I’d like to propose an equation:
Mental illness + star power and money + crude curiosity / greed = a cyclical disaster resulting in a downward spiral of those on all sides
This equation explains the tumultuous situation surrounding the infamous Britney Spears.
An article by David Samuels in The Atlantic chronicles the rise of an industry that helped contribute to the dramatic and notorious fall of Spears. According to the article, it all started when Bonnie Fuller took over Us Weekly and began the trademark photo-feature “Stars-They’re Just Like US” which featured celebrities engaging in regular day-to-day activities. She tapped into a market that was interested in knowing that stars enjoy coffee and have to pump gas and, believe it or not, have to eat--just like us normal people. Needless to say, she hit the jackpot and spawned an industry that considers an exclusive picture of a celebrity pregnancy worth 5 or 6 figures.
As a result, little cults of “paps” have popped up and begun literally stalking stars for an opportunity to get a shot of--well, anything. These men, recruited from pizza delivery chains and valet parking services, are armed with telephoto lenses and digital cameras and responsible for hunting down celebrities no matter the cost. We, the public, just look on as car crashes and physical altercations take place as a consequence of the reckless behavior of these paparazzi. The so-called photographers will do anything, including a practice known as “door-stepping”, which involves waiting outside the entrance to a celebrity’s home for 12 or 14 hours, just hoping for a shot of anything at all.
And what do we do? We buy into it. The industry only survives because we, the public, suck up every piece of trash they dish out to us. These masters of mindless destruction are counting on us to soak up these ridiculous photos and the nonsensical captions attached. We help to perpetuate the cycle and are thus aiding in the destruction of human lives like that of Britney Spears. While we complain and grimace at the behaviors of both the star and the paps, we continue to fuel the fire. So why would they stop?
So I pose the question: who is the villain? The mentally ill Spears who thrives on the attention, sometimes going so far as to help stage photos (a practice also enjoyed by stars like Paris Hilton-go figure)? The insensitive paparazzi who risk the lives of others for a shot of her picking her nose or showing her private parts? Or the readers who continue to buy the product?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Alternative: Now, that's my kind of news.
As one of the more popular destinations for “alternative” news, and all of its hilarity, The Onion takes a satirical approach to the current happenings in our nation. Loosely based on actual topics (i.e. the political campaign, popular video games, etc.), the publication reports ridiculous occurrences that challenge even the most pensive to refrain from laughing.
In a fun article in today’s edition, The Onion reports a “rise in effeminate violence” due to video games put out on the latest console craze-the Wii. The publication revealed a sudden jump in “limp-wristed” attacks like those perpetrated by a 13-year-old on his peers. They also claim that the games themselves, with their “pastel imagery, graphic representations of adorable characters, and disorienting kaleidoscopes of color”, have resulted in an increase in “aggressive frolicking and angry fluttering”.
The Onion takes a light-hearted jab at the recent Nintendo Wii insanity that has resulted in everything from parents fighting over the final console, to brand new injuries caused by the nature and intensity of the game. One has to appreciate this alternative view on the latest craze as it forces us to laugh at ourselves and the ludicrous behaviors that we engage in.
A look at the various other headlines that fill the publications web page will quickly clear up any questions one may have had over the legitimacy of the facts of these stories. Much like popular faux-news shows, like the Cobert Report, The Onion is able to find that perfect mix between fact and fiction that results in pure comedic genius. Rather than the obvious sarcasm in the tag: “America’s Finest News Source” beneath their title, perhaps they should simply offer the caption “Lighten up”.
In a fun article in today’s edition, The Onion reports a “rise in effeminate violence” due to video games put out on the latest console craze-the Wii. The publication revealed a sudden jump in “limp-wristed” attacks like those perpetrated by a 13-year-old on his peers. They also claim that the games themselves, with their “pastel imagery, graphic representations of adorable characters, and disorienting kaleidoscopes of color”, have resulted in an increase in “aggressive frolicking and angry fluttering”.
The Onion takes a light-hearted jab at the recent Nintendo Wii insanity that has resulted in everything from parents fighting over the final console, to brand new injuries caused by the nature and intensity of the game. One has to appreciate this alternative view on the latest craze as it forces us to laugh at ourselves and the ludicrous behaviors that we engage in.
A look at the various other headlines that fill the publications web page will quickly clear up any questions one may have had over the legitimacy of the facts of these stories. Much like popular faux-news shows, like the Cobert Report, The Onion is able to find that perfect mix between fact and fiction that results in pure comedic genius. Rather than the obvious sarcasm in the tag: “America’s Finest News Source” beneath their title, perhaps they should simply offer the caption “Lighten up”.
The Reaching Game.
Of course, Spring Break could not even escape the election madness. It has totally consumed the news networks, and thus our minds, such that sometimes the story itself will be just how ridiculous all this has become.
We were all listening when the candidates started out with their optimism and determination to "get away from the way we've always done politics". And we've watched as the candidates have slowly but surely digressed to the point of bringing the general public to nausea at the very mention of the presidential race. Yet, as the race continues and it becomes increasingly clear to the democrats that the concept of "winning" the nomination may have to be rethought , the candidates-or the media-have turned to increasingly obscure issues.
Who's supporter has made the latest vacuous remark? Which spouse is helping or hurting who's campaign? These types of topics have effectively replaced concern over who has the best plan for health care reform or the clearest stance on the war. The media is applying that old adage of "guilt by association" with a fun game.
