Craig Ferguson Refusal to Keep Making Fun of Brittany Spears

102 views
Skip to first unread message

PGage

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 10:44:07 AM2/9/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
My Twitter is full of links this morning to this clip, in which Ferguson called himself out (“I think my aim has been off a bit recently”) for making fun of Spears and other fragile and impaired people, instead of the powerful (naming Trump in particular, back in 2007).

This list is a hit bed of Ferguson fans, so I thought it appropriate to record this here. I was not as much of a fan; I went through a period of watching him every night, and at first found him refreshing, but after a while found it kind of forced and artificial and eventually brittle. Still, this does him proud, and he deserves the accolades.

Not sure why this is coming up now, apparently there is a documentary about Spears on Netflix that is bringing up how she was treated by the media?

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Kevin M.

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 10:58:59 AM2/9/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was bad, which is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really bad at his job. 

I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out when he did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKpGtiaRzNRiJVBHayVxqoAc5AdhXg_paqrerOkb2f%2Bcg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

Jon Delfin

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 11:02:24 AM2/9/21
to tvornottv
The New York Times on FX show aired the doc Friday night, and it's been streaming since.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4BHm5mmEuLGrrijN2K_hoCDHoj_FXo8H0epb4Qdo%2Bx3cw%40mail.gmail.com.

Mark Jeffries

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 11:27:52 AM2/9/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
On Hulu.  Or you can call it FX on Hulu.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABCcf4dg3UT-c1p9Lce7wpGAQvpKZ5eho2uUd1EBbs8NAJLcsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Melissa P

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 11:44:52 AM2/9/21
to tvornottv, takingupspace. 03
Spears' name was part of a lyric in Spamalot that was changed when her troubles became known.  I couldn't remember whose name was substituted for hers, but I looked it up.


--

Doug Eastick

unread,
Feb 9, 2021, 11:10:55 PM2/9/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I recall watching that monologue that night.  It was surprisingly honest.  Nice to see.

On a different note, the band I'm From Barcelona had at song called Britney.   Not remarkable, but the theme is why care about Britney.


--

Mark Jeffries

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 2:15:23 PM2/10/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
And that's Ted Lasso's boss playing the Lady of the Lake in 2008 on Broadway.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPy8MF4oktystuPq9CMa0p%2B0wySOVkMcSvCOyekCWJ2cKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Tom Wolper

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 4:00:33 PM2/11/21
to TV or not TV
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was bad, which is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really bad at his job. 

I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out when he did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump.

I wanted to watch the Britney doc on Hulu before responding so I could avoid hot takes.

I have taken to watching documentaries about bands from when I grew up, usually on YouTube. There are two types: movie length promotions made for fans where the band is awesome, all their music is awesome, and they'll be beloved until the end of time. And then there are more reflective documentaries, made a couple of decades after the band broke up, where the musicians, managers, record company executives, etc talk about the rise of the band, what life was like at the top, and why it fell apart. Those are the documentaries I watch. I'll even watch if it's about a band or an artist who was very popular but I didn't follow at the time. I figure I can put my biases aside and see if I missed out on any good music.

The Britney documentary was not about her music. The frame is a legal battle over conservatorship, a status she entered into in 2008. The first half of the doc is about her life up to 2008 and the second half is about the conservatorship, the legal situation, and a movement from her fans to end the conservatorship. The first half is tough to watch even though it happened in recent enough memory. The tabloids saw dollar signs in covering her and they had no conscience about any damage they might be doing to her and certainly no restraint. And the attitude infiltrated into mainstream celebrity coverage like the Diane Sawyer interview. It would be at least as much of a relief for me to know that she gives up music altogether and goes to live a quiet life somewhere raising her kids (and there's no sign of that happening) as hearing she is recording a new album.

As for Craig Ferguson he brought his own vulnerability into his monologues and the show and it was really refreshing to see him so fearless talking about his past. He had an empathy for his guests and I miss that, too. In the late stages of his show he burned out and stopped putting any effort into it. I really liked the show during his peak, but I'm glad he got out of it in time.

PGage

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 5:49:05 PM2/11/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Ok, sounds like maybe I will check out the doc. My take on her around that time was that she needed a conservator, but it should not have been her father, or anyone who stood to profit from commodifying her. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

PGage

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 3:10:17 AM2/12/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Okay, I watched the “Framing Britney Spears” “documentary” on Hulu. Yikes. 

1. How did the NYT let its name be attached to this? It looks and smells more like TMZ. It is little more than a summary of what has been said and reported by people on social media, with little or no actual independent reporting from the NYT.

2. One of the most basic things missing is an explanation of what it means to be on conservatorship in CA (there are several different kinds) and what a judge had to have found to be true to put her on one. I am most familiar with LPS Conservators, who do have the power to commit people to psychiatric hospitalization. It appears that Spears has a Probate (not LPS) Conservatorship, for both Person and Estate. These conservators (even for Person) can not hospitalize the conservatee against their will. So, if Spears was hospitalized against her will, it would have had to have been because doctors found her to be a danger to herself or others, or (much less likely) gravely disabled. We know she was hospitalized on a 5150 back in the 2008 period, but I don’t think we know what the status was of the most recent hospitalization. Her father could have coerced her into accepting hospitalization, since he controls her finances and many aspects of her person, but again we don’t know (and again, the NYT offers no original reporting about this).

3. There is always the possibility of gross corruption (the father pays off the judges and others to rule in his favor), but to assume this without evidence is the definition of a conspiracy theory. More likely is that, whatever else is going on, Spears suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder. I am surprised that for all the histrionic “Leave Brittany Alone!” Type Fan groups cited in the Doc, there seemed to be little recognition of or care about this basic fact by people who claim to love her. The court has to be primarily concerned with the mental health and well-being of Spears, and the fact she is still conserved suggests that the court has evidence that she continues to have significant problems. Whatever else is going on, she likely continues to be a very disordered and unhappy person.

4. While I am not as familiar with probate Conservatorship, what I do know leaves me surprised and somewhat suspicious that it is being used in Spears case, at least for Person. What the documentary does not tell us is why the court settled on Conservatorship, when, as I understand it, to do so they have to first consider and reject several other less restrictive arrangements. I have never treated anyone as wealthy as Spears, but it does smell like this entire scheme was designed with the well-being of her estate (and perhaps the financial interests of record and other corporations) in mind, rather than of Spears herself.

5. My guess is that at the heart of all this is the judgement that Spears was found to be pathologically vulnerable to influence by suspicious people, like Sam Lutfi. This is alluded to in the documentary, but with very little actual reporting. As suspicious as I am of her father, by relying on tabloid and social media memes the documentary is probably unfair to him. More likely the courts have repeatedly found that without the Conservatorship, Spears would fall under the control of Lutfi and people like him who would be more harmful to her than her father. If something like this is true, I can see why the courts would be reluctant to eliminate the Conservatorship, or even to name someone as Conservator of Spears own choosing. It is actually possible that the current arrangement gives Spears as much freedom as is consistent with her own well-being, and that of her children, by limiting the ability of unsavory influencers to manipulate her to drain her resources and harm others.

The reason we know so little about this is that most of it is not properly our business. The Courts are there to review the case and protect her interests, not Instagrammers. Still, with so much money at stake, it may be appropriate for the press to ensure that the courts are acting properly. I just wish the press in this case was doing a better job. 

Tom Wolper

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 7:20:18 PM2/13/21
to TV or not TV
I am going to guess this is a stab at being more relevant by the NYT and it's dealing with tighter deadlines and not getting the resources that go to the print product. It's not simply clickbait because there is a real story here. The choice of Britney as a subject and the time spent talking about and to her most fervent fans leads me to think that it was done that way to get attention from fans. The fact is the core of the story is a court fight involving Britney and her father and the NYT crew couldn't get any comment from Britney (or her lawyers), her father (or his lawyers), or the court and they pressed ahead and aired this as a story.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKWQS5RqwJu11xEDG61kuQkv469ahj8xJhK00EWT6wvkA%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 10:22:54 PM2/13/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Yeah but...at the NYT, isn’t it customary that if they are unable to do their own reporting, or share the reliable reporting of other credible journalists, that they don’t run the story? 

I would say the documentary was basically about the podcast and social media fan sites, with a tacked on reminder of who Spears is for those who forgot. There is a story here, but the NYT never got into it. At least, instead of repeating the fans vague assertion that people as young and active as Spears are rarely put on probate Conservatorship (which, I believe is true), why not give us some basic numbers? How many people are placed on PC each year in this country, how many of those are under 60 and not obviously demented or gravely impaired? Of those younger adults not obviously gravely impaired, what do we know about them? Are they usually wealthy? Are their concerns about minor children?  Of the (again, I believe the fans are correct) relatively few who have gotten off of PC, how did that happen? Why not find a few as similarly situated to Spears as possible and interview them? 

There are questions about mismanagement of her estate; she had this huge Vegas deal taking in millions per year (! How many people on PC are currently earning tens of millions of dollars per year?) and yet her total estate is valued at “only” $50 something million, which seems like less than what she was worth before the Vegas deal. A Conservator is only supposed to be able to make major decisions about assets with court approval, and most of these financial records are supposed to be public. Why didn’t the documentary report on this?

Kevin M.

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 11:52:22 PM2/13/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
A clip of Letterman interviewing Lindsey Lohan has made the rounds online tonight. It’s not being received well


--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

Tom Wolper

unread,
Feb 14, 2021, 11:04:19 AM2/14/21
to TV or not TV
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:22 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah but...at the NYT, isn’t it customary that if they are unable to do their own reporting, or share the reliable reporting of other credible journalists, that they don’t run the story? 

I would say the documentary was basically about the podcast and social media fan sites, with a tacked on reminder of who Spears is for those who forgot. There is a story here, but the NYT never got into it. At least, instead of repeating the fans vague assertion that people as young and active as Spears are rarely put on probate Conservatorship (which, I believe is true), why not give us some basic numbers? How many people are placed on PC each year in this country, how many of those are under 60 and not obviously demented or gravely impaired? Of those younger adults not obviously gravely impaired, what do we know about them? Are they usually wealthy? Are their concerns about minor children?  Of the (again, I believe the fans are correct) relatively few who have gotten off of PC, how did that happen? Why not find a few as similarly situated to Spears as possible and interview them? 

There are questions about mismanagement of her estate; she had this huge Vegas deal taking in millions per year (! How many people on PC are currently earning tens of millions of dollars per year?) and yet her total estate is valued at “only” $50 something million, which seems like less than what she was worth before the Vegas deal. A Conservator is only supposed to be able to make major decisions about assets with court approval, and most of these financial records are supposed to be public. Why didn’t the documentary report on this?

For the record I agree with all of this. The one real deficiency I felt after watching the program is that I didn't get a clear understanding what a conservatorship is under law and what its limits are.

The program did get Britney and her problems into the national conversation whether that is good or not. And it got a full apology from Justin Timberlake (and Janet Jackson got one too) whether it was sincere or not.

Here's a good writeup about the current situation, starting with Craig Ferguson's monologue and going through the cruelty of how young women who become successful get treated:

Tom Wolper

unread,
Feb 14, 2021, 11:15:10 AM2/14/21
to TV or not TV
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:52 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:
A clip of Letterman interviewing Lindsey Lohan has made the rounds online tonight. It’s not being received well


A Letterman reckoning is coming. He liked to get aggressive with people who got in the news for controversy. While some guests, like Trump and O'Reilly, could deflect the questions, other more vulnerable guests just had to bear it. There were a lot of times Dave could puncture PR bubbles and it was satisfying to watch. And there were other times, like with Lohan, that it turned Dave into a creep. Nell Scovell has another example, this time with Janet Jackson:

JW

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 5:10:43 AM2/16/21
to tvornottv
> A Letterman reckoning is coming. He liked to get aggressive with people who got in > the news for controversy.

I'm sure there are people who'd like to see such a reckoning. I found it fascinating that the Atlantic piece you linked to said "Here was an audience so conditioned to seeing women in crisis as punch lines" instead of 'celebrities in crisis.' It's not like we never saw Nick Nolte's mug shot.

One of the facets of Late Night that made Dave so successful was laughing at the whole celebrity-industrial complex. That lasted through much of the Late Show, and is pretty much standard fare now for everybody in late night.  If Nastassia Kinski wasn't happy to be asked about her odd hairstyle, that was too bad. If Joaquin Phoenix wanted to go full goofball, Dave was happy to participate. And if Lindsay Lohan came on at a point in her life where she was poised to go full trainwreck, Dave wasn't going to avoid it. He might have some regrets now, but he wasn't going to ignore the elephant.

Kevin M.

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 3:58:29 PM2/16/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Letterman deserves credit for being much more honest in dealing with guests than most hosts of his era. If he genuinely liked a guest, you could tell. If he didn’t, you could definitely tell. But mainly, if there was more humor to be found in propping up a guest, that’s what he’d attempt, but if it was funnier to be cantankerous, you could count on Dave to set aside political correctness and pull no punches. Looking back years later, it’s a bit like watching Don Rickles without knowing that it was an honor to be roasted by him. If you were on Letterman’s radar, you hopefully took the jokes in stride, because you were going to be verbally crucified if you didn’t. 

That said, there’s some of Letterman that is indefensible, most notably the affair he had with a staffer. It might be worth checking to see if she’s still working in the business. Regardless, it’s horrible office behavior and I lost a lot of respect for Dave when that story broke. Then again, Dick Clark did the same thing almost out of habit, but continued to host and produce shows for five decades.

