Lady Gaga Twitter Discussion

[erfaan 2,830]

That's so amazing that you got tweeted

SO unexpected!

smh @ people who don't know what AquaNet it

Earthfan knows what AquaNet is. He just wanted to hear it from da Queen

I actually googled it before I tweeted her

Aquanet isn't sold in Australia, sorry hun :hor:

[Blue Dream 11]

Exactly. US Drone strikes killing innocent children or Palestinian kids in Gaza being bombed to bits in their homes and at their schools - that's obviously not important because OMG SOMETHING HAPPENED IN AMERICA. Massacres elsewhere (some of which the US is partially responsible for) seem to be out of heart, out of mind.

Annually, 13,000 people die from gun-related crimes in the US. They're the only industrialized nation sitting in the TOP 15 of most violent countries in the world (Philippines, Guatemala, Jamaica, etc. etc.) and over a thousand of the deaths listed above contain kids and babies. More than 400 people are shot every single day in the US, and just under a hundred of them die because of it. Would it be "rude" of her not to acknowledge these deaths every single day? Would it be rude of her if she didn't mention the fact that worldwide, 107 people die per minute? Many of them because of starvation, too little or no health care, malaria, being civilians in a country under attack, female genital mutilation, rape/murder, AIDS, drone strikes, domestic violence, tuberculosis, suicide, incurable diseases, pregnancy complications, etc. etc. etc.?

The media sensationalized this mass murder (wtf, interviewing children on CNN hours after it happened!) because they were children and especially because they were white children. Didn't someone kill two people in a mall two days before the Newton shooting? Would you be hammering on about Gaga needing to respond to that? Look at how many kids die of gun-related violence every single year. Hopefully you'll start to become more aware of how the media shapes what you think is happening and what is more important than other issues more than you'd like.

Obviously Gaga must be very upset about the mass shooting.We know how incredibly kind-hearted, loving and sensitive she is - odds are she's grieving a hell of a lot more than most people. What WOULD be "pretty rude" and also hypocritical is forcing her to express her thoughts about it on Twitter to make you feel better. That's not going to change anything, and she always responds to catastrophe not only with tweets but also with tangible and/or monetary help which is in this case not possible.

Disclaimer: I'm heart-broken as well. I've had bouts of crying ever since I first heard the news and today I'm still having them. This is just a post to put things into perspective.

All mostly good points, but you seem to imply that it is a bad thing that this sensationalism is happening. It's never a bad thing to mourn. And it's especially never a bad thing when that mourning can potentially be productive. The media is an agenda setter. CNN and the other major news outlets decide what we talk about at the dinner table or in our classrooms or with our politicians. I think it's important for celebrities to acknowledge this tragedy because it keeps the discussion going, one which will hopefully lead to reform in the way we handle gun laws and mental healthcare in the US which is nothing short of VITAL. /endrant

SO unexpected!

I actually googled it before I tweeted her

Aquanet isn't sold in Australia, sorry hun

I don't think it's sold in the US anymore either. It's associated with 80s big hair rock bands. (Like RS)

[Nissa 51]

All mostly good points, but you seem to imply that it is a bad thing that this sensationalism is happening. It's never a bad thing to mourn. And it's especially never a bad thing when that mourning can potentially be productive. The media is an agenda setter. CNN and the other major news outlets decide what we talk about at the dinner table or in our classrooms or with our politicians. I think it's important for celebrities to acknowledge this tragedy because it keeps the discussion going, one which will hopefully lead to reform in the way we handle gun laws and mental healthcare in the US which is nothing short of VITAL. /endrant

This is a seriously complex issue that indeed involves the lack of gun control, the lack of affordable mental health care and the glorification of guns/murder and violence as "entertainment". I am absolutely not opposed to the media respectfully giving this issue the spotlight it deserves instead of interviewing these traumatized 7-year-olds on live tv and probing them with questions - that's what I mean by sensationalism, as opposed to covering a story with the respect it deserves. What I also meant was that the media shapes your view of domestic issues more than you know - if 80+ kids die EVERY SINGLE DAY because of guns, why is this never even mentioned? Two weeks ago, a local NY news story broke: the police were stumped there because they hadn't had any shootings or stabbings for 48 hours. THAT'S NEWS? Media is incredibly important, but also note how gun control is off limits even on the most "liberal" channels like MSNBC. The NRA and the Republicans are holding you in a stranglehold, allowing all of this violence to go on and on so they reap profits. Media is important in any country that wants to call itself civilized - but the amount of selective reporting, the now wide-spread idea that journalists should just repeat the lies politicians made instead of looking them up and correcting them ("fact checking"), the fact that some of them seem to savor the idea that there's a huge horrific event in the US because they know that they'll get them ratings... That's not what the media should be doing, and as it is most channels and newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch (Republican) and run as for-profit businesses which doesn't help the case at all.

