Month: January 2024

Awards season is set to kick off this weekend and, after a tumultuous year filled with strikes, mergers, and cancellations, The Golden Globes is ready to reintroduce itself. It’s got a new home, an overhauled voting body, an updated categories list, and a fresh face in comedian Jo Koy as its host. With blockbusters like Barbie and Oppenheimer commanding the most nominations, and presenters like Florence Pugh, America Ferrera, Will Ferrell, and Issa Rae, the show is hoping to tempt fans back to watching (or streaming) in real-time. To that end, here’s every possible way you can catch The Golden Globes this weekend.

Where Can I Watch The Golden Globes?

The Golden Globes switched networks this year to CBS so if you’re still paying for cable you can find them there. The broadcast begins Sunday, Jan. 7th at 8 p.m. ET/ 5 p.m. PT.

Where Can I Stream The Golden Globes?

Cord cutters have a few more options when it comes to taking in the festivities and it all depends on which streaming service you subscribe to. Paramount+ is likely the easiest way to watch the show as CBS will be live-streaming the proceedings to all subscribers. It’s $5.99 a month to sign up but there’s also a free trial for newcomers if you’re only interested in catching the Globes. FuboTV is another service that offers access to CBS and has a free week trial for new members while Hulu subscribers can upgrade to the Live TV plan to take in the awards.

Will There Be A Golden Globes Red Carpet Pre-Show?

This year, Variety and Entertainment Tonight are partnering to host The Golden Globes’ official digital pre-show. Beginning at 6:30 p.m. ET/3:30 p.m. PT, the show will be hosted by Variety‘s Marc Malkin and Angelique Jackson and Entertainment Tonight correspondent Rachel Smith. The trio will be interviewing A-listers on the red carpet and previewing some of the bigger category competitions as guests arrive with coverage airing on Variety’s website and ETOnline.com.

I have good and bad news.

Let’s get the bad news out of the way: Uncut Gems and Good Times directors Benny and Josh Safdie may never make a movie together again. “It’s a natural progression of what we each want to explore,” Benny told Variety about the amicable split. “I will direct on my own, and I will explore things that I want to explore. I want that freedom right now in my life.” When asked if he’ll direct with his brother in the future, he shrugged and replied, “I don’t know.”

The good news? Benny is directing a movie for A24 starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. The Smashing Machine (which the indie distributor described as The Rock’s “most dramatic project and role yet”) is the wrestler-turned-actor-turned-wrestler who makes fun of his acting career‘s first non-blockbuster film for adults since Pain & Gain, which he’s great in. “I’m at a point in my career where I want to push myself in ways that I’ve not pushed myself in the past,” he said. “I’m at a point in my career where I want to make films that matter, that explore a humanity and explore struggle [and] pain.”

Johnson (who will play MMA and UFC champion Mark Kerr) added that he hasn’t given up on “big, four-quadrant movies” like Fast & Furious, “but there’s a time and a place for them. I’m at this point in my career where I want more. And I don’t mean I want more box office. I mean I want more humanity. And that is why Benny Safdie is the perfect, collaborative, hungry partner for me.”

Benny helped get an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler. Let’s see if he can do the same with The Rock.

(Via Variety)

Early 2022 was not exactly a more innocent time, but those were the days before The Bear transformed into a sleeper hit, and before anyone knew it, lust-inspired tweets about hot Chefs hit like Cousin Richie singing “Love Story” in his car.

At that point, Jeremy Allen White — following a decade-long run as part of Shameless‘ vast ensemble cast — became a household name instead of being mainly known as “the American Lip Gallagher.” Shameless bloggers began overanalyzing whether Carmy Berzatto should have sex in the second season of The Bear (SPOILER ALERT: he did) of the FX hit series (that streams on Hulu). And White signed onto A24’s The Iron Claw, in which he portrays the tragic Kerry Von Erich, currently in theaters now to both depress you and make you marvel at his gains.

Speaking of being jacked, there was no time like the present for White to star in a Calvin Klein underwear campaign, and the company felt the same way. The fashion brand decided to begin the new year in the spirit of “hell yes, Chef!” and duly began rolling the NYC-focused ads out on social media.

