Kiss and Makeup

Greatly anticipated, every four years the summer Olympics are celebrated around the world with friendly competition between countries. Top athletes from participating countries train, in some cases their whole lives, for one shot at these very games. In an article written by Popsugar, a debate held by Tamara Holder on Fox’s Sports Court is analyzed. However, it wasn’t the incredible talent or the athlete’s’ performance that was closely examined and scrutinized by guests Bo Dieti and Mark Simone. Instead, the discussion focused in great detail on whether or not the athletes should wear makeup.


The source in this article is obviously the debate itself and the commentary between Holder, Dieti, and Simone, all people who have no qualifications when it comes to this topic of conversation. Both Dieti, a former detective for the NYPD, and Simone, a NYC radio host, have no experience in makeup or sports psychology for that matter. As mentioned in the article, Fox should have invited an Olympic athlete or coach to discuss this subject matter, not completely unqualified men. Dieti and Simone’s proximity to the subject matter was just simply watching the games like the average viewer. By no means did they conduct a study on why athletes should or should not wear makeup, rather this article criticises other’s opinions about Olympic athletes wearing make up. Another source used in the article is a quote pulled from a past interview with Shannon Rowbury, an American Olympian, where she points out why she chooses to wear lipstick during the competition.   


The motivation of this article is clearly to point out the stupidity of Dieti and Simone’s remarks and the absurdity of the entire debate. By using sarcastic and contemptuous language, Popsugar gives their opinion on the opinions of the Fox Sport Court reporters. The article does not acknowledge and analyze anything but rather criticises Dieti and Simone’s opinions and the entire segment. This article uses both principled and unprincipled tactics to form an argument; it lays down the facts as they were given in the debate while also presenting personal opinions on the subject matter.


In the debate, Simone makes a point by saying “The whole point of the Olympics, the whole reason for this training . . . is product endorsements. Cosmetics companies are opening up a ton of revenue for product endorsements.” His evidence for this statement is in fact valid; many female athletes are signed with large cosmetic brands such as CoverGirl. But this piece of evidence that “backs up” his point was quickly shot down and never expanded on in the article. Although Proctor and Gamble, the owners of CoverGirl, is a sponsor of the Olympics, they provide the athletes with resources to succeed in the games, not redefine their career by being the face of their company. For example, when one looks at Shawn Johnson, the first thing that comes to one’s mind will most likely be former Olympic gold medal gymnast not a face for CoverGirl.

What is Left Out?

Although this article does contain a quote from a female athlete commenting on the subject matter, it was not a quote directly addressing the debate. Expanding on the debate of athletic endorsements and to what extent a role they play in the Olympics would have presented a more in depth analysis of the subject matter. Instead the article read like a bashing rant against Dieti and Simone and their opinions. As trivial as a news story about makeup in the Olympics sounds, this article did exactly what the Fox Sports Court debate did, shame someone for their opinions about something: it is merely an opinion about someone’s opinion. 


What a Weiner

The New York Post broke the story surrounding a selfie crotch shot of Anthony Weiner, husband to one of the top aides in the Clinton Campaign, along with a string of sexting messages back and forth with an unidentified sexy selfie posing female.

Although it is obvious that the source for this article was the nameless hottie herself, it is not so obvious as to what her motivation was for breaking the story. Was it to humiliate Mr. Weiner or point out behind the scenes chaos in the Clinton campaign? The tone of the Post article seems to be playful and sarcastic, mocking the antics of Mr. Weiner; outlining the course of the conversations, and including the lurid pictures themselves. The Post’s breaking story appeals to a younger demographic who can relate to the language used in the texts and is easily entertained by others’ ‘dirty laundry.’

The very next day, The New York Times took the story but approached it with a different angle. Minus the titillating pictures, the Times article took the Post’s breaking story and focused on the breakup of Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin’s, marriage and how this recent scandal might be affecting the Democrats campaign. The Times draws comparisons to the Clinton’s marital issues back in 1998, and how this recent scandal could in fact be causing instabilities in the running of Clinton’s current campaign for the Presidency. The motivation behind The Times’ article is a little unclear, but wreaks of accusations that emails and other classified information available to Huma Abedin may not be secure given her husband’s lack of judgement. It is hard to tell if the reporter wants to remind its readers, a slightly older demographic than the Post’s subscribers, of how reminiscent this type of scandal is with the Clintons.

The New York Times article portrays a sympathetic and understanding Hillary Clinton and her assurance that this will not affect her campaign at all. The reporter also takes the view from the other camp and quotes Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton’s rival, as saying the “I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It’s just another example of Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this.”

Both articles have the text message evidence to support their story, however, the Times article takes the information from the Post article and goes several steps further with speculation questioning how this scandal may affect national security.

In the case of the Times’ article, the reader is asked to use logic to conclude that this incident is not good for the Clinton campaign or national security. In the Post’s article the reader is entertained, left rolling their eyes at yet another ‘here we go again’ story of people behaving badly.