media-article

Parallel issue 7 is the “Independence” issue, and as such is FULL of articles and artwork by independent self-identifying women. Featuring an exclusive editorial shoot with the amazing Harnaam Kaur & Nik Hampshire, this issue is one of our biggest and boldest to date.

We currently have a special limited time pre-order price that will go back up to regular price once the mag is in stock.

Subjects covered in this issue include: indie female-fronted bands; travelling independently; matriarchal societies; living independently; sad girl culture; independent women in the media; colonialism; indie games; DIY culture; abortion rights; and more. We have submissions from Royal Integrity, Laura Waddell, Desiree Feliciano, and many others.

More to be announced!

Issue 7 is due to be released early AUGUST so your pre-order will secure you a copy when it is released.

Photo: Sophie Elliott / Makeup: Kate Van Doren / Stylist: Roxanne Chanel Murray

christine51us  asked:

I agree with most of what you said in Much Ado about nothing, except who she may have voted for. I seen that many of her friends on IG were supporting Bernie. I seen the pic of her and A kissing, and I had to wonder why she would do that all of sudden. Well I guess we have our answer. I love how some are saying she is punking the media, with this article, good for her. I wonder why they never call Rob on it, with T.

No doubt you saw that some of her friends supported Bernie. As I said my HOPE is that this part of Jeff’s narrative was true!

But I would have been happy to support Bernie IF he had won the nomination and before he started to come across as a sore loser doing an awesome impression of a petulant child.

But just because her friends support a candidate doesn’t mean she blindly followed them. She openly disagreed with Sage on her IG account when she posted something incendiary in regards to abortion rights. Kristen’s comments being clearly pro-choice. From some of Lindsey’s earlier tweets I thought she was a Berniac but she tweeted today a pic of Hillary and Obama hugging taken from her phone’s home screen!

My father voted for Bernie in the primary and my adopted family is supporting DonTheCon. My father will vote for Hillary in the election and as much as I love my NC adopted family (my bestie’s parents) I’ll never understand or agree with their politics. My bestie and her brother are Hillary supporters. Lol

As for her pulling one over on the media in regards to pix yes…but not this interview. If you read my Much Ado About Nothing than you know I dismiss Kristen participating in this!

And as you saw in the kissing pix that was BS! Not sure who exactly is behind the PS but it’s either the paps or the media that’s posting them.

Not sure who’s gonna call out Rob for FKA? The ones that believe that seem to be more her fans (though they claim to be his) or Kristen haters than anything else. So why on earth would they call him out on anything? As long as they can delude themselves with him not being with Kristen anymore the happier they are!

But in the long run this narrative will continue as long as RK keep quiet. I anticipate silence for at least 3 to 4 months longer. Ofc it could go longer if they are okay with the public/media narrative.

Basically, it ain’t gonna stop until RK deem it time to stop. And then the BS will be whatever the media wants it to be. With little to no input from RK!

radiotimes.com
Martin Freeman: "the BBC is the envy of the world – we should be singing its praises from the rooftops"

By Martin Freeman

Thursday 26 May 2016 at 9:32AM

“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone,” sang Joni Mitchell, once upon a time. Ain’t that the truth. At the Baftas recently, a journalist on the red carpet asked me to say a few words about what the BBC meant to me. Ah, that’s easy. Blimey, that’s tough. Easy, because I can talk quite happily about the Beeb, and tough, because where the hell do you start? After all, how do you sum up what the world’s oldest and original broadcaster means to you?

I looked around the red carpet, and thought that probably every writer, director, producer and performer was at this great event, directly or indirectly, because of the BBC. It might be because they’ve been nurtured by the corporation as young people, brought on in an environment that encourages and, hopefully, improves, our work. Or it might be because, like me, the fact that you want to do this job in the first place is because you were inspired by imbibing TV and radio most of your life. And of all the shows that have rung my bell since I was tiny, most of those have been on the BBC.

