Watch out. Diatribe.
US magazine is passive aggressive. It repeatedly shows a sick and anorexic Lara Flynn Boyle but fails to comment on how ill she is. Instead we are shown pictures of a woman who is probably going to die if she doesn't get help.
But US would probably just say that it is just giving the people what they want. But by acting in this passive aggressive manner, they are failing to take a stand; they are having their cake and eating it too. When Boyle is finally committed to a hospital or dies, US will be able to say it was the first to show how ill she was although it never stated that opinion. Along with the (un)pithy captions the pictures, US believes it in fact did tell the story, to anyone willing to look. But by taking no stand on this, US is acting irresponsibly. It's fine when it turns its cheek over some marital infidelity or other celebrity transgression, but Boyle is sick.
There is no way US will stop running pictures of her, so I wouldn't ask them to do that. It should, however, provide a meaningful caption, something that shows that an understanding that there is a problem with a woman this thin – to acknowledge what is being shown.
Tabloid magazines of this kind are good. They serve a definite and probably important service, much like any other wind-down exercise does. US is clearly not afraid of poking fun or pointing out the foibles of celebrities, except apparently when they are anorexic. Thin women, even too thin women, would be too close to their own bread and butter, I suppose. But they'll point out an ugly haircut or outfit of J. Lo that week, or the bad facial hair of Brad Pitt, so clearly they have no problem editorializing. On the serious issues, however, they give in and ignore it.
By US saying, and I admit it's conjecture, that it is only giving the people what they want they are effectively saying that it is only reporting straight news. Not editorializing or exploiting. But even they must admit that they are editorializing, otherwise they'd have to scrap all those fashion faux pas pieces. Perhaps, then, they are just providing entertainment? Okay, that is reasonable. But if they're both reporting (taking a no-opinion stance) and providing entertainment (giving the people what they want and editorializing) they have completely shirked any culpability, which is probably just what they would want. It saves them from having to answer the question, can US be sued for not stepping in if Boyle dies?
I would argue, though, that US is not reporting at all, at least not in any meaningful way or by any real definitions-- certainly not in the way a newspaper "reports." News is either teaches something or makes an example of something or someone (like much community-section pieces in local newspapers) or it delivers information that you need in order to be safer, better your situation, make decisions, or otherwise be a knowing and informed member of society. I don't see that in US's pages or in anything they cover. It's a splatter-fest of bubbleheads and gossip.
Should an entity, like a person, take a stand on something? Can it even do so? The entertainment media is in many ways more powerful in regard to shaping, manipulating, and forming public opinion than the government. But the government is held responsible for its actions and the stances it takes. Why isn't the media? Even though it is not one large entity, that is, even though US is just on aspect of "the media," that shouldn't be an argument for it not being held responsible. The US Post Office has to uphold the same morality as the executive branch of the government, though it is only one piece of the larger entity. And Enron and its ilk were taken to task, legally and in the public's opinion, by being unethical. But the media raises the free-speech banner and claims not to have to be held responsible.
I like gratuitous nudity and wanton violence in my films, so this isn't about fictional pieces of entertainment. Go ahead and show the pictures of Boyle, I wouldn't want to stop them, but display some decorum for the woman after all.
US magazine is passive aggressive. It repeatedly shows a sick and anorexic Lara Flynn Boyle but fails to comment on how ill she is. Instead we are shown pictures of a woman who is probably going to die if she doesn't get help.
But US would probably just say that it is just giving the people what they want. But by acting in this passive aggressive manner, they are failing to take a stand; they are having their cake and eating it too. When Boyle is finally committed to a hospital or dies, US will be able to say it was the first to show how ill she was although it never stated that opinion. Along with the (un)pithy captions the pictures, US believes it in fact did tell the story, to anyone willing to look. But by taking no stand on this, US is acting irresponsibly. It's fine when it turns its cheek over some marital infidelity or other celebrity transgression, but Boyle is sick.
There is no way US will stop running pictures of her, so I wouldn't ask them to do that. It should, however, provide a meaningful caption, something that shows that an understanding that there is a problem with a woman this thin – to acknowledge what is being shown.
Tabloid magazines of this kind are good. They serve a definite and probably important service, much like any other wind-down exercise does. US is clearly not afraid of poking fun or pointing out the foibles of celebrities, except apparently when they are anorexic. Thin women, even too thin women, would be too close to their own bread and butter, I suppose. But they'll point out an ugly haircut or outfit of J. Lo that week, or the bad facial hair of Brad Pitt, so clearly they have no problem editorializing. On the serious issues, however, they give in and ignore it.
By US saying, and I admit it's conjecture, that it is only giving the people what they want they are effectively saying that it is only reporting straight news. Not editorializing or exploiting. But even they must admit that they are editorializing, otherwise they'd have to scrap all those fashion faux pas pieces. Perhaps, then, they are just providing entertainment? Okay, that is reasonable. But if they're both reporting (taking a no-opinion stance) and providing entertainment (giving the people what they want and editorializing) they have completely shirked any culpability, which is probably just what they would want. It saves them from having to answer the question, can US be sued for not stepping in if Boyle dies?
I would argue, though, that US is not reporting at all, at least not in any meaningful way or by any real definitions-- certainly not in the way a newspaper "reports." News is either teaches something or makes an example of something or someone (like much community-section pieces in local newspapers) or it delivers information that you need in order to be safer, better your situation, make decisions, or otherwise be a knowing and informed member of society. I don't see that in US's pages or in anything they cover. It's a splatter-fest of bubbleheads and gossip.
Should an entity, like a person, take a stand on something? Can it even do so? The entertainment media is in many ways more powerful in regard to shaping, manipulating, and forming public opinion than the government. But the government is held responsible for its actions and the stances it takes. Why isn't the media? Even though it is not one large entity, that is, even though US is just on aspect of "the media," that shouldn't be an argument for it not being held responsible. The US Post Office has to uphold the same morality as the executive branch of the government, though it is only one piece of the larger entity. And Enron and its ilk were taken to task, legally and in the public's opinion, by being unethical. But the media raises the free-speech banner and claims not to have to be held responsible.
I like gratuitous nudity and wanton violence in my films, so this isn't about fictional pieces of entertainment. Go ahead and show the pictures of Boyle, I wouldn't want to stop them, but display some decorum for the woman after all.
posted by kiddigit at 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home