Liberal papers are not necessarily liberal.
The mainstream media tend to lump everything together. To them, there's no difference between Madonna, the Rolling Stones, or whatever.
One of the anomalies of digital journalism is a lack of clarity between high and low. That's the historic distinction in publishing, mass from class, the vulgar from the refined, tabloid from broadsheet, the penny press from papers costing a nickel.
I think that people are too... They've become genre snobs.
I think it is very sad that 'sitcom' has become a pejorative term.
Eventually you won't think of 'the Internet business.' You'll think of it more like news, weather, sports, but even that taxonomy isn't clear.
The photo-journalist and the photo-poet are both important. The problem is to separate the major objectives of the various groups and not to attribute qualities and intentions where they do not belong.
I'm aware that people enjoy creating categories that make it easier to digest pop culture or the media or entertainment or whatever. But I really have too much to do to fit into any easy category.
I'm not a documentarian. I'm not a photojournalist.
A lot of the distinctions that we make between drama and documentary are spurious. We're deeply confused about these issues. About the difference between the two, about where documentary ends and drama begins.
It is significant that one says book lover and music lover and art lover but not record lover or CD lover or, conversely, text lover.
The funny thing is that people see one film like 'Racing Stripes' or 'Ice Princess' and all of a sudden, slip me into this category of 'that's what she's always involved in.'
I don't think of cartoons or comics as being for kids.
I guess I didn't even know the word 'genre' until I did 'True Blood.' That's how naive I was, and I didn't realize that there was a point of view about certain types of TV. And so I guess I found it disappointing that there is a segment of the critical community that looks at genre as something that is separate, less than.
I'd argue that the term 'superhero' is much too broadly used.
There is something spurious about the very term 'a movie made for TV,' because what you make for TV is a TV program.
From a linguistic point of view, you can't really take much objection to the notion that a show is a show is a show.
Saying someone's a fan of animation is as silly as saying someone's a fan of live action. That can mean anything.
In my mind, I don't necessarily associate a summer show with lightness.
I think we are constantly asked day in and day out to find the things that we find frustrating or inspiring or that we're passionate about, and attack it from that angle. I don't like being lumped into the idea of being media, or liberal media for that point of view. I am not trained as a journalist.
