I've been thinking about this on and off for many years. I'm sure you've all heard the old saying: "Any publicity is good publicity" (in relationship to Hollywood, IIRC). Is that true? How is this post-modern world of instant information and engaged public fora different from pre-Internet life? Or is it really different at all?

I mean, other than the medium (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. vs. chats at the office coffee station or while out with friends), what's changed? I'm sure that in the hey days of ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, there was the equivalent of "Oh Em Gee, did you *see* that play, too? Wow, that Electra is really a beeyotch!" or even "How 'bout them gladiators, huh?". The human need to engage, to discuss events is ingrained in our natures. Isn't this how our stories & myths get passed around? How the guys over in Capua learn about how HAWT that new gladiator of Quintus Albus Fabius is and how he's going to win the next Primus, or have you heard the Tale of the Three Sisters yet? Stories, sports or the acts of public figures have been the focus of discussion for all us "plebes" from the dawn of humanity.



The main difference now is that a random online surfer in rural Texas has just as much chance to see/hear about/discuss [INSERT EVENT HERE] as the person who was in the [front row seat/dugout/congressional session/etc]. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Inherently, the ability to discuss and engage online with people from all over the world is neither good nor bad in itself. What it does is allow individuals of many cultures to interact, and thus, perhaps begin to understand that we're not so different after all. Sure, it also brings out the whackadoodles, but then again, they were already there–even in ancient civilizations. No doubt there was an ancient Roman equivalent of standing on one's soapbox–whether in a more private setting than the town square or not. The primary difference now is that these whackadoodles can and do pontificate all over the place–and by pontificate, I mean everything from "expound one's opinion" to "shit all over everyone's squee"–especially when it's so easy to remain anonymous (by virtue of the ease of creating a sock puppet persona).



I read a comment yesterday on a blog post that amused me to no end. In essence, JohnDoe (not his real name or persona) commented on a blog post about how people who spent a lot of time on various public fora commenting on TV shows, etc. was by its nature, weird. Uhm. No. To me, that is totally human nature to do so. The fact that Facebook, blogs, show/movie websites, etc. provide a platform for discussion just makes it easier to find and join in said discussion. It's FAR from weird. Sometimes, controversy from these discussions can be quite beneficial.

Case in point: Yesterday, following the airing of this week's episode of SouthLAnd–on of the best shows on TV these days. Evidently, the fact that officer John Cooper, played by Michael Cudlitz, is gay, had escaped some fans. (Though how that happened is another discussion). There were quite a few postings on the show's Facebook page along the lines of OMG, John Cooper is gay. Ick. I will stop watching this show–well, and a lot more nasty posts, as well. I discovered this thanks to Cudlitz's own post asking that:

Make sure you visit the SouthLAnd page and post a comment. Keep it positive. Let people know how you feel about the show and Coopers sexuality. We are not looking for conflict we are just gonna' make sure that the voice of hate in not louder that the voice of tolerance …………. Cause that's how we roll bitches !!! #SouthLAnd Style …………….. Yup.



Suddenly, wall posts at the SouthLAnd Facebook page seemed to explode in numbers. I don't have any knowledge of actual stats, but I could see for myself the increased traffic. Is this a good thing? In my opinion and based on this particular case alone? Yes–because in this case, it raises awareness of the show's existence. This is a brilliantly written/acted series that narrowly escaped oblivion when NBC shitcanned them. That TNT grabbed onto the show and not only aired the remaining episodes in that first season, but renewed them for another season was a move lauded by its fans. SouthLAnd, like Oz, The Wire, and other hard-hitting dramas is deserving of much more attention than it was receiving. If it took a bunch of non-observant show viewers to pop up and bitch about John Cooper's gayness, then okay, I can live with that. After all, what I'm seeing on the wall posts now is overwhelming support and wholesale squashing of the trolls.

Can controversy/publicity act in the opposite way? Absolutely. Just ask now former Congressman Chris Lee–who, like many of his equally flustered compatriots who've been (ahem) exposed, fail to understand that the Internet is public. Was this controversy a good thing?

Not for Chris Lee–but then again, was it right to call for his resignation (via public outcry) because the mad is a sad pathetic loser? Sure, his fucked up personal life isn't my business. Thing is, him posting these photos to craigslist while being a public figure was pretty damned stupid. Do I hold him to a higher standard? Perhaps. My point is that as a person who has chosen to live in the public eye (elected officials, celebrities, actors, musicians, etc.) – if you know that your reputation and your job may be affected by acts of this nature, then dude, don't do it. At least, don't put things on the Internet.

IMHO, the Lee type of controversy is completely different than that of SouthLAnd's–in the latter, the actions of an individual directly affected the individual. In the former, the writing for an entertainment event engendered strong, emotional public discussion. Apples & oranges.

In both cases, however, it still boils back down to human nature. We are creatures who love to engage, to discuss, to analyze. it's just a whole lot more fun these days.

Side note: I write kickass queer characters similar to tough-guy John Cooper. I mean, could Keira's brother Tucker be any more kickass? After all, he was/is Viking Berserker. That's the part of the "OMG Cooper gay" that baffles me. Firstly, have they been watching the same show as I have? They've never hidden Cooper's gayness. Secondly, what about "teh gay" makes someone unlikeable/unable to be a kickass, strong, tough cop? ::shrugs::