Some friends and I were discussing this and we came to the conclusion that going forward, presidential candidates need to be already famous as a performer of some sort. Like Zelensky. Like Reagan. Like Trump. You don't shoot a big-budget movie with unknown actors. You need star power.
Some friends and I were discussing this and we came to the conclusion that going forward, presidential candidates need to be already famous as a performer of some sort. Like Zelensky. Like Reagan. Like Trump. You don't shoot a big-budget movie with unknown actors. You need star power.
Possibilities:
* Al Franken (but he shot his wad)
* John Stuart ( too lefty?)
* Steven Colbert
* Neil DeGrasse Tyson
* George Clooney
* Taylor Swift
* Steph Curry
* Dwayne Johnson
* Matt Damon
* Leonardo DiCaprio (too short?)
* Queen Latifah
You get the idea. Question is, why would any of these celebs put themselves through a meat grinder when they already have great careers? Has to be because they love the US and are willing to put themselves on the chopping block.
The belief that a President needs to be a leading actor in a movie, comes from living in a country in which the media covers everything like a reality show.
I can't tell if you are being serious or ironic, but if it's the former, please understand that we're in a crisis: It's sort of like how everybody was downloading music back in the era of Napster, before the move to the streaming model — and the industry was crashing. It's the same thing here with news/media: As the business model is changing, everybody is becoming a reality show host — until we pivot to the right financial model.
It could appear that Substack could be that model, but The Bulwark's alarmist tendencies suggests maybe not: Even if they are user-funded, a model in which they fully depend on subscriptions means they are incentivized to bump out content and to keep everyone on the hook with alarm.
Some friends and I were discussing this and we came to the conclusion that going forward, presidential candidates need to be already famous as a performer of some sort. Like Zelensky. Like Reagan. Like Trump. You don't shoot a big-budget movie with unknown actors. You need star power.
Possibilities:
* Al Franken (but he shot his wad)
* John Stuart ( too lefty?)
* Steven Colbert
* Neil DeGrasse Tyson
* George Clooney
* Taylor Swift
* Steph Curry
* Dwayne Johnson
* Matt Damon
* Leonardo DiCaprio (too short?)
* Queen Latifah
You get the idea. Question is, why would any of these celebs put themselves through a meat grinder when they already have great careers? Has to be because they love the US and are willing to put themselves on the chopping block.
Thoughts?
The belief that a President needs to be a leading actor in a movie, comes from living in a country in which the media covers everything like a reality show.
I can't tell if you are being serious or ironic, but if it's the former, please understand that we're in a crisis: It's sort of like how everybody was downloading music back in the era of Napster, before the move to the streaming model — and the industry was crashing. It's the same thing here with news/media: As the business model is changing, everybody is becoming a reality show host — until we pivot to the right financial model.
It could appear that Substack could be that model, but The Bulwark's alarmist tendencies suggests maybe not: Even if they are user-funded, a model in which they fully depend on subscriptions means they are incentivized to bump out content and to keep everyone on the hook with alarm.