Colin Farell yesterday confronted a paparazzi for yelling at his sister for getting in the way. Media frantically gathers information on celebrities to feed an apparently insatiable thirst for that information. The way we do that in the western world has a wrongness about it that I haven't quite fingered. Today I have more questions than answers.
When does the public's apparently insatiable desire to know become wrong? In a nation steeped in the principles of "freedom of the press", is restraint possible?
Here's a definition of mediated voyeurism from the book, Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy, and Peering in Modern Culture. by Clay Calvert.
"Mediated voyeurism refers to the consumption of revealing images of and information about others' apparently real and unguarded lives, often yet not always for purposes of entertainment but frequently at the expense of privacy and discourse, through the means of the mass media and Internet. "
The book concentrates on "reality television" and the unreality so created. Privacy is a right. Obviously people who participate in such shows must sign away their rights to privacy, including night vision cameras. Regular people who have not cavalierly given them away, are more sensitized to their rights in this regard, especially now that we have the tools to break down all apparent barriers. On the other hand, it can be argued that celebrities, unlike "reality show" participants, never sign their rights away. Privacy is gradually (or suddenly) taken from them. Can a celebrity ever have a "private dinner" in a public place? Is there such a thing as a "private beach"? What lengths must a celebrity go to for privacy? How much privacy can a celebrity create for themselves without help?
A veteran of celebrity status, Gareth Edwards says,
"But the fact of life is that the mouth of the media is a very hungry one to feed. People may say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I wouldn't necessarily agree...Publicity and all the attention is not something you get used to, it's something you grow with. If I were to say, 'Is it a nice thing?' then yes, it certainly is, and it has more attractions than drawbacks."
So far there are few restraints on the insatiable collection of minutae by the media, all under the cloak of "freedom of the press". Will there come a day where self-monitoring will be inadequate? Will the public demand some restraint on what is offered free on people's lives?
Here's a popular vendor who does not cater to the public, Shopskins . The link provides an audio interview, about twenty minutes long, with the owner of this popular restaurant. His answer to the public frenzy was to find a smaller location off the beaten track. He routinely ejects about 3-4 people a week if he senses they are simply there for the show. Check out the mixed reviews from visitors.
How different from Pike Place Fish, who have cheerfully embraced their yogurt dudes. The difference, perhaps, is that Pike Place has been committed to becoming "world famous" and has grown the company and it's offerings as it's popularity has grown.
Paparazzi: http://www.viiphoto.com/showstory.php?nID=870
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The Lure of High Drama
This week a tragic death of a cyclist in Toronto on August 31 has grabbed media and public attention. Mine, too, but my interest is in the public reaction itself. The story has all the elements of high drama. We have a hot-headed cyclist with a long list of warrants for petty crime. We have a panicked motorist, Harvard grad, CEO, and former Ontario Attorney General. The motorist was driving a Saab convertible no less.
In a struggle betwen cyclist and motorist, the outcome is not surprising.
I wonder with the high drama that follows the event will help our society learn anything from the tragedy. I doubt it. We already have cyclists and motorists polarized over the cause and the cure. The family of the cyclist, Darcy Sheppard, have retained the services of Aboriginal Legal Services for both legal support and to handle public statements. Michael Bryant has resigned his position as CEO of Invest Toronto, and has retained Navigator Limited to handle his public image.
In the tidal wave of public drama, will the small voice of reason be heard? Banning prominent Saab owners from the road will obviously not prevent future tragedies like this. I believe there is a physical reality at work here. No matter how much courtesy they afford each other, bicycles and motor vehicles don't mix very well. Give them their own lanes. For example, the small voice of reason from Francine Dick of Toronto writes,
As for an aroused public's ability to to recognize the truth, I am not so sure. I am reminded of a dramatic public polarization when a crazed gunman, Marc Lepine, shot twenty-eight people at the École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989 before killing himself. The women's movement has taken ownership of this incident as an example of violence against women. Canada now has a national day against violence against women, on the anniversary of this tragedy. But the incident, as dramatic and terrible as it was, is not typical of the violence that the average woman has to fear in this country, is it? One scholarly book, deadly dull by the look of it, suggests that such dramatic incidents fire the public imagination and result in broad "categorization" for the cause. This mis-applied categorization results in misapplied cures. The book is The Montreal massacre: a story of membership categorization analysis By Peter Eglin, Stephen Hester. If the women's movement were successful in eliminating societal tolerance for violence against women, would we see similar events like the Montreal Massacre reduced over the years?
Obviously not, because our society has witnessed continued incidents of disturbed loners opening fire in public places, especially schools. I think continued incidents like this are more accurately predicted by Gladwell's concept of a tipping point. Incidents like this repeat themselves precisely because of their drama and public interest.
The Montreal Massacre had far less to do with tolerance of violence against women in this country, as it showed society's failure to identify crazed loners and prevent their descent in to madness and violence. I have four immediate family members with chronic, severe mental illness. There are precious few community supports for them. But speaking out for better care for the mentally ill does not grab the same sort of headlines. Our society, horrified to inarticulation, continues to treat mental illness like a dirty little secret.
Let's be honest about the cause for tragedy, cut through the drama, and look for positive cures. No matter how dull, boring, or disturbing the truth may be.
In a struggle betwen cyclist and motorist, the outcome is not surprising.