As to your comment on the CNN being the sole decision-maker of what you're going to talk about at the dinner table - do you really feel that that is GOOD? Shedding light on what happened in sober but extensive reporting is not what we have seen. The media clamors to affect you emotionally, especially in how they cover things. It's a technique. And with or without the media, the President and Congress would already have started discussion. It's their job to do that, so saying that politicians need to be reminded by news channels that these things happen and that they're the reason why new policy will come about...Not really.

[Blue Dream 11]

This is a seriously complex issue that indeed involves the lack of gun control, the lack of affordable mental health care and the glorification of guns/murder and violence as "entertainment". I am absolutely not opposed to the media respectfully giving this issue the spotlight it deserves instead of interviewing these traumatized 7-year-olds on live tv and probing them with questions - that's what I mean by sensationalism, as opposed to covering a story with the respect it deserves. What I also meant was that the media shapes your view of domestic issues more than you know - if 80+ kids die EVERY SINGLE DAY because of guns, why is this never even mentioned? Two weeks ago, a local NY news story broke: the police were stumped there because they hadn't had any shootings or stabbings for 48 hours. THAT'S NEWS? Media is incredibly important, but also note how gun control is off limits even on the most "liberal" channels like MSNBC. The NRA and the Republicans are holding you in a stranglehold, allowing all of this violence to go on and on so they reap profits. Media is important in any country that wants to call itself civilized - but the amount of selective reporting, the now wide-spread idea that journalists should just repeat the lies politicians made instead of looking them up and correcting them ("fact checking"), the fact that some of them seem to savor the idea that there's a huge horrific event in the US because they know that they'll get them ratings... That's not what the media should be doing, and as it is most channels and newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch (Republican) and run as for-profit businesses which doesn't help the case at all.

As to your comment on the CNN being the sole decision-maker of what you're going to talk about at the dinner table - do you really feel that that is GOOD? Shedding light on what happened in sober but extensive reporting is not what we have seen. The media clamors to affect you emotionally, especially in how they cover things. It's a technique. And with or without the media, the President and Congress would already have started discussion. It's their job to do that, so saying that politicians need to be reminded by news channels that these things happen and that they're the reason why new policy will come about...Not really.

Ummm. No, no, no. First of all, MSNBC has been attacking the NRA for years now and now even CNN is all over them, so let's not go there. As for interviewing traumatized kids, no journalist is allowed to interview a minor without the consent of his/her/etc.'s parents. So I trust in the parenting skills of those in Newtown and beyond to know whether their children are emotionally ready enough to give the first-hand account of the incident that can be powerful and inspiring enough to inspire change. Additionally, I don't regret the presence of emotion in news. I think it makes programming and stories more palatable to the general public. As long as the facts of the story are sound, adding in a little pathos for ratings means nothing but a more well informed public.

Now, for the role of media in society. The importance of the media (specifically newspapers) is enshrined in the US constitution with the First Amendment. Speaking for America, the Founding Fathers saw the importance of journalists functioning as government watchdogs. So when you say that politicians don't "need to be reminded by the news channels," it's quite offbeat with how that relationship really functions. While I agree that they is certainly a rise in "soft news" and "human interest" stories, at the end of the day, it is from the media that we get aggressive investigative journalism that provokes reform. There have been dozens of mass shootings. Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Amish school shooting, and so many others failed to result in appropriate legislative changes. This one won't either without the media and the public's insistence.

(And as a side note, NewsCorp, Murdoch's company, doesn't own most news outlets in America. They own a lot, but nowhere near a majority. And I never said CNN was the sole allot-er of conversation. I said media in general was an agenda setter, and if this is through meaningful investigative journalism then yes, I do believe it is a good thing.)

TL;DR: The media can be a positive force in that it is a watchdog entity.

Edited December 17, 2012 by JoshMetcalf

[Niels 2]

Lady Gaga â€@ladygaga

"You and I" the jazz version after too many whiskies with Newman https://soundcloud.com/hausofdima/lady-gaga-you-and-i-full-jazz …

[Nissa 51]

TL;DR: The media can be a positive force in that it is a watchdog entity.

That sentence encapsulates exactly what the US lost. Media should be said watchdog, has been that positive force for decades, but now standards are dropping and as we saw with this story they gave dozens of related breaking news tidbits that where blatantly false and upped the emotional angle in favor for actual sound reporting that deals in facts. It was a prime example of how most media outlets now have traded in serious journalism for stenography journalism and emotional appeals that were in place to ENHANCE the already existing pain of the public - if you want to wrap that up in the banner of "FREEDOM OF PRESS!", it doesn't change anything. Did I mention somewhere I'd be in favor of limiting any of the press's freedoms or something? Jeez. If anything, I was raging at censorship imposed on all non-cable news programs when it comes to gun control laws.

I'm putting the rest under a spoiler warning so it doesn't totally clutter up this thread with non-related topics.

Okay, write what you want, press, but people still are thinking they can count on you to be that idealized watchdog exposing the wrongs in our society and create more awareness where it is needed - and that's something most channels have been taking serious advantage of the last few years. And if you think people don't get sick/get crying fits after hearing the most neutral report about this massacre but need tv to tell them what emotional response they should have and that that somehow "makes them more informed" (actual facts they're feeding their audience be damned), wow. Because as you know, 70% of the stories concerning Lanza that day were wrong, it was complete misinformation spread by journalists jumping the gun and making their own conclusions just to have new stuff to tell.

By the way, those little kids? Wolf Blitzer started talking - very uneasily, because obviously many others had been calling in about this - about their parents having been asked for permission after CNN had been showing the fourth interview of a traumatized 7-year-old who was probed to describe screams, gunshots, hiding in a closet, etc. THIS WAS WHILE ALL THE BODIES STILL LAY INSIDE, and not long after the parents of the deceased were informed of their children's deaths.

Dontcha think the parents who gave permission were in shock too? Interviewing children/teens who suffered through something horrifying is a Serious Journalism 101 NO-NO. I used to be very engaged in a US political site full of activists, Poli-Sci professors and other academics even though I'm from Belgium. I used to write a lot of what they call "diaries" there and have engaged in many discussions (had to stop writing articles because of chronic nerve pain) and with every single event people a--lyzed regarding television the reporting got worse and worse - less facts, more speculation, more armchair "psychology" by questionable "doctors", "CRY NOW, DAMNIT!" tactics, etc. We want the media to be the watchdog like it used to be before Murdoch&Co and yes, you can say Murdoch has got more newspapers/television channels than anyone else to the point that the few neutral and/or right-centrist channels are being lauded as bastions of progressiveness. We NEED to go back to actual journalism. Now it's nothing but sensation and stenography fueled by monetary and political interests.

Presidents have their own very thorough and factually accurate briefings and yes, they also watch the news for other reasons but it is not the number one source for politicians to base policy changes on - it's mostly gauging the public's reaction. And the public's reaction plays huge a role, of course, but indisputable facts (meaning: briefings given to top officials) are much more important if you want to actually change this mess, don't you think? Public opinion can be the wind beneath their wings, but that's it. And if CNN/FOX/NBC have ever spoken up in unison (not just one lone reporter) against the NRA, I'd be very surprised. Bob Costas almost got fired a week ago when he said that if Jovan Belcher hadn't had a gun he suspected he and his girlfriend would still be alive today. Wow. Most stations are absolutely forbidden to even mention gun control, and the only thing I agree with is the the public's insistence is very important - but media making the public even more emotional doesn't help anyone but the people who profit off of the ratings. If you know what happened, you're probably going to already be very angry, fed up, disgusted, unable to stop crying, etc. etc. or you have a serious problem. People have already been incited to fight against the lack of gun control, are protesting and are generally furious because of what happened, whatever kind of media coverage they followed.

I'm not going to argue any longer, this site is about Gaga, I said something about Gaga and did not want to veer off topic in the first place. I like to limit political discussions to serious, decent political fora that study everything that's happening in the US, night and day, as their job, hobby, or for their activism. But all I wanted to point out was how little sense it made to want to force an already amazing, kind-hearted, loving, sensitive and empathetic person to tweet about this as if not doing it means she doesn't care about this massacre one bit. That's all.

Lady Gaga â€@ladygaga

"You and I" the jazz version after too many whiskies with Newman https://soundcloud.c...and-i-full-jazz …

OMGOMGOMG :giveup:

Edited December 17, 2012 by Nissa

[omgwtfbbq 0]

Ew, are we seriously debating gun laws in the 'Lady Gaga twitter' thread? Take your essays someplace else.

[Niels 2]

Brian Newman â€@BrianNewmanNY

@ladygaga Do you remember the blindfolded take we did of that, babe?!! Hahaha!!! Lets do it again soon! Always a pleasure!! Love ya!

Lady Gaga â€@ladygaga

@BrianNewmanNY miss u drove by Rivington yesterday. Save me a seat

[Philip 4]

:emo: :taylor:

:worship:

[rachetguy 0]

is one love ARTPOP's lead single??

[lodylody 1,749]

is one love ARTPOP's lead single??

Yes... yes it is. :derpga:

[Coldplay 217]

Oh god. Another cannabis reference, don't know how to feel about that.

[emiher 2]

OMG ZEDD SAID HIS SPECIAL POST ISN'T THE CLARITY VIDEO!!! GAAAAHHH!!!!

[heavymlover 340]

Oh god. Another cannabis reference, don't know how to feel about that.

What do you mean? That's just tobacco :huh:

[Gaijin 443]

What do you mean? That's just tobacco

Which is strange, as she apparently quit Smoking 8 months ago because T didn't like it or something, or because she was happier. I'm disappointed if she's doing this again.