Friday, 27 May 2011

Privacy laws and the celebrity culture

Does anybody else find this whole matter of Ryan Giggs, tabloid press “revelations”, super injunctions and civil disobedience ridiculous? When I say ridiculous, I mean, not just the furor, but the entire process…

I agree that injunctions should not only be available to the rich and famous, however, why should we be concerned with tittle-tattle in the first place? Why is the media being so “holier-than-thou” on the matter?

Why does anybody care about the private lives of the rich and famous anymore than the private lives of anyone else? Because it compensates – that’s why. It compensates for the fact that people like Jordan, Big Brother contestants and other such wastrels have nothing else to offer, other than the machinations of those they bed.

The media would claim that “celebrities” use positive media coverage to build their fame and fortune and so it is in the public’s interest to know when they are morally lacking. Surely a better process, rather than allowing newspaper editors to be moral guardians, would be to deny them pointless airspace in the first place? As for the general public – the only reason they are interested is voyeuristic escapism, nothing to do with inflicting moral superiority. An affair conducted between two unknowns is no better or worse than one conducted between two actors, for notoriety is neither here nor there. It remains a regretable, bad thing.

Why can’t we return to the days when fame was earned by excellence and achievement, rather than infamy? Personally, I don’t care if someone is flawed, providing they are not setting a bad example and (more importantly) they do their job. Give me Winston Churchill over Dennis Skinner any day; however, if the media do not bother to set these people on a pedestal in the first place, none of this legal shuffling would be necessary…

No comments:

Post a Comment