Edmund White, Shawn Mendes, Peter Thiel, Lovers of Modena, Charli XCX, Elizabeth Warren, Chemsex: HOT LINKS

WINNING. Edmund White to receive honorary National Book Award: ‘White, 79, is among the most influential gay writers of his time, known for works such as “A Boy’s Own Story” and “The Beautiful Room is Empty” and for helping to create the market for openly gay literature. The National Book Foundation announced Thursday that director John Waters will present White with his medal during the Nov. 20 awards ceremony and benefit dinner.’

FISH KISSES. Shawn Mendes and Camila Cabello sucked face for fans.

WORST DAD EVER. Donald Trump tells reporters “she’s got a son” in reference to Melania’s and his son Barron.

PETER THIEL. The FBI is investigating his start-up venture capital fund: ‘US officials — including the FBI — have in recent months questioned some people close to Mithril regarding concerns of possible financial misconduct at the firm, according to people familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity given its sensitivity. Mithril confirmed in a statement that its lawyers are in touch with government authorities.’

2020. Elizabeth Warren leads Joe Biden in ranked-choice poll.

DEBATE. Trump campaign to fly massive plane banner over Houston Democratic debate. “Socialism will kill Houston’s economy!” the ad reads, along with a number to text, according to a rendering provided to ABC News by a Trump campaign official.

STINGRAYS. Israel accused of planting spy devices near White House…

ARLENE’S FLOWERS. Anti-gay florist in Washington State appealing to the Supreme Court, again.

LOVERS OF MODENA. Famous pair of skeletons holding hands from the 4-6th Century AD are discovered to be men.

GERALD MATOVU. Drug dealer who killed man he met on Grindr seeks gender reassignment in prison.

LONDON. “Chemsex” parties fueling urban HIV epidemics, experts say.

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY. Students won’t be punished for blackface photo: “Our community members — students, faculty and staff — can generally post whatever they wish to post on their personal online accounts in accordance with their First Amendment rights.”

JERSEY SHORE’S THE SITUATION. Out of the slammer…

INDIA. Transgender police applicants denied jobs after being outed. “For the transgender recruits, who were actively encouraged to apply, the government’s delay has had particularly dire consequences. In many cases, coverage in the local news media of the recruitment drive outed them to their families. Some were assaulted by relatives, forced from their homes and fired from their jobs.”

NEW TUNE OF THE DAY. Charli XCX and Troye Sivan “2099”.

THIRSTY THURSDAY. Daniel Franzese.

View this post on Instagram

Reclaiming my childhood spent wearing a shirt in the pool growing up in Florida. Not giving a F*CK what people think feels so good. It’s #bigboysummer and soaking up every last minute until #bigandtallfall. #BellyOutchallenge

A post shared by Daniel Franzese (@whatsupdanny) on Sep 5, 2019 at 12:02pm PDT

The post Edmund White, Shawn Mendes, Peter Thiel, Lovers of Modena, Charli XCX, Elizabeth Warren, Chemsex: HOT LINKS appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

Edmund White, Shawn Mendes, Peter Thiel, Lovers of Modena, Charli XCX, Elizabeth Warren, Chemsex: HOT LINKS

Ellen Page Would Be Thrilled to Play Queer for the Rest of Her Career

The actress and activist does not have time for questions about whether she’s worried she’ll be “typecast” for playing queer. 

www.advocate.com/people/2019/9/12/ellen-page-would-be-thrilled-play-queer-rest-her-career

Watch: ‘Matt & Dan’ explore that special hell of being approached by someone you can’t place

In the latest episode of Matthew Wilkas and Daniel Vincent Gordh’s web series, Matt & Dan, the guys take an awkward social encounter and turn it sideways… several times over. It’s what they do best.

Here’s the all-too-relatable concept: Someone approaches you at a party or a coffee shop and greets you by name, so happy to see you. You have no idea who they are.

Related: Watch: New episode of ‘Matt & Dan’ is a survivor-style mind melt

The conversation progresses as you discreetly hunt for details, hoping not to tip your hand.

Of course, things continue to descend into chaos in episode 5 of Matt & Dan, titled “Best Friends for Never”, which guest stars Julia Cho.

