continuously urges his former trainer to admit he was lying about injecting him at least sixteen times with the human growth hormone. Roger Clemens has since testified at a hearing in front of congress, and filed a lawsuit against Brian McNamee citing defamation. Andy Pettitte confirmed Brian McNamee’s allegations, and Clemens is now under investigation by the FBI for perjury.

Since the release of The Mitchell Report, the mainstream media has not come to Roger Clemens’ defense, nor has it outright bashed him. Roger Clemens has made more public attempts at defending his innocence than the media has made accusations. Most reports on online publications like ESPN and Sports Illustrated come straight from The Associated Press, and include updated facts and quotes from all parties involved. Still, the facts from the Mitchell Report and the congressional hearing have grown more and more incriminating of Clemens.  The New York Times covered the congressional hearing with a live blog updated every few minutes as new information arose before, during, and after the hearing. This site, like most others, portrays neither Clemens nor McNamee in a good light. If anything, it gives most credibility to the Democratic and Republican representatives who called both of the men liars. The analysis also describes Clemens as “agitated, and close to losing his temper.” The unflattering pictures on the Web site include one of Clemens with his tongue sticking out, and many of him looking down, which is a well-known indication of lying. Other coverage of this ongoing steroid saga quotes Senator Mitchell and Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. Most sports columnists also expressed sadness at the increased amount of steroid use in the MLB, and the tragedy that such a great pitcher will most likely have to give up his predicted spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Among bloggers the narrative surrounding Roger Clemens is much more obtrusive and accusatory. The pitcher has endured harsh scrutiny from individuals since the news surfaced in December. Many blogs attack Clemens for using H.G.H. and also criticize the MLB for actively covering up steroid use for so long. Most people seem to have known steroids infiltrated baseball after the 1994 strike, and regret that baseball is no longer the pure American sport. One blog I saw posted a clip from “Field of Dreams” that expressed the nostalgia for the game we once knew.

 Another theme among blogs is a criticism of the absurd claims Clemens made during the congressional hearing. Clemens said he was guilty of just one thing: being too trusting of others. Clemens also claimed that Andy Pettitte, considered an honest man by almost everyone in the league, either misheard or misremembers the conversation they had about human growth hormone. While a few blogs do defend Clemens’ innocence the common word on the Web is that, guilty or not, Clemens’ reputation is tarnished…forever.

Baseball is a game that holds a place in many American’s hearts, and a lot of those American’s grew up idolizing seven time Cy Young award winner, Roger Clemens. It comes as no great surprise that the blogosphere is bursting with angry, cynical fans saying “Roger Clemens is guilty. Get over it.” The mainstream media won’t explicitly report Clemens’ guilt until he is in jail for perjury. Most sports columnists, however, contend that logic points a guilty finger at Rocket.

The actions taken by Roger Clemens have hurt him more than any media coverage, and probably spurred most of the angry blogs. It is one thing to claim innocence, but Clemens could have handled the whole ordeal much more professionally. Obviously, we do not know if Roger Clemens did take H.G.H. but evidence has not been very forgiving. If he did use the drug I’d suggest following in Andy Pettitte’s footsteps. Admit it, provide a “good reason” if one exists, apologize to fans, and get on with your life. No one even talks about Andy Pettitte anymore, and even though he did cheat and lie, Pettitte is still regarded as an honest man. Even if Roger Clemens is not lying, his honesty will be in question for quite a while.

.

 other sites used:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121302240.html

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/live-analysis-of-hearings/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/steroid.report/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/03/08/bc.bbo.steroids.clemens.canseco.ap/index.html

 http://www.alternet.org/story/70608/?page=2

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/02/13/roger_clemens_i.html

 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3184646

And the bacon! Pregnancy is not only the hot body trend in Hollywood right now, but it is also the ticket to millions. After selling pictures of your baby, the kid has practically paid for itself!  

Which celebs are engaging in this baby bottle prostitution? Christina Aguilera received $1.5 million for Max’s mug shot, and J.Lo is soon to follow. Advertising Age reported that Jenny from the Block will take home nearly $6 million for selling pictures of the twins. Nicole Richie and baby girl Harlow hit newsstands this Friday on the cover of People Magazine. Angelina Jolie “justified” plastering her kid’s faces on magazines by donating some of the baby bucks to charities. Scientology Cruise and Submissive Holmes kept us waiting for what seemed like centuries before they revealed their beautiful little alien Suri. Britney Spears sold pics of her kids…and we all know how that turned out.

