Lets Get Along Outlander

1. *models fashion with earnest intent*

2. “Oh, no? Not like that? Put it … back on? Right. Ok.”

film meme - females only  - 5 most terrifying female villains: 

1. Mrs. Danvers (portrayed by Judith Anderson) from Rebecca (1940) based on the novel by Daphne du Maurier.

Sighhhhhh…….

Cait’s going elsewhere.

It’s not uncommon for stars to PR the show separately, guys.

And I’m sticking to it … for now.

                                  Cait: You’re my favourite husband.

(thanks to @queencaitriona for the lipread ;) )

So, what I think:

Basically, Sam and Cait got married. Like, ages ago. But for whatever reason, they don’t want it made public. Fine.

They might not be. And that’s ok. I don’t actually really know them, nor will I ever. But it makes me happy to think “they” love each other, just like it makes me happy to think Judith’ll make it to the end of TWD, and that Noah and Allie spent an entire lifetime together and then died, like, at the very same moment so they wouldn’t have to spend a second apart. The same reason I like the idea of William crawling back to Waity Katie, that Kelso and Jackie got together IRL, why I cried over Love, Rosie, and read Me Before You all in one sitting. Why I will always love Pride and Prejudice in all its forms, die a little each time for Catherine and Heathcliff, why I have a soft spot for Mr. Rochester, why I watch Bathsheba and Gabriel’s final scene in Far From the Madding Crowd on repeat. Why two of my favourite films are Shakespeare in Love and Titanic. Why the happiest movie moment of my childhood was when all the pets returned at the end of Homeward Bound. Why I cry at horses galloping. Why marching bands make my bottom lip wobble.

It’s because I am a person who feels, and these are all things that make me feel.

So, even if SamCait turns out to be SamCan’t – that’s ok. Because you know what the idea of them together tells me? That we feel. That we have, in the bottom of our hearts, a deep optimism for humankind. That we can see two people interact (and lightning flash) and share a resounding yessssssss because they represent what we believe has to exist in the world. Something that we hope to see in others’ lives, in our lives, because it makes us happy. It qualifies for us the goodness we share as a species: we want love, and we share a capacity to celebrate and thrive on the perceived love and happiness of others.

And sure, cynics may say Romance as an industry (in all its forms) capitalizes on our bleeding hearts, that we’re being played or taken advantage of – but truthfully, the fact that it’s so successfully targeting and profiting from such a beautiful part of the human condition – our empathy, our love, our optimism – I can’t see a fault in that. I’m not ashamed to have “bought in” to Romance. In fact, I celebrate it.

It tells me that with all the hate and anger and war and violence and politics and disrespect in this world, we still value loving one another. It tells me that maybe us humans aren’t all that bad after all.

Adventures in “The Media”

People of Earth

I’ve been on this planet for many moons. I built a weird combination of education, learnin’ and experiences. I’ve enjoyed a varied career. I know some stuff.

I’d like to share my thoughts on why it’s a very good idea to take what we read, hear, and watch in the media with big grains of salt. Sometimes the whole shaker.

I wrote for a daily newspaper for six years. It might surprise you how often people interviewed are misquoted. It might surprise you, too, how often a reporter lets their own perspective enter a news story. That shouldn’t happen. That’s for the editorial pages. Facts are news: perspective and opinion are editorial.

Lately, we’re receiving a lot of news that’s morphed into editorial. And a lot of the editorial is very poorly written and rife with misinformation.

Things we might consider:

When did the person say what’s been reported?

What is the context in which they said it?

Did they actually say what’s been reported?

Has the information been sliced and diced until it no longer represents what the person actually said AND how they delivered the information?

Did the reporter include notation to clarify any necessary timing and context details?

Did the reporter provide sources and/or back-up for the information?

Does any image accompanying the story match with timing and substance of the story?

Does the media outlet have a reputation for accurate and responsible reporting?

Does the media outlet actually report news, or do they share gossip?

Mistakes happen. Reporters and editors and artists are human. Does the media outlet provide correction of their mistakes?

I put in a few years as the media officer for a large corporation. It was like jumping to the other side of the fence. I was misquoted so many times, it was ridiculous. Irrelevant images were used. Image cutlines were incorrect. People and/or objects in those images were identified incorrectly. Yikes!

Small towns and relatively small cities are cool. If you work and play well with others, it’s easy to develop a good rapport with them. 

When I found a mistake in our media coverage, I chose to readily phone the reporter or editor responsible for it, politely talk to them about it, and ask them write or report a correction, or do a follow-up interview so I could “do” the correction. I was never denied. Whew!

It’s absolutely unlikely everyone who heard or read or watched the original story would read the correction, so lots of misinformation remained “out there.” But we took steps to rectify the problem as best we could.

Why am I filling so much space with words?

The reporting on Friday’s Interview From Hell has been juggled and tossed, shaken and stirred, rehashed and regurgitated, to the Nth degree. It’s frustrating, it’s confusing, it’s unfortunate.

I’ve read more versions of the Interview From Hell than I thought possible during four days. It doesn’t help that almost every media outlet, their dog, their cat, and their grandmother were in Los Angeles to cover “awards” week.

But I’m an annoying “details” person. I clearly remember what the three people said in the Interview From Hell. When I find yet another report of it, I consider all the bulleted thoughts listed above, think long and hard, and draw a conclusion. And I sometimes make mistakes - in every facet of my life, duh - sometimes giving in to emotions and jumping to conclusions. Eventually, I settle down, return to the story, pay attention to the details, and come to a conclusion. It works nicely for me.

The conclusion I’ve made most often during the past few days: watch the Interview From Hell video again. It’s painful, but; that’s where we know what actually was said and how it was delivered. (I think the interview was poorly scripted if scripted at all, delivered poorly, and ill-timed. You might think differently. It is what it is. It’s what they gave us.)

So… if you’re up for it, think about what I’ve written, roll your eyes if you must, and make a decision about anything that’s meaningful to you. You might consider applying it when you come across yet another story on the same topic. Or not.

This is my experience. You might have different experiences working in or with the media. That’s cool. It’s important to me to at least try to help us eliminate some of the confusion regarding stories from the past four days. If it’s important to you, consider sharing your experiences and/or advice with the whole class. Can’t hurt, might help.

Thanks for reading my words. if you want to talk about them, “message me.” Please be kind. I welcome opposing or differing opinions. I won’t welcome scolding, taunting, or mean-talk. It doesn’t work for me.

Disclaimer: who cares if I worked x long here and did x there and studied x blah blah blah? I’m not submitting a resume, curriculum vitae, or laundry list. I’m sharing some personal experiences to lend validity to what I’m saying. Or not. Maybe you want to take this story with big grains of salt?

If you find typos or other boo boos among my words, that would be funny. It happens a lot. I love to laugh, so tell me what you find, Truly.

Consider the source. Consider the source. Consider the source.

Tabloid journalism. Jumbo shrimp. Larger half. What are three examples of an oxymoron, Alex?

Consider the source. Consider the source. Consider the source.

Sincerely,

is that Sam is going to continue to retweet and like MPC food and recipes in the following weeks and never address these EW quotes and articles coming from him and Caitriona about their relationship.

If they aren’t together and realized they were misleading people and wanted to pull back, I can understand that. What’s unacceptable to me is to throw fans under the bus and call them delusional. Do I think they were taken out of context? Maybe. But they need to address this and get it under control. They need to control their own narrative. I’m sure they don’t care about the fandom, but that might help get some fans reined in as well. Right now, they are both coming across as unlikeable. Not a good look for your fans who follow and support you on social media.