I could fill this entire issue with titles of classic BBC films, radio shows and TV programmes. So could you, dear reader. That’s the point. It’s a part of us. I’m not an employee of the BBC (well, except occasionally), so I don’t need to be their cheer- leader. Whether you like it or not, the record speaks for itself. Take a moment to consider what our cultural landscape would look like without the following: The Goons, Hancock’s Half Hour, Monty Python, The Two Ronnies, Not the Nine o’Clock News, Fawlty Towers, Yes Minister, The Young Ones, Blackadder, Only Fools and Horses, French and Saunders, Alan Partridge, The Thick of It, Outnumbered… (Modesty prevents me from mentioning The Office. So I won’t.) That’s a very short list of comedies. We could name scores of others that we love.

What about The Archers, Doctor Who, Question Time, Top of the Pops, Peaky Blinders, Match of the Day, I, Claudus, Life on Earth, Bake Off, Luther, EastEnders, QI, Civilisation, London Spy etc etc. (Modesty prevents me from mentioning Sherlock. So I won’t.) Again, this is a tiny list of programmes of various genres that we love and have loved seemingly forever.

I didn’t want to make this piece a list of lists, but good heavens it’s hard not to use them to illustrate just how ubiquitous the BBC is in British cultural life.

Why on earth anyone would want to mess with it is honestly beyond me. I’ve met [Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport] John Whittingdale, and he’s obviously an intelligent man who claims to have a fondness for the Beeb. I would respectfully ask that he listen to the people who actually make programmes. He might not like all of their work, but they do generally know what they’re talking about.

We as a nation, and frankly our Government, should be singing the corporation’s praises from the rooftops, not embarking on a “major overhaul”. The BBC is the envy of the world. Along with the Beatles and the Queen, it’s one of the things that the rest of the world immediately identifies with the UK. The breadth of its programming alone is staggering. The fact that the quality of that programming is usually excellent and sometimes world- beating becomes crystal clear as soon as you turn on the television or radio anywhere else in the world.

We know from countless poems, love songs and frankly, life experience, that we often don’t know how lucky we are until that luck leaves us, maybe never to return. Let’s be smarter, and more vigilant, than that when it comes to the BBC. All together now, “Don’t it always seem to go…”

Please, let trusting The Dodo as a source go extinct.

(Image Credit)

Let’s talk today about how important it is to fact-check major publications in the realm of animal media before sharing any information they present. Specifically, let’s talk about why The Dodo is never a source on animal related issues to be trusted, because of the misinformation they perpetuate and the directly harmful ideas they propagate. Dodo articles are rife with misinformation, twisted presentations of facts, quotes from purported ‘experts’ who are well known to be biased and unreliable sources, have non-existent primary citations, and in many cases are just egregiously incorrect about things that can simply be googled.

Today, a new article showed up that I was hoping would be a valid source of information: How To Tell if An Animal Sanctuary is a ‘Fake’. It is, sadly, just as egregiously not fact-checked as everything else animal related The Dodo has produced - and what’s worse is that the incorrect information it presents is mixed in with other really valid and important points for interpreting the quality of a sanctuary. Before we break down why it’s so infuriating, let’s look at the way Dodo articles are produced in general.


The Dodo’s Problematic Publications:

The Dodo purports itself to be a publication that is “committed to creating entertaining, meaningful animal-related stories – we cover everything from viral videos and animal behavior to rescue stories and advocacy efforts. Our goal at The Dodo is to deliver the most emotionally and visually compelling, sharable animal stories and videos to the biggest number of readers possible to help make caring about animals a viral cause. (Source)” Unfortunately for it’s readers, The Dodo has appeared in recent years to focus entirely on the ‘emotionally and visually compelling’ and ‘sharable’ aspects of the stories they report, rather than actually getting the information they report correct.

One of the biggest problems with The Dodo is that as while trying to represent themselves as a news organization they rarely, if ever, cite primary sources for their writing for anything other than referencing current news stories. Most of their click-through links cite other stories they have published, which in turn cite other Dodo articles. Even then, they appear to be more of ‘continued reading’ links than direct sources: a link in their recent article ‘How To Tell if An Animal Sanctuary is a Fake’ regarding a theoretical visitor needing to use judgement to determine if an animal can perform it’s natural behaviors in it’s captive environment redirects… to an article about a sloth sanctuary that only briefly discusses the horrors that befell the specific animals involved because they couldn’t engage in specific behaviors. That article in no way touches on any information a visitor could use to determine what crucial natural behaviors are, if an enclosure allows for them to occur, and if they’re being performed other than when the visitor is present.

When outside sources are cited, they’re often only from a single contributor - for instance, Big Cat Rescue’s website or Founder appears to be the only source utilized for almost all big-cat related articles - or they’re an organization known to have a specific agenda regarding captive animals, such as PETA and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Many times sources that are implied to be primary citations are really second-hand information, such as portraying as factual a Wildlife Sanctuary Facebook post regarding the Bowmanville Zoo allegations that was a quote from simply ‘a source in Canada’ (Source). 

One thing that is obviously missing from any Dodo media is the consideration of multiple points of view.  There is no comparison of the information available from multiple sources - even on topics for which multiple sources of information that agrees with the writers’ stances - nor any exposition about the credibility of the sources utilized. In fact, it’s never acknowledged that conflicting viewpoints to those expressed in the articles exist, even when they’re backed up by decades of scientific research and professional experiences.

The writers for the Dodo also appear to not need to be investigated for credibility - none of the writers appear have bios on the website. This means that there’s no information on their educational or practical backgrounds that would inform the content they produce. The Dodo asks us to trust the credibility and field-specific knowledge of their writers simply on the grounds that they were hired.

It would be exhausting to go through and fact check all of the most egregious Dodo articles - I know, because it’s what I’ve been trying to do for the past couple of hours sitting at my computer. So much of what they publish is flat out wrong, sourced to pages that have almost nothing to do with the implied content, or phrased in twisted ways that further misunderstanding of important information that it takes hours to pick apart any one article thoroughly. Previously, I’ve written about why Granny (Southern Resident Orca J-2) is not 103 (link) as gleefully reported two years ago by The Dodo and the actual scientific evidence behind that conclusion. (The Dodo article regarding Granny, “Whale Fingerprints”, contains no citations for the information and quotes contained within, and the author appears to have not actually read the census data and the accompanying report that talks about how the age of wild orcas is derived).

Here’s a breakdown of today’s article, How To Tell if An Animal Sanctuary is a ‘Fake’, to get you started thinking about the ways the Dodo tricks you into thinking it’s reporting solid stories, when in fact it habitually publishes pieces that leave the reader feeling falsely educated and morally righteous while imparting incredibly little useful information.


Problems with How To Tell if An Animal Sanctuary is a ‘Fake’:

This is actually one of the harder Dodo articles to pick apart, because instead of being just flat-out misleading, it mixes a lot of important points in with a number of blatantly incorrect and problematic statements. Things that are correct about this article include: sanctuaries should not be breeding animals, except by accident, and should be straightforward about the mistake and how they’re going to prevent it in the future; in almost all cases sanctuaries should never allow guest contact with residents, except in the cases of specifically proctored ambassador presentations and even then contact should be incredibly infrequent and highly supervised; sanctuaries should provide adequate housing, enrichment, and medical care for all residents.  

The biggest issue I see with this article is that nowhere does the author mention the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries as an accrediting agency that consumers can use to vet the credibility of a sanctuary. It’s a huge oversight that author of this article knows so little about the sanctuary and animal management worlds that they neglected to even mention the existence of an accrediting organization. Oversight and accreditation of the type provided by GFAS are essential because ‘rescue’ and ‘sanctuary’ are appellations that require no proof or professional background to use, and it’s important for visitors to be able to distinguish between high-quality facilities and private excuses for backyard menageries masquerading under a sanctuary label. GFAS was founded a decade ago by leaders from all different sectors of the animal world: incorporating members were from Born Free USA, the Humane Society of the United States, the Captive Wild Animal Protection Campaign, and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Their stated mission is simply to ‘help sanctuaries help animals’. GFAS animal care and welfare standards are strict and GFAS accreditation for a sanctuary is mentioned by both HSUS and PETA - organizations notorious for decrying the welfare of any captive animal - as a sign of the best places to support. For a news source that likes to work closely with PETA and HSUS, it makes no sense that the author of this article chose not to include information about the sheer existence of GFAS - unless they didn’t know it existed, at which point, they clearly haven’t done enough research into their topic to write an informed piece.