Some child psychologists, however, are troubled by what they deem exploitation. Celebrities say that they are controlling the media coverage that would result anyway from the paparazzi. Selling pictures to magazines is much less obtrusive and dangerous than people fighting to snap pictures of newborns. I wonder though, is this really just fueling the fire? America wants to see celeb’s baby pictures so badly, but haven’t these magazine spreads conditioned us to feel that way?

I would advise against selling baby pictures, even though it does garner decent publicity. I’m afraid a backlash might come as a result of the Jennifer Lopez deal. People have already started talking, and Americans might soon realize the lack of rationale behind such an absurd practice. Also, what happens as the kids grow up? Do we want to be there for every birthday; the first day of school; the first kiss? There is a point where the line is crossed and it becomes too abnormal to expose children to this kind of publicity. How will these kids discern the difference between people following them on the street taking pictures and sitting on a set with hot lights for hours as cameras flash away? The bottom line is that these kids are selling magazines and also selling their parents. Remember Joan Crawford? Years and years ago she put the faces of her adopted children all over magazines and took them with her to radio interviews. She force fed those kids to America… and then came “Mommy Dearest.”

 Obviously, besides Britney Spears, most celebrity mothers aren’t as crazy as Joan Crawford. Most of them do honestly want to show their beautiful children to the world with the hope that a legitimate photo shoot will help decrease the paparazzi. I just think there must be a better way of showing off their kids without making millions. Perhaps, celebrities could do the shoot for free under the condition that the magazine donates a percentage of its salesto the charity of their choice. This would probably sell even more copies so the magazines wouldn’t likely lose money. Celebrities claim that money isn’t the driving force behind these pictures, and if that is the truth then something like this shouldn’t be a problem. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/CelebSnapshots/popup?id=2367213&contentIndex=1&page=2

When election season rolls around celebrities step out of their world of parties and paparazzi and into the world of politics, promises, and power. Suddenly, Sean Combs (a.k.a P.Diddy and Puff Daddy) puts down the Crystal and tells kids to “Vote or Die,” and Paris Hilton dresses her Chihuahua in red, white, and blue. Some celebrities are passionately involved in causes, while others just hop on for the publicity driven ride. Celebrities are Americans with same democratic rights as you and me, yet the question lingers:  

Should celebrities get involved in politics?

As a PR specialist I feel quite torn on this issue. On the one hand I think it is great for celebrities to use their influence over the masses to highlight our most liberating right as citizens of a democracy. How wonderful for celebrities to try to get the public as interested in changing the world as it is in the wacky adventures of Britney Spears. The more risk-averse side of me, however, would warn my clients to beware of the political bug. Public appearances in an arena most celebrities aren’t qualified to address can often produce more negative backlash than positive feedback. I’d encourage my clients to vote, but to also understand that it is not in their job description to promote or bash political candidates-especially if they are not informed and well versed on the issues.

In light of the upcoming campaign, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas put together a video supporting Barack Obama on www.dipdive.com. Apparently, Obama had nothing do to with the video, and didn’t even know about it until it was getting hits on the Internet. The video features, will.i.am, Scarlett Johanssen, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Common, John Legend, Tatyana Ali, Taryn Manning, Kate Walsh…and the list goes on. The actors and musicians speak/sing the words of a speech Barack Obama gave in New Hampshire, and their images and voices are juxtaposed with actual speech footage. This video is affecting people all over the world. Just today there have been over thirty comments posted.

Some celebrities obviously “fit” into the world of politics better than others, and celebrity activism is nothing new. A generation of musicians: Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, and The Beatles have given their gift of song to political efforts. Michael J. Fox campaigns for stem cell research, and hyper-adopter Angelina Jolie addresses numerous international environment, poverty and development issues. The award for greatest “celebritician” of all time could go to Governator Arnold Schwarznegger, U2’s Bono, or Ronald Regan who we mustn’t forget was an actor before he was a president.

 There is commentary after the video, and this scares me a little as a publicist. A catchy song and video is one thing, but advocating opinions is much riskier. In this case though, I like most of the commentary. It is well scripted and most of the celebrities sound smart and genuinely passionate. All in all, this video is inspiring and encouraging. Although I think Johanssen could have had an ulterior motive (to show people that she can sing), I applaud the celebrities involved and the message they promoted. The video is tastefully done, and although it supports Obama, it also encourages people to believe in hope, change, and in the power of a vote. While I think tagging along on a campaign trail is too much (cough OPRAH), if my client approached me about this endeavor, I would proudly say, “Yes, you can.”

 Eek! Please, Heidi Montag, do not take me higher. Do not take me anywhere. Do, however, take yourself to some voice lessons and a dance instructor. Then head down the street and drop your boyfriend Spencer Pratt off at USC for a directing class.

Heidi Montag’s video for her new song, “Higher” is quite possibly the most atrocious serious attempt at a music video I’ve seen…ever. I say, “serious” because this is something my fifteen-year-old brother could have shot and put on You Tube. Montag and Pratt, conversely, are 100% convinced that this video is legit. Acting as their own publicists, the two are promoting the video all over the place. Montag reportedly played it at Los Angeles Asian food hotspot Koi, and Pratt showed up to a Super Bowl party red carpet holding a stereo on his shoulder that was blasting the song. Recently, though, the oblivious couple has encountered a harsh backlash. 

In the “Higher” video, “The Hills” villainess crawls on her knees, dances awkwardly, doesn’t seem to know where to put her huge monkey hands, and bounces around showing off her…swimsuit.  Behind the scenes boyfriend Spencer Pratt directs, and one can only imagine he is saying “Just like that babe. You are the most beautiful girl in the world.”  Unfortunately, lots of fans wouldn’t agree with the Montag’s boy toy. Numerous negative comments about the video are popping up all over the Internet. Perez Hilton interviewed the two and bluntly asked their thoughts on all the criticism of the video. The kids combat this with idiotic comments about people’s jealousy, and even declare that there are fan groups who outsource people in other countries to make negative comments. Please. Someone needs to get these kids a publicist. Even though they are framed as the antagonists on the reality show “The Hills,” MTV gave these two nobodies recognition and opportunity. Montag and Pratt could have utilized this chance to level their few minutes of fame into full-blown careers, but they are completely blowing it with their outrageous antics. For one thing, Ms. Montag, do not tell reporters that you were on the beach and Spencer just happened to have his camera, so you shot the video in a couple of takes and it “cost zero dollars, and took twenty minutes” if you want people to take you seriously.  These two should  consider putting all of their undeserved money toward a publicist or a manager, and anyone else who could help them cultivate some real talent. 

Still, according to US Magazine online,  “Higher” reached No.7 on iTunes Top 10 pop chart. Is the negative talk actually generating positive buzz? Is this accidental genius? In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before MTV moves on to a new hit reality show, leaving Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt to fizzle in the Los Angeles sun. 

Red: the color of choice for this year’s “Super Bowl XLII.” The devastatingly handsome Tom Brady lead the red and navy-clad Patriots to a hardly anticipated loss, and the good ‘ole boy Eli Manning sported the color as he boldly escaped his older brother’s shadow. Oh, and “American Idol” pipsqueak Ryan Seacrest hosted the Red Carpet Pre- Game show.

Backtrack. Red carpet at the Super Bowl? Is this America’s response to missing out on the red carpet glamour of the Golden Globes and possibly (gasp) The Oscars?

 My guess is that it was Fox simply engaging in a little shameless cross promotion. Although I was a bit taken aback by the red carpet addition to the pre-game activities, I must admit that it is a smart idea from a public relations standpoint. It was obviously great publicity for Seacrest. Not that he needs it. Does that guy ever stop working?

 A recent blurring of the lines between sports star and celebrity helps me to understand the logic behind adding a red carpet addition to the pre-game show. Tom Brady left Bridget Moynahan for supermodel Gisele. Dallas Cowboy fans attributed Tony Romo’s lackluster performance on too much time spent canoodling with girlfriend Jessica Simpson. While media frenzy around these celeb-athlete couples has grown tremendously, celebrities have really been a part of the Super Bowl action for years. From the hosting city, MTV airs a Super Bowl themed “TRL”, and a celebrity touch football game called “Rock and Jock Super Bowl”. Had any of my clients planned to attend “Super Bowl XLII”, I would have taken into consideration that this game attracts more viewers than any other night of broadcast television. People love the Super Bowl, and I think aligning your client with something people love that much is a no-brainer. Also, Super Bowl Sunday is America’s passion, and a celebrity showing up to watch with thousands of other people seems to humanize him or her in a way (discounting, of course, that celebrities watch from sweet box seats).  Nonetheless, the Super Bowl realm is that of the average person. It is not the “celebrities only” world of The Oscars or The Grammy’s. I think that providing your client with the opportunity to connect with his or her fans on this kind of a level is key to success, respect, and longevity.  A musician, actor, or actress’ appearance on Ryan Seacrest’s Super Bowl red carpet says to viewers, “Well how cool is this? Today, you and I have something in common. Today we are both fans.”

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!