Monthly Archives: February 2014

Result! Katy Perry matches Miley Cyrus

Katy Perry’s ‘Blasphemous’ Video Is EditedKaty Perry’s Dark Horse video has been edited after a Muslim-led protest accused it of portraying blasphemy. A petition was started on calling for the video to be taken off YouTube. In one scene a man is shown being burned by lightning while wearing a pendant forming the word “Allah”. This has now been removed. So is this an embarrassment for Perry? Hardly: I imagine she and her team will be delighted and shout “Result!” The video has prompted outrage around the world and given Perry’s track the kind of exposure artists dream of. And without paying for it. Some people might argue Kay doesn’t need publicity: she’s at the top of her game and enjoys a phenomenal worldwide fan base. Maybe. But she is also in a very competitive area of the market. Quite apart from Lady Gaga and Beyoncé, she has to contend with Rihanna and an endless stream of wannabes. And then there is Miley Cyrus. As we know Miley caused her own sensation a while back with her twerking exhibition. Looked at one way, this was mortifying for Miley. Looked at another way, it was an inspired, calculated gamble that paid off. Struggling to shake off the wholesome Disneyfied Hannah Montana persona, Miley transformed herself into a femme fatale — in just one performance. It’s at least possible that Katy Perry was studying the fallout from the twerking incident and, in her own, way trying to replicate it. If so, she’s done it. Of course, the artist herself may not even have been in on the stunt. It’s possible that the people responsible for storyboarding the video (i.e. designing the sequence of drawings that represent the shots planned for the video) smuggled in the element, knowing it was bound to cause offence. I recall hearing the writer Gore Vidal relating how, when he wrote parts of the script for the 1959 film Ben-Hur, he incorporated homoerotic references that escaped the actors and even director. So, in this instance, Katy might have known nothing about the content of her own video. All the same, we would be naive if we imagined she is not delighted with the results. Madonna proved the value of scandal back in 1989 when her Like a Prayer video upset the Roman Catholic church and got banned on MTV and many other stations. But the ensuing controversy didn’t do her career any harm, did it? Love her or hate her, Madge provided the template for so many features of today’s celebrity culture.  @elliscashore

Embedly Powered

via Sky

50th Anniversary of the Fight that Changed the World of Sport

THE GREATEST – FEB. 25, 1964 LISTON vs CLAYIn 1964, Cassius Clay forced the world heavyweight champion Sonny Liston into retirement and easily dismissed him in the rematch.  Between the two fights, he had proclaimed his change of name to Muhammad Ali, reflecting his conversion to Islam.  In fact, he had made public his membership of the Nation of Islam, sometimes known as the Black Muslims, prior to the first Liston fight, but the full ramifications came later.Born in Louisville, Kentucky, in the segregated south, Cassius Clay, as he was christened, was made forcibly aware of America’s “two nations,” one black, one white.  In his autobiography, he related how, after the euphoria of winning a gold medal at the Rome Olympics of 1960, he returned home to be refused service at a restaurant.  This kind of incident was to influence his later commitments.  Clay’s amateur triumphs convinced a syndicate of white entrepreneurs to finance his early professional career.

The Nation of Islam was led by Elijah Muhammad and had among its most famous followers Malcolm X, who kept company with Ali and who was to be assassinated in February 1965.  Among the Nation’s principles were (and are) that whites were “blue-eyed devils” who were intent on keeping black people in a state of subjugation and that integration was not only impossible, but undesirable.  Blacks and whites should live separately; preferably by living in different states.  The view was in stark distinction to North America’s melting pot ideal.

Ali’s camp comprised only one white man — Angelo Dundee, the trainer.  Cassius Clay Sr was violently opposed to Ali’s affiliation, not on religious grounds, but because he believed the entourage of Black Muslims he attracted were taking his money.  But Ali’s commitment deepened and the media, which had earlier warmed to his extravagance, turned against him.  A rift occurred between Ali and Joe Louis, the former heavyweight champion who was once described as “a credit to his race.”  This presaged several other conflicts with other black boxers whom Ali believed had allowed themselves to become assimilated into white America and had failed to face themselves as true black people.

Ali saved his most ardent criticism for Floyd Patterson whom he called an “Uncle Tom” and “the rabbit,” after Patterson had refused to use his Islamic name.  He seemed to delight in punishing Patterson in their fight in 1965.  The almost malicious performance brought censure from sections of America, both black and white.

The events that followed Ali’s call-up by the military in February 1966 were dramatized by a background of growing resistance to the US involvement in the Vietnam war.  Ali failed to meet the qualifying criteria in the mental aptitude at first, but, by 1966, with the war intensifying, the US Army lowered the required percentile, making him eligible for the draft.  A legal request for a deferment from military service was denied.  Ali’s oft-quoted remark “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong” made headlines around the world and positioned him in the eyes of many as the most famous-ever draft dodger.  But, he insisted that his conscience not cowardice guided his decision not to serve in the military and, so, to many others, he became a mighty signifier of pacifism.

Ali continued to defend his title, often traveling overseas in response to attempted boycotts of his fights.  At the nadir of is popularity, he fought Ernie Terrell, who, like Patterson, persisted in calling him “Clay.”  The fight in Houston had a grim subtext with Ali constantly taunting Terrell.  “What’s my name, Uncle Tom?” Ali asked Terrell as he administered a callous beating.  Ali prolonged the torment until the fourteenth round.  The phrase “What’s my name?” became a slogan of defiance. Media reaction to the fight was wholly negative.  Jimmy Cannon, a boxing writer of the day, wrote: “It was a bad fight, nasty with the evil of religious fanaticism.  This wasn’t an athletic contest.  It was a kind of lynching … [Ali] is a vicious propagandist for a spiteful mob that works the religious underworld.”

In April 1967, Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces.  Despite claims that he deserved the same status as conscientious objectors from the Mennonite Church or other Christian groups, Ali was denied and found guilty of draft evasion.  After a five-year legal struggle, during which time Ali was stripped of his title, a compromise was reached and Ali was set free.  During his exile, Ali had angered the Nation of Islam by announcing his wish to return to boxing if this was ever possible.  Elijah Muhammad, the supreme minister, denounced Ali for playing “the white man’s games of civilization.”  Elijah had objected to sports for some time, believing them to be detrimental to the progress of black people.

Other critical evaluations of sport were gathering force.  The black power inspired protests of John Carlos and Tommie Smith at the 1968 Olympics, combined with the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, where people like Sam Ramsamy were rallying against racism, had made clear that sport could be used to amplify the experiences of black people the world over.  While Ali was a bête noir for many whites and indeed blacks, several civil rights leaders, sports performers and entertainers came out publicly in his defense.

“Still others in American society viewed Ali as a genuine hero,” writes David Wiggins in his Glory Bound: Black athletes in a white America (Syracuse University Press, 1997).  “Many people in the black community viewed Ali in this manner, considering him a champion of the black Civil Rights movement who bravely defied the norms and conventions of the dominant culture.” As Michael Oriard, in his essay “Muhammad Ali: Hero in the age of mass media” concludes: “There was not a single Ali but many Alis in the public consciousness”

Ali’s moves were monitored by government intelligence organizations: given the growing respect he was afforded, he was seen as an influential figure.  Many of his conversations were wiretapped.  He spent three-and-a-half years without his title, unable to earn a living.  By the end of it, cultural conditions had shifted so much that he was widely regarded as a martyr by the by-then formidable antiwar movement and practically anyone who felt affinity with civil rights.

Ali’s first fight after exile was in October 1970.  He beat Jerry Quarry at an Atlanta where the majority of fans were African Americans.  Any prospect of a smooth transition back to the title was dashed March 1971 by Joe Frazier, who had taken the title in Ali’s absence and defended it with unexpected tenacity in a contest that started one of the most celebrated rivalries in sport.  Ali had called Frazier a “white man’s champion” and declared: “Any black man who’s for Joe Frazier is a traitor.” Ali beat Frazier twice over the following years, every fight being viciously fought and punishing for both men.

