How will the Jimmy Savile affair change the media's view of celebrities?My comments on The Guardian article written by Mark Lawson.
The phenomenon of celebrity culture strokes me since I arrived to London. I want to rescue from Mr Lawson some ideas. The first is “... the culpability of our culture was naivety and a tendency to give celebrities the benefit of the doubt. So what effect should this have on our perceptions?” Well, this is an open question, what took several decades to be constructed around the divinity of celebrities cannot be dismantled with tougher regulations, because it is a cultural/pseudo-religious adaptation of this western culture homogenization; and cultural processes are big issues in our modern days. Interaction between capitalism, consumerism, intrusive marketing and manufacturing of cultural influences and cultural patterns are at the stake behind the celebrity culture phenomenon. Being naive and have the tendency to give celebrities the benefit of the doubt, was and most likely will be our default position. It is just more energy efficient allows the gatekeepers to tell us who are good and bad.
A second of his idea is that “The rules of the British honours system in recent years have favoured those who do some charitable work beyond their professional commitments. But – after the shaming of those great charity fundraisers, Savile and Armstrong – it could be argued that it would be more sensible to give preference to those who get on with their job without rattling the tin.” Maybe, but not possible. We need to celebrate the facts that are individuals able to do more than the average. The key element here is the social rewards that those individual have received: recognition, limelight, far reaching speech and influence are due awards, but moral stands are basics. So I don’t think is desirable a change in this direction, however the tin rattlers must be exposure, so moral stands include genuine generosity, solidarity, hearth warmed care and human enhancement. A humble person is a supper plus start.
A key idea from this article is “an editorial tendency at the BBC, when dealing with famous names and entertainment, to celebrate rather than question.” Exactly, they are “celebrit-ies”, not “quest-ies”. Maybe the lesson for all is that a human is a complex being and changes day by day, so and individual that can be celebrate today could be ashamed tomorrow, and the same apply in the other way around. Those that are at the bottom of the pit are more likely to be our source of proud and celebration. So I, you, all of us should pay more attention to the outskirts of London rather that its centre, especially the almightily City of London; or more attention to, e.g., our jail system to spot luminous spots that made the society a worth living place because is transformational. In doing this, a new moral structure is required, for the British standards we should call it a REVOLUCION.
I love the ending of Mr Lawson “The best outcome from this readjustment would be – at a minor level – more thought before tweeting and – in a major way – less sycophancy from broadcasters and the legal establishment towards the famous. Although the word "celebrity" derives from "celebration", the latter must not be the default attitude towards the former.” Maybe, just maybe, if we do not forge it again before the next Savile reins the screens, we learn being less obsequious with them in perpetual self indulgence with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment