#chromakee

I’ve been thinking about the Bechdel test for films where a film must have a) two or more main female characters who b) talk for five minutes about c) something other than men. It’s amazing to see that not many films pass this test. So, I’m initiating this now (unless it’s already been done…): The Shukla Test, for books, films and television where a) two main characters who are people who of colour b) talk for five minutes without c) mentioning their race. 

I get that he's trying to address the fact that there simply aren't that many POC characters in television and movies. However, this doesn't address the fact that you can have POC talking to each other about something other than race, but otherwise have them characterized as racist stereotypes. 

So Glee shamelessly ripped off Jonathan Coulton's cover of Baby Got Back without attribution. It seems pretty clear cut to me -- not to mention that Fox has a history of covering songs without permission. 

What I don't get is this notion in some corners of the internet (for example, most of the comments below this AV Club article) that because the song is a cover of another well known song in a completely different genre, or because some people simply don't like it (!) that Fox was well within its rights to do whatever it wanted. 

This is adorable.

This is TOUGHPAD. TOUGHPAD is my new master. All hail the glorious noise of TOUGHPAD. I am powerless and weak and shuddering before the might of TOUGHPAD. I am a snivelling worm, a directionless and flabby thing before the majesty of TOUGHPAD.

We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way.  It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out.  We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves.  We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right.  

But this is just the worst instance of an advertorial. The Atlantic does this pretty often; the only difference here is that people were outraged enough to force them to retract it. Someone -- or several someones -- had to have approved this the first time; if no one said anything, the ad would probably still be up.

How hard up is The Atlantic for cash if they're accepting it from a cult?