Ali had to wait until 1974 before getting another chance at the world title.  By this time, Frazier had been dethroned by George Foreman and Ali, at 32, was not favored; in fact, many feared for his well-being, especially as he had been given two tough fights by the unheralded Ken Norton (one win each; Ali won a third later, in 1976).  The fight in Zaire was promoted by Don King, at that stage building his way toward becoming one of the world’s most powerful sports entrepreneurs.  The circumstances surrounding what was known as “The Rumble in the Jungle” are the subject of Leon Gast’s documentary film When We Were Kings.  Ali’s remarkable Phoenix-like victory re-established him as the world heavyweight champion. The death of Elijah Muhammad in 1975 led to a split in the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan taking the movement in a fundamentalist direction, while Elijah’s son Wallace D. Muhammad founded the World Community of Al-Islam in the West which dwelt less on past atrocities of blue-eyed devils, more on the future.  Ali sided with Wallace.

In June 1979, having lost and regained the title against Leon Spinks and beaten Frazier once more, Ali announced his retirement from boxing.  There were clear signs of decline in both Spinks fights and, at 37, Ali appeared to have made a graceful exit when he moved to Los Angeles with his third wife Veronica whom he had married two years before. His first marriage lasted less than a year ending in 1966; Ali married again in 1967.

Ali had split with the business syndicate that handled his early affairs after joining the Nation.  His manager became Herbert Muhammad.  Hauser estimates Ali’s career earnings to 1979 to be “tens of millions of dollars.”  The three Frazier fights alone brought Ali $11m; the 1976 Norton fight grossed him $6m; his purse for the Foreman fight was $5.45m; he earned $6.75m for the two Spinks fights.  His lesser-paid fights were typically worth $2m each to Ali.  Yet, on his retirement, Ali was not wealthy.  His wife had an extravagant lifestyle and his business investments were poorly judged.  He also gave generously to the Nation of Islam and to various causes.

Within 15 months of his announced retirement, Ali returned to the ring, his principal motivation, apparently being money, though Ali himself reckoned it was the prospect of winning the world title for a record fourth time that drove him.  While public sentiment seemed against a comeback at 38 against a peak-form Larry Holmes, who was employed as Ali’s sparring partner between 1973-75, boxoffice interest was strong enough to justify paying Ali $8m.  Holmes, as champion, received less than $3m.  It was the first fight in which Ali failed to last the full distance and seemed an inglorious, if lucrative end, to a grand career.

Ali’s ill-fated business ventures took another bad turn when he became involved with Muhammad Ali Professional Sports, an organization headed by Harold Williams, which proved to be a fraudulent operation.  A return to the ring appeared impossible after medical tests revealed all manner of complication and Ali relinquished his boxing license to the Nevada State Athletic Commission.  But, this still left him free to box elsewhere in the world and, in December 1981, he fought once more in Nassau, the Bahamas.  It ended in another resounding defeat, this time by Trevor Berbick.  James Cornelius, who was a member of the Nation of Islam, promoted the fight.  As in the Holmes fight, there was plain evidence of Ali’s acute deterioration and, although he lasted the ten round distance, he spent much of the fight against the ropes soaking up punishment.  He was 39 and had fought 61 times, with a 56-5 record.

Further questionable business deals and an expensive divorce in 1986 followed.  In 1984, he disappointed his supporters when he nominally supported Ronald Reagan’s reelection bid.  He also endorsed George Bush in 1988.  The Republican Party’s policies, particularly in regard to affirmative action programs, were widely seen as detrimental to the interests of African Americans and Ali’s actions were, for many, tantamount to a betrayal.

Ali’s public appearances gave substance to stories of his ill health.  By 1987, he was the subject of much medical interest.  Slurred speech and uncoordinated bodily movements gave rise to several theories about his condition, which was ultimately revealed as Parkinson’s Syndrome.  His public appearances became rarer and he became Hauser’s “benign venerated figure.”

Over a period of four decades, Ali excited a variety of responses: admiration and respect, of course, but also cynicism, anger and condemnation.  At different points in his life, he drew the adulation of young people committed to civil rights, black power and peace.  Yet, as Wiggins points out: “Members of the establishment were, moreover, infuriated by Ali because he exposed, for all the world to see, an America that was unwilling to honor its own precepts.”

Ali engaged with the central issues that preoccupied America: race and war.  But, it would be remiss to understand him as a symbol of social healing; much of his mission was to expose and, perhaps, to deepen divisions.  He preached peace, yet aligned himself with a movement that sanctioned racial separation and the subordination of women.  He accepted a role with the liberal Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter, yet later sided with reactionaries, Reagan and Bush.  He preached black pride, yet disparaged and dehumanized fellow blacks.  He preached the importance of self-determination, yet allowed himself to be sucked into so many doubtful business deals that he was forced to prolong his career to the point where his dignity was effaced.  Like any towering symbol, he had very human contradictions.


Embedly Powered

Frailty Myth Haunts Women

‘Get more women into sport through cheerleading – it’s feminine’, says sports minister Helen GrantCurrently 1.8 million fewer women than men take part in regular sport. In an interview with The Telegraph’s WonderWomen website, she said: “[Women] don’t have to feel unfeminine. “There are some wonderful sports which you can do and perform to a very high level and I think those participating look absolutely radiant and very feminine such as ballet, gymnastics, cheerleading and even roller-skating.


ESSAY; Frailty Myth Haunts Women in SportsIn a recent article published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine, a sociologist proposed a theory that could launch a thousand hours of talk-radio discussion.

Embedly Powered

Today’s sexual opportunists are more likely to be footballers and rock stars

What we’ve learned from Yewtree And that’s needed, for there is no doubt that a fair few people did think such behaviour was OK. Recently I talked to sociologist Ellis Cashmore, who has looked into this subject and said he thought that in the 1970s, such behaviour was probably regarded as a perk of the job. “It may disgust and repel us now,” he said. “But that’s the way it was. Not a violation of a code of ethics, but par for the course, the right of a senior” … What’s striking about the likes of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall is that they were not stupendously handsome … [READ ON]

People will soon start using the term “post-celebrity”

Interview with Ellis Cashmore author of Celebrity CultureCelebrity Culture is soon to appear in its second edition. The book responds to the public obsession with celebrity and the huge growth in the number of college and university courses on celebrity studies and celebrity journalism. We ask Ellis how he came to write on celebrity culture in the first place.

Embedly Powered

Parasites don’t just live on “Benefits Street”

Barclays to cut up to 12,000 jobs The cuts came as Barclays said it had increased the total amount it paid on staff bonuses last year.

Amid the condemnation and outrage, we sometimes forget to look up rather than down. OK, so the residents of Benefits Street are an annoying bunch who make us wonder why the system accommodates such abuse. But pause for a thought: if every single inhabitant of not just the street featured in the Channel 4 series, but in every street in Birmingham (where the series is set) were claiming benefits, the cost to the taxpayer would still not approach the massive payouts to bank bosses and the chiefs of utilities companies. The payouts take the form of “incentives” or “bonuses,” but for what?  Our utilities bills go up every year well in excess of inflation and our banks are ruinously inefficient. Yet the people who run the organizations responsible continue to feather their own nests. They usually do so in a way that escapes our attention: can you imagine C4 asking them to make a series based on their day-to-day lives? So think about this before the words “scroungers” or “parasites” next come to your lips. They don’t just live on Benefits Street.

The guilty pleasures of Benefits Street

Benefits Street gives Channel 4 highest ratings since 2012Around 5.2million tuned in to watch Benefits Street last night It is the most viewed Channel 4 show in two years since the Paralympic Closing Ceremony in 2012 which drew 7.7million viewers.

Embedly Poweredvia Dailymail


Say what you like about Benefits Street; it pulls in the viewers — over five million of us. Monday’s final episode will probably gather even more to the tv screens. So, while people pontificate about the morality of the show, remind yourself of one thing: this is entertainment, not sociology. Just like Shameless, the comedy, and soaps, this is made to amuse rather than educate us. Not that tv shows intended to entertain can’t also enlighten us: quality dramas and comedies do both. But first and foremost, Benefits Street is designed to distract us in an agreeable way. This is not a slice of life: more of a sliver — a very narrow and entirely unrepresentative sample of a handful of people who live in a street of about a hundred dwellings, the residents of which are no doubt the least amused viewers in the country. This is good television, but terrible social science: if you think it offers a scope on the country’s lumpen proletariat, you’re hopelessly misled. The stars of this show are a minority of a minority of a minority, a highly skewed sample (notice how few British Asians appear in the show). The people are uninhibited, unafraid and take a certain pride in their deprivation. And we love watching them. They afford us the opportunity to tut-tut, express our disapproval and apportion blame for the decline of modern Britain. And there is pleasure in this. How we love to judge others. Call it “poverty porn” if you like. We’re all guilt-free voyeurs.


Can BBC afford to cover sport?

BBC staff outnumbers British team at Winter OlympicsDespite not filming the event, there are more BBC crew and presenters at the Vancouver Winter Olympic games than British athletes.

Embedly Powered

via Metro

How much is the BBC spending on coverage of the Winter Olympics? The corporation hasn’t revealed the full cost, but the estimated £250,000 on staff, travel and accommodation is a small fraction. The BBC came under fire for its extravagance four years ago — see the above story — but it’s sending an even bigger team to Sochi. The television rights for the UK are not known, but as a gauge, we understand Australia’s  Network Ten paid A$20 million  (£11 million) for the rights. This is relatively inexpensive, but, presuming BBC paid a comparable amount, does it constitute good value? Is there enough interest in the Winter Olympics to justify such an outlay? My guess is that if any reader asked the next 20 people they meet to name one competitor in the games, they would not get a single answer. If you asked the next 20 to name a sport, most people would name “skiing” or “ice skating” but know nothing of the specific disciplines. Viewing figures will probably average under a million. I wonder if public interests would have been better served had the Beeb passed on this one and let itv, Channel 4 or one of the other commercial broadcasters take the initiative; at least they could spend their own money rather than the licence payers’, and try to earn it back through advertising revenue. This raises the more general question: how much longer can the BBC continue to compete against commercial broadcasters when it comes to major sports events? The rights for big events are prohibitively expensive and the BBC will eventually have to face the truth: not all of its viewers are interested in sport and will kick up a fuss. I am a stalwart supporter of the BBC and defend the arrangement whereby we licence payers fund what is, after all, the finest broadcaster in the world. But sport will disappear from its menu in years to come and, while many will regret this, we have to accommodate the reality that sport is now for commercial television only. @elliscashmore

Depression in sport


Ian Thorpe ‘in rehab for depression’, says managerThe five-times Olympic swimming champion, Ian Thorpe, has been admitted to rehab after suffering from depression, local media said on Monday.

Embedly Powered

The recent news about Ian Thorpe  would have been stunning ten years ago. Today, we are used to hearing about former Olympic champions, football greats, rugby legends and stars from many other sports who quickly fall from grace once their competitive career ends. Depression is prevalent among athletes across the whole spectrum of sports. Why? After all, these are people who have achieved more than most of us and enjoy the adulation of sports fans. Perhaps the very factors that drove their success also contribute towards their depression. One of the chapters of my book Making Sense of Sports examines the specific causes of depression in sport. I include it here: Sinking Under Pressure