The theme of ‘the author really doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and the editors didn’t know enough to catch that’ continues throughout the piece. One specific quote makes it incredibly clear exactly how little background knowledge about animal management the author has:

“Wild animals aren’t obedient, and usually can’t be trained without negative enforcement — which means whips, shackles, food deprivation or other questionable methods, even if the keepers tell you otherwise.”

This statement alone makes it clear that the author has no idea how animal training works, and is working off of uninformed assumptions. ‘Negative Enforcement’ is not a real term - but it’s nicely ‘emotionally loaded’ to the unaware reader and sounds like it’s coming from a knowledgeable source. However, ‘negative enforcement’ is not a real training term, nor is it something you’ll find in any of the primary literature relating to animal learning or cognition (Source) . The author may have been intending to say ‘negative reinforcement’ - but unfortunately, if so, got the definition of the term completely wrong. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a stimulus to make a behavior more likely to occur; e.g., stopping pulling on a dog’s leash when it chooses to walk towards you. ‘Whips and shackles’ are positive punishment (adding a stimulus to make a behavior happen less), and food deprivation isn’t even a training method because it does nothing to influence an animal’s inherent tendency to perform a behavior. ‘

In addition to being completely incorrect about animal training terminology or methodology, the writer is obviously completely unaware of the innumerable successes that have occurred in the past decade by using positive training techniques on exotic animals (in their article referred to as ‘wild’ animals). In a world when tigers voluntarily offer their tails for blood draws, beluga whales willingly present themselves for long medical procedures, and bull moose stand still to allow farriers to work on a cracked hoof, the statement that ‘wild animals aren’t obedient and can’t be trained without negative techniques’ is blatantly false. The citation for the statement that animals cannot be trained without negative techniques, by the way, is a single link to another Dodo article that discusses allegations against a trainer at the Bowmanville zoo for beating tigers during training sessions. Nowhere in that article - which is used as a citation for an incredibly broad claim - is anything to do with training methodology, learning theory, or animal behavior discussed. Training animals in sanctuaries is essential to minimizing their stress during husbandry routines and to providing minimally invasive medical care.  By leaving all this crucial information out, the author leaves the reader to assume that any visible animal training is only for the purposes of ‘tricks’ - when what often looks like a ‘trick’ is often a key part of the animal’s routine care.

Even statements in the article that are technically correct are surrounded by such misinformation that it’s hard to be supportive of them. For instance, the author states in the third section that “if a sanctuary permits wild or exotic animals to be passed around to tourists, or cuddled like a pet, it doesn’t have the animals’ best interests at heart.” This is a very valid point - GFAS has a direct rule against this type of ‘ambassador animal interactions’ because that’s not the role of a sanctuary that exists to provide the best possible life for it’s residents…  but the hyperlink the Dodo article uses as a source for some reason links directly back to an article about the Bowmanville Zoo allegations. This page contains no information on cub petting schemes or how being handled affects and animal’s welfare, and instead has exactly a single sentence stating that “a quick glance through Bowmanville Zoo’s Facebook page [showed] a number of questionable practices, including visitors playing with lion and tiger cubs.” The connection the author wants you to make is that allowing guests to touch animals was abusive because the facility was brought up on abuse allegations, and by linking the article as a source they hope to imply that all places that allow guests so touch animals are as equally abusive and problematic. While it’s a bad sign if a zoo or sanctuary allows guests to interact with animals in more than strictly monitored ambassador presentations, the ‘any contact = abuse because a single abusive place allowed it to happen’ equation is quite a fallacious chain of logic being passed off as unquestionable.

The article ends by telling readers to “try to figure out if the animals’ physical and mental needs are being met” but gives them literally no accurate information with which to do so. It mentions checking physical condition of the animals through a visual inspection (neglecting to provide adequate information on the correct body condition of multiple taxa), looking for enrichment (while calling them toys and not mentioning any number of reasons it might not be visible during a facility visit), and equates any type of repetitive behavior with stress and bad welfare (without mentioning that stereotypies can outlast bad welfare situations for years, or considering any other reason a guest might see a seemingly repetitive behavior happen for a short time). The citation for animals ‘looking skinny or ill’ is a Dodo article about an arguably bad roadside zoo (link) that briefly talks about obvious cases of neglect. The citation for ‘looking for enrichment’ is a Dodo article about ‘how zoos are hell for animals’ (link) that re-uses the media from the roadside zoo article and does not mention ‘enrichment’ or ‘toys’ anywhere in the piece. The citation for ‘repetitive behaviors can be stereotypical and from stress’ is a Dodo article about a whale at Seaworld ‘appearing to be too depressed to nurse’ (link) that contains a single statement about an observed behavior that might be a stereotypy and does not define that category for the reader. None of these citations provide a reader with any information - correct or not - through which to make the judgement calls that the author has imparted upon them as their responsibility. Nowhere does the author suggest that the visitor ask questions of the staff to learn more about a facility or provide ideas for what questions a reader should know the answers to before making a decision. That’s not how you create educated, critical readers - but then again, The Dodo doesn’t want people to think independently - they’d prefer to be considered a reliable source, because any critical reader is going to notice all the glaring omissions and errors in their published work.

Source count: Of 21 in-text links to ‘sources’ for the article How To Tell if A Sanctuary is a ‘Fake’, only 2 are links to non-Dodo pieces. One is a link to a university website regarding stereotypical behaviors in research primates, and one is a link to Big Cat Rescue’s general website rather than to the information referenced in the article.

‘Once Upon a Time’ cast tease season six storylines at Comic-Con

LA Daily News -  Characters on “Once Upon a Time” will be exploring the darkness within themselves heading into the sixth season of the popular ABC series.

Now that the Evil Queen is back, co-creator and executive producer Edward Kitsis said in a Q&A during Comic-Con International Saturday the upcoming season’s theme will be about “looking at the darkness within us — and can we actually separate it [out].”

The fifth season ended with the return of the Evil Queen after she was separated from Regina Miller, both played by Lana Parrilla, with the help of a potion used to free Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from each other.

“The separation of the dark and the light in Regina, I think it’s not as simple as just cutting someone in half and that’s something that we really want to explore,” co-creator and executive producer Adam Horowitz said. “Can you really just take one part of yourself out? What does that do the rest of you?”

Parrilla is curious to find out what happens to her character now that she’s two separate entities, too.

“I don’t know what the Evil Queen is going to awaken inside of (Regina),” Parilla said. “Right now, the Evil Queen doesn’t have a conscience, she’s almost a psychopath.”

Regina won’t be the only one coping with the return of the Evil Queen. Rebecca Mader’s character Zelena now has two sisters to deal with.

“I love how they’re exploring that sister relationship between the two of us,” Mader said, “and now, it’s like, three’s a crowd kind of thing.”

“I think she definitely needs a therapist. She needs to see Jiminy Cricket, stat!” Mader continued. “I mean, she just killed the first love of her life to save her sister.”

Mader suggested that Emile de Ravin’s character Belle French also seek out the help of the Storybrooke therapist as Ravin attempted to explain her relationship with Rumpelstiltskin.

“She likes the challenge of trying to bring the quote-unquote good guy and the kind heart, loving guy out from him,” Ravin said. “It’s not so much that she likes or respects his evil ways. You know, she’s not promoting him being a murderous bastard, but it’s more about maybe liking the challenge.”

“I’m telling you, Jiminy Cricket! His prices are very reasonable,” Mader said as the two “Lost” alumns laughed. “He’s got his work cut out for him this season.”

Belle was trapped inside Pandora’s Box for the latter part of the fifth season — which just happened to coincide with Ravin’s maternity leave. While Ravin wouldn’t say when Belle finally makes it out of the box, she did give a few details about how that will play out in the upcoming season.

“I can tell you that she does get out of the box and that it’s cool how she gets out and you meet a really cool character during the process of it,” she said coyly declining to answer if that character could be Aladdin.

During the “Once Upon a Time” Comic-Con Ballroom 20 panel earlier in the day, season six footage was shown to fans revealing that the Disney characters Aladdin and Jafar will be featured in the upcoming season. Horowitz also confirmed that Princess Jasmine will make an appearance along with the return of Cinderella to the show.

He said that it will take a little bit though before the two worlds, that of Aladdin and Storybrooke, mesh into one story line.

“We left a lot of threads dangling last year: Jekyll and Hyde, the Evil Queen. … So were not in a rush to get to Aladdin and Jafar because we have other things to take care of,” Kitsis said. “We’re going to do much more of a season one, season two stay in Storybrooke kind of vibe.”

Kitsis and Horowitz alluded to connections between heroine Emma Swan and Aladdin, who is also a savior.

“We’re going to start to be dealing with some very strong and emotional things about being the savior with Emma,” Horowitz said noting that those issues will connect the two characters.

According to Colin O’Donoghue who plays Emma’s love interest Killian “Hook” Jones, the two will also be dealing with their own emotions as they move forward with their relationship.

“Hook’s past is what it is, so how will that affect his relationship with Emma and how she’ll see him?” O’Donoghue asked. “It’s going to be very complicated, but part of it too is that it’s going to be fun because there’s been enough messing around, we’re a couple. That’s what we are so they’re gonna try to figure that out.”

O’Donoghue said that some of Hook’s past may still yet come back to haunt him in season six, as will David Nolan/Prince Charming’s, according to Josh Dallas. Both men could see their relationships affected by past decisions.

“But that’s what’s so great about ‘Once.’ It’s not about whether you’re a hero or a villain, it’s not about the label of who you are, it’s about the choices you make now,” Dallas said. “If you make good choices, bad choices — it changes who you are and that’s how you value someone, by their actions.”

A bit more of an expanded plot summary:

“StartUp” begins with Phil Rask (Martin Freeman), the FBI agent who specializes in financial crimes, who crosses paths with Nick Talman (Adam Brody), an intelligent financier working in a boutique firm. Rask is after Talman’s father, a wealthy, irresponsible man who forces Nick to stash his ill-gotten gain after he goes missing. Instead of going to the FBI, Nick decides to hide the money in a tech startup pitched by the unorthodox Izzy Morales (Otmara Marrero), a whiz with a great idea who’s out to change the world. There’s one hitch: Ronald Dacey (Edi Gathegi), second-in-command to a local Haitian gang, is out looking for the money he left with Nick’s father. When Ronald discovers it has vanished, he tracks down Nick and forms an unexpected partnership with him and Izzy. All the while, Rask is hot on their trail as he’ll journey into darkness to bring them to justice.

“StartUp” also stars Wayne Knight (“Seinfeld”) and Aaron Yoo (“Blacklist”), and is produced by Critical Content and Hollywood Gang Productions.

The 10-episode, one hour series will premiere on Crackle on September 6th. 

(Via Indiewire)

Celebs’ Phobias: Kristen Stewart

While promoting Snow White and the Huntsman, the 23-year-old Twilight star confessed that she developed a fear of horses after breaking and dislocating her elbow from falling off a horse. She had to put her worries aside for the role, and we’re so glad she did!

WRONG! Her ultimate phobias is Paparazzi - dE!nial… LOL

It’s a loathsome, utterly despicable act, made worse by the fact that this episode is the first time we really get a chance to know poor Linda (Susan Park), an incredibly nice lady whose only real crime is in being a terrible judge of character. This fits pretty neatly on both a story level and a meta level, because while the audience has most likely turned on Lester long before now, there’s still that urge to see him as the put-upon dweeb we met in the first episode, the emasculated loser with the nagging, hateful wife. Just like Linda, there was a time when we just saw the quiet politeness and assumed it represented inner decency and warmth. But it didn’t. Lester’s problem was never the woman he was married to. Lester’s problem has always been, and always will be, Lester.
—  AV Club’s Zack Handlen talks about *that* thing Lester did in “A Fox, A Rabbit and A Cabbage” (x)
blogtown.portlandmercury.com
Hold on to Your Seats and Watch Portland City Council Get the Whatfor During a Hearing to Declare a Housing State of Emergency
Portland City Council yesterday passed an ordinance that officially enacted a housing emergency in Portland. The commissioners also got an earful from dozens of speakers,...

