Celebrity role-models offer diversion from everyday life

Thursday, February 4, 1999

Celebrity role-models offer diversion from everyday life

FULFILLMENT: Media sources feed people’s need for leaders, allow
us to practice escapism

We are all familiar with Andy Warhol’s notorious quote: "In the
future, everyone will be famous … for fifteen minutes." It seems
that the critical eye of the media has made this a self-fulfilling
prophecy. We grow weary of the people who are well-known one day
and forgotten the next. Our fascination or even infatuation with
celebrities is never satiated. Such voyeurism feeds upon itself.
The common man’s response is disgust. This is a fallacy.

Celebrity infatuation is not a problem, but a symptom of the
human condition. It is inevitable and if anything it should be
examined, not condemned.

Celebrity is a peculiar beast. Those without clamor for it,
those with seek to free themselves of it. The rich and famous take
extreme measures to protect their privacy. What do they fear most?
Stalkers? Rivals? No, celebrities abhor the camera lens above all.
The "paparazzi" lie in wait like trappers for the beaver. A good
photograph can earn its weight in gold. The onus is on the
photojournalists to follow ethical means. In some cases, like
Pamela and Tommy Lee’s home video, profit defeated professionalism.
Nevertheless, there are numerous folk (Alec Baldwin, anyone?) who
have used violent methods to keep the unblinking eye at bay.

The first part of the opposing view’s argument reads as follows:
"If people did not support the celebrity-mania market, the media
would be less invasive." This is a falsehood. Publicity is a
zero-sum game.

Each source in the media wants to be the most reliable, fastest
and most popular. Capitalism is never a gentle master. We should
accept that those who profit from the suffering of others
constitute a long list. If benefiting from suffering is wrong, then
the real dregs of society include doctors, lawyers, insurance
agencies, fire fighters, the police, CNN, Jerry Springer and the
IRS. There are trade-offs involved, but celebrities rarely see the
benefits of being known and instead dwell in the misery that fame
entails.

The corollary to this fallacy adds: "If people could accept
their own lives, then people would be content to leave the stars
among us alone." Again, remember the words of your Sunday school
teacher: "The grass is always greener on the other side." Everyone
grows bored of their own fate and needs a short escape. You read a
book, watch a soap opera or play a video game, and your troubles
are left behind.

The danger begins when one never emerges from this escape. My
favorite example is Edward Arlington Robinson’s poem, "Miniver
Cheevy." Here is a man who spirals into alcoholism and depression,
because he was "born too late." Miniver fantasized about being a
hero, a legendary figure, and died in obscurity. So, too, do we
fear that one can pass away unwept and forgotten in this anonymous,
modern world.

Proceeding to the argument’s conclusion: "Society’s infatuation
with celebrity is a perverse bit of voyeurism that has few benefits
and many victims, including the celebrities themselves."

Admittedly, societal spectating can be emotional cannibalism.
Nevertheless, such cynicism works well for those in society who are
immune to insecurity, confusion and the like.

But for the other 99.9 percent, celebrities are the guardians of
character. The sum of each famous face is their personality and
nothing else.

No one is perfect, and we have our individual struggles.
Celebrities, fleeced of many of the masses’ inhibitions, reassert
the importance of individualism. They exist without compromise or
apology. Everyone needs a role model.

After contemplating this logic, the issue is how should we treat
celebrity. Hero worship is deplorable; fan clubs are almost always
non-fatal – but Selena’s murder by the president of her fan club
caused me to shiver.

Moderation is an easy goal to proclaim, but treacherous to
complete. Therefore, we should confront two major ethical concerns
that heavily color our view of the media.

We come now to the question of taste. Detractors of media
culture point vociferously to the most exploitative types of
celebrity infatuation. We recoil at scandalous headlines of such
revered publications as The National Enquirer.

Moreover, of course, Pamela and Tommy Lee’s sexcapades draw
outrage, and high demand at hotel pay-per-view and Internet video
stores.

Conversely, the Arts and Entertainment cable network has seen
phenomenal success with its program "Biography." Honoring
individuals from across the societal spectrum, "Biography" is
intrusive, but tasteful. As you might assume, being the cover story
of the Enquirer causes a much different reaction than being the
focus of "Biography." Yet, such an attitude is hypocritical.

Apparently, our jaded opinions of celebrities have nothing to do
with the people themselves, but our judgement of them. We show
minimal remorse in brutally assessing the morality of others,
especially celebrities.

Bill Clinton, once regarded by all as a forgettable president,
now finds his picture next to "scumbag" in the dictionary.
Statistically, plenty of his accusers committed those same
"youthful indiscretions." Ignore not the public at large.
Consensual sex is practiced by so many people that I am surprised
that a single person can degrade him.

The president is but one of countless national figures whose
morality we feel free to debate.

I must confess a heavy bias toward judging others. For example,
seeing prepubescent girls strut around as Spice Girls disturbs me.
They shout and scream: "Ginger! Sporty! Baby! Scary! Posh!" while
prancing and howling for all to see. Such fanaticism is
frightening, and I can only wonder how their parents cope. Then
again, it could be worse. All these idle-handed children could be
pregnant from co-eds and applying for welfare tomorrow! I cannot
speak for any one else, but my wallet prefers the former. So you
see, celebrities save billions in tax dollars every year.

Andy Warhol was quite a prescient character. He would have
recognized the media’s – and more correctly society’s – infatuation
with celebrity skin.

He would point out though, that some people are famous for
longer than fifteen minutes. As long as such folk exist, we will
continue to scrutinize their lives.

In examining, documenting, and judging them, however, we should
expect them and society’s reaction to be if nothing else,
human.Thomas Soteros-McNamara

Soteros-McNamara still does not understand what was so great
about the Pamela and Tommy Lee home video. If you know, contact him
at [email protected].

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]