Let’s just say that White is no stranger to making his own thirsty comments about lingerie shoots, and now, it’s his turn to be the recipient. It’s also worth chuckling at how his The Bear fame led to this after he once declared that “Carmy’s, like, the least sexual person,” but of course, that runs counter to the vibe on this shoot. Still, no one could possibly fault him for getting in on an underwear campaign while already being ripped to portray a pro wrestler. If not now, then when?

A comparison to Ancient Greek statues had to happen:

Someone’s Dad already knew the assignment on Twitter, too.

The floodgates of thirst swiftly opened. It’s a fun day on social media again.

Calvin Klein also dropped a short video of White talking about how he still likes to ride his bike in Brooklyn. Chicago-based Carmy would have no time for this campaign, but the people appreciate it.

Aaron Rodgers isn’t popping any bottles this morning. The injured New York Jets quarterback bizarrely suggested that Jimmy Kimmel would be included in court documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. “There’s a lot of people including Jimmy Kimmel who’s really hoping that doesn’t come out,” he said on The Pat McAfee Show last week. “I’ll tell you what, if that list comes out, I’ll definitely be popping some sort of bottle.” The documents were made public on Wednesday, but Kimmel — who responded to Rodgers on X by calling him an “aasshole” and threatened legal action — is nowhere to be found.

CNN’s Jake Tapper ripped into Rodgers on Wednesday for dragging Kimmel’s name through the mud. He called the quarterback a “nitwit” and criticized his “false, defamatory, wildly irresponsible, and not funny” comments.

Mediaite has more:

Tapper spoke about this further with Deadspin’s Julie DiCaro, who suggested Rodgers might be “bored” since his Achilles injury has taken him out of the season, so now he’s preoccupying himself by picking fights with Travis Kelce and others. Tapper pointed out that Disney owns ABC and ESPN, so he wondered how long the company would tolerate Rodgers’ antics, and “What obligation does ESPN have to shut down this type of speculation?”

Tapper (who is friends with Kimmel) wondered why Disney is “allowing this to happen.” He added, “Does [CEO Bob Iger] allow ESPN and this nitwit… to continue to have this forum even when they are smearing who is working for ABC for more than 20 years now.” You can watch the clip below.

(Via Mediaite)

Following the success of ABBA’s Voyage show, it seems the next artist to perform in a hologram concert has been decided. The King himself, Elvis Presley, will appear in London this November as part of an “immersive concert experience” called Elvis Evolution.

According to Rolling Stone, it will use a blend of holographic and AI projection that will take fans through a performance of Elvis’ different career moments. The concert was reportedly created by using Elvis‘ home videos and photos, through a deal with Authentic Brands Group (his estate owners) and the British immersive company, Layered Reality.

“Elvis Evolution is a next-generation tribute to the musical legend that is Elvis Presley,” Andrew McGuinness, Layered Reality’s chief executive, shared via the publication. “Elvis maintains superstar status globally and people around the world no longer want to sit there and passively receive entertainment — they want to be a part of it. It’ll be a memory-making experience that will be a bucket-list item for Elvis fans and admirers around the world; people can step into the world of Elvis, walk in his shoes, and celebrate his extraordinary musical legacy.”

If the Elvis Evolution event goes well in London, there will also be plans to bring it to Las Vegas, Berlin, and Tokyo.

Sleater-Kinney will drop Little Rope on January 19. The album will be supported by a tour of the same name, but before the seasoned rockers (Carrie Brownstein and Corin Tucker) hit the open road, they confined famed freediver Amber Bourke to a bathtub for their “Untidy Creature” video.

For three of the video’s nearly four minutes, Bourke is holding her breath while submerged under water. Sleater-Kinney contextualized the video by explaining the song’s backstory in an Instagram caption, as seen below:

“Our new single and video ‘Untidy Creature’ is out now. It was the first song we wrote for Little Rope, although we didn’t know it at the time; we weren’t certain we were even working on another record. We also worried it had come too easy, the song features two elements that come very naturally to Sleater-Kinney: a big guitar riff, an even bigger vocal. But as the year wore on, and our choices and bodily autonomy shrank, our feelings about the song changed. It became a gift, somewhere to put our darkest fears, and our deepest hopes. We sometimes feel trapped or angry, and yet still we breathe. ‘Untidy Creature’ became the album closer, and one of our favorite songs to ever occupy that position.

For the video, we wanted imagery that spoke to the themes which permeate Little Rope: uncertainty, restlessness, urgency, all of the in-between and discomfiting states with which we’re forced to reckon. So, we came up with the idea of a woman holding her breath in a bathtub for the duration of the song, unsure of her motivations, not knowing whether she’s seeking escape, disappearance, absolution, or simply a moment of quiet and reprieve. We love the tension created by an act that defies both custom and comfort.

We want to thank the amazing Amber Bourke (@amberofthesea), a free diving champion and record holder, who traded the deep sea for shallow waters. And @nickpollet, who shot, edited, and color-corrected the video. Thanks also to Jon Povey for letting us use his bathtub.

You can watch the video, stream the song, and pre-order Little Rope (out Jan 19) at the link in bio.

NOTE: The stunts in this video were performed by trained professionals. Do not try this at home.”

“Untidy Creature” follows “Hell” and “Say It Like You Mean It” as singles released from Little Rope, their first new record since 2021’s Path Of Wellness and first release of any kind since last year’s 25th anniversary Dig Me Out covers album.

Watch the “Untidy Creature” video above.

Little Rope is out 1/19/2024 via Loma Vista Recordings. Find more information here.

The long-awaited release date for Lil Nas X’s tour documentary, Lil Nas X: Long Live Montero, is closer than ever. The film, which premiered at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, is coming to HBO and Max at the end of the month, according to The Hollywood Reporter. It’ll debut on HBO at 8pm ET on January 27, hitting the Max streaming platform at the same time. The film is directed by Zac Manuel and Carlos López Estrada (whose credits include Blindspotting and Raya And The Last Dragon).

The film’s 2023 premiere at TIFF was actually delayed due to a bomb threat against the festival; however, organizers said that the threat was general, not directed at Lil Nas or his film. The screening went ahead with additional security, and currently holds a 75% score on Rotten Tomatoes with eight critics reviews.

The Long Live Montero Tour was Lil Nas’ first headlining tour, running from September 6, 2022 to March 26, 2023. According to the TouringData page on Twitter, the tour generated over $7 million in revenue after 21 shows, selling around 100,000 tickets. The documentary follows Nas on the tour and sees him talking about his place in the music business as a Black and queer performer.

Nas is preparing for the release of his second album with a rollout playing on the accusations of devil worship prompted by his debut.

When it comes to winter sipping, dark rum is a great choice. Winter feels like a great time to be drinking nuanced sugarcane-based rum that spends years aging in wood, drawing out those winter spices and dark fruit flavors. There are some rums out there that lean so heavily toward those notes that they’re almost like winter in a glass. Let’s focus on those!

While white rum is fun to sip and mix with right now too, the darker stuff feels right thanks to the deep flavors of vanilla, caramel, oak, dried fruits, and spices. What could be better on a chilly winter eve?

To find some of the best dark rums, we turned to the professionals who spent their days and nights pouring drinks behind the stick. We asked some of our favorite bartenders from the US and all over the world to tell us about their picks for the best rums to drink neat. Keep scrolling to see all of their sweet, complex, sippable picks.

• Extra Smooth Dark Rums For Fall Sipping, Tasted Double Blind And Ranked
• The Best Rum-Finished American Whiskeys, Ranked
• The Best Sipping Dark Rums For Cool Summer Evenings, According To Bartenders
• The Painkiller Is The Perfect Late Summer Cocktail — Here’s The Recipe
• White Rums Under $25, Blind Tasted And Power Ranked

Flor de Cana 18

Jennifer Donegan, bar manager at Bar Pendry in Washington DC

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $65

The Rum:

I have to stick to Flor de Cana 18 Year. As much as rum is meant to be mixed, this one can stand on its own. This Nicaraguan-made rum is known for its sustainable practices and its countless awards over the years. Their 18-year-old expression just might be its best.

Tasting Notes:

The palate is extremely complex with vanilla, cinnamon, and nutmeg taking center stage. What is there not to love?

Rhum J.M. XO Rum

Alex Barbatsis, bar director at The Whistler in Chicago

ABV: 45%

Average Price: $74

The Rum:

I love a good sipping rum, and one that most people might not reach for first is an aged rhum agricole. One of my favorites is Rhum J.M. XO Rum. It’s a blend of six-year minimum-aged rums.

Tasting Notes:

Agricole has great grassy notes that are mellowed with aging. A pour of this and a cigar would make any aficionado’s night.

Plantation Stiggins Fancy Pineapple Rum

Paul Morrison, lead bartender at L.A. Jackson in Nashville

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $30

The Rum:

My personal favorite from Plantation is their Stiggins Fancy Pineapple Rum. I prefer it on its own, but you could always use it in a daiquiri or get creative with an old-fashioned-style cocktail.

Tasting Notes:

This particular rum presents notes of rich pineapple but is accented by smokey clove flavors. It opens the palate with a structured presentation of ripe banana, fresh pineapple, and spices layered with that smokey finish.

Brugal Extra Viejo

Federico Doldi, food & beverage director at Gansevoort Meatpacking in New York City

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $28

The Rum:

My favorite rum to drink neat is Brugal Extra Viejo. It’s blended using the distillery’s older reserves from aged white American oak casks that previously held bourbon.

Tasting Notes:

It has notes of wood, spice, orange, and vanilla, offering a full flavor profile and balanced finish at the end of each sip, and can also be appreciated in a mixed drink.

Appleton Estate 12-Year Rare Casks

José Medina Camacho, co-owner and mixologist of Adiõs in Birmingham, Alabama

ABV: 43%

Average Price: $40

The Rum:

Appleton Estates 12-year-old Rare Casks is a great choice for drinking neat. This Jamaican rum is a blend of rare hand-picked column and pot still rums known for their mellow, sweet, and sippable flavors.

Tasting Notes:

Appleton Estate 12-Year Rare Cask features dried fruit, cacao, and coffee notes. It’s great for after dinner (with or without dessert).

Kirk and Sweeney Gran Reserva

Tracy Javier, lead mixologist at VUE Rooftop at Hotel Washington in Washington, DC

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $60

The Rum:

With the number of styles of rums out there, it is quite difficult to narrow down which would be the best. I’m a big fan of rum agricole for its grassy notes. Jamaican rum has this funk and earthiness that makes me salivate. But the one rum that comes to mind for my choice of drinking neat is a Dominican one called Kirk and Sweeney Gran Reserva.

Tasting Notes:

This full-bodied rum has a vast range of aromas from intensive vanilla to faint notes of sherry, dried fruit, and warming spices with a hint of roasted cane sugars. Where some people like an aged cognac or scotch at the end of their dinner, I prefer the smooth Kirk and Sweeney Gran Reserva.

Brugal 1888

Richie Barrow, general manager of food & beverage at Hero Bar at Tribe Hotels Group in Nairobi, Kenya

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $36

The Rum:

My current flavor is Brugal 1888 from the Dominican Republic. It is arguably one of the easiest drinking rums out there. The combination of bourbon and sherry casks used during aging is mellow and imparts all manner of flavors, but also round off the spirit fantastically.

Tasting Notes:

I taste vanilla, cacao, toffee, and peach. It has a well-rounded smoothness and a very interesting balance of recognizable flavors and works very well as an introductory sipping rum.

Santa Teresa 1796 Speyside Whisky Cask

Nick Jackon, head bartender at The Rum House in New York City

ABV: 46%

Average Price: $65

The Rum:

The best rum to drink neat is a tough one because there are so many great sipping rums. I’ve always been a big fan of Santa Teresa 1796 for sipping neat, or even shots. Recently, they released their first limited edition cask finish and the Santa Teresa 1796 Speyside Whisky Cask finish is amazing. Taking the flagship 1796 rum, which is triple-aged in the solera method, then adding another thirteen months in Speyside whisky casks.

Tasting Notes:

This makes for a deep rich rum with notable whisky influence, with notes of toffee, dried fruit, dark chocolate, woody spice, and light smoke on the nose.

