If a Golden Globe Falls in the Forest and Nobody’s There to Watch It…

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


mojo-photo-goldenglobes.JPG…Are they more likely to give them to deserving shows? Answer: kind of. Honestly, I’m being a bad journalist here since I didn’t actually see any televised reading of the winners; apparently Nancy O’Dell and Billy Bush chuckled their way through a list of winners on NBC and the E! network featured a half-hour reading at some point. When I was flipping through the channels last night, my Comcast program guide showed a “Golden Globes Pre-Show” leading directly into a “Golden Globes Aftershow,” giving the impression that the event had been compressed into a single point like a black hole. And when Time Magazine headlines their article: “The Golden Globes – Who Cares?” you know things are bad.

Perhaps the voters had a bit of a “screw it, nobody’s watching anyway” attitude, since at least some of their TV awards went to relatively surprising and deserving programs: AMC’s smoky “Mad Men” won best dramatic TV series, with their lead Jon Hamm wining the actor award; Ricky Gervais’ “Extras,” which came to a strange and bitter end last year, won for best comedy series. Why David Duchovny won for best actor in a comedy series is anybody’s guess, although name recognition always helps. Tina Fey’s acting win for “30 Rock” was the only award for broadcast television the whole night. On the movie side, “Atonement” and Daniel Day Lewis both won and both look like Oscar locks, Cate Blanchett won for her Bob Dylan impression, and best director went to Julian Schnabel for “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” his harrowing and uplifting portrayal of a French stroke victim who, unable to move anything but his left eyelid, dictates his memoirs by blinking in code. I know, oof, but seriously, go see it.

Above photo from Gothamist

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest