![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
the leveson inquiry
The Leveson Inquiry, link to The Guardian main page for all current information.
Back in July, you might remember that entire tabloid phone-hacking thing, which personally I found horrifying but considering the state of what's considered news, did not expect would actually be a thing.
Then whoa boy was I wrong. And in the way that has been building pretty much since de facto open season was declared on any and all parts of a public person's life--and the definition of that is subject to the question 'will it sell'.
On a certain level, I get why people aren't terribly sympathetic to celebrities being grumpy about having their pictures taken. When your yearly income is more than most people make in their lives, it's almost like an even trade; you get lots of money, but I get to humiliate you publicly if at all possible, but by proxy, so I don't feel guilty about it.
Which lets face it, the majority of the stuff that sells well is really, the equivalent of a lot of people getting together to pay someone to stalk someone else until something personally humiliating occurs so everyone can laugh at them with society's blessing. If you are not thinking of Britney Spears right now, please do so.
In other words the public's right to know does and should extend to whether or not Chris Brown's beating the shit out of women since, and I could be wrong, that's kinda dangerous for women who may or may not date Chris Brown and also for women who, say, exist on this planet. It's dangerous because domestic violence is a massive problem that gets women killed. Strangely enough, I do not see Hugh Grant's girlfriend's baby such a public concern that she needs to be stalked about it. I see that stalking as a serious concern, but if you stalk while carrying a camera, it seems to be okay.
In general, in countries with free press, the overall feeling is--and I know there are exceptions to this by county, by area, by city, by person, and a lot of variations in between depending on national history--to err on the side of too much rather than not enough. To have a free press, the price we pay is to live with it in all its excesses for the sake of its necessity. This is very popular if you are in absolutely no danger of being a target and really like gossip, because sure, they have money, but you can call them a whore and I don't know if you noticed the examples I used are women because overall they tend to bring all the readers to the yard.
It's not that men don't get hit in just as nasty ways, but there seems to be a more varied range that rarely includes their whoredom, their slutdom, their trampdom, their bitchdom, their inability to keep their legs closed, their babymamaness, their weight (because of a man), their weight loss (because of a man), their bad hair days (not hot enough), their nights clubbing (slutty), their bodies (not good enough), their plastic surgery (fake), their drinking and drugs and partying too much or not enough, too dowdy, too revealing (too slutty), too artificial, but sweatpants and no eyeliner are just pathetic while picking up some squash at the local market (secret lesbian??????).
I am perfectly willing to admit that some people love the attention, and for them, it's a conscious choice made because, well, it pays well. That's not a defacto yes to run anyone off the road in a tragic event because they were out with their boyfriend, though I'm probably overstating it, no one's actually died yet because the paparazzi chased them--oh wait.
I keep coming back to the thing about the phone hacking, because seriously, I never thought that would be an actual problem beyond some firings and a slap on the wrist. And neither did they. When the state of the media at any point leads the public to be surprised that blatant, disgusting breaches of privacy are not only being acknowledged, but like, treated as crimes, the media should reconsider its positioning.
And the public shouldn't be so surprised, so shocked, that someone thought they deserved to be protected. The public should also consider admitting that it's really fun to watch someone be bullied, chased, and harassed; it's not a crime, after all, and everyone loves this shit. Sorry, I mean, they like keeping up on the news. It sounds better that way.
This may be happening in the UK, but international news is global, incestuous, and three degrees of Murdoch in blood, money, or pun. In a really horrifying way, the media--and I say this with loathing--is most to blame for being opportunistic, money-hungry, and amoral, but to be fair, they've worked very hard to define themselves that way, so no surprise. But in all this time of what the media and tabloids can and can't do, it's helpful to note that--in a surprise twist--questions are being asked about the people who give them their information. You know, police officers, hospitals, public service institutions, government officials, because hello, the tabloids aren't leading these frail innocents into temptation and if only the wicked media stopped, the poor naive babies wouldn't dream of selling out their patients, their clients, or the public trust. Sure, reporters are there to buy it, but that doesn't follow anyone was obligated to name a price.
Back in July, you might remember that entire tabloid phone-hacking thing, which personally I found horrifying but considering the state of what's considered news, did not expect would actually be a thing.
Then whoa boy was I wrong. And in the way that has been building pretty much since de facto open season was declared on any and all parts of a public person's life--and the definition of that is subject to the question 'will it sell'.
On a certain level, I get why people aren't terribly sympathetic to celebrities being grumpy about having their pictures taken. When your yearly income is more than most people make in their lives, it's almost like an even trade; you get lots of money, but I get to humiliate you publicly if at all possible, but by proxy, so I don't feel guilty about it.
Which lets face it, the majority of the stuff that sells well is really, the equivalent of a lot of people getting together to pay someone to stalk someone else until something personally humiliating occurs so everyone can laugh at them with society's blessing. If you are not thinking of Britney Spears right now, please do so.
In other words the public's right to know does and should extend to whether or not Chris Brown's beating the shit out of women since, and I could be wrong, that's kinda dangerous for women who may or may not date Chris Brown and also for women who, say, exist on this planet. It's dangerous because domestic violence is a massive problem that gets women killed. Strangely enough, I do not see Hugh Grant's girlfriend's baby such a public concern that she needs to be stalked about it. I see that stalking as a serious concern, but if you stalk while carrying a camera, it seems to be okay.
In general, in countries with free press, the overall feeling is--and I know there are exceptions to this by county, by area, by city, by person, and a lot of variations in between depending on national history--to err on the side of too much rather than not enough. To have a free press, the price we pay is to live with it in all its excesses for the sake of its necessity. This is very popular if you are in absolutely no danger of being a target and really like gossip, because sure, they have money, but you can call them a whore and I don't know if you noticed the examples I used are women because overall they tend to bring all the readers to the yard.
It's not that men don't get hit in just as nasty ways, but there seems to be a more varied range that rarely includes their whoredom, their slutdom, their trampdom, their bitchdom, their inability to keep their legs closed, their babymamaness, their weight (because of a man), their weight loss (because of a man), their bad hair days (not hot enough), their nights clubbing (slutty), their bodies (not good enough), their plastic surgery (fake), their drinking and drugs and partying too much or not enough, too dowdy, too revealing (too slutty), too artificial, but sweatpants and no eyeliner are just pathetic while picking up some squash at the local market (secret lesbian??????).
I am perfectly willing to admit that some people love the attention, and for them, it's a conscious choice made because, well, it pays well. That's not a defacto yes to run anyone off the road in a tragic event because they were out with their boyfriend, though I'm probably overstating it, no one's actually died yet because the paparazzi chased them--oh wait.
I keep coming back to the thing about the phone hacking, because seriously, I never thought that would be an actual problem beyond some firings and a slap on the wrist. And neither did they. When the state of the media at any point leads the public to be surprised that blatant, disgusting breaches of privacy are not only being acknowledged, but like, treated as crimes, the media should reconsider its positioning.
And the public shouldn't be so surprised, so shocked, that someone thought they deserved to be protected. The public should also consider admitting that it's really fun to watch someone be bullied, chased, and harassed; it's not a crime, after all, and everyone loves this shit. Sorry, I mean, they like keeping up on the news. It sounds better that way.
This may be happening in the UK, but international news is global, incestuous, and three degrees of Murdoch in blood, money, or pun. In a really horrifying way, the media--and I say this with loathing--is most to blame for being opportunistic, money-hungry, and amoral, but to be fair, they've worked very hard to define themselves that way, so no surprise. But in all this time of what the media and tabloids can and can't do, it's helpful to note that--in a surprise twist--questions are being asked about the people who give them their information. You know, police officers, hospitals, public service institutions, government officials, because hello, the tabloids aren't leading these frail innocents into temptation and if only the wicked media stopped, the poor naive babies wouldn't dream of selling out their patients, their clients, or the public trust. Sure, reporters are there to buy it, but that doesn't follow anyone was obligated to name a price.
no subject
no subject
If it'd just been celebrities, to be honest, I doubt there would've been much rage or anything more than a wristslap, because being famous means you lose your right to privacy or being treated like a human being and not a monkey meant to dance (and if you don't dance, they'll torment you until you do, or you pay enough money for security and hide from the world sufficiently that you can't be found except when you make appearances, which isn't a choice people should have to make).
Anyway, yeah. *sigh* I like a free press, I just wish to hell that more reporters had ethics. (And doctors and police, etc. because as
no subject
no subject
Celebrities and defacto anyone connected to them, yeah, public figure and easy target. Just. Urgh.
no subject
no subject
(It's been on the front of every paper, except for the Times, who led with Hugh Grant and "Yaah! Wasn't just us! The Mail were doing it too!")
no subject
no subject
no subject
I know that hospital protection in the US does happen because of HIIPA. When Gabby Giffords was at University Medical Center in January, a hospital employee was fired for accessing her medical records when they weren't on her care team. There was mention people get fired for that every year--it's an automatic firing offense. We don't know in this case if it was someone being a source for the media or if it was someone who was personally curious about how she was doing, but I was glad it was reported that medical privacy is SRS BSNS.
no subject
They scared us in training, but it's a comfortable scary that they err on the side of client privacy.
no subject
what are red-tops?
One thing I didn't understand, is their use of "red-tops", e.g.
Re: what are red-tops?
Re: what are red-tops?
Re: what are red-tops?
Re: what are red-tops?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-11-24 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)That's the part the press never mentions nor acknowledges ever whereas it was my first reaction, the very day it happened. Forget about secret conspiracies, how can anyone dispute that paparazzi do kill, and more than just reputations?
Consider that the car in question was speeding in order to evade paparazzi going at speeds nearly three time the maximum highway speed limit in the US. In the center of a very large city, in what was basically an underground tunnel, at night!
Thank you for referring to this, because I hate how the media seem to absolve themselves of their responsibility in the matter, and blaming the public is such a cowardly position to take! They do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator: the rules and laws of living in a civilized society are (or should be) there to prevent it.
no subject
You and me both. I'm always amazed by the fast dance done around what actually happened that day.
Thank you for referring to this, because I hate how the media seem to absolve themselves of their responsibility in the matter, and blaming the public is such a cowardly position to take! They do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator: the rules and laws of living in a civilized society are (or should be) there to prevent it.
So much this. Yes.
no subject
Did you see the above? Charlotte Harris's kids are LITTLE. If I were her, I'd be pretty freaked out right now, just like Mark Lewis and his family must be pretty freaked out. I don't care how tough and smart a lawyer you are, you don't expect the opposition to follow your kids around with a video camera and dig up copies of their birth certificates.
Also, the Dowler parents' testimony at the inquiry was also pretty harrowing, where Mrs. Dowler described phoning her missing 13 year old's mobile every day since she disappeared, then one day discovering someone had checked th e messages and deleted some. To the point where she told her husband she was convinced their baby was still alive, because nobody else would have known the password to check her messages. The Dowlers themselves didn't have Milly's password. I can't imagine what it's like to have that kind of false hope spring up. Mark Lewis is representing them, which is probably pissing off News International even more. The two lawyers they tried hardest to target are the ones who are getting the most clients out of this mess.