Here are the rules so far:
1. A presidential hopeful is automatically and inextricably linked to his/her supporters thus the following must hold true: supporter comment=candidate's true feelings. The supporter must meet one or more of the following criteria: famous (for whatever reason), affluent, family member, community or organization leader, or political office held currently or previously.
2. Accordingly, only by publicly "denouncing" or "rejecting" the supporter and/or their comments can the contender be let off the hook.
One must be considered a key or important supporter in order to enter into the above equation.
4. A candidate can receive the upper hand by: demanding denouncement or rejection before the connected candidate has an opportunity to do so OR denouncing or rejecting the comments/supporter before the opposition has a chance to pounce.
5. If the connected candidate rejects when they should denounce or happens to denounce without the proper fervor, he/she loses that battle and is considered a loser connected to a psycho (until they similarly or more intensely undermine the opposition)
Presently, there appears to be no end in sight; however, stay tuned for additional, more absurd rules as the reaching game extends further into the infinite abyss.
We were all listening when the candidates started out with their optimism and determination to "get away from the way we've always done politics". And we've watched as the candidates have slowly but surely digressed to the point of bringing the general public to nausea at the very mention of the presidential race. Yet, as the race continues and it becomes increasingly clear to the democrats that the concept of "winning" the nomination may have to be rethought , the candidates-or the media-have turned to increasingly obscure issues.
Who's supporter has made the latest vacuous remark? Which spouse is helping or hurting who's campaign? These types of topics have effectively replaced concern over who has the best plan for health care reform or the clearest stance on the war. The media is applying that old adage of "guilt by association" with a fun game.
Here are the rules so far:
1. A presidential hopeful is automatically and inextricably linked to his/her supporters thus the following must hold true: supporter comment=candidate's true feelings. The supporter must meet one or more of the following criteria: famous (for whatever reason), affluent, family member, community or organization leader, or political office held currently or previously.
2. Accordingly, only by publicly "denouncing" or "rejecting" the supporter and/or their comments can the contender be let off the hook.
One must be considered a key or important supporter in order to enter into the above equation.
4. A candidate can receive the upper hand by: demanding denouncement or rejection before the connected candidate has an opportunity to do so OR denouncing or rejecting the comments/supporter before the opposition has a chance to pounce.
5. If the connected candidate rejects when they should denounce or happens to denounce without the proper fervor, he/she loses that battle and is considered a loser connected to a psycho (until they similarly or more intensely undermine the opposition)
Presently, there appears to be no end in sight; however, stay tuned for additional, more absurd rules as the reaching game extends further into the infinite abyss.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Welcome Back Ethics **insert "Welcome Back Cotter" theme music**
Remember the controversy several months ago surrounding the possibility of Prince Harry going to Iraq and the associated security threat posed by the media? Well, the situation revisited us last Thursday when the Drudge Report broke the news that Prince Harry had been serving in Afghanistan for 3 months.
Interestingly, networks, such as CNN, have made it clear that they purposely did not break the story for the security of both Prince Harry and his regiment. This was a commendable decision, in my opinion. However, my question is why go ahead and confirm the story now? Perhaps I'm missing a crucial piece of the behind-the-scenes inner-workings of the news world; but why couldn't the networks have simply ignored the Drudge Report and not corroborated the assertions of the blog? Could they not have just left Matt out to dry? Instead, they seemed to say, "Well it's out there, now. Might as well break it too... but let's make sure people know we weren't in the dark, we chose not to break the story because we're responsible".
Regardless of previous ethical responsibility, the top story of the major news networks' (complete with video footage) resulted in the premature withdrawal of Prince Harry from duty. While his family was certainly relieved, Prince Harry was "frustrated" at the unexpected removal.
On the other hand, Jon Snow, a news broadcaster in London, was extremely frustrated with the decision of the media to withhold the information for so long. He was thankful for the Drudge Report leak saying that he wondered whether the public would be able to trust the media again.
It all comes down to this: at what point is breaking the story first, or simply not being last, more important than the safety and security of military missions and individuals? In this case, I believe we have our answer.
Interestingly, networks, such as CNN, have made it clear that they purposely did not break the story for the security of both Prince Harry and his regiment. This was a commendable decision, in my opinion. However, my question is why go ahead and confirm the story now? Perhaps I'm missing a crucial piece of the behind-the-scenes inner-workings of the news world; but why couldn't the networks have simply ignored the Drudge Report and not corroborated the assertions of the blog? Could they not have just left Matt out to dry? Instead, they seemed to say, "Well it's out there, now. Might as well break it too... but let's make sure people know we weren't in the dark, we chose not to break the story because we're responsible".
Regardless of previous ethical responsibility, the top story of the major news networks' (complete with video footage) resulted in the premature withdrawal of Prince Harry from duty. While his family was certainly relieved, Prince Harry was "frustrated" at the unexpected removal.
On the other hand, Jon Snow, a news broadcaster in London, was extremely frustrated with the decision of the media to withhold the information for so long. He was thankful for the Drudge Report leak saying that he wondered whether the public would be able to trust the media again.
It all comes down to this: at what point is breaking the story first, or simply not being last, more important than the safety and security of military missions and individuals? In this case, I believe we have our answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
