More on the Media, specifically their disrespect for privacy

     So this seems reasonably soon after my first post, but the whole idea of the media has been irritating me all day. What's striking me is their complete lack of respect for people's privacy. So my initial question is, is this the price you must pay for fame? Celebrities go into their various fields; the music industry, acting, sport, knowing the price. So do they only have themselves to blame when their demands for privacy are ignored? Or have things gone too far?

     The leaked photos last summer of various celebrities was perhaps the largest invasion of privacy in recent times, and although this wasn't orchestrated by the media, it got worldwide recognition because of the airtime the media gave it. So was this too far? Should celebrities just "be more careful" as people at the time so eloquently put it? This one man's opinion is: Yes, it was. So where is the line? At what point does the invasion of privacy stop being the "price of being a celebrity" and start being wrong? Is reporting on alleged love affairs acceptable? The inner details of a marriage? Pregnancy? The birth of a child? Jay Z and Beyonce reportedly paid $1.3 million to clear an entire hospital ward, purely to ensure they could experience the birth of their child in private. Is that too far? Yes, the argument is they can afford it, but should they really have to?

     Celebrities turning 18 is a whole