Since I’ve maybe done a bad thing and spoken ill of a TV show in which I took part (I may never make an unpaid appearance as a talking head in this town again), I’ll try to set the balance right with this important finding reported recently in the Onion:
LOS ANGELES—A study released today by the University of California, Los Angeles is sending shockwaves through the social, behavioral, and publicity sciences, after finding that everyone in Hollywood is close personal friends with everyone else in Hollywood.
“The evidence shows that our nation’s show-business capital is a town of virtually boundless goodwill and camaraderie, where the backstabbing, ego-rivalry, and grudge-holding common to the rest of society do not exist,” said UCLA sociology professor Gina Carlisle, lead author of the five-year, 700-page study. “The entire region is a veritable utopia of deep, abiding interpersonal affection and mutual respect.”
Additionally, the report found that 98 percent of Hollywood residents “love [their friends’] work.”
The findings, published this month in the journal American Psychologist, were based on information culled from DVD commentary tracks, promotional junket footage, talk show appearances, more than 1,500 behind-the-scenes magazine profiles, and hundreds of poolside cocktail party conversations.
Assuming you’ve not choked on your cornflakes, I’ll let you go ahead and click over to the Onion for the rest of the article…
-cvj
Oh, ok! Just checking… 🙂
-cvj
Yes, of course!
Mary, you’re aware that the article is being ironic, right?
-cvj
Hi Tommaso,
Thanks for the thoughts.
Our earlier disagreement to which you refer is largely irrelevant, actually. That was about the effects of someone’s deliberate actions toward or comments about a colleague in the workplace, for all the reasons of access I explained carefully in the post back then. It is also irrelevant because I appeared in front of their cameras in good faith, and did not myself edit the show into its dreadfully lame form. I am disappointed in the show’s outcome simply because it was initially a good idea, and it could have been so much better and so much smarter, and less out of the gutter (you’ve missed the fact that a lot of my critique had nothing to do with the sexual content they added). I am not discussing here issues of deep principle about the idea of shows with sexually charged content, especially on a channel that advertises itself as producing such material. That’s a different issue. As another example, I refer you to that magazine shoot I did in New York earlier this year. See the post I did on that. Would I buy or read it for myself? No. Endless pictures of SUV rims and scantily clad teenagers are not really my preferred reading. Do I think that my appearance there might reach a few people who won’t be watching PBS? Yes, I did at the time, and in fact, I now know it did (post on that to come).
I stand by the larger issue here, which is trying to bring science into places where it normally does not show up much. There will be times when it does not work well, or where some of what I do is poorly used. I’m willing to take the risk for the greater good.
Best,
-cvj
I was amused by the ‘it’s a truly egoless culture’ comment in the article! This is not how Hollywood comes across to me! But I’m probably just far to cynical.
Hi Clifford,
I could make good use of your falling in the trap of participating in a soft porn TV show to make a point or two about the recent querelle on political correctness etc., but I hate to shoot on the unarmed.
Rather, I’ll say I sympathize with the slip, and I would not worry too much about it if I were you. Ok, they showed a lot of boobs in between your physics explanations. So what ? You meant well, and did well. Whether that helps the cause of science outreach or that of women in science, it is really not the point…
Cheers,
T.