Celebrity
I need to chalk this post up directly to the Cicero in Pants summer vacation - because it isn't really about politics. But it is. Sort of.
I don't tend to be drawn in by the cult of celebrity at all but I do sympathise with celebrities. I don't really understand why we think we are entitled to know their business. I do know that I find it disgusting.
What really caught my eye lately was the catch-22 in which Angelina Jolie recently found herself. As you have probably read, her lawyers were looking to make media interviewers sign a contract in which they would agree not to ask Angelina Jolie questions about her personal life. Her problems with her Dad, Jon Voigt for example. To put this in context, let's remember that Jolie has been asked such questions for years - and that when she goes to do press she sits in a room and every pess outlet in the world comes in for 10 minutes and asks her the same questions over and over again. Picture yourself in the same situation being asked invasive questions about the things in your life and past that have cut deeply and stung hard.
But "HAHA!" said the media types, "Your new movie, A Mighty Heart, is all about the importance of freedom of the press so arent you being a hypocrite..." and that's just about when I started to puke. Because that's about the point when entertainment journalists compared themselves to Daniel Pearl.
Look, "entertainment journalists". Let's come to grips with something, right. fucking. now. You are NOT Daniel Pearl - and you shouldn't pretend to be. Daniel Pearl was an incredibly brave foreign correspondent risking (and ultimately giving) his life to report on the 'on the ground' effects of the foreign policy of his government. YOU are interviewing a pretty actress with a pretty actor boyfriend. Do you see the difference? There is a fundamental difference in your job and the job of Daniel Pearl. And not only because it isn't exactly likely that Angelina will cut off your head - no matter how richly you might deserve it.
There is a distinction that we in the audience often fail to make. Just because someone is famous doesn't make them a "public figure". A public figure is someone who's decisions will affect you - therefore providing you with a moral right to know who the hell they really are. A hollywood actress simply doesn't cross that threshold and has every moral right to her privacy. To put it simply Angelina Jolie is not the king. She's the court jester. And you are not the intrepid reporter uncovering watergate. YOU are mrs. mcgillicutty from next door all dressed up in curlers and peeking over the backyard fence to see what conclusions about your neighbor's sex life you can draw from the lingerie on the clothes line. Nobody likes Mrs. McGillicutty. And I, in turn, don't like you.
Grow up - and while you're at it - get a real job.
1 comment:
"A public figure is someone who's decisions will affect you - therefore providing you with a moral right to know who the hell they really are."
In the US, UK, Australia, India and New Zealand, you'd be right. But in Canada, you'll have to tell that to Wayne Crookes, who evidently believes he can "buy" an entire political party, then steer its spending and other actions closely and even personally choose which elected officers are allowed to actually exercise their posts - then remain above deep public scrutiny. He has sent countless "chill" letters and repeatedly tried to shut down forums used by his opponents, for writing about Crookes and his influence on the Green Party of Canada. The guy has sued google, yahoo, pbwiki, News Corp (myspace), even a domain registrar, all from BC.
Canada's laws are hopelessly medieval in this regard - allowing political figures like Paul Martin and Wayne Crookes and Gerard Kennedy to simply sue their opponents or even journalists, and thereby create two classes of citizen: those that can afford to defend their right to have political views, and those that can't. Those that can't, well, have historically taken up arms. Two classes of citizen recognized by law leads directly to class warfare, which is ultimately not so good for the smaller, ruling, class. Especially if the classes are distinguished by their right to speak on particular subjects - with that type of division, any democracy is a very obvious sham.
Yet, we see for instance no open condemnation of Gerard Kennedy for choosing to apply force and courts to the political matter between him and the National Post. Why not? At least Martin lost that election, and the public elected his most vocal critic. The public is smarter than the elite - again.
As for Angelina, you're right, she has far more important things to talk about, including her missions as a UN goodwill ambassador, and the reasons she chose to make "A Mighty Heart in the first place. Entertainment news is not news, except insofar as all news falls into the "glad I'm not you" category.
Post a Comment