If we are going to judge people’s past by modern standards, most if not all will come up short, especially those whose pasts were literally televised daily. Hopefully we can look at all of it as what educators call “teachable moments,” to appreciate the artistry and creativity of that point in broadcasting while not turning a blind eye to what clearly ought not occur in the present day.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

Tom Wolper

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 4:23:12 PM2/16/21
to TV or not TV
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

That said, there’s some of Letterman that is indefensible, most notably the affair he had with a staffer. It might be worth checking to see if she’s still working in the business.

She is not. She left law school to work in TV and after the scandal she went back to law school. I vaguely recall somebody followed up on her a few years later and she wasn't in show business and she wasn't in New York.

PGage

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 5:48:35 PM2/16/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com

The Wikis say that Stephanie Birkitt has an active law license in both California and Connecticut since just after the scandal broke.

I think we were all disappointed in Dave’s behavior at that time, but I still think he handled it pretty well, and better than most powerful men even in the post #metoo era. Of course on any meaningful metric his behavior (as far as we know) was less horrific than a lot of what came to light later.

Dave was always at his best when making fun of powerful people and corporations. He was not at his best when, at times, he went after less powerful people. Prior to the current era self indulgent, self important young starlets were seen by many, including apparently Dave, as part of the powerful group it was okay to take down. It should have been clear, to people like Dave, but also many in his audience, like me, that these young women were closer to girls, and were subject the sexual exploitation and manipulation of powerful men and companies, no matter how much money they were paid, or how famous they were. We all failed that test, and are rightly criticized for it now.

Again though, making fun of a troubled Lindsey Lohan, which should obviously have been abhorrent, is not sexual assault, is not Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Louis CK levels of bad. Whatever reckoning is coming for Dave (and many of us in his audience) is deserved, but should be proportionate.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

Kevin M.

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 6:29:22 PM2/16/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 2:48 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Wikis say that Stephanie Birkitt has an active law license in both California and Connecticut since just after the scandal broke.

I think we were all disappointed in Dave’s behavior at that time, but I still think he handled it pretty well, and better than most powerful men even in the post #metoo era. Of course on any meaningful metric his behavior (as far as we know) was less horrific than a lot of what came to light later.

Dave was always at his best when making fun of powerful people and corporations. He was not at his best when, at times, he went after less powerful people. Prior to the current era self indulgent, self important young starlets were seen by many, including apparently Dave, as part of the powerful group it was okay to take down. It should have been clear, to people like Dave, but also many in his audience, like me, that these young women were closer to girls, and were subject the sexual exploitation and manipulation of powerful men and companies, no matter how much money they were paid, or how famous they were. We all failed that test, and are rightly criticized for it now.

Again though, making fun of a troubled Lindsey Lohan, which should obviously have been abhorrent, is not sexual assault, is not Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Louis CK levels of bad. Whatever reckoning is coming for Dave (and many of us in his audience) is deserved, but should be proportionate.

My thing which probably prevented me from getting hired onto several talk shows is that I found it abhorrent to even book obviously troubled people as guests on an entertainment talk show. Letterman infamously had on Paris Hilton to talk about her time in jail, which of course she didn’t want to talk about, and it was a funny and memorable interview... with an alcoholic ex convict... one has to wonder why book her except so viewers could point and gawk and judge and mock. Not singling Letterman out; all hosts (and their producers) are guilty of it, even Scottish Conan, which he’d freely admit to. 





On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 1:23 PM Tom Wolper <two...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

That said, there’s some of Letterman that is indefensible, most notably the affair he had with a staffer. It might be worth checking to see if she’s still working in the business.

She is not. She left law school to work in TV and after the scandal she went back to law school. I vaguely recall somebody followed up on her a few years later and she wasn't in show business and she wasn't in New York.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiHEyjEXXzK3qX1T2LOS_5OOOyxF7g_RoQ8wLLdou4oXtA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

Brad Beam

unread,
Feb 20, 2021, 2:20:46 PM2/20/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com

From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Wolper

>On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:52 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

>A Letterman reckoning is coming. He liked to get aggressive with people who got in the news for controversy. While some guests, like Trump and O'Reilly, could deflect the questions, other more vulnerable guests just had to bear it. There were a lot of times Dave could puncture PR bubbles and it was satisfying to watch. And there were other times, like with Lohan, that it turned Dave into a creep. Nell Scovell has another example, this time with Janet Jackson:

 

Also jumping on the bandwagon, NBC’s featured “SNL” rerun tonight – Britney Spears (aired 5/13/2000) – where, in the monologue, she unsuccessfully refutes rumors that she lip-syncs and has fake breasts, while during “Update,” Chris Parnell (b.1967) performs a hard-core rap about a dream date with her (b.1981).

Source: https://www.prismnet.com/~serpas/snl.html

 

_   _

|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV

|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages