Jade Goody/Tabloids/Public

I find that hard to see at the moment in this thread in all honesty.

People dislike what I am saying because I'm being honest, and it's the EXACT same reason why MPs and PMs are never, ever honest, there will always be a backlash, and if 1 person disagrees with it, it will over shadow the 100000 postives.

 

hang on. what? go back and read the thread again. it appears you have lost track.

 

There was a short news/docu item about this a week ago in the dutch press. An Ethicus argued that Jade Goody's publicised cancer and death is just a new step in a trend, and that it will get far, far worse. I'm not sure i agree.

For one, if you look at the actual event that this was about (Jade getting cancer and dying), it's a very natural, common occurance. People die all the time, and many get sick beforehand. There is nothing that she and her family went through(apart from the media-attention, which i'll get to later), that is not experienced by many people worldwide already. The events and emotions involved, though extreme, were all normal and common. No crime was committed, just a taboo broken: that of death.

Secondly, there is precedent. Lots of artists from all genres have since the dawn of time used their own suffering as inspiration, and people have always appreceated the entertainment. Here in Holland we had a singer/songwriter who had a huge success with his song "Mr. Blue". He would probably not have sold more then a handful of records if he hadn't been in the terminal stages of AIDS. The media picked up on the story, people sympathized, and the song was played over and over. The same pattern happens in all artforms: books, movies, music, paintings, sculpting, etc etc. I dont think there's anything wrong with this either, it's just the cycle of expression and entertainment.

Thirdly, there's the issue of privacy. I can easily shrug that off. She willingly gave up her privacy to feed her exhibitionism.

So what is so fundamentally different? Two things. First, Jade Goody had no exceptional talent whatsoever. There wasn't really any reason that we should be more interested in her then in anybody else. Second, the sheer intensity of the media coverage.

The first is just a passing phase, the trend of Reality-TV. People like the idea that the people in the daily soap on TV are real people they can meet, instead of made-up characters. Also, the plotlines are better. Reality-TV blurs the line between fantasy and reality, which people like at the moment. It's nothing new either, there are a lot of movies that derive much of their narrative value from the fact that they are "based on real events".

The last thing that remains is the real source of our moral and ethical worries in this case: the media itself. The they are spending so much of their attention on this one issue, that it's of a completely new level, never before seen. It is the hype itself, not the actual content, that is unethical. They are taking the public attention and are playing with it for the very simple reason of profit. Newsgathering and truthseeking are all secondary to feeding the hype, and thereby a lot of attention and energy is misguided. The MP has better things to do then giving speeches about this for coïtus' sake!

This aspect of the whole thing is hardly debated, since it's hiding behind the taboos of death and privacy.

Short version:
What is the moral issue with a mediahype about a person's death with a total disregard for privacy?
The hype.

 

@Major: Read my previous post (this thread is developing too fast for edits...).

What it comes down to is acceptable behaviour. You can joke about Jade (just don't expect me to laugh). You can joke about cancer or death. But joking about her cancer and death is kind of cheap. It is glee about it that is unacceptable to this social community.

You don't have to care about reputation; just be aware that you have one. Like a reflection in a mirror, it's inevitable. You can work on your appearance or you can neglect it, but people will judge you by it. Make your choice, live with it.

 

At the end of the day, there's dark humour, then there's insesitivity, and behaviour which is socially unacceptable. These things are socially unacceptable for a good reason, as you said,

 

I have not joked about her or her Cancer, I have stated I did not care about her Cancer, I did not care about her, and I couldn't care less when she had Cancer. She was not a Saint, and she was not special, she was an idiot who made millions because other idiots bought her stuff. It's a shame that her kids are now motherless, and I'm guessing she treated them different, but she did not deserve the media she got, and she did not deserve the money. End of the day, media is money related, not care related, she milked them, but they milked her.

Do I make myself clearer?

You are correct, but if people see you as one of those people who does not like to 100% honest, how can they fully trust you? If you have a "too nice" reputation, people will walk all over you, period.

One advantage of being honest I think is that people have 100% trust in me. They might think I'm a little violent when I am threatened, or I might go over the top, but they know they can count on me.

 

That is simply not true. It is simple to be nice without letting people walk all aver you. It just requires a backbone. A backbone and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive.

You also claim not to care what anyone else on these forums thinks of you. Maybe you do have those viewpoints and are that outspoken in real life, maybe not. It doesn't matter. The point is that you mention how "harsh" you are at every opportunity, rather than just epressing your views, as if tryiung to culture said reputation. The long and short of it being that you do care what everyone thinks, just in a different way to what you accuse others of.

 

Well yes, if I didn't care about what others think about my statements, I wouldn't state them, you are quite right in that aspect. I'm just not scared of the backlash at what others think about those statements . Some people are scared at asking someone in the Supermarket where the sliced ham is because they don't want to look silly, a lot of people don't express their opinion because they might worry about the backlash of what they are saying. Some people will disagree with the media that JG has got, but if they say this, a lot of people will see this as "You don't care about people with Cancer", which is not right, but it's what people think

People are worried about expressing their opinion in this day and age, it's a fact, and it's why certian people on TV are seen as nasty, yet trusted and honest i.e. Simon Cowell, Alan Sugar, The gay bloke on Dancing on Ice. (people will see that statement right there as offensive, it's an utter joke, I just don't know his name). You see the reaction of people on these shows, one "against" comment and everyone goes bloody nuts, it's like panto but real life. One positive comment and everyone is shagging each other, they ****ing love it.

They are not harsh at everything, just when they need to be, like me.

 

Do you need to be harsh about Jade Goody, a person you claim not to care about? As has been said before, you are contradicting yourself, alternating between claims of hatred and indifference towards her.