Watch:

www.queerty.com/watch-matt-dan-explore-special-hell-approached-someone-cant-place-20190912?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerty2+%28Queerty%29

How TV Cameras Influence Candidates’ Debate Success

As the Democratic Party continues to winnow its field of candidates to challenge President Donald Trump, it’s important to remember that the way candidates are covered on TV can influence public opinion. That’s become increasingly apparent in today’s media landscape, with several candidates jockeying for coverage during their party’s televised debates.

Scholars of political psychology like me – as well as researchers in other fields – have come to understand that what people see matters more than what they hear when making decisions about the leaders they will follow. A person who sees one candidate more than another will tend to prefer the one they see most – and perhaps be more likely to vote for that person, too.

My research group’s study of the 2016 presidential election found that front-running candidates received more camera time and were the focus of more flattering camera shots at the expense of other candidates.

Something similar appears to be happening in the 2020 Democratic primary race. Our analysis of the initial 2016 Republican and Democratic presidential primary debates found TV broadcasts showed front-runners for more time, and in more flattering views, than their competitors. Using the same method, my collaborators Austin Eubanks, Nicholas Hersom, Cooper Hearn and I analyzed the first and second Democratic Party primary debates, aired June 26 and 27 on NBC, Univision and MSNBC. Frame by frame, we scrutinized the footage on the basis of type of camera shot (head-and-shoulders, multiple candidates, side-by-side and split-screen), who was in the shot and how long.

Under the election microscope

In debates, candidates must impress – or at least not disappoint – viewers with their verbal prowess and their nonverbal communication skills. Their performance is limited by the cameras covering them. The production choices of how long to show each candidate and from what viewpoint may influence viewers’ conclusions about the candidates.

Being on screen at all is a big boost, and of particular importance are shots of a candidate alone, showing their head and shoulders. This provides a virtual face-to-face connection with viewers, which can provide a sense of intimacy and social bonding.

Most of NBC’s camera attention – more than 70% on each night – showed one or another candidate in this type of solo view, giving big boosts to those who spent the most time portrayed that way.

NBC spent relatively little time in competitive shots showing candidates either side-by-side or in split-screen. Those choices likely diminished the public’s perceptions of the Democratic candidates’ contentiousness with each other by not providing for candidate-to-candidate visual comparisons.

About one-fifth of the debate footage showed a multi-candidate shot, with three or more candidates in view. This widescreen view visually distances viewers from the candidates by dividing attention. The candidates who appeared most often in this type of shot run the risk of being seen and treated as irrelevant.

The candidates who spent comparatively little of their on-screen time in a wide shot were getting subtly preferential treatment. Most candidates spent about 60% to 70% of their on-screen time in shots with three or more candidates, but there were exceptions. In the first debate, O’Rourke shared only 57% of his shots with other candidates. In the second, Biden shared just 49% of his shots. Those were clear signals that TV producers considered them the front-runners in their respective debates.

Visually signaling winners and losers

What we observed in the June debates led us to hypothesize that those who got the most and best TV attention would do the best as their campaigns continued. The debate lineup bears that out: Of the 10 candidates who qualified for the Sept. 12 debate, all but one were in the top half of their initial debate in terms of total time on camera and the amount of time the camera was focused on their head and shoulders.

Andrew Yang was the only candidate who bucked the trend. He actually had less camera time focused on his head and shoulders than any of the other 19 candidates across the two nights – and spent 80% of his screen time situated with others.

We don’t know whether the choices made by TV producers and directors concerning how often and from which visual perspectives to show specific candidates follow the polls or drive the polls. Indeed, it is likely that a more complex psychological calculus concerning public opinion and market realities is at work.

Regardless, camera choices can subtly inform viewers about which candidates are seen as viable contenders and those who may not have much of a chance. People who watch the debates should be vigilant about how their opinions are being influenced not just by what they hear from the candidates, but how they see them on the screen.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. ]

Patrick A. Stewart, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Arkansas

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How TV Cameras Influence Candidates’ Debate Success appeared first on Towleroad Gay News.

How TV Cameras Influence Candidates’ Debate Success