#chromakee

[chromakee]

I’ve been thinking about the Bechdel test for films where a film must have a) two or more main female characters who b) talk for five minutes about c) something other than men. It’s amazing to see that not many films pass this test. So, I’m initiating this now (unless it’s already been done…): The Shukla Test, for books, films and television where a) two main characters who are people who of colour b) talk for five minutes without c) mentioning their race. 

I get that he's trying to address the fact that there simply aren't that many POC characters in television and movies. However, this doesn't address the fact that you can have POC talking to each other about something other than race, but otherwise have them characterized as racist stereotypes. 

It's a shame that I can't think of many movies or television shows that pass the test off the top of my head.

[chromakee]

So Glee shamelessly ripped off Jonathan Coulton's cover of Baby Got Back without attribution. It seems pretty clear cut to me -- not to mention that Fox has a history of covering songs without permission. 

What I don't get is this notion in some corners of the internet (for example, most of the comments below this AV Club article) that because the song is a cover of another well known song in a completely different genre, or because some people simply don't like it (!) that Fox was well within its rights to do whatever it wanted. 

If you don't like the song, that's fine, but irrelevant. If you don't like the song because it's yet another white guy covering a song by a black artist as an 'ironic' commentary on race, that's also fine, but again, irrelevant. (In this case, anyway. I think it's an incredibly interesting topic, but one for another day.) Fox ripped off Colton's version of the song and didn't credit him for it. Even if he barely changed the lyrics (and from what I understand, Fox lifted the cover wholesale, not even bothering to revise the few lyrics Coulton changed from the original song), he should at least get credit/royalties for the arrangement, which is completely different from that of the original song.

[chromakee]

This is adorable.

i think it might just be a front for selling drugs though

[chromakee]

This is TOUGHPAD. TOUGHPAD is my new master. All hail the glorious noise of TOUGHPAD. I am powerless and weak and shuddering before the might of TOUGHPAD. I am a snivelling worm, a directionless and flabby thing before the majesty of TOUGHPAD.

(via)

[chromakee]

So The Atlantic apologized for the Scientology fiasco: 

We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way.  It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out.  We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves.  We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right.  

But this is just the worst instance of an advertorial. The Atlantic does this pretty often; the only difference here is that people were outraged enough to force them to retract it. Someone -- or several someones -- had to have approved this the first time; if no one said anything, the ad would probably still be up.

How hard up is The Atlantic for cash if they're accepting it from a cult?

Edit: As usual, The Onion gets it right.