humanoidhistory:

Inside NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, early 1960s.

Don’t even talk to me about this stupid hoodie or this stupid show.

A herd of bison in Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park | July 2014

Paul Newman

Bison in Yellowstone National Park | July 2014

"Kit was the perfect choice for the campaign — he has an innate confidence and projects a playfully rebellious nature," explained Sandra Choi, Jimmy Choo’s Creative Director. "He has an overtly masculine style that feels effortlessly cool and a great sense of humour, and beneath that intensity he is a true gentleman."

atraversso:

Starry Eyed Suprise by Aleks Ivic

Okay, I have a question for all of you. Even if we don’t really interact, please let me know your thoughts!

yellowpandaification:

Is it dishonest and shitty for a celebrity to hire someone to run their social media account because they’re often too busy to do so themselves? Should they just not even bother with social media if they don’t always have the time to tweet or post themselves?

I guess one could make the case for “dishonest,” but I don’t think it at all enters the realm of “shitty.” Given that social media isn’t just a personal tool, but rather one for marketing/public relations, it’s natural that most celebrities have some form of account—like, if you’re an actor and you don’t have a Facebook Page, you’re losing out compared to actors that do. Whether or not that fan interaction is “honest” (i.e. being done by the actor themselves) is sort of beside the point; fan interaction means money, exposure, etc. Even if you’re an established star, something like a Facebook page is indispensable when it comes to letting fans (or potential fans) know about appearances, movies being released, when you can buy DVDs etc. 

Twitter feels a little different; I assume a celebrity’s Facebook page is run by their management, whereas Twitter does feel a little more personal, especially because many Twitter accounts are purely run by the celebrities themselves. But again, given that these people are so busy, I don’t think a Twitter presence that’s run or supplemented by a social media assistant is “shitty.”

And why don’t I think it’s shitty? Because fan demands on celebrities, be it actors or writers or directors or whatever, are overwhelming as it is. We as consumers have this need for access to them (I mean, look at how people act around their adored actors at SDCC?) and it’s only increased since social media; people tweeting for an IMMEDIATE comment on something they disliked in a show, begging for RTs, cyberbullying, friend requests… even for the actors I know whose stars are even slightly on the rise, the social media demand on them is huge. Often times, it’s not just that there’s no time to tweet: it’s that there’s no time to reply to the thousands of messages they get, and absolutely zero time to sort through them. We culturally have this idea that because celebrities are now accessible, they must be accessible. That they owe us personalized responses to their time. It’s fan mail taken to an unmanageable degree.

Having worked as a social media manager for a popular podcast, I can attest to how much mail you get, and that’s nothing to compared to what somebody who’s an actual celebrity is going to get. There’s no way one person can deal with all of that while maintaining a super-intense job.

So, yeah, dishonest, but not shitty. It’s much shittier to expect that our collective fan demands on basic people deserve to be personalized. We don’t have the right to access to anybody, and if somebody is too busy to run their social media account, then whatever. We’re not being harmed or slighted because they’d rather spend time with their kids rather than read 100000 “It’s my birthday RT PLEAAASEEE!!!” messages.

THEME ©