Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more. Hosted by Larry Mantle

AirTalk for

AirTalk for September 7, 2011

Segments From This Episode


Surfing responsibly for triple-x entertainment

“Let’s not pretend otherwise,” reads an ad in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, “adult material…accounts for over 10% of online searches.” The ad, placed by ICM Registry, goes on to say that the industry itself needs to be recognized for taking a proactive stance to provide safe, secure access to adult entertainment. To that end, ICM Registry has created a new internet extension – XXX – that will readily identify adult entertainment sites. XXX sites will be electronically labeled as adult in nature, allowing for easy filtering by parents, schools and libraries. They’ll be scanned daily for malware and spyware, and will be able to take secure, age-verified payments through a third-party service. And the creators of XXX pledge to donate a portion of each domain fee to the International Foundation for Online Responsibility - a non-profit organization that the CEO of ICM Registry is apparently the chairman of. ICM touts this as great news for users, families and the adult entertainment industry alike, and urges operators of such sites to register their domains as XXX right away. But is creating a virtual “red light district” such a good idea? Is this an altruistic solution to the ongoing battle to keep porn from popping up on our – and our children’s - computers? Do you welcome an “easily recognizable, safe and relaxed” environment in which to responsibly enjoy adult entertainment? Or do you see this a shameless money-grab by online profiteers?


Code of ethics for Reality TV – as unrealistic as the shows themselves?

Earlier this month, the suicide of Russell Armstrong brought severe scrutiny to the unscripted Bravo TV series, "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills." Armstrong's failing marriage with real housewife Taylor Armstrong was featured as a constant theme in the hit show. Viewers and critics can't help but wonder whether his suicide was precipitated by living in the fishbowl of reality TV. This tragedy is only the latest in a long line suffered by reality TV participants. Part of the problem is self-selecting: casting calls hunt for wild, abnormal, struggling, outrageous or narcissistic personalities that can deliver drama, a formula that has ensured on-screen success for The Real World, Survivor, The Bachelor, Jersey Shore and more. But what happens off screen to the nouveau famous? How do they adjust to their own new realities? One entertainment critic wants producers to bear a lot of responsibility for their Frankensteins. National Public Radio blogger, Linda Holmes, is calling for a Code of Ethics for producers to abide by. Among her proposals to protect the real people of reality TV: aftercare and counseling; fully disclosed contracts; limits on liquor; guaranteed shut-eye during production; some guaranteed access to friends or family; built-in salary increases; and recourse for disputes. How contrary does this code run to the status quo? Should this latest tragedy be a Jenny Jones moment for unscripted television? Would you be more inclined to watch a show if it was code-compliant? Do you feel guilty watching TV that marries borderline personalities with entertainment? Should producers be required to protect the stars of reality TV from themselves?


What will motivate lawmakers to cross the aisle and truly work together?

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, took out a full page ad in last Sunday’s New York Times to make a plea for action on the economy and for an end to partisan bickering. Using his cultural capital as the head of one of America’s most popular companies, he is organizing a nationwide town hall meeting Tuesday night. The event, hosted by the non-partisan group No Labels, was billed by Schultz as an opportunity for concerned citizens to speak out and persuade politicians in Washington to abandon hyper-partisan tactics and sincerely work together for the good of the country. Schultz has published several ads recently in newspapers voicing his dismay at the lack of progress being made in Congress and inviting Americans across the country to call into the meeting via teleconference. This comes on the heels of Schultz’s push last month to get other CEOs to hold back contributions to politicians until lawmakers agree on a compromise which effectively addresses the economic problems the country faces. With the backing of AOL’s Tim Armstrong, J Crew’s Millard Dextrer, JC Penney’s Myron Ullman and over 100 other businesses, it appears that Schultz’s philosophy and movement resonate not just with the average voter, but with economic leaders as well. What do you think of the Schultz plan for overcoming partisanship? Is it bold to ask wealthy business leaders to hold back political contributions or is it an unrealistic request doomed to failure? Do you think this kind of movement can change the political climate? Is this grass roots or astro turf?


Recent Episodes from AirTalk

Downed Russian jet, secrets of aging well & the Sony hack 1-year later

We discuss the Russian warplane shot down by Turkey and its effect on the White House's IS meeting; Brian Grazer weighs in on producing his upcoming episode on aging in National Geographic's series "Breakthrough" & we look back at changes that erupted from the 2014 Sony hack.

Browse the AirTalk Archives

    Enjoy AirTalk? Try KPCC’s other programs.