 

OK, you've made your point, you're childish, a teenager at its worst. Well, hopefully you'll grow out of it, most do when the grown-up hormone balance kicks in.

Try once in a while admitting you could be wrong. It's a start.

 

wow, i'm so glad i took the effort to type that perfectly ontopic and well-informed opinion, this is such a relevant discussion! :rolleye:

 

If you don't care what people think then stop endlessly defending yourself and further entrenching yourself in your own stolen philosophies and diatribes. It's just getting dull and tiresome.

And those shows deliberately emulate panto, it's kind of the point and why they choose those judges and those audiences. Here, nobody has chosen you, so it's just you going on and on and round and round. Yes, you have a point about how some things need to be said and how you're entitled to your opinion and I hate Jade Goody and this whole thing about her too and blah blah blah - but there's such a thing called tact and just because you're right in some of what you say doesn't mean you aren't being a douche about it.

 

Ah someone who is different to you, don't like it do you? You don't like someone standing up against you, that's the problem with no testie people like yourself. Want me to rub your belly and tell you how amazing you are?

Do you actually read posts, or are you some cocky mod who thinks he is on top of the world?

Read my posts, or like usual, just try and act cool in front of your e-mates with these sharp and pointless short posts, it's what you do best, isn't it?

End the the day, I'm different to most of you, and thank **** for that, you'll get sucked into the boring mass, and I'll be in the minority section. Lets keep things that way.

 

Is this thread your application for BB17?

 

Actually, you went a bit further than that:

Love the human compassion, by the way. Then you go on and say:

A bit beyond indifference, n'est-ce pas? See why people might object?

That was in this thread. Other choice comments were:

...and that is when I closed the thread.

Because no matter how you feel about her...

...she deserves the same compassion as any other human being. She was nobody special, but she was not a lesser human being either. If she doesn't mean anything to you personally, fair enough. But to wish her a horrible death? That says more about the person you are than the person she was.

And the moderators, for one, don't want this to be the kind of forum where we gloat at some innocent person's nasty death. Because that says something about the forum community.

Interesting, by the way, how you keep going back to her undeserved millions. Perhaps my theory about the reasons for all that animosity is right.

You are mistaking ordinary human tact, decency or compassion with dishonesty. Really, you have to untangle those concepts in your head.

They can count on you to be tactless, callous and volatile? Good reputation to have.

^^^ Win.

 

He could be the next Jade Goody!

Edit: In the whole random outspoken celebrity, not the tragic death. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

Hamlet contains several nice demonstrations of the principle of projection.

 

Jade Goody, the culmination of the media's capricious sadism. They built her to fail, but underestimated her literally pig-headed determination. In the end, the cult of 'Goody' became too unpredictable and the Media had to acquiesce and play along with the public's sentimentality or risk the backlash. I always though she was a c00t, but people may think the same of me, my only emotion in this matter is for the Press to leave her children alone.

 

Sorry, Xtrafresh. You did actually make a good post but it was lost a bit in all the din. Let's go back to the grown-up discussion.

I think you make a good analysis, particularly:

As I said before: this is the bit that rankles some people and has led to such spiteful remarks. Compare the sudden and tragic death of Natasha Richardson, for instance, in which a member posted:

(note the Princess Di reference, by the way; it's important) whereas the same member said about Jade Goody:

Both were celebrities to which the poster had no personal connection. So why the outpouring of sympathy for Natasha Richardson and not Jade Goody? Because Natasha Richardson, like for instance Princess Diana, is regarded as a "legitimate" celebrity who has earned her fame and millions. We can rationalise her status and wealth and therefore not feel threatened by it. Jade Goody however, like for instance Michael Carroll, just lucked out and she was seen as undeserving of that luck.

Why? Because it raises thorny issues about whether hard work, talent and virtuous behaviour pays off, or whether life's successes and failures are just random chance. Many religious people feel that when bad things befall people, that they must have sinned and are punished being by God. But if you work hard and live a virtuous life, you'll be rewarded with good things. This "Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people" is an emotional insurance policy: it gives an illusory sense of control over the carpricious randomness of life. Even when bad things happen to good people, that can be rationalised: God is merely testing their faith, and persistent devotion in the face of hardship will eventually be rewarded.

The trickiness starts when good things happen to those who are regarded as bad people. How do you explain their exceptional good fortune compared to those of your own, virtuous, hard-working life? You feel kind of cheated. If you really were honest, you feel kind of jealous. Why should that person, obviously less virtuous, hard-working and talented than you, be granted such fortune while you aren't? Either you're doing something seriously wrong --but you quickly dismiss that idea-- or they obviously came by their fortune in dishonest (or, if you're religious, even evil) ways. Enter the lynch mob.

You don't have to be religious to think that way. In our Western culture, we're all raised with Puritanical Christian principles (myths, even) of success through dilligence and virtue. And when somebody breaks that rule, we get pissed off.

We're forgetting that Natasha Richardson's success was just as much random chance as Jade Goody's; I doubt that if she had not been born star acress Vanessa Redgrave's pretty daughter, but a plain girl to a drug-addict disabled single mother on an estate in Bermondsey, that she'd achieved what she had. I doubt that Princess Di would have achieved her status and wealth if she had not been born into her heritage of unimaginable privillige that made her suitable breeding stock for the Prince. Our achievements, our failures: they're all half chance.

People feel angry at Jade the way they feel angry about Michael Carroll; the way they feel angry about "fat cat" bankers and businessmen. It confronts them with the fact that life is random. There's no fairy tales, no justice, no reward and punishment, no control. They can't hack that. So people like Jade must be punished, and cancer is her punishment.