ReportWire

Tag: criticism

  • Gun rights groups fiercely criticize top L.A. federal prosecutor for response to Minneapolis shooting

    [ad_1]

    Top Los Angeles federal prosecutor Bill Essayli faced blistering criticism from gun rights groups, including the NRA, after he posted on X Saturday about the fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers.

    Essayli, the first assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, wrote: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

    Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, was believed to be a “lawful gun owner with a permit to carry,” according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. Bystander videos show Pretti holding a phone, but nothing appearing to be a weapon appeared in those that circulated in the hours after the shooting.

    In response to Essayli’s tweet, the NRA posted on X: “This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong.”

    The post continued: “Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

    After receiving significant backlash, Essayli accused another gun rights organization of “adding words to mischaracterize my statement.”

    “I never said it’s legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers,” he posted on X. “My comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm.

    “My advice stands: If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed. If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force.”

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office in L.A. referred The Times to Essayli’s post on X clarifying what he initially said. He declined further comment.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom joined in the criticism, writing on X, “Wow. Even the NRA thinks Trump’s DOJ stooge in California has gone too far for claiming federal agents were ‘legally justified’ to kill Alex Pretti.”

    Earlier, a 2nd Amendment lobbying group, Gun Owners of America, also criticized Essayli.

    “We condemn the untoward comments of @USAttyEssayli. Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm,” the group posted on X. “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”

    Essayli’s post received a community note — a crowdsourced fact-check — noting that “the U.S. Constitution (particularly the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments) prohibit officers from shooting citizens merely for possessing a weapon that is not an “imminent threat.”

    The shooting drew a large crowd of protesters in a city that had already seen widespread demonstrations after the fatal shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7.

    Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi last April.

    Since taking office, he has doggedly pursued President Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language verbatim at news conferences.

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia

    Source link

  • Zach Bryan Doesn’t Need to Play It So Safe

    [ad_1]

    “Bad News” ultimately does not deliver on its initial controversy.
    Photo: James Smith/Sam Snap/Getty Images

    In October, Oklahoma country music stadium draw Zach Bryan garnered attention at the highest levels of government when he posted a snippet of a track called “Bad News” in which he sings “ICE is gonna come bust down your door.” By the end of the week, United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem rebuked him on conservative personality Benny Johnson’s The Benny Show: “I hope he understands how completely disrespectful that song is, not just to law enforcement but to this country. To every single individual that has ever stood up and fought for our freedoms, he just compromised it all by putting out a product such as that.” Bryan, who was a Navy ordnanceman until his songwriting introduced a new career path, hadn’t anticipated backlash; fans brimmed with excitement for a full release. As his plaintive half-verse lamenting the “fading of the red, white, and blue” shot up the American-media flagpole, he stressed that he holds no partisan affiliations and writes about feeling trapped in a tug-of-war: “To see how much shit it stirred up makes me not only embarrassed but kind of scared. Left wing or right wing, we’re all one bird and American. To be clear, I’m on neither of these radical sides,” he said on Instagram. It was a call back to country music’s mid-2010s togetherness initiative, home to horrors like Brad Paisley and LL Cool J’s “Accidental Racist” and aw-shucks appeals to look past our differences at shows.

    Bryan’s not bullshitting. It’s true that “Bad News” and its author are painstakingly, almost characteristically avoidant of even the appearance of taking a political side. Bryan can be terse in his scant interviews and is no stranger to temporarily excusing himself from social media for a too-declarative statement. In 2024, he took a time-out and apologized for announcing during a rager that he prefers Ye to Taylor Swift. His new album, With Heaven on Top, which features the actually not-that-controversial song, catalogues his trip from alcohol abuse and a breakup to sobriety and a new marriage. “Bad News” documents a struggle to find footing in dizzyingly strange times with a shrinking support system. Eroding consensus overhead is the wallpaper in a room where he misses someone. The vibe is considerably less These deportations are out of control and more The country is so divided I can’t even talk to my girl.

    When Bryan writes about a struggle that could be construed as political, denouncing people trying to “build an empire off the things that they can take” in American Heartbreak’s “Cold Damn Vampires” or cataloguing the plights of gamblers and barflies in the title track of The Great American Bar Scene, he doesn’t sell a specific why. To live is to struggle; he often writes of dreaming of a harder, simpler life on “The Outskirts” or as a “Tradesman.” He doesn’t — like Woody Guthrie and Bruce Springsteen, both seemingly referenced in the lyrics of “Bad News” — want you to ponder a villain, the way “This Land Is Your Land” and “Born in the USA” indict a nation’s failure to deliver on its promises in the ’40s and ’80s. Bryan, instead, lays out an implicitly centrist reading months ahead of a full lyric sheet.

    With Heaven on Top’s rollout was supposed to be about making a break from the infamy of Bryan’s year or so of concerning headlines about allegations of emotional abuse from his Barstoolite ex Brianna Chickenfry, his mysterious black eye, and his squabbles on-camera in a bar and at a music festival. The album largely doesn’t engage with politics but periodically showcases awareness while pondering his troubles; “DeAnn’s Denim,” a song musing on hereditary alcoholism, brandishes a jeans/genes conceit like the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad, and the title track complains about “greedy politician boys” in a rat race. But the story throughout With Heaven on Top is that Zach Bryan is painstakingly cleaning up his life. (“Six beers a week ain’t bad, just boring is all,” he sings in the Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers descendant “Slicked Back.”)

    The notion that “Bad News” is trying to pick a fight with the United States government in the middle of such a push doesn’t square with Bryan’s historic reticence to be seen as leaning left or right or with his Super Bowl photo op with the president. But you can’t dictate how people engage with a song; you can express intentions as a writer but can’t know what meaning will be piled on by a text’s interactions with a world of personal and shared experience. Letting “Bad News” hit with the rest of the album, after the Noem flap blew over, slotted it in a week of upheaval about ICE and Customs and Border Patrol violence. Renee Good was shot to death in Minnesota; two people were injured in Portland. Bryan’s lines about cops as “cocky motherfuckers,” ICE as door busters, and a country leaving kids “all scared and all alone” might not enjoy the careful bothsidesism he seeks. But to his credit, this state of affairs is indeed a bipartisan project, nurtured by all sorts of political actors prior to the industrialized deportations of the past year. But Bryan lacks the delicacy to thread this needle. His project is making the personal feel universal; he doesn’t ache to write anything half of America might not relate to.

    This is an unnecessary evasiveness in the mid-2020s when everyone from Beyoncé to proud MAGA musicians occupy space on the same charts. The buzz around ostensibly or implicitly anti-fascist songs and videos from singer-songwriters Jesse Welles and Bryan Andrews, as well as the continued prosperity of Americafest guest Jason Aldean and the 2025 inauguration performer and American Idol judge Carrie Underwood, say the demographically vast audience for country music loves blistering, honest populism no matter the orientation. Bryan would be hailed as a hero by people who listen to one country album a year and on late-night and cable-news circuits if he aimed “Bad News” squarely at the current DHS. The fact that he refuses to points to a reality in which he isn’t performing obstinance for conservative industry cranks (who don’t even play him on the radio anyhow) and simply believes everyone else is a radical, and that’s what’s ruining the country now. But whether or not this idea circulates and lets the air out of the anti-administration protest potential of “Bad News,” as Bryan might like, is up to time and circumstance.

    [ad_2]

    Craig Jenkins

    Source link

  • Death to the Penultimate Flashback Episode

    [ad_1]

    Even when done well, the penultimate flashback episode has become such an endemic storytelling strategy in TV dramas that it should be abandoned on principle.
    Photo-Illustration: Vulture; Photos: Netflix, Sarah Enticknap/PEACOCK

    There’s a pattern in TV storytelling that’s been hanging around for a long time, but it’s recently proliferated into a full-blown scourge. If you’ve watched almost any streaming dramas in the past several years, you’ve likely seen at least one or two examples. It goes like this: Just as the story finally gets fun, with all the action careening toward the end of a season so all the mysteries can get solved and all the tension can explode, the second-to-last episode halts all that electric forward momentum. The episode probably follows a cliffhanger at the end of episode six — a secret identity gets unveiled, a dead body is discovered, or a person we all thought was dead is revealed as alive. And then, instead of giving the viewer the next scene in the story — the thing everyone desperately wants — episode seven says, “No. You don’t get to know who the murderer is yet. You don’t get the fun of everyone reacting to the secret identity. You don’t get to see what happens now that the dead character is back among the living. Before you get to the good part, you have to watch a stupid, homeworklike flashback about how everyone got here in the first place.”

    Even when done well, the penultimate flashback episode has become such an endemic storytelling strategy in TV dramas that it should be abandoned on principle. It’s happened too many times, and whatever sense of surprise and curiosity this trope may have once engendered has been long since lost. But more than for overuse, the penultimate flashback episode should get thrown into TV-writing jail because it’s a condensed expression of a particularly infuriating hang-up in so much television from the past few years, one in which a character is not just a character but a question with a straightforward answer that requires solving. Why is this woman so mean? She is grieving her child. What caused this man to snap and kill his wife? Daddy issues.

    Plots, similarly, are treated not like longer series of events, but crises developing because something terrible happened in the past: death, abuse, abandonment, bullying. The plot itself is the aftermath — it’s all a revenge plot to get back at his wife’s killer — but the energy of the show all goes toward locating the original source of the damage. That structure turns plot into an unconscious patient brought in with a bullet wound. No one cares what happens when the patient heals and goes home and has to go back to work. No one cares who the patient is, really, or what else may be going on with them. The whole point is to find and remove the bullet that entered before our part of the story even began. When the second-to-last episode flashes back to an origin story, the message is “Look, we found the source of the pain! Wrap it up. Time to go home.”

    If this were the second-to-last episode of a streaming series, I would now flash back to the first time I noticed this structure. Maybe it was in the last season of Glee, where the penultimate episode was a revisitation of the show’s pilot episode, telling the story of how everyone joined the glee club. Or it could have been season two of The Crown, when the gathering tension in Philip and Elizabeth’s marriage is halted to provide a whole backstory episode about Philip’s childhood in a dismal boarding school. That episode on its own is a striking hour of TV, but in the context of a full season of television, it also leans into everything that’s now most exasperating about this structure. Sometimes the pattern gets shifted slightly and the flashback happens near the end but not quite in the penultimate episode. So maybe my flashback-episode frustration origin story is Ozark season one, where episode eight jumps to a decade in the past to explain that the show’s villain is not just bad, she also has depression. Or maybe it was even earlier than all of those, watching the end-of-season episodes of The West Wing that rewind to Bartlet’s childhood, or how the gang all got jobs at the White House. They aren’t penultimate episodes, and the structure isn’t quite the same in a long network season as it is in the current short-season streaming model, but the same impulse is there.

    Whatever the source of this initial wound may have been, it’s now become a widespread model for how to shape a season of TV across genres and styles. Agatha All Along and WandaVision both use penultimate flashbacks before arriving at a grand finale of superhero trauma-therapy derring-do. It happens in serious prestige-style dramas like Escape at Dannemora and Fleishman Is in Trouble. It happens in HBO shows like The Leftovers, Apple shows like The Morning Show, and big sci-fi adaptations like Prime’s Fallout. In 2025 alone, Paradise, The Last of Us, The Hunting Wives, All Her Fault, and The Beast in Me all get to the final couple episodes of the season and decide that it’s time to go backward. (And I’m not even counting Alien: Earth, because that flashback episode arrives at No. 5 out of eight, rather than six or seven.)

    It’s not that the flashback episodes themselves are bad. Like all stand-alone episodes, some are abysmal, some mediocre, and some, like in The Last of Us and The Crown, are the best parts of a whole series. But when the entire season is built around a late-stage reveal that transforms one-dimensional characters into nuanced people or clarifies which specific trauma kicked off all the action, the whole show is made worse because of it. Characters can be three-dimensional from the start. Traumas, buried or otherwise, can be meaningful backstories without getting put up high on a pedestal of narrative significance. If the story in the flashback is exciting enough to be in the show, why is that the flashback? Why is that not just what the show is about?

    All Her Fault and The Beast in Me are the most egregious current offenders, in part because that choice makes two different shows doing two very different things feel like boring retreads of each other, highlighting their cookie-cutter similarities rather than allowing them to feel like distinct stories. Peacock’s All Her Fault is, as Roxana Hadadi has argued, a cautionary misandrist parable about women with idiot husbands who are so burdened by the expectations of career femininity that they can’t see the rot creeping in their own homes. The Beast in Me on Netflix, by comparison, is a fully deranged serial-killer thriller closer to You than it is to All Her Fault. Matthew Rhys rips into a chicken carcass with his bare hands, and someone gets thrown in a secret torture bunker, and in the end a lingering frame suggests the whole thing is playing on The Bad Seed.

    Both of those shows, which premiered within a week of each other, shape their stories around that same old boring framework. In the second-to-last episode, they halt the fun cliffhanger left dangling in episode six to rewind the clock and introduce a new set of characters the audience has no interest in or attachment to in order to give a beat-by-beat rundown of all the emotional devastation that led up to the concluding arc of the season. Even worse, because both shows actually rest on the same traumatic inciting incident (child died in a car crash), those penultimate episodes mean that these shows look even more like an awkward copy-paste job.

    Penultimate flashbacks have become so ho-hum typical that it’s easy to forget that, believe it or not, plotting does not have to work this way. Adolescence is captivating precisely because its one-shot conceit prevents it from skipping around through time and space. A flashback would feel like relief, which would collapse all of that show’s thoughtful uncertainty into easy, obvious clarity. The Lowdown manages to solve an elaborate noir mystery without ever wallowing in lengthy “But why did Lee Raybon want to be a detective?” hindsight. The Gilded Age didn’t deign to go all the way back to why Bertha and George got married in the first place, because current-day exposition makes that plenty clear without over-burdened explanatory backstory. They were hot for each other, and they are ambitious monsters!

    Flashbacks aren’t entirely bad, either. The Pitt, constrained by its hour-by-hour design, is forced to march resolutely forward but still peppers the tiniest hints of flashback here and there as in-text PTSD episodes. But the origin story is not the sole thrust of the season because the flashbacks aren’t providing some mysterious clues to a hidden backstory. It’s obvious from the beginning that Dr. Robby has COVID-related trauma. The show’s conflict isn’t what’s in the flashbacks; the conflict is that he’s having flashbacks. Flashbacks can exist without becoming load-bearing forms of character development. When they arrive right before the end of the season, and when that structure happens over and over again, all the power of the flashback gets drained away. Any thrill it once carried has deteriorated into a lazy delay tactic, a mathematical equation that promises all complexity in human behavior can be explained with one neat backward-looking trick.

    [ad_2]

    Kathryn VanArendonk

    Source link

  • Trump ran on ‘America first.’ Now he views presidency as a ‘worldwide situation’

    [ad_1]

    On the campaign trail, Donald Trump was unapologetic about putting America first. He promised to secure the nation’s borders, strengthen the domestic workforce and be tough on countries he thought were taking advantage of the United States.

    Now, 10 months into his second term, the president is facing backlash from some conservatives who say he is too focused on matters abroad, whether it’s seeking regime change in Venezuela, brokering peace deals in Ukraine and Gaza or extending a $20-billion currency swap for Argentina. The criticism has grown in recent days after Trump expressed support for granting more visas to foreign students and skilled immigrant workers.

    The cracks in the MAGA movement, which have been more pronounced in recent weeks, underscore how Trump’s once impenetrable political base is wavering as the president appears to embrace a more global approach to governing.

    “I have to view the presidency as a worldwide situation, not locally,” Trump said this week when asked to address the criticism at an Oval Office event. “We could have a world that’s on fire where wars come to our shores very easily if you had a bad president.”

    For backers of Trump’s MAGA movement, the conflict is forcing some to weigh loyalty to an “America first” ideology over a president they have long supported and who, in some cases, inspired them to get involved in the political process.

    “I am against foreign aid, foreign wars, and sending a single dollar to foreign countries,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who in recent weeks has become more critical of Trump’s policies, said in a social media post Wednesday. “I am America First and America Only. This is my way and there is no other way to be.”

    Beyond America-first concerns, some Trump supporters are frustrated with him for resisting the disclosures about the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his network of powerful friends — including Trump. A group of Republicans in the House, for instance, helped lead an effort to force a vote to demand further disclosures on the Epstein files from the Justice Department.

    “When they are protecting pedophiles, when they are blowing our budget, when they are starting wars overseas, I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a CNN interview. “And back home, people agree with me. They understand, even the most ardent Trump supporters understand.”

    When asked to respond to the criticism Trump has faced in recent weeks, the White House said the president was focused on implementing “economic policies that are cutting costs, raising real wages, and securing trillions in investments to make and hire in America.”

    Mike Madrid, a “never Trump” Republican consultant, believes the Epstein scandal has sped up a Republican backlash that has been brewing as a result of Trump deviating from his campaign promises.

    “They are turning on him, and it’s a sign of the inviolable trust being gone,” Madrid said.

    The MAGA movement was not led by a policy ideology, but rather “fealty to the leader,” Madrid said. Once the trust in Trump fades, “everything is gone.”

    Criticism of Trump goes mainstream

    The intraparty tension also has played out on conservative and mainstream news outlets, where the president has been challenged on his policies.

    In a recent Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, Trump was pressed on a plan to give student visas to hundreds of thousands of Chinese students, a move that would mark a departure from actions taken by his administration this year to crack down on foreign students.

    “I think it is good to have outside countries,” Trump said. “Look, I want to be able to get along with the world.”

    In that same interview, Trump said he supports giving H-1B visas to skilled foreign workers because the U.S. doesn’t have workers with “certain talents.”

    “You can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, ‘I’m going to put you into a factory where we’re going to make missiles,’” Trump argued.

    Trump in September imposed a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas for skilled workers, a move that led to confusion among businesses, immigration lawyers and H-1B visa holders. Before Trump’s order, the visa program had exposed a rift between the president’s supporters in the technology industry, which relies on the program, and immigration hard-liners who want to see the U.S. invest in an American workforce.

    A day after Trump expressed support for the visa program, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem added fuel to the immigration debate by saying the administration is fast-tracking immigrants’ pathway to citizenship.

    “More people are becoming naturalized under this administration than ever before,” Noem told Fox News this week.

    Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and close ally of Trump, said the administration’s position was “disappointing.”

    “How is that a good thing? We are supposed to be kicking foreigners out, not letting them stay,” Loomer said.

    Polling adds on the heat

    As polling shows Americans are growing frustrated with the economy, some conservatives increasingly blame Trump for not doing enough to create more jobs and lower the cost of living.

    Greene, the Georgia Republican, said on “The Sean Spicer Show” Thursday that Trump and his administration are “gaslighting” people when they say prices are going down.

    “It’s actually infuriating people because people know what they’re paying at the grocery store,” she said, while urging Republicans to “show we are in the trenches with them” rather than denying their experience.

    While Trump has maintained that the economy is strong, administration officials have begun talking about pushing new economic policies. White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said this week that the administration would be working to provide consumers with more purchasing power, saying that “we’re going to fix it right away.”

    “We understand that people understand, as people look at their pocketbooks to go to the grocery store, that there’s still work to do,” Hassett said.

    The acknowledgment comes after this month’s elections in key states — in which Republicans were soundly defeated — made clear that rising prices were top of mind for many Americans. The results also showed Latino voters were turning away from the GOP amid growing concerns about the economy.

    As Republicans try to refocus on addressing affordability, Trump has continued to blame the economic problems on former President Biden.

    “Cost, and INFLATION, were higher under the Sleepy Joe Biden administration, than they are now,” Trump said in a social media post Friday. He insisted that under his administration costs are “tumbling down.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • ‘Peaceful’ Kai Trump improves in second round of the LPGA Annika event

    [ad_1]

    Kai Trump, a high school senior playing in an LPGA Tour event for reasons beyond her ability to hit a golf ball, went from “definitely really nervous” in the first round to “very calm and peaceful” Friday in the second.

    All in all, an impressive improvement.

    Still, Trump, 18, didn’t make the cut, not after finishing last among 108 players with a two-round total of 18-over, 27 shots behind leader Grace Kim and 17 away from the projected cut line. The granddaughter of President Trump improved eight strokes to a 75 in the second round of the tournament hosted by Hall of Famer Annika Sorenstam at Pelican Golf Club in Belleair, Fla.

    How dramatic was the improvement? Trump had nine bogeys, two doubles and one birdie Thursday. A day later she was briefly under par when she birdied the par-3 third hole, but she bogeyed the fourth and triple-bogeyed the par-4 fifth hole.

    Trump rebounded to birdie three of her next six holes. How relaxed was she? She literally laughed off her triple bogey.

    “Things are going to happen,” she said. “Once it happens, you can’t go back in time and fix it. The best thing I could do is move on. Like, I told my caddie, Allan [Kournikova], kind of just started laughing, ‘it is what it is.’

    “We got that out of the way, so let’s just move on. It was pretty easy to move on after that.”

    Especially on the three-par No. 12 where she nearly made the first hole-in-one of her life.

    “I hit like a tight little draw into it,” Trump said. “Tried not to get too high because of the wind. Yeah, it was a great shot.”

    What would she tell her grandfather about the round? “That I hit a great shot on 18 two days in a row.”

    “I did everything I could possibly have done for this tournament, so I think if you prepare right, the nerves can … they’re always going to be there, right?,” she said. “They can be a little softened. So I would just say that.”

    Critics among and beyond her nearly 9 million social media followers were relentless in noting her obvious privilege for securing a sponsor invitation. Dan Doyle Jr., owner of Pelican Golf Club, cheerfully acknowledged that Trump’s inclusion had little to do with ability and a lot to do with public relations.

    “The idea of the exemption, when you go into the history of exemptions, is to bring attention to an event,” Doyle told reporters this week. “You got to see her live, she’s lovely to speak to.

    “And she’s brought a lot of viewers through Instagram, and things like that, who normally don’t watch women’s golf. That was the hope. And we’re seeing that now.”

    Trump attends the Benjamin School in Palm Beach and will attend the University of Miami next year. She is ranked No. 461 by the American Junior Golf Assn.

    Stepping up to the LPGA, complete with a deep gallery of onlookers and a phalanx of Secret Service agents surrounding her, could have been daunting. Trump, though, said the experience was “pretty cool.”

    It was an eventful week for Trump. She played nine holes of a pro-am round Monday with tournament host Sorenstam, who empathized with the difficulty of handling an intense swirl of criticism and support.

    “I just don’t know how she does it, honestly,” Sorenstam said. “To be 18 years old and hear all the comments, she must be super tough on the inside. I’m sure we can all relate what it’s like to get criticism here and there, but she gets it a thousand times.”

    Sorenstam recalled her own exemption for the Bank of America Colonial in 2003 when she became the first woman to play in a men’s PGA Tour event in 58 years. She made a 14-foot putt at the 18th green to give her a 36-hole total of five-over 145. She hurled her golf ball into the grandstand, wiped away tears and was hugged by her husband, David Esch.

    “That was, at the time, maybe a little bit of a controversial invite,” Sorenstam said. “In the end, I certainly appreciated it. It just brings attention to the tournament, to the sport and to women’s sports, which I think is what we want.”

    [ad_2]

    Steve Henson

    Source link

  • BBC leaders resign after the broadcaster’s editing of a Trump speech is called misleading

    [ad_1]

    BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News Chief Executive Deborah Turness announced Sunday they are resigning from their positions.

    The departures come as the British public broadcaster has faced criticism for its editing of President Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before the Capitol riot and insurrection.

    The BBC investigative series “Panorama,” in a broadcast a week ahead of the U.S. presidential election last year, featured an edited video of Trump’s speech.

    Critics said that the way the speech was edited was misleading in that it cut out a section in which Trump said that he expected his supporters would demonstrate peacefully.

    “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said in the speech, during which he also urged his supporters to “fight like hell.”

    In a statement, Turness acknowledged the controversy around the “Panorama” broadcast, noting, “In public life leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

    In a separate news release, Davie said, “In these increasingly polarized times, the BBC is of unique value and speaks to the very best of us. It helps make the UK a special place; overwhelmingly kind, tolerant and curious. Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable.

    “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as Director-General I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

    Trump posted a link to a Daily Telegraph story about the speech-editing on his Truth Social network, thanking the newspaper “for exposing these Corrupt ‘Journalists.’ These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” He called that “a terrible thing for Democracy!”

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted on X, posting a screen grab of an article headlined “Trump goes to war with ‘fake news’ BBC” beside another about Davie’s resignation, with the words “shot” and “chaser.”

    Trump was impeached and criminally indicted over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection. The felony charges were dropped after he won the 2024 election, as U.S. Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president may not be criminally prosecuted.

    Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the Daily Telegraph newspaper published parts of a dossier complied by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

    As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

    The 103-year-old BBC faces greater scrutiny than other broadcasters — and criticism from its commercial rivals — because of its status as a national institution funded through an annual license fee of $230 paid by all households with a television.

    The BBC airs vast reams of entertainment and sports programming across multiple television and radio stations and online platforms — but it’s the BBC’s news output that is most often under scrutiny.

    The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial in its output, and critics are quick to point out when they think it has failed. It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

    It has also been criticized from all angles over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.

    The BBC shakeup comes as Trump has been extremely aggressive in pursuing lawsuits against U.S. media companies. Paramount Global forked over $16 million this summer after Trump complained about the editing of a Kamala Harris interview on CBS’ “60 minutes.” Last year, ABC News paid $16 million to settle Trump’s defamation lawsuit against anchor George Stephanopoulos.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Olsen

    Source link

  • Taylor Swift Fans Hit Back At MIND-BOGGLINGLY Bad Faith The Life Of A Showgirl Takes! – Perez Hilton

    [ad_1]

    It has been A WEEK!

    Just seven days after the midnight release of Taylor Swift‘s twelfth album, The Life of a Showgirl has inexplicably become her most controversial. But are the lyrics really that offensive? Or is it the listeners who got… weird?

    Look, we’re not talking about the intentional spicy lines, like Actually Romantic seemingly igniting a feud with Charli XCX, letting everyone know she might have her more controversial friends’ backs on CANCELLED!, or getting dirtier than she’s ever gotten singing about Travis Kelce‘s Wood. All that we expected. No, these are takes we could never have anticipated because, well… frankly they’re such leaps in logic they defy reason!

    Tradwife Propaganda

    Listeners are interpreting her desire to get married and have children as… conservative tradwife propaganda. Um… WHAT?!?

    Y’all. The patriarchal tradwife thing is not about wanting a husband and kids. It’s actually the opposite! That’s about women being forced into the position of being a full-time wife and baby factory — because they’re seen as the property of men. Taylor saying she wants that stuff for herself is making a choice.

    Related: Taylor ‘Braced’ For ‘Drama’ As She Picks Bridesmaids For Travis Kelce Wedding!

    As this fan succinctly explains:

    “The whole point of feminism is that we want women to do whatever they want to do.”

    @mariaisalright

    genuinely the craziest take I’ve heard, go touch grass. #lifeofashowgirl #motherhood #marriage

    ♬ original sound – mariagabriela

    Taylor isn’t being anti-feminist here. She’s just telling everyone what she wants. Which we should all be fine with. LOVE IS LOVE, remember that? It works the other way, too!

    Also, let’s not forget, even if Tay retired right now she’d remain one of the most successful humans in their chosen field OF ALL TIME. That’s not what a tradwife is. Tradwives are basically teenagers drafted into marriage like chattel. Taylor looks great, but let’s not forget she’s 35 years old! And richer than her husband-to-be by A LOT. This ain’t that.

    Oh, and Tay herself said she’s NOT retiring just because she got married. And in fact she finds that assumption “shockingly offensive” by the way.

    Also from WI$H LI$T? Some “fans” somehow pulled the idea Taylor wants to propagate the white race like she’s Elon Musk. Why? Because she sang about wanting to:

    “Have a couple kids, got the whole block looking like you”

    See, Trav is a white man, so she clearly is saying she only wants everyone on the block to be white. And voila, the song about not being into modern materialistic desires is actually… promoting eugenics.

    Yeah. It’s all too real.

    You can see a lot more about that theory and the Swifties blasting it HERE. (Oh, and also take a listen to Kylie Kelce hilariously explaining why that’s much funnier if you know the Kelces and their frustratingly dominant genes.)

    Also, here’s a response we really love from Saints tight end Juwan Johnson and his wife Chanen

    @juandchan

    And nothing like me???????? #juandchan

    ♬ original sound – songlyricss87

    So. Cute. Too bad Juwan is clearly a white supremacist, right? Y’all see how ridiculous you sound now??

    Homophobia

    In her track Actually Romantic, Tay takes a new tactic on the diss track. She likens someone’s nonstop, compulsive hatred of her to, well… a romantic obsession. She’s basically saying that Charli XCX — or whoever it’s about, more than one person in all likelihood — talking about her all the time doesn’t feel dangerous, it’s harmless. It’s even flattering, like a crush.

    But there’s a contingent who are just champing at the bit to call out Taylor for being homophobic, so they say it’s gay panic. They figure since she’s a woman and Charli is a woman, she’s basically calling someone gay as an insult…

    Forget the fact Taylor loves the LGBTQ community, was the first pop star to cast a trans actor as a love interest in a music video, and has been vocal politically mostly about this topic.

    She doesn’t speak about politics much, but she did tweet in 2021 that she had her “Fingers crossed and praying that the Senate will see trans and lgbtq rights as basic human rights.” In 2018, she also spoke out against the anti-LGBT legislation of Tennessee congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, saying:

    “I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent. I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love.”

    You can listen to what she’s explicitly saying about the matter… or you can infer that she secretly means whatever makes her look the worst. One of those choices respects her and gives her agency.

    Racism & Misogynoir

    Oof, OK, this is a big one.

    There’s a theory that Taylor is not only racist but specifically obsessed with Black women — as it relates to the men she dates. Travis Kelce’s most recent longterm relationship before her was with a woman named Kayla Nicole — and critics are pairing that with some lyrics and doing a hop, skip, and a jump to… misogynoir, the hatred of Black women.

    (c) MEGA/WENN/Kayla Nicole/Instagram

    The pop delight Opalite is pretty clearly about Tay’s new romance with Trav. She sings about why this is relationship feels so right in comparison with past ones. That means, yes, a bit of a swipe at Kayla. Tay sings:

    “You couldn’t understand it / Why you felt alone / You were in it for real / She was in her phone / And you were just a pose”

    Folks have taken this to be about Kayla not just because she was Trav’s most recent ex but also because of resurfaced video of the NFL star and his then-WAG living this exact scenario.

    That’s nothing wrong with a songwriter singing about their own relationship, and this is all personal stuff. We just know it because Taylor is the most scrutinized woman alive! But again, nothing about race at all.

    However, at the same time, the whole song uses the metaphor of opalite, a bright, glittery man-made gemstone, to represent happiness, while the black mineral onyx is used to represent difficult times. People are interpreting this to say dating Black women was what made Trav upset, now he’s with her and all is white in the world. It is SUCH a stretch.

    Darkness, night, stormy weather, all classic representations of sadness — ones which Tay also uses in the song. And sunshine and light represent safety, rescue, and hope. Why? Well, they pretty much always have throughout human history. Probably something to do with early man getting lost to predators and accidents in the scary dark, and being safer when it was brighter and everyone could see? In any case, it’s like all of culture, thousands of poems, songs, plays, films…

    But when Taylor does it it’s a sign she’s been secretly racist all this time?? Come on, now! Really??

    We’ll let some folks explain who have a little more expertise…

    @brookeg28

    Breaking news: words mean things. #taylorswift #swifttok #tloas #swiftie

    ♬ original sound – Brooke Giles

    But seriously, Taylor has ALWAYS, quite consistently been against racism. She had the courage to blast the President of the United States for “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism.” And she’s been reaping his wrath ever since.

    And when white nationalists tried to embrace her as an “Aryan goddess” in 2019, she did what Trump was never willing to do when they embraced him — she very clearly and explicitly denounced them, telling The Guardian:

    “There’s literally nothing worse than white supremacy. It’s repulsive. There should be no place for it.”

    You can listen to what she says when she’s not being poetic, making her feelings on the matter clear! Or… You can listen to a song about finding happiness, in which she sings:

    “You were dancing through the lightning strikes / Sleepless in the onyx night / But now the sky is opalite”

    And assume her secret intention is to take down Black women. Sigh.

    Not Political Enough??

    In addition to those who think the whole album is a MAGA dog whistle, there are others complaining about Taylor not getting political. For real! We’ve seen tons of posts where people are saying Tay isn’t speaking to the political moment.

    And this isn’t just TikTokers either, we’ve seen actual music critics write whole think pieces about this!

    We mean, at least it’s accurate? This album isn’t political. But Tay has never really made political music. It’s mostly been about her relationships, her feelings, what it’s like for a girl going through big life moments… It’s all really personal stuff. Interpretations of politics just aren’t her thing.

    There are plenty of folk and classic rock and punk bands to go to for that sort of thing. Like, if Green Day put out Dookie II right now? And completely ignored the rise of fascism? After American Idiot? We could see their fans being pretty disappointed in them. But this feels like ordering pizza and complaining there isn’t enough standup comedy on it.

    It’s OK to make something fun and cheerful if that’s your gift! And we’ll let this Swiftie give everyone an excellent explanation WHY!

    The WILDEST Takes

    Stuff gets crazier. The worst faith takes are actually saying Tay’s album is somehow celebrating the genocide in Gaza… Or that Taylor comparing a hater to “a toy Chihuahua barking at me from a tiny purse” is racist against… can you guess? Asians! Yes, because apparently Chihuahua is a “slur to Asian or half Asian people” — ignoring the context that it’s a well-known dog breed, and she’s explicitly using the term in the context of the dog breed.

    But one of the most insulting? We’ve seen multiple hot takes from critics saying Taylor was about to become transphobic. Not that she’s currently transphobic, not that there’s any evidence of that at all. No, they’re going full Minority Report and saying they just feel in their gut that she’s going to go full JK Rowling any second.

    What’s the most epically far-reaching take YOU’VE seen about The Life of a Showgirl??

    [Image via Taylor Swift/Charli XCX/YouTube/Travis Kelce/Kayla Nicole/Instagram.]

    [ad_2]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • FBI cuts ties with Southern Poverty Law Center after criticism from conservatives

    [ad_1]

    FBI Director Kash Patel says the bureau is cutting ties with the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has tracked domestic extremism and racial and religious bias for decades.It comes after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and increased attention on the group he founded, Turning Point USA. SPLC included it as a “case study in the hard right” in its report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024.”Video above details the charges against the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s death.Patel said on Friday that the FBI would sever its relationship with the SPLC, asserting that the organization had been turned into a “partisan smear machine” and criticizing it for its use of a “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States. Criticism of the SPLC escalated from some conservatives and prominent allies of President Donald Trump in the weeks after Kirk’s assassination. Prominent figures including Elon Musk condemned the SPLC this week for its descriptions of Kirk and the organization.Many of those political figures were also connected to the group in the Turning Point USA case study.”Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA is a well-funded, hard-right organization with links to Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hard-right extremists and a tremendous amount of influence in conservative politics,” the SPLC case study states. “While the group was previously dismissed by key figures within the Republican National Committee (RNC), Trump attended several TPUSA events across the country throughout 2024, and several of his nominees have ties to the organization.”The case study characterized the organization as “authoritarian, patriarchal Christian supremacy dedicated to eroding the value of inclusive democracy and public institutions.” It stated that Turning Point USA exploited fear and “embraced aggressive state and federal power to enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy.”The August 2025 Intelligence Project Dispatch also named a leader of Turning Point Action, stating that former Arizona Rep. Austin Smith had been charged with election fraud.Video below: Charlie Kirk’s widow vows to continue his mission after his murderA spokesperson for the SPLC, a legal and advocacy group founded in 1971 as a watchdog for minorities and the underprivileged, did not directly address Patel’s comments in a statement Friday but said the organization has for decades shared data with the public and remains “committed to exposing hate and extremism as we work to equip communities with knowledge and defend the rights and safety of marginalized people.”The FBI also cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent Jewish advocacy organization that fights antisemitism. It faced criticism on the right for maintaining a “Glossary of Extremism.” The organization announced this week that it was discontinuing that glossary because a number of entries were outdated and some were being “intentionally misrepresented and misused.”What is the SPLC?The Southern Poverty Law Center was created by lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin in Montgomery in 1971.Civil Rights Activist Julian Bond was named the first president and people from across the country created the financial base for the organization, according to the SPLC website.”In the decades since its founding, the SPLC shut down some of the nation’s most violent white supremacist groups by winning crushing, multimillion-dollar jury verdicts on behalf of their victims,” the website states about the organization’s history. “It dismantled vestiges of Jim Crow, reformed juvenile justice practices, shattered barriers to equality for women, children, the LGBT community and the disabled, protected low-wage immigrant workers from exploitation, and more.”During the 1980s, the SPLC began monitoring white supremacist activity and what is now known as the Intelligence Project tracks hate and extremist groups across the country. This report is known around the world.

    FBI Director Kash Patel says the bureau is cutting ties with the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has tracked domestic extremism and racial and religious bias for decades.

    It comes after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and increased attention on the group he founded, Turning Point USA. SPLC included it as a “case study in the hard right” in its report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024.

    Video above details the charges against the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Patel said on Friday that the FBI would sever its relationship with the SPLC, asserting that the organization had been turned into a “partisan smear machine” and criticizing it for its use of a “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

    Criticism of the SPLC escalated from some conservatives and prominent allies of President Donald Trump in the weeks after Kirk’s assassination. Prominent figures including Elon Musk condemned the SPLC this week for its descriptions of Kirk and the organization.

    Many of those political figures were also connected to the group in the Turning Point USA case study.

    “Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA is a well-funded, hard-right organization with links to Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hard-right extremists and a tremendous amount of influence in conservative politics,” the SPLC case study states. “While the group was previously dismissed by key figures within the Republican National Committee (RNC), Trump attended several TPUSA events across the country throughout 2024, and several of his nominees have ties to the organization.”

    The case study characterized the organization as “authoritarian, patriarchal Christian supremacy dedicated to eroding the value of inclusive democracy and public institutions.” It stated that Turning Point USA exploited fear and “embraced aggressive state and federal power to enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy.”

    The August 2025 Intelligence Project Dispatch also named a leader of Turning Point Action, stating that former Arizona Rep. Austin Smith had been charged with election fraud.

    Video below: Charlie Kirk’s widow vows to continue his mission after his murder

    A spokesperson for the SPLC, a legal and advocacy group founded in 1971 as a watchdog for minorities and the underprivileged, did not directly address Patel’s comments in a statement Friday but said the organization has for decades shared data with the public and remains “committed to exposing hate and extremism as we work to equip communities with knowledge and defend the rights and safety of marginalized people.”

    The FBI also cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent Jewish advocacy organization that fights antisemitism. It faced criticism on the right for maintaining a “Glossary of Extremism.” The organization announced this week that it was discontinuing that glossary because a number of entries were outdated and some were being “intentionally misrepresented and misused.”

    What is the SPLC?

    The Southern Poverty Law Center was created by lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin in Montgomery in 1971.

    Civil Rights Activist Julian Bond was named the first president and people from across the country created the financial base for the organization, according to the SPLC website.

    “In the decades since its founding, the SPLC shut down some of the nation’s most violent white supremacist groups by winning crushing, multimillion-dollar jury verdicts on behalf of their victims,” the website states about the organization’s history. “It dismantled vestiges of Jim Crow, reformed juvenile justice practices, shattered barriers to equality for women, children, the LGBT community and the disabled, protected low-wage immigrant workers from exploitation, and more.”

    During the 1980s, the SPLC began monitoring white supremacist activity and what is now known as the Intelligence Project tracks hate and extremist groups across the country. This report is known around the world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Compliment Sandwich: How to Give Constructive Feedback That Sticks

    The Compliment Sandwich: How to Give Constructive Feedback That Sticks

    [ad_1]

    Want to make your advice and feedback more digestible? Learn how to make a “Compliment Sandwich” to deliver constructive criticism in a more positive and motivating way.


    Have you ever struggled to share your thoughts with a colleague or friend without sounding too harsh? Being able to offer advice, feedback, and constructive input is an essential skill in both personal and professional environments. However, striking the right balance between positive reinforcement and helpful critique can be tricky.

    The “Compliment Sandwich” is one effective technique for delivering constructive criticism. It works by balancing both positive and negative comments, making it easier for the recipient to agree and act upon your suggestion. Here’s how it looks in action.

    What Is the Compliment Sandwich?

    The main goal of the “Compliment Sandwich” is to deliver criticism while maintaining a positive tone throughout the conversation.

    It involves three key parts:

    • Positive Opening (First Slice of Bread): Start with a genuine compliment or acknowledgment of something the person is doing well. This sets a positive tone and makes the recipient feel valued right away.
    • Constructive Critique (The Filling): Present the main feedback or critique in a clear, supportive way. This is the heart of the feedback where you address what needs improvement or adjustment.
    • Positive Closing (Second Slice of Bread): End with another positive or encouraging statement to reinforce your support and motivate the recipient. This leaves them feeling confident and balanced.

    Practical Applications and Examples

    Here are some hypothetical examples to show how the Compliment Sandwich works in practice. Remember, these aren’t scripts to follow word-for-word, just guidelines to inspire your own approach.

    1. Workplace Feedback

    Scenario: Addressing an employee’s inconsistent communication with the team.

    • Positive Opening: “I really appreciate the effort you put into your work and the unique insights you bring to our projects.”
    • Constructive Critique: “Lately, I’ve noticed some delays in team updates, which can make it harder for everyone to stay aligned and avoid miscommunication. Improving this will help the team function more smoothly.”
    • Positive Closing: “I look forward to seeing what you contribute to the team’s future success.”

    2. Teacher and Student

    Scenario: A teacher providing feedback on an essay.

    • Positive Opening: “Your thesis is engaging, and it’s clear you put a lot of thought into your argument.”
    • Constructive Critique: “To strengthen your essay, consider adding recent studies or relevant examples to support your ideas.”
    • Positive Closing: “You’re on the right track, I’m excited to see how this will evolve with the added research—I have no doubt it will be excellent!”

    3. Personal Relationships

    Scenario: Talking to a friend who tends to dominate conversations.

    • Positive Opening: “I always enjoy talking with you because you have so many great stories.”
    • Constructive Critique: “Sometimes I don’t get a chance to share my thoughts as much. It would mean a lot to me if we could balance our conversations a bit more.”
    • Positive Closing: “I love our chats and look forward to many more. Your energy makes them lively!”

    4. Coaching in Sports

    Scenario: A coach providing feedback on a player’s performance.

    • Positive Opening: “I love the energy and determination you bring to every game.”
    • Constructive Critique: “Your defensive positioning needs some improvement, I can help you work on that during practice this weekend.”
    • Positive Closing: “Keep up the hard work, and I know with some adjustments, you’ll be a better player all around.”

    Tips for Effectiveness

    • Be Genuine: Sincere compliments are essential to avoid feedback feeling manipulative. Always be truthful.
    • Learn to Find the Good: Practice recognizing positive traits in others. This makes it easier to offer genuine compliments and feedback.
    • Remember the Positivity Ratio: Aim for a 3:1 ratio of positive to critical feedback to maintain motivation and foster growth.
    • Share Good News: Inject positivity by sharing good news, which can have a “bless the messenger” effect, where people feel more positive towards a person delivering uplifting information. 
    • Adjust for Context: Tailor your feedback based on the recipient and situation. Some prefer gentle handling, while others want direct feedback.

    Limitations of the Compliment Sandwich

    The Compliment Sandwich has been widely used as a feedback tool, originating from management and communication training programs, typically in a corporate or organizational setting. Despite its popularity, it has drawbacks. One major criticism is that it can feel formulaic if used too often. When feedback follows the same pattern every time, it risks sounding insincere, reducing its effectiveness. The best feedback is organic and authentic. Use the Compliment Sandwich as a flexible guideline, not a rigid formula. Adapt your specific feedback based on the situation and the individual. Keep your communication fresh and spontaneous.

    Psychological Foundations: Priming and the Recency Effect

    The effectiveness of the Compliment Sandwich can be better understood through psychological principles like priming and the recency effect.

    Priming is about how an initial stimulus can influence how someone perceives a subsequent one. In this context, the initial positive statement can make someone more open to subsequent feedback. Starting with praise sets a receptive tone, reducing defensiveness when delivering constructive critique.

    The recency effect means people remember the last part of an experience most clearly. Ending feedback with a positive comment leverages this effect, leaving the recipient with a favorable impression and motivating them to act on the critique.

    The main takeaway? Start and end on a good note. It’s a simple yet powerful and scientifically-backed way to boost the effectiveness of your communication while maintaining truth and honesty.

    Conclusion

    The Compliment Sandwich can be an effective way to deliver balanced and constructive feedback when used thoughtfully. The key is to avoid being scripted and to ensure that your feedback is sincere and unrehearsed. Try using the Compliment Sandwich the next time you give feedback and see if it changes the way people respond to your feedback and suggestions.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Apple apologizes for another ad that missed the mark

    Apple apologizes for another ad that missed the mark

    [ad_1]

    Apple pulled the latest short film in its The Underdogs: OOO (Out of Office) series set in Thailand. The tech giant scrubbed it over complaints about stereotypical portrayals of Thailand and its people in certain scenes.

    reports that Apple issued an apology to the people of Thailand for the fifth film in its Underdogs series. The ad series features a group of travel weary office workers navigating the world using Apple’s various products.

    Several viewers posted comments criticizing the film’s use of a sepia filter to make Thailand seem underdeveloped. The comments also called out the costuming and scenery decisions in its airport scene using outdated representations of Thailand’s citizens.

    Sattra Sripan, the spokesman for the Thai House of Representatives’ committee on tourism, called for a boycott over the ad.

    “Thai people are deeply unhappy with the advertisement,” Sripan said in a statement. “I encourage Thai people to stop using Apple products and change to other brands.”

    Apple issued an apology for the ad shortly after pulling it off of YouTube. Lawmakers have also invited Apple representatives to visit with them to discuss the ads and how they portray Thailand on film.

    “Our intent was to celebrate the country’s optimism and culture, and we apologize for not fully capturing the vibrancy of Thailand today,” the statement read.

    This is the second time this year that Apple has apologized for a commercial. that it told AdAge “missed the mark” for its new thin iPad Pro. The commercial features a giant pneumatic press crushing a large collection of items used in or to represent creative endeavors such musical instruments, paints, a generic arcade cabinet, and camera equipment. The steel crusher smooshes everything flat and lifts up to reveal an intact iPad sitting on the lower steel block that a voiceover describes as “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest.”

    Artists, musicians and other creators took offense to the ad’s implied tone that generative AI would replace human artistic endeavors. Apple vowed not to air the ad on TV but it’s still on its YouTube page with the comments section disabled.

    [ad_2]

    Danny Gallagher

    Source link

  • ‘X-Men ’97,’ the Criticism of Nostalgia, and Midnight Musings

    ‘X-Men ’97,’ the Criticism of Nostalgia, and Midnight Musings

    [ad_1]

    Another episode of X-Men ’97 is here, and the Midnight Boys are back to talk about what they liked (12:29). They also have a discussion on the ins and outs of critiquing the state of fandom today, as well as their first installment of Midnight Musings (67:25).

    Hosts: Charles Holmes, Van Lathan, Jomi Adeniran, and Steve Ahlman
    Senior Producer: Steve Ahlman
    Additional Production Support: Arjuna Ramgopal
    Social: Jomi Adeniran

    Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts

    [ad_2]

    Charles Holmes

    Source link

  • What Does It Say About the Current Culture That A Critic Has To Hide Their Name to Write An Unfiltered Assessment of a Taylor Swift Album?

    What Does It Say About the Current Culture That A Critic Has To Hide Their Name to Write An Unfiltered Assessment of a Taylor Swift Album?

    [ad_1]

    While Taylor Swift, in her cloying manner, has seen fit to post all of the glowing reviews she collected about The Tortured Poets Department by retweeting them with responses that quote her own lyrics, not every review was an example of high praise. But before one pivots to that lone wolf who stood apart from the pack of praising reviewers, let us go over the reviews Swift actually did choose to highlight. There was the one from Rolling Stone that gave it “instant classic” status and a review title called, “Come For the Torture, Stay For the Poetry.” Swift’s lyric quote reply? “And that was the closest I’ve come to my heart exploding” (a line taken from the album’s eponymous “The Tortured Poets Department”). To The Times and The Sunday Times’ declaring the songs to be “as rich and concise as a short story collection,” Swift gushed, “These chemicals hit me like white wine” (except she spells it “whiiiiite wiiiiine”), a lyric pertaining to Travis Kelce on “The Alchemy.” Swift also reposted a review from the UK’s i newspaper (though that seems slightly like scraping the bottom of the barrel for her), which offered the vague title, “If you expected a Taylor Swift revenge album, you were wrong.” Although not “laudatory,” per se, Swift still replied, “I feel like laughing in the middle of practice” (a lyric from the only other Kelce-inspired song besides “The Alchemy,” “So High School”). 

    From another British publication (and yes, it’s pointed that she’s favoring British rags, as though to further laugh in Joe Alwyn and Matty Healy’s face from afar while they’re forced to be subjected to these headlines in their home country), The Independent, Swift reposted the review titled, “Taylor Swift’s country-hued tales of bad boys & good girls are irresistible.” Her reply to that was: “Everyone we know understands why it’s meant to be” (another lyric from “The Tortured Poets Department”). The mutual ass-licking bender continued with Swift reposting Variety’s, review, “Taylor Swift Renews Her Vows With Heartbreak in Audacious, Transfixing Tortured Poets Department,” specifically quoting some rearranged lines from it that praised the record as “a culmination of [Taylor Swift’s] genius for marrying cleverness with catharsis… If she is both our best heartbreak chronicler and most uplifting popular entertainer, no one is coming for either job.” This being a nod to her warning on “I Can Do It With A Broken Heart,” “Try and come for my job.” But rather than quoting that line, Swift goes with one from “Down Bad”: “for a moment I was heaven struck.”

    Another Billboard review offered, “Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department is messy, unguarded and undeniably triumphant.” Swift returned, “What a crash, what a rush,” a line from “Florida!!!” From HITS Daily Double, Swift retweeted the article that assured, “She’s A Big Girl Now,” with the publication highlighting in their caption, “​​On TTPD, @taylorswift13 has grown up, is telling the truth and is letting go of the past.” First of all, was she not telling the truth before? It’s not exactly the most flattering compliment, especially to a pop singer who famously despises not being believed (see also: her sexual harassment lawsuit). Nonetheless, Swift answered, “If you know it in one glimpse, it’s legendary” (from “loml”). She at last concluded her bender of reposting good reviews with one from Uproxx (also not the most sophisticated rag), which touted, “​​Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department Isn’t The Breakup Album You Were Expecting—It’s Better.” Swift rewarded that sentiment with another lyric from “So High School”: “cheeks pink in the twinkling lights.” It is also worth noting that Swift named each and every one of the reviewers in her retweets. For it is important to her to give credit where ass-licking credit is due (a very deliberate and quintessentially petty choice on her part, as though to emphasize and further ostracize the anonymous reviewer with the gall to not see her work as “masterful”). 

    Of course, all of this “aw, shucks” posturing is a put-on, with Swift herself happy to admit, “You know you’re good, and I’m good.” Britney would have said it more poetically and without as much faux humbleness: “I wasn’t good. I was great.” And yes, Spears, too, was subjected to her unfair share of scrutiny and condemnation. In truth, more than Swift has ever experienced, for Spears’ height of fame also existed at a height of paparazzi invasiveness and gossip rag power. Even so, Swift has made no bones about her irritation with anything resembling criticism. Granted, she’s never lashed out at critics in a manner as direct and unexpected as her “dark foil,” Lana Del Rey. Instead, Swift lets her dissatisfaction be known in other ways (like writing a song called “Mean” after a critic slammed her performance of “Rhiannon” with Stevie Nicks at the 2010 Grammys). Or, when that fails, she’ll leave it to the Swifties to let their dissatisfaction be known. While the Swifties’ “wrath” could never compare to that of the Barbz’ or the Beyhive’s, it is sufficient enough for a reviewer going against the accepted opinion that TTPD is “genius,” “brilliant,” etc. to decide, “Na, I’m not gonna put my name on this review.”

    With critics well-aware of the personal and professional fallout that could result from lambasting the fans’ precious god(dess), it was a review of The Tortured Poets Department from Paste magazine that opted to allow the writer to put their work out into the internet ether with the protection of anonymity. No name was attached to the review (save for “Paste Staff”) and, as such, it is one of the most brutally honest assessments of Swift and the album that has come about during this “era.” While Variety insisted that Swift hasn’t made a right proper breakup album since 2012’s Red, the critic here emphasizes that Swift has been writing the same record from the get-go…with folklore and evermore being “hiccups in the timeline—existing as the most fully-formed renderings of Swift’s own insecurities and concerns” (not to mention her only genuine attempts at writing in the third person). For the reviewer, that’s definitely not what TTPD is, so much as further evidence that Swift is on songwriting autopilot at this juncture (and who knows, maybe AI came up with the lines about “seven chocolate bars” and a “tattooed golden retriever”). 

    On “The Alchemy,” Swift insists, “This happens once every few lifetimes.” For Swift, “it” (read: love turned to regret and anguish) happens every album cycle. Every relationship and every breakup is her artistic cannon fodder to shoot back into the masses so that they can process her heartache as well. Perhaps help her pinpoint the moment where it all went wrong. It is precisely for this reason that she concludes the album with the line, “The story isn’t mine anymore.” That it certainly isn’t. For once you put anything out into the world, even a review, it is condemned to be interpreted, twisted and analyzed. And yet, Swift is quick to insist that art should be above condemnation or critique: “What do we do to our writers, and our artists, and our creatives? We put them through hell. We watch what they create, then we judge it. We love to watch artists in pain, often to the point where I think sometimes as a society we provoke that pain and we just watch what happens.” Madonna once said something similar in the form of: “What people fail to realize is how much guts it takes to do what we do, what any artist does… How much guts it takes to put yourself on the line and say, here’s my work, here’s my heart and soul.”

    Well, first of all, that’s what a critic, a good critic is actually doing as well. And second, Madonna has never been as “fragile” as Swift, nor has the majority of her canon been an “autopsy” of dead relationships (she simply isn’t that heteronormative). A topic that is becoming less and less mineable. Indeed, one can hear Swift struggling to sound profound not only in the lyrics, but in the commentary she offers for each song. For “Fortnight,” she bills not getting to be with the person you thought you would be as the most tragic thing possible. A “perspective” that reeks of being a privilege of the rich (for who else has time for such la-di-da romantic ideals?). As she tells it, she imagined “Fortnight” taking place “in this, like, American town where the American dream you thought would happen to you didn’t, right?” Let us pause here to note that Swift seems to be mutating the definition of the “American dream” into something centered on “winning” in love, not financial security and job satisfaction by way of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” And maybe she’s transforming the conventional definition to conform to referring to love because she already did achieve the American dream long ago. “Hard-won” by way of being born to a financial adviser (who is a millionaire himself), which certainly helps with having a “pie-in-the-sky” dream supported. Thus, Swift continues to explain why “Fortnight” is “tragic” because, “You ended up not with the person that you loved, and now you have to just live with that every day, wondering what might have been, maybe seeing them out, and…and that’s a pretty tragic concept, really. So I was just writing from that perspective.” In other words, her own very tunnel vision-y one. For Swift’s biggest and only “tragedy” at this juncture is not being able to secure her “true love,” whoever she might actually deem that to be (for now, it seems, grossly enough, like it was supposed to be Matty Healy). 

    And that’s where, with just one line, the Paste magazine reviewer’s biggest, most damning smackdown comes in: “There is nothing poetic about a billionaire.” And definitely nothing tortured either. So it is that the very notion of Swift painting herself as a “tortured poet” spouting lyrics like, “Don’t want money/Just someone who wants my company” is utterly incongruous. What’s more, apart from the fact that a large percentage of America does want her company (and is willing to pay for it, too), money can buy friends and love anyway. False ideas of “pure intentions” be damned—everyone, at their core, is interested in another person for what they have and what they can give. Especially in the U.S. 

    With the anonymous reviewer tearing down the facade of Swift’s “tortured” shtick for this album (and others that have come before it), they then go on to pick apart the lyrics and production themselves, throwing Jack Antonoff under the bus for good measure by noting that he “rewrites the same soulless patterns every time,” elsewhere begging to “get that man away from a keyboard.” “All of this to say” (now a “Fortnight” quote) that it is important to have divergent voices among the clamoring accolades not just for Swift herself, but this album in particular. Just as it was when the only critic who lambasted Beyoncé’s surprise drop self-titled album dared to say, “…her version of empowerment, such as it is, is based on a sort of inherent conservatism, rooted not in compassion and generosity, but instead in materialism, braggadocio and inescapable narcissism. Feminism is actually caring about people who are oppressed—women, minorities, the poor. It is not spending 99% of your time talking about how great you are and how much hotter you are than other women and how rich you are, and occasionally inserting some sort of nebulous piffle about ‘girls running the world’ or whatever else.”

    The critic who dared to put his white male name on that review ended up needing to write a follow-up apology article about it…due to the backlash, naturally. And this was in 2013, which we can now look back on as a much less “woke,” less easily scandalized time. In the climate of the current culture, it’s only gotten so much worse for critics, who don’t even feel safe to put their name on an honest assessment (or “opinion,” if you prefer). And while someone like Swift wants to paint herself as being a “tortured artist,” there is no art more tortured (and ridiculed/deemed “valueless”) than criticism itself, with critics presently written off as nothing more than “trolls” (as though the work they do is as “effortless” and without measured consideration as firing off a comment in the comments section). “Trolls” that can no longer speak freely due to a mutated form of fanaticism that sees fit to punish any unfavorable review with verbal abuse and/or threats of violence. Hence, the editor’s note that accompanied the TTPD review: “There is no byline on this review due to how, in 2019 when Paste reviewed Lover, the writer was sent threats of violence from readers who disagreed with the work. We care more about the safety of our staff than a name attached to an article.” As though to prove Paste’s point, one writer posted about the harassment she was receiving online due to speculation that she was the “culprit.” (She was not.)

    Unfortunately, the fact that this might become more and more the norm in the ever-waning field of criticism is not only a harbinger of the death of free speech in the U.S. (a.k.a. “agree with my views or die”), but also yet another reason for someone ever considering a “career” (read: unpaid side gig, at this point) as a critic to turn quickly toward another path. But for those few still willing to stay the course, it’s evident that the inverse of the Lady Gaga “ism” (itself grafted from Madonna), “There can be 100 people in the room and 99 don’t believe in you, but all it takes is one who does,” holds plenty of weight for the critic brave enough to stand in defiance against the 99 people who really, really believe.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Four Horsemen in the Parent Child Relationship

    The Four Horsemen in the Parent Child Relationship

    [ad_1]

    John Gottman’s Four Horsemen are well known in the relationship space for leading to relationship demise. However, these types of negative interactions (criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling) can also be generalized to the parent child relationship.     

    In contrast to a couples relationship where there is equal responsibility for healthy communication, the parent child relationship is a hierarchical one where the bulk of responsibility lies with the parent. The responsibility to build communication, model healthy relationships and teach the tools for doing so lies with the parent.    

    What do we know about the four horsemen

    First, we must understand that these reactions appear when a person’s survival system is triggered.

    When a child, whose emotional and regulatory systems are not yet fully developed, encounters criticism aimed at them they can experience it as an attack.

    Given that, the survival system of our body sends our brain a message that we are under attack, and when in danger, the “ancient” part of our brain, survival mode, which is in our brain stem, takes over and activates one of our three survival mechanisms, fight, flight or freeze. In this situation, a person is not open to listening, to conversation and/or to problem solving, as they must “remove themselves from the danger zone”.

    The four horsemen in the parent child relationship

    Criticism (the first horseman) may appear the moment we get mad at the child and chastise them. In contrast to a complaint, which focuses on a certain behavior or a certain incident, the criticizing message generalizes, and expresses negative emotions or opinions regarding the other person’s character or personality.

    Seven year old Benny is sitting next to his brother eating breakfast. Benny notices that his brother got his favorite spoon. He objects and asks his brother to change spoons with him. While he is reaching to take the spoon, he spills the bowl of cornflakes by accident. His mother Sandra, in a rush to get through the morning tasks, gets angry at him. She turns to Benny aggressively and says: “Why can’t you ever behave properly, you are so clumsy, and always need things to be your way. Clean that up immediately!!” Benny, startled by her yelling, reacts defensively (the second horseman) – He answers her by shouting: “It’s because of you! I told you not to give me cornflakes, I hate cornflakes and I hate you!”

    Understanding the criticism defensiveness cycle

    You can tell that Benny was overwhelmed from his reaction. He did not mean to spill the bowl and felt under attack and humiliated. His way of defending himself was a defensive attack in the form of “It wasn’t me, it was you!”

    When Sandra reacts to Benny, she criticizes him harshly. Her words have a tone of contempt (the third horseman), when she says “you are so clumsy and you always need things to be your way”. Contempt is the most destructive horseman because it conveys humiliation and superiority.

    Sandra reacts to Benny and yells, “Don’t speak to me like that, you are rude and disrespectful!” Benny throws the spoon on the floor, crosses his arms and lowers his head in anger. From this moment on he stops communicating with his mom. Sandra continues talking to him, asking him to get up and clean up the mess, but he disengages and withdraws.

    Sandra’s critical response towards Benny overwhelms him emotionally. Benny can not take the attack and chooses to disengage from the situation. Here we encounter the fourth horseman – stonewalling. Benny is present physically, but emotionally and cognitively he is in another place. He is quiet and unresponsive, waiting for the storm to pass. Benny disengages and because of the intense emotional storm he feels, he withdraws into himself.

    How could it have been managed differently?

    How can we define boundaries for a child, reflect our feelings and thoughts, and at the same time successfully connect with them so that they hear us and change their behavior?

    As parents we are our children’s most important role models. Children learn from us, not only through our words, but also through our behaviors and actions that we may or may not be aware of. In order to improve communication with our children and promote their healthy social emotional development, we must be aware of our reactions and stay away from the Four Horsemen in the parent child relationship.

    We will begin with the basics – if we wish to say something to our child in order to help them change their behavior, we must be aware of how we are talking to them and what non-verbals we are communicating.

    Softened start up

    Instead of criticism, we will use a soft start up in 3 steps:

    1) This is how I feel (I am very angry)

    2) About what (You wanted to take the spoon from your brother, and you spilt the cornflakes)

    3) and this is what I need/want (you to clean up the spill).

    It is important to remember that children have very well-developed sensors for inauthentic messages. Parents must talk to their children when regulated and capable of managing the conversation from a place of calm.

    However, it is not always possible to take a break as a parent, so you can respond by focusing on the incident. “It makes me angry that you weren’t careful and the cornflakes spilled. We are in a hurry now, so let’s talk about it later. Get your backpack and let’s go to school”. Sandra is not ignoring the incident but helping herself get regulated and leaving an opening to talk about it at a more appropriate time.

    The importance of self regulation

    When overwhelmed, our physiological system operates out of a survival mechanism and needs regulation and relaxation. The most effective way to do this to take a 20 minute break.

    Once the system regulates we can go back to the child and have a conversation using the gentle start up. We use the “I” language, about what happened to us during the incident, what we felt, and what we need and/or expect from the child. The response relates only to the incident itself and does not generalize to the child’s personality or all of his behavior.

    Sandra went to Benny after dinner, when they were both relaxed and said: “You know, this morning, when the cornflakes spilled, I was very angry and thought you weren’t being careful when you knocked over the bowl. Can you please try to be more careful in the future?”

    Benny listened to his mother and responded: “But mom, you always yell at me. I did not mean to spill the cornflakes, and it isn’t fair that you gave my brother my favorite spoon”.

    While he does criticize his mother, he was able to say it calmly without yelling or being aggressive.

    Here we recommend that Sandra be attentive, even though Benny just blamed her, because he is talking about his experience. To keep the conversation moving forward, Sandra takes responsibility for her part (antidote to defensiveness).

    She says to Benny: “I know you really like the green spoon. Next time I’ll pay better attention”.

    Taking responsibility

    In her anger, Sandra told Benny that he is “clumsy and insists on stupid things”. These words convey a message of disdain and belittlement. As parents we must be careful about any message of disdain or humiliation towards a child. It is our responsibility as adults to protect their emotional well-being and instill confidence in them even though it is not always an easy task.

    If we make a mistake, we must take responsibility for the incident. While taking responsibility, it is important to describe our feelings and needs to the child (the antidote to contempt) and ultimately to apologize. The ability to admit to a mistake and apologize is important to model.

    In our case, Sandra says to Benny: “Sweetheart, this morning I said some things that I did not mean. I was very stressed out and responded in an unkind way. I am very sorry”.

    [ad_2]

    Anat Rothschild franko

    Source link

  • Drake Bell Speaks Out After Josh Peck Received Backlash For Publicly Remaining Silent After His Sexual Assault Revelation (WATCH)

    Drake Bell Speaks Out After Josh Peck Received Backlash For Publicly Remaining Silent After His Sexual Assault Revelation (WATCH)

    [ad_1]

    Drake Bell is speaking out after social media users flooded the comments of Josh Peck‘s social media accounts. This came after he remained silent after Bell’s recent sexual assault revelation.

    RELATED: Drake Bell Reveals He Was Repeatedly Sexually Assaulted During His Time On Nickelodeon (Video)

    Here’s What’s Going Down With Drake Bell & Josh Peck

    According to TMZ, social media users spent the week running Peck’s comments up after ‘Quiet On Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV’ aired earlier this week. As The Shade Room previously reported, the four-part docuseries explored the “toxic” culture of popular children’s shows between the 1990s and early 2000s.

    Additionally, the docuseries shined a spotlight on the previous work culture at Nickelodeon. Furthermore, it was alleged the channel’s producer, Dan Schneider, “sexualized” the child actors. In addition, he was accused of incorporating “racist” jokes into skits and promoting an “uncomfortable work environment.

    Furthermore, some actors reportedly felt like they experienced an “abusive” relationship while working with Schneider, per The Shade Room.

    Drake Bell even revealed that he was sexually assaulted by Brian Peck, a Nickelodeon dialogue coach, at the age of 15, per The Shade Room.

    “I was sleeping on the couch where I usually sleep and… I woke up to him… I opened my eyes, and I woke up, and he was… he was sexually assaulting me,” Bell explained during the docuseries. “….Anytime I had an audition, or anytime I needed to work on dialogue or anything, I somehow ended up back at Brian’s house. And it just got worse, and worse, and worse, and worse, and I was just trapped. I had no way out. The abuse was extensive, and it got pretty brutal.”

    Here’s What Prompted Social Media Users To Enter Josh Peck’s Comments

    On March 17 — the day the first portion of the documentary aired — Bell’s former ‘Drake & Josh’ co-star took to TikTok to share a video. According to IMDb, the pair starred together on the show between 2004-2007. This followed them also working side by side on ‘The Amanda Show’ between 1999-2002, per IMDb.

    TikTok users appeared to believe that Peck’s clip would address the allegations shared in the docuseries. Or the former child actor would speak on Bell’s sexual assault revelation.

    However, Peck stayed clear of the series and Bell’s revelation completely. Instead, the TikTok video showed him doing a voiceover.

    “If I haven’t talked to you since 2023, take that as a f*****g sign that you don’t exist to me anymore. D**n, you f*****g bug. You got sprayed with the Raid. Bye! See you never,” Peck lipsynchs in the video.

    Here’s What Social Media Users Said

    Peck’s TikTok immediately prompted comments as it garnered over 7 million views.

    TikTok user @Mother Bucker wrote,It’s giving ✨Dan Schneider Core✨”

    While TikTok user @thebluemermaidmama 🍉 added,Your silence speaks volumes bro. It’s really sad. 😢”

    TikTok user @Kinsey hibler wrote, The timing with this is .. odd”

    While TikTok user @Monique🧸, added,*sigh* Josh you disappointed us..”

    TikTok user @MissJoebob wrote, In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”

    While TikTok user the Junque Love added, WE ALL WATCHED IT JOSH.”

    Over on Peck’s latest post on Instagram, the comments continued. However, many accused the actor of deleting their thoughts.

    Instagram user @samialexis._ wrote, “You could delete the comment all you want doesn’t matter. Gonna have to block me or turn off them comments bookie”

    While Instagram user @lamarie002 added, “You taking the time to delete comment instead of taking the time to actually reflect is mind baffling”

    Drake Bell Defends Josh Peck

    Amid the backlash toward Peck, Bell took to TikTok to share his own video. The actor explained that he noticed the comments toward Peck and wanted to let fans know that right now is a “really emotional time.”

    Bell explained that “not everything is put out to the public.” However, he wants fans to know that Peck reached out to him.

    “He has reached out to me and it’s been very sensitive but he has reached out to talk with me and help me work through this and has been really great,” Bell said. “And I just wanted to let you guys know that and take it a little easy on him.”

    @drakebell

    ♬ I kind of relate – Drake Bell

    RELATED: ‘Zoey 101’ Star Alexa Nikolas Reacts After Dan Schneider Issues Apology In Response To ‘Quiet On Set’ (Video)

    [ad_2]

    Jadriena Solomon

    Source link

  • Whew! Sally Beauty Catches Backlash Due To Now-Deleted TikTok (Video)

    Whew! Sally Beauty Catches Backlash Due To Now-Deleted TikTok (Video)

    [ad_1]

    Sally Beauty is currently catching heat due to a now-deleted TikTok shared by the brand.

    RELATED: Kim Kardashian Defends Having A Tanning Bed In Her Office Following Backlash From Viral TikTok

    More Details Regarding The Now-Deleted TikTok From Sally Beauty

    Sally Beauty reportedly took to TikTok recently to share a video which has now been deleted. In footage chronicled by The Shade Room, a young African American woman is seen promoting a product from the brand.

    The product is called a Cold Vapor Styler flat-iron and seems to use vapor rather than heat to straighten hair.

    “It transforms water into cold vapor for you to use to straighten or curl your hair, which equals less passes, which equals less damage,” she explains.

    The woman then tells viewers that her hair is “really coarse,” explaining that she has textured, 4C hair. From there, she demonstrates using the product on her own strands.

    By the end of the clip, the woman ends up praising Sally Beauty for getting it right with their innovation.

    Social Media Reacts

    However, social media users did not agree and shared their criticism of the brand.

    Instagram user @lisaleslie wrote, Bye Sally’s!”

    While Instagram user @ruthie_daughter added, Can’t stand @sallybeauty they don’t have s**t in their stores for us 🙄”

    Instagram user @indeskribeabull added, They need to face more than backlash. I’m about to call Maxine Shaw, attorney-at-law.”

    While Instagram user @ovotrina wrote, y’all second time playing with us in black history month.”

    Instagram user @ravenchantal remarked, Sally beauty gives me like radio shack vibes. I just feel like it should be extinct by now.”

    Some users even shared criticism of the woman.

    Instagram user @miikpeel wrote, Why would she try to straighten undetangled, unstretched hair?? 😭”

    While Instagram user @t.tesfaye added, Y’all mad at them but not mad at her for getting up there performing like a damn clown . Girl that hair is fried , dried and laid to the mf side bye .”

    Instagram user @parchpouch added,🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sizzling like a fajita took me out. I’m sorry I’m not even mad at Sally’s I’m mad at her cuz why sis why!”

    While Instagram user @lansa.jpg wrote, Yeah mad at sally but y’all should be mad at the influencer. Sally prolly really think that’s how black people do hair, but as a black women, the influencer, should’ve did a better job. 2024 hold the right people accountable”

    The Brand Has Yet To Respond To The Backlash

    Sally Beauty has yet to issue a public statement responding to the recent backlash. However, that isn’t stopping the brand from receiving continued backlash under their most recent post on Instagram.  Ironically, the post highlights multiple Black beauty founders.

    Instagram user @inimitablevibe wrote.

    “Nah. We need a STATEMENT. AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AS WELL AS A workshop training for all employees because clearly you all don’t have a DEI dept.”

    While Instagram user @laurenashley__________ added.

    “Never supporting Sally beauty another day, very disappointed”



    [ad_2]

    Jadriena Solomon

    Source link

  • Mike Flynn’s Hall of Fame induction halted after board resignations

    Mike Flynn’s Hall of Fame induction halted after board resignations

    [ad_1]

    Following a flurry of resignations and public outcry, the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame announced it will defer its 2024 induction of Michael Flynn.

    In a guest column to the Providence Journal, Patrick Conley, the Hall of Fame’s past president, stated Flynn’s induction would be deferred “to a more peaceful and rational time and a more secure place.”

    “Discretion is the better part of valor,” said Conley, who currently serves as the board’s volunteer general counsel.

    In the guest column, Conley defended the board’s December 14 vote to induct Flynn, former President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser. However, he said “the Hall of Fame exhibited ‘poor timing’ by choosing to honor General Flynn in this turbulent and politically charged environment.”

    According to The Journal, at least eight board members have resigned as a result of the vote to induct Flynn. Conley’s column said the Hall of Fame received 100 letters in protest of Flynn’s pending induction.

    Newsweek reached out to Conley via email for additional comments.

    Gen. Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to US President Donald Trump, is shown leaving Federal Court on December 1, 2017 in Washington, DC.
    AFP/Getty Images

    Flynn, a retired three-star general who grew up in Rhode Island, was let go as Trump’s national security advisor after three weeks in office when it was revealed that he was not truthful about a conversation he had with then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak while speaking with former Vice President Mike Pence.

    In 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the conversation with Kislyak. Trump pardoned him in November 2020.

    Since then, Flynn has been associated with members of the QAnon conspiracy movement who have made baseless claims that a globalist cabal, made up of Democrats and wealthy businessmen, is involved in a worldwide child sex-trafficking ring.

    He also falsely claimed COVID was invented in order to steal the 2020 election from Trump. Last year, Flynn suggested a Myanmar-like military coup “should happen” in the U.S.

    “A majority of the board that voted to induct Flynn relied upon his 30-year record of public service and high attainments,” Conley wrote in his guest column. “It accepted as true the grant of clemency from the president of the United States asserting that no crime was actually committed and the fact that charges against Flynn were dropped by a weaponized Department of Justice.”

    John Parrillo, a history professor, was among the recent board resignations.

    In a resignation letter obtained by the Journal, Parrillo said he was “saddened to the core” by the vote to induct a man with Flynn’s “politics and far-right militaristic vision for America” and by the board’s unwillingness to reconsider his Hall of Fame merits.

    “For the last seven years, it has been my [privilege] to nominate at least seven Rhode Islanders into our RI Hall of Fame. A fresco painter. A Naval historian. A Hollywood filmmaker. Two creators of a music festival. An early father of the American Industrial Revolution and the creator of at least 14 Black colleges,” Parrillo wrote in his letter.

    “With a most heavy heart,” he said he must resign.

    In another letter obtained by the Journal, former Rhode Island state Senator Bea Lanzi and lawyer John Tarantino wrote: “There is an overall right and wrong in the universe, and what has happened here, in our view, and according to our moral compasses, and consciences, compels us to resign.”