Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Sacrificial Lambert


I'm not going spend more than a minute or so on this because I honestly just don't care all that much that Adam Lambert has managed to piss off a substantial portion of perpetually uptight America.

Late yesterday, Good Morning America made the decision to cancel this morning's appearance by Lambert -- not too surprising given that ABC was fielding outraged phone calls all Sunday night into Monday following his amusing antics at the American Music Awards. Guess GMA didn't want Lambert getting any more gay all over the unsuspecting folks in the flyovers and down south. (Either that or they just felt it would be best to keep him away from Sam Champion.)

Turns out, though, that CBS's Early Show will take up the slack and put Lambert on the air this morning -- a move that a lot of Lambert's fans are now singing the praises of. If you thought you'd never see the day that teenagers and homosexuals were shouting "Go CBS!" -- yeah, me neither.

Not so fast, though. While there's no direct connection between Adam Lambert and CBS parent company Viacom that I can see -- in other words, Viacom doesn't own the label putting Lambert's brand "spanking" new album out or anything -- the media giant does own MTV, which just premiered Lambert's video last night and no doubt wants to maintain a good relationship with a guy who with one performance managed to fulfill his destiny of becoming the next monster pop sensation. These days, thanks mostly to the internet and multi-media saturation, MTV needs hitmakers and big audience draws more than the latter needs it.

Besides, CBS knows Lambert on the Early Show will likely be a ratings bonanza. And in the end -- setting aside the fear that an angry mob led by the Parents Television Council will set fire to your corporate headquarters -- that's the most important consideration of all.

9 comments:

A Bowl of Stupid said...

Chez Pazienza bibliography:

2008; "Dead Star Twilight"
2010; "I'm Not Going Spend More Than A Minute On This, But ..."

Bill White said...

I was so horrified by what Kyle was watching, I had to kick the RCA 19 incher over. I then threw the TV tray at him and said, "Boy, did you ever learn anything in church?" I think I'm losing this boy. He had the nerve to tell me that he liked this filth!
My boy and this pervert on TV now both should go to military school. I'm speechless. I know that this behavior is something that can be treated through training and the word of the Lord Almighty.

Che Grovera said...

While the Lambert backlash is completely unsurprising, I find myself siding with those folks who see hypocrisy in the chasm between the collective reaction to man-on-man versus woman-on-woman "action". Sure, there was clucking and gnashing of teeth over the Britney-Madonna VMA kiss, but it was nothing like this tempest (if memory is serving me well). In the first place, I've never understood what's supposed to be so great about girls getting it on -- maybe Bill White can clue me in? Nevertheless, if "normal" kissing is tolerable then "opposite" kissing (thanks for the cool reference, Carrie Prejean!) shouldn't raise any hackles...at least not among the well-adjusted. To then make distinctions based on gender strikes me as, well, fetishistic in an OCD sort of way.

Vermillion said...

2010; "I'm Not Going Spend More Than A Minute On This, But ..."

I am sorry, but that really would be a great title for a book of yours.

I do see the bullshit in acting like Lambert's antics were in any way more outrageous than comparable female performers. As folks have said elsewhere, Madonna has done more sex acts (simulated or no) in a ten-second clip than he did in his entire song. Not to mention Miley al Ghul (or is it Ra's al Cyrus?) and that pole-dancing thing (conscience tells me she is still illegal, so I am gonna leave it at that).

My problem is, regardless of who does it, the shit is obnoxious as hell. We get it, you are all edgy and cool and people want to fuck you. Now go put some goddamn clothes on. (again, thought on Cyrus redacted.)

I've never understood what's supposed to be so great about girls getting it on

Some dudes are selfish enough to think that two women making out == threesome, because they are just that irresistable.

My personal feelings is that most guys are ugly lumps (no offense) and if I gotta see people making out, I would rather it be two women. My low self-esteem has no place for sexualized ego.

Chris said...

Bill, given your response to the whole Adam Lambert thing, aren't you a little worried about having 'your boy' around all those men in shared living areas taking showers together? I've heard that quite a few men in our armed forces enjoy 'dropping the soap'.

Maybe you're a little gay yourself. Most people are. Maybe you've noticed another man's muscles and bulge and found yourself thinking 'hey, that's kind of nice' - most men have. Maybe you've hurt yourself for having these thoughts, but your Lord certainly has done nothing to you - and clearly Adam Lambert is just fine. In fact, gay people seem to be doing pretty well these days: Rosie O'Donnell, Elton John, Ian McKellan, Karl Rove -If you believe The Lord exists, and you think there is a divine system of justice by which some are saved and some are condemned, you surely have to entertain the possibility, given the wealth of evidence in front of you, that homosexuality might not be all that terrible in the eyes of God.

Figgylicious said...

Yay! I hope he gives them all The Gays. Cos you know just by watching some Gay action (only male on male, of course. Girl on girl is HAWT) you get Gay cooties and next thing you know you want to hump a dude. And, ew. Maybe then they'd all kill themselves and the world would be a better place.

Sheriff Bart said...

Everything would be OK if he only would have done it for $140,000 for charity.

I refuse to believe MTV premieres any music videos these days.

Nope nope nope...

Anonymous said...

Doesn't anybody look at blatantly manufatured outrage moments with any skepticism anymore?

Got to cut through the clutter.

david said...

What an unfortunate link to whatever site that thing is. How could anyone make sense o ... oh, right.