I wonder with the high drama that follows the event will help our society learn anything from the tragedy. I doubt it. We already have cyclists and motorists polarized over the cause and the cure. The family of the cyclist, Darcy Sheppard, have retained the services of Aboriginal Legal Services for both legal support and to handle public statements. Michael Bryant has resigned his position as CEO of Invest Toronto, and has retained Navigator Limited to handle his public image.
In the tidal wave of public drama, will the small voice of reason be heard? Banning prominent Saab owners from the road will obviously not prevent future tragedies like this. I believe there is a physical reality at work here. No matter how much courtesy they afford each other, bicycles and motor vehicles don't mix very well. Give them their own lanes. For example, the small voice of reason from Francine Dick of Toronto writes,
On a recent visit to New York City I saw Manhattan's innovative approach to bike
lanes. One side of the lane abuts the sidewalk, while the other side is marked
with ongoing barriers. Not only does this separate cars and bicycles, it
prevents motorized vehicles from parking in bike lanes and prevents cyclists
from riding into open car doors. It's a well designed system Toronto should look
at. (Toronto Star)
As for an aroused public's ability to to recognize the truth, I am not so sure. I am reminded of a dramatic public polarization when a crazed gunman, Marc Lepine, shot twenty-eight people at the École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989 before killing himself. The women's movement has taken ownership of this incident as an example of violence against women. Canada now has a national day against violence against women, on the anniversary of this tragedy. But the incident, as dramatic and terrible as it was, is not typical of the violence that the average woman has to fear in this country, is it? One scholarly book, deadly dull by the look of it, suggests that such dramatic incidents fire the public imagination and result in broad "categorization" for the cause. This mis-applied categorization results in misapplied cures. The book is The Montreal massacre: a story of membership categorization analysis By Peter Eglin, Stephen Hester. If the women's movement were successful in eliminating societal tolerance for violence against women, would we see similar events like the Montreal Massacre reduced over the years?
Obviously not, because our society has witnessed continued incidents of disturbed loners opening fire in public places, especially schools. I think continued incidents like this are more accurately predicted by Gladwell's concept of a tipping point. Incidents like this repeat themselves precisely because of their drama and public interest.
The Montreal Massacre had far less to do with tolerance of violence against women in this country, as it showed society's failure to identify crazed loners and prevent their descent in to madness and violence. I have four immediate family members with chronic, severe mental illness. There are precious few community supports for them. But speaking out for better care for the mentally ill does not grab the same sort of headlines. Our society, horrified to inarticulation, continues to treat mental illness like a dirty little secret.
Let's be honest about the cause for tragedy, cut through the drama, and look for positive cures. No matter how dull, boring, or disturbing the truth may be.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama, Media, and OJ
I am reading Obama's book at last; The Audacity of Hope. The title alone thrills. I've complained before that campaigns are won and lost these days on sound bytes and opinion polls. When did we stop picking candidates on calibre? Why would I care what Sally on the Street thinks, if I have no way of judging how much thought she put in to her answer. "I dunno, he he. I came here for the sale. What was the question again?"
Rare for me, I'm marking the book where his words resonate with my unspeakable restlessness in the way things are run these days. The first I've marked, "...I had watched campaign culture metastize throughout the body politic, as an entire industry of insult....somehow profitable - emerged to dominate cable television, talk radio, and the New York Times best-seller list." (p. 21) and "I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country".
I am reminded even of the days leading up to Obama's inauguration, when the media finally caught up with the news that they were witnessing a historic event, a historic figure. What were we given on cable television? Breathless blow-by-blow coverage of Obama's arrival in Washington. What Mrs. Obama was wearing, how many times she touched him. Speculation on the closeness of their marriage. The setting of the stage and speculation on how many people arrived. An endless stream of endless sound bytes, mindless, with no destination or no purpose other than to provide a blow-by-blow for the gawkers. Kind of like watching the O. J. Simpson car chase.
I am sure there are royalty watchers that got a great deal from that coverage. I thrilled listening to the musical quartet leading up to the inaguration. I also took notes of Obama's speech.
What value is the mindless information filler that disguises itself as news these days? Is this all we require as a public, to be passive observers?
The draw of the internet, though, with the opportunity for dialogue and an interactive audience, however, speaks to the even greater need for the public to be involved, to be heard.
Rare for me, I'm marking the book where his words resonate with my unspeakable restlessness in the way things are run these days. The first I've marked, "...I had watched campaign culture metastize throughout the body politic, as an entire industry of insult....somehow profitable - emerged to dominate cable television, talk radio, and the New York Times best-seller list." (p. 21) and "I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country".
I am reminded even of the days leading up to Obama's inauguration, when the media finally caught up with the news that they were witnessing a historic event, a historic figure. What were we given on cable television? Breathless blow-by-blow coverage of Obama's arrival in Washington. What Mrs. Obama was wearing, how many times she touched him. Speculation on the closeness of their marriage. The setting of the stage and speculation on how many people arrived. An endless stream of endless sound bytes, mindless, with no destination or no purpose other than to provide a blow-by-blow for the gawkers. Kind of like watching the O. J. Simpson car chase.
I am sure there are royalty watchers that got a great deal from that coverage. I thrilled listening to the musical quartet leading up to the inaguration. I also took notes of Obama's speech.
What value is the mindless information filler that disguises itself as news these days? Is this all we require as a public, to be passive observers?
The draw of the internet, though, with the opportunity for dialogue and an interactive audience, however, speaks to the even greater need for the public to be involved, to be heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)