“Tenants cannot wait for incremental change. We need bold, courageous action to address this human-made disaster. Building-wide, no-cause evictions are popping up like brush fires across this city, fanning the flames of displacement as our communities continue to bleed. The flood of speculation from Wall Street, corporate landlords, and private investors, buying up buildings to empty them and raise rents, has dire consequences on people’s health, economic stability and their children’s educational opportunities.

We need real leadership from our Housing Commissioner, our Mayor, and from our City Council. We are in a Renter State of Emergency.” Justin Buri, Executive Director, Community Alliance of Tenants

Is Lester a good liar? Does he become a better one?“



"Yeah, he gets good at it. I think at first he’s kind of like Walter White — all of his actions are out of necessity. It’s like a wounded animal, a hunted animal, and then actually he starts to get good at it and enjoy it. You see that in the run of the 10 episodes, that the impetus changes from just survival, like, “I’m just doing the absolute bare minimum of what I need to do to survive,” to he starts slightly going out of his way [to perpetuate his lies]. And he gets good at it, and he starts to become more of a game player — and that’s f—ing great to play. It’s fascinating to watch and to play, ’cause you’re reading the scripts and you’re going, “I can’t wait, I can’t wait to do that.” Yeah, he does get good at it.
— 

Martin Freeman talks about Lester Nygaard’s adeptness at lying over the course of Fargo.

Via Entertainment Weekly: ‘Fargo’ premiere–Martin Freeman talks THAT scene

ineharnia  asked:

I don't get it. The point of tv shows and movies is entertainment and education, which means that it's for the audience, not for the actors. You're supposed to do shows for your fans. So I don't get the article. Benedict and Martin aren't doing us a favor by playing in Sherlock, it's part of their job. When I read the article I felt like there was an expectation for me to bow to them for agreeing to do another season. I really appreciate their acting, but I don't like the tone of this article.

(referencing this post)

Hey Lovely!

Yeah, I understand how the tone of the article comes off as rather condescending, which is in part done by the writer of the article, not necessarily Moffat’s fault. In truth this show has always been for Mofftiss and for the people. They didn’t even think it would make it past the first season, so honestly, this show was made to fulfill seeing their Johnlock fanfic on-screen. Nor did they ever expect that it would gain a cult following and skyrocket the careers of their leads. This show has always been a little side project for the actors, and they do it because they enjoy doing it.

I’ve worked in news; journalists tend to take things out of context to make their story more “exciting”. It’s unfortunate that this journalist seems to have a bit of contempt for the actors (I mean the hiatuses are long and probably annoy the mainstream audience), but Mark and Steve have ALWAYS been good about working around Ben and Martin’s schedules. I believe both actors have said that they want to continue on as long as they can, and I trust that.

Take everything you read in the media about Sherlock with a grain of salt… These are all the same people who speculate that every new female lead is Sherlock’s new love interest, believe that John and Mary are a happy couple, and think that this show is “confusing and the worst thing ever” despite the numerous Emmy nominations and wins and the actual fans who understand the subtext loved it. These are the same people who 95% of the time read the show with a heteronormative lens. Honestly, news people are a bunch of crusty buggers because they are forced to be in constant competition with even their own colleagues; I suspect the writer of this article isn’t even a casual fan, just someone who looked back on past articles and copy-pasted quotes from their interview with Mofftiss. 

A good way to see if the actors are still interested is reviewing their performances on the show. Ben and Martin were FANTASTIC in TAB, and the chemistry is STILL there, even after all these years. They love what they do when they are there, and they take pride in being in the show. You can see it in all the behind the scenes interviews.

I think we should be grateful that even after becoming top-rated actors who have tight schedules, Ben and Martin STILL want to be a part of this show. A lot of actors tend to jump ship once they become big. Obviously if they keep saying yes, then they still want to do it.

Just know that this show was and has always been for the fans. Don’t let this article get you down.

In the odd way Pakistani culture has of being both accepting of difference (case in point: Ali Saleem successfully ran a talk show which he hosted in drag) and fiercely protective of its imagined purity (case in point: Veena Malik was bashed in 2011 for appearing on the cover of an Indian magazine, sporting little but an ‘ISI’ tattoo), Qandeel was both coveted and reviled.

She was a young woman who clearly didn’t abide by the unspoken rule that in Pakistan, your private self and your public self ought to remain distinct from each other. She blurred that line. Through her photos and videos, she invited us into her bedroom, her bed. She directly addressed the camera and her audience, asking them what they wanted next: a selfie? or something more?

From the comments that appeared under her posts, young men wanted to be with her; they also wanted to snuff her out. Young women were horrified by her 'immodesty’; they also lauded her for doing exactly as she pleased.

By the end of 2015, via frequent Facebook and Instagram posts, Qandeel had firmly established her place in Pakistan’s burgeoning celebrity landscape. Of course, she wasn’t the first young woman to be crowned the nation’s 'boldest’ entertainer. Before her, we’ve had Meera, Veena, Mathira and more.

But while they coyly tiptoe around questions of their sexuality, their motivations and their attachments — Qandeel set herself apart by being unabashed about her desire to be a screen siren, somebody who provokes. On a TV show, she proclaimed Sunny Leone was one of her role models. On Instagram, she had no qualms about saying she was sexy.

Though she wasn’t exactly an open book, she was honest about her ambitions.

And as has been proved today, if you’re a woman in Pakistan, ambition can get you killed.

***

At this newspaper, we followed Qandeel’s short career closely. We reached out to her often. Depending on her mood, she’d either ignore our calls or initiate long, meandering conversations.

As her posts began to be viewed by more people and as she began to be covered by mainstream newspapers, I believe she became aware of her power to deliver certain messages about being female in Pakistan. Around this time, I began to see Qandeel as a burgeoning advocate for increasing women’s visibility in Pakistan.

And so, we ran pieces questioning why Pakistanis harboured so much hate for Qandeel. And I got a lot of flak for giving her so much coverage. A few days ago, one commentator asked me something along the lines of: “You’re covering Qandeel so much, what’s next, reporting from a brothel?”

All of this criticism made clear what most Pakistanis thought of Qandeel: they’d tolerate her as long as she was nothing but a sex object, because they were titillated. But as soon as she started entertaining them in the name of women’s rights, she was to be condemned.

Earlier this year, it became clear that what Qandeel may have started as a lark was becoming very personal to her. We understood that she had an agenda. She was beginning to understand the significance and reach her fame afforded her, and she seemed to have adopted a narrative of empowerment that would resonate not only with the international community, but also with Pakistan’s more progressive population.

A few days ago, when news of her brief marriage broke, we spoke to her for what would be the last time. She was distraught, but very frank with the writer who called her.

“I am a social media sensation, I am a fashion icon,” she said. “I don’t know how many girls have felt support through my persona. I’m a girl power. So many girls tell me I’m a girl power, and yes, I am.”

I think she was girl power.

Yes, she was evasive, moody, an enigma. But of late, she’d begun to grasp exactly what she stood for. She had opinions about patriarchy, I believe she was educating herself, and not just for fame, but because her life had showed her that the world is a difficult place for women and she wanted to change that.

***

What we know about Qandeel Baloch is that she was on her way to becoming a cultural icon.

She was a media-savvy ouroboros, consuming yesterday’s image and the response it garnered to construct her persona afresh tomorrow.

She was both a product and a reflection of the precarious state of Pakistan today, where neither liberalism nor conservatism has definitively ousted the other, where women are increasingly visible in the public eye yet are also still murdered with casual nonchalance, where fame may buy you social mobility, but only if you play by the rules of the privileged class.

Some people will accuse the media of lionising her in her death, of retroactively ascribing meaning to her persona, her cause.

I want to make clear that this is precisely the tragedy.

I don’t think Qandeel herself was clear on who she was, what exactly she wanted to represent. Qandeel had only just begun. She had a long way to go, and if she hadn’t been killed for honour, I have no doubt that she would’ve gone very far.

In one of her last posts, Qandeel said: “As women we must stand up for ourselves. As women we must stand up for justice. I believe I am a modern day feminist… I am just a women with free thoughts free mindset and I LOVE THE WAY I AM.”

Today, I type her name into a search bar, click through her Facebook posts. Her dark eyes and feline brows interrogate my motivation.

“Did you stand up for me?” they ask. “Did you do everything you could?”

That’s the question we have to live with now.

Qandeel Baloch is dead because we hate women who don’t conform