Ron del Barrilito 3-Star

Jose R Rodriguez, general manager at COA at Dorado Beach, a Ritz-Carlton Reserve in Dorado Beach, Puerto Rico

ABV: 40%

Average Price: $39

The Rum:

Ron del Barrilito 3 Star Rum is among the best rums because its versatility invites one to enjoy it neat, on the rocks, or even in a cocktail. It’s a great value bottle and one that belongs on your home bar.

Tasting Notes:

This famous Puerto Rican rum is excellent for its smooth and fruity sweetness and its lingering smoky finish.

Hampden Estate Great House

Sean Yeats, USBG bartender at Porco Lounge & Tiki Room in Cleveland

ABV: 55%

Average Price: $129

The Rum:

I have to go with Hampden Estate Great House. It’s essentially their best-of-the-year bottlings and they have to be my favorite rum of all time. The Great House isn’t shy about intensity. It keeps a lot of the character that I love about rum.

Tasting Notes:

A glass of this stuff can last you ages as you enjoy it because you only need a tiny sip to fill your mouth with flavors of fruits, industrial notes, and all kinds of other flavors. Even just the smell of it is so wonderful that it has converted some friends to rum lovers.

The Los Angeles Lakers showed their potential as a contender during their run through the In-Season Tournament, where they went 7-0 and were utterly dominant, particularly on defense. However, since winning the final in Vegas, the Lakers have fallen off considerably, losing eight of their last 10 games to fall below .500 at 17-18.

The most concerning part of their recent skid is it’s coming while their two stars, LeBron James and Anthony Davis, are healthy and playing. While they have injuries around those two, the Lakers cannot afford to struggle when their two best players are available and playing at a relatively high level. As the Lakers have continued losing, fans have expressed their frustrations with the lineup and rotation choices of head coach Darvin Ham, and it appears those frustrations are shared by those in the locker room.

After a 110-96 loss to the Heat on Wednesday night, in which the Lakers started yet another new starting lineup, The Athletic’s Jovan Buha and Shams Charania published a report about a “deepening disconnect” between the Lakers and Ham in the locker room that has led to questions about his standing with the team.

There’s currently a deepening disconnect between Darvin Ham and the Lakers locker room, six sources with direct knowledge of the situation say, raising questions about the head coach’s standing. The people spoke with The Athletic on condition of anonymity so that they could speak freely on the matter. Those sources have described that the disjointedness between the coach and team has stemmed from the extreme rotation and starting lineup adjustments recently from Ham, leading to a fluctuating rhythm for several players across the roster.

Ham cited the injuries around the stars as a reason they’ve struggled to find a rhythm of late, noting that it’s difficult to define roles and minutes when injuries force changes to the rotation. That’s certainly true, but it’s still incumbent on the coaching staff to figure out how to better communicate the plan before each game, particularly if players can’t seem to figure out the reasoning behind changes. With a month left before the trade deadline, it will be very interesting to see how the Lakers proceed because with roles changing and inconsistencies in the rotation, it’s difficult to identify exactly what the problem areas are and how best to solve them.

Tell me if this has ever happened to you: You’re bored so you decide to pop an edible and watch a movie. Then you drink a cocktail or two. Everything after that turns hazy. The next morning, you realize that you went on eBay last night and bought several hundred dollars worth of video games your parents wouldn’t purchase when you were a kid. And you DM’ed the ex you definitely should not ever DM. And you posted the entirety of the drafts folder from your social media account. Including the ones that will definitely get you fired.

With the benefit of hindsight, you can plainly see that these actions were unwise. But you figure that they must have made sense at the time.

Now, let’s say that “you” in this scenario is American pop culture. And the edible is Taylor Swift. And last night is 2023 and this morning is 2024. You look back and discover that you spent $1 billion on concert tickets, $250 million on film tickets, and tens of millions more on vinyl copies of re-recorded albums that you already own. Also, you enrolled in a class about Taylor Swift at Harvard University, one of at least 10 schools that now include the pop star in their curriculums. (You recall that the teacher compared Taylor to Wordsworth.) In addition, you applied for a job as a Taylor Swift reporter for a major metro newspaper. And you lobbied the Pennsylvania legislature to declare 2023 the “Taylor Swift Era.” And you picked a fight on Twitter with 85-year-old writer Joyce Carol Oates because “she does not understand” Taylor’s popularity. And then you battled far less famous people online because you believe this Taylor Swift video “is totally awesome and not embarrassing at all.” And then you doxxed a music critic or two because they did not give Taylor a sufficiently high grade in an album review.

With the benefit of hindsight, you can plainly see that at least some of these actions were unwise. Or can you? Welcome to your intervention! (In-Tay-r-vention?) As we enter 2024, the time has come to take stock of what we did last year. And what we did last year was lose our damn minds over the most dominant pop star since Michael Jackson. Surely, our behavior must have made sense at the time. It was certainly (mostly) fun. But at this juncture, an important question must be asked: Can we as a culture resolve to be more normal about Taylor Swift in 2024?

Now, before we proceed any further, let me state a few things for the record (and for my own personal safety): I have been writing about Taylor Swift for the better part of 15 years. I like writing about her. As a cultural phenomenon with seemingly inexhaustible relevance, I find her fascinating. And I admire her all-time acumen as a music-industry professional par excellence. I am not interested in writing a “Taylor Swift takedown.” I am not even really talking about Taylor Swift at all. As I suggested in my metaphor earlier, Taylor Swift is merely the stimulant. What I am interested in are the lunatics she has driven insane (i.e. the entire country).

Not that I am painting all Taylor Swift fans with the same brush! The vast majority of you seem like perfectly nice and reasonable people! Though there is a very small and very vocal minority online whose Taylor Swift avatars scarcely conceal their pitch-black, vengeance-seeking, sociopathic souls. (I type this with great love and respect.)

Actually, let’s pause on addressing the fanbase. I am going to start instead with a much easier target — the media.

Something broke inside of me last month as I read Time’s “Person Of The Year” article. It’s not that I think that Taylor Swift didn’t deserve the honor; if anything, given the magazine’s lack of prominence in 2023 whenever it was not declaring Taylor Swift its “Person Of The Year,” Time barely deserved her. But the prose seemed a touch … worshipful? Maybe worshipful isn’t a strong enough adjective. The biblical Gospels are literally worshipful of Jesus Christ, but they read as skeptical muckraking when compared with Time‘s gushing about Taylor Swift.

I’ll give you an example. Here is the passage that really snapped that thing inside of me into tiny pieces. It’s the section that closes the story:

After I leave Swift’s house, I can’t stop thinking about how perfectly she crafted this story for me — the one about redemption, how she lost it all and got it back. Storytelling is what she’s always done; that’s why, [Kenny] Chesney tells me, he gave her that gift all those years ago. “She was a writer who had something to say,” he says. “That isn’t something you can fake by writing clichés. You can only live it, then write it as real as possible.”

She must have known that all the references she made had hidden meanings, that I’d see all the tossed-off details for the Easter eggs they were. The way she told me that story about Chesney, she knew there was a lesson, about the power of generosity, and how a crushing defeat can give way to a great and surprising gift. The way she said, “Are you not entertained?” — surely we both knew it was a quote from Gladiator, a movie in which a hero falls from grace, is forced to perform blood sport for the pleasure of spectators, and emerges victorious, having survived humiliation and debasement to soar higher than ever. And the way before I left, she showed me the note from Paul McCartney hanging in her bathroom, which has a Beatles lyric written on it — and not just any Beatles lyric, but this one: “Take these broken wings and learn to fly.”

What we have here is a journalist making an interesting observation: Taylor Swift has manipulated me into writing precisely the article she wanted me to write. The journalist (rightly) recognized how Taylor manufactured the little moments that round out his piece. But this recognition has not stopped him from writing the article he was manipulated into writing. He is, in fact, admiring of the manipulation. And he is happy to carry out the movements Taylor Swift has puppeteered. And his editors seem perfectly content with this as well. And that, frankly, stinks.

Now, I don’t want to be too hard on Time or the writer of the article. This piece is a symptom of an environment that’s bigger than any single publication or website. Two obvious truths about the media’s relationship with Taylor Swift must be acknowledged. The first is that we are terrified of her fans. And that fear is justified. If you run afoul of the extremely loud and highly toxic portion of the fanbase — again, I type these words with love and respect! — they might find an unflattering photo and cruelly mock your appearance while garnering dozens of likes and retweets. Or they might take a screenshot of something you have written and frame it to make you look like a monster. And that’s if you’re lucky! If you’re unlucky, they might go Keyser Söze and threaten you and your loved ones. Because there is no amount of positive press that will make these people say “we’re good!” and subsequently take less positive press in stride. Harvard could change its name to The Taylor Swift Academy For The Study Of Bops and there would still be fans convinced that she doesn’t get enough respect. They require that Taylor Swift be showered with omnipresent praise. But that wrinkle is also the media’s salvation.

This brings us to the second obvious truth regarding the media’s relationship with Taylor Swift — we see her fans as endlessly exploitable. If you publish a thinkpiece “that attempts to understand the phenomenon of Taylor Swift” — or you simply post a photo of her leaving a Kansas City barbecue joint with Travis Kelce — it will get clicks. It always gets clicks. Why does it always get clicks? Seriously, aren’t you people at least a teeny-tiny bit sick of Taylor Swift yet? How much Taylor Swift can a person possibly take? At what point do you say, “Maybe I should take a break and listen to Ed Sheeran (or whoever) for a few days?”

Fear and capitalism. These are the twin drivers of Taylor Swift media coverage. The former makes criticism (or even measured neutrality) unattractive, and the latter ensures that unfettered praise is a matter of economic survival. The culprit is not poptimism, as some have persuasively though not quite accurately claimed. Poptimism over time has shifted from an arcane critical concept debated by music writers on tumbleweed-riddled message boards to a catch-all term used to describe any form of writing about very famous pop stars that the person applying the term finds to be juvenile, superficial, and annoying. Believe me, I share (some) of your annoyance! But poptimism is a red herring. Fear and capitalism are the real deal.

What bothered me most about the Time article is that some members of the media seem to be openly advocating for their own obsolescence as journalists. It’s very strange to publish a puff piece so puffy that you admit at the end that Taylor Swift could have just as well written it herself. It amounts to a form of journalistic surrender in the face of a powerful cultural institution that is (at best) unseemly and (at worst) humiliating.

And Time was not the only — or the first — reputable outlet to do this! Here is a quote from an exhaustive (and exhausting) New York Times Magazine cover story about the Eras tour published in October:

How could I interpret Taylor Swift better than she does, better than her fans do online, every day, without my interference or input? They’re reading her codes, hunting down her clues, complying with her wishes, finding themselves in her world — a place that someone like me used to have the privilege of visiting alone.

She is inventing all of this in real time, and like other great inventions that cut out middlemen, this one might catch on.

I’d like to attempt to answer the question posed in this passage. Yes, fans are very knowledgable. They know all the trivia. They spend endless hours “reading her codes” and “hunting down her clues.” But they have no sense of perspective. This is true of any fan of anything. Fans care too much to be objective. I’ll give you an imperfect but nonetheless illuminating example from my own life: I am a professional music critic, but I am not qualified to properly assess the musical talents of my 7-year-old daughter, even though I have known her from literally the second she was born. I have “read her codes,” so to speak. But I love her too much to think she is anything other than a musical genius whenever she starts warbling loudly around the house. Because love distorts. It blinds. It makes you believe things that aren’t necessarily true. And that is why you sometimes need “interference or input” from a person with a bit more critical distance, for the sake of clarity.

Of course, this is nullified when even the media has lost perspective. And I believe this passage from that New York Times Magazine article perfectly sums up how the media has forfeited its critical distance regarding Taylor Swift. It’s an anecdote in which the writer overhears a fellow concertgoer criticizing the show.

“There’s not a lot of sex in this show,” one of the HUSBANDs, the other one, said now. They had switched seats, and he was bored by the “Speak Now” era.

“That’s because this isn’t for you,” I told him, and I found myself getting angry as I spoke. “She wasn’t created to please you like the other women pop stars. She created herself to please me. She escaped the machine where women are only allowed to be pop stars if they don’t anger or threaten men. This just isn’t for you.”

Now, I have written thinkpieces that are set during concerts. And this is the sort of thing you dream of as a writer. It’s a scene that captures everything. In this case, it’s a clueless dude making a boorish and sort of sexist comment that underlines the writer’s thesis. But in the interest of clarity, I must point out that everything the writer just said is obviously untrue. It’s so obviously untrue that I feel kind of silly refuting it. But here goes: Taylor Swift is not the only female pop star who might “anger or threaten men”! I could list other examples but it would just look like a roll call of practically every famous woman singer going back to at least Marlene Dietrich. I grew up in the 1990s, and I have a hard time believing that Taylor Swift is more confrontational toward the patriarchy than, say, Madonna or Courtney Love or Janet Jackson or PJ Harvey or Liz Phair or Alanis Morissette or Missy Elliott or Fiona Apple. This does not take anything away from Taylor Swift. It’s just recognizing that not everything Taylor Swift does is unprecedented or unique only to her. It’s basic context.

Also: Does Taylor Swift actually “anger or threaten men”? Don’t millions of men also love her? Wasn’t this writer yelling at a man at a Taylor Swift show? Isn’t there a disconnect about still feeling a need to defend Taylor Swift while seated inside a sold-out stadium filled with Taylor Swift fans in the middle of the most successful tour in the history of humankind?

And then there’s This just isn’t for you. You hear this phrase a lot these days, and it’s usually in relation to an aggrieved fanbase that feels compelled to shield an extremely popular cultural institution from even mild criticism. Which is strange, because This just isn’t for you used to be reserved for justifying culture with extremely narrow appeal, the polar opposite of Taylor Swift. “Of course you hate Frank Zappa’s MIDI period, this just isn’t for you!” That sort of thing.

What This just isn’t for you is now is a tool for conflating a very popular product like Taylor Swift with a group of people, so that criticizing Taylor Swift becomes synonymous with criticizing a demographic. If you point out Taylor Swift’s shortcomings, this thinking goes, you are actually making a statement against young girls and 35-year-old white women. And nobody wants to be accused of that. Ultimately, This just isn’t for you is a very effective rhetorical device that automatically shuts down any conversation that Taylor Swift or her fans might not like.

I don’t doubt that Taylor Swift fans sometimes feel marginalized or attacked. Especially the ones who are extremely online and see every bozo on Twitter who says Taylor Swift isn’t a real musician or erroneously claims she doesn’t write her own songs. Misogyny exists. No one (except those bozos) disputes this. And it’s undeniable that Swift communicates something extra special and relatable to her core fans that more casual listeners miss. And that is worth writing about. But at some point, the compulsion to hush or shout down anyone with a dissenting opinion starts to feel wearying and ungenerous. In 2023, it felt like a classic case of being a sore winner, to borrow a phrase used by the writer B.D. McClay in 2019 to describe thin-skinned cultural figures who want “acclaim, but not responsibility; respect without disagreement; wealth without scrutiny; power without anyone noticing it’s there.”

The first example McClay wrote about, naturally, was Taylor Swift. And that was before she got really big over the pandemic and beyond. But for all her winning, she hasn’t got any better about sportsmanship. She remains obsessed with score settling. (When you have a billion-dollar tour and still feel the need to drag Kim Kardashian for something that happened in the mid-2010s you have unlocked a new level of pettiness.) As for the Swifties, I’m sorry, but you don’t get to say This just isn’t for you when your idol has achieved the ubiquity of Taylor Swift. Because Taylor Swift isn’t just for you. She’s for all of us. Everyone on the planet has Taylor Swift being shot into their ears and up their nostrils. She’s inescapable. Whether you like her or not.

So, some of us are sort of sick to death of hearing about Taylor Swift. And that’s an understandable reaction that has no bearing on your personal enjoyment of her music if you’re a fan. Some of us being sort of sick to death of Taylor Swift will not stop the content machine from servicing you. Fear and capitalism will no doubt roll on in 2024. But maybe we can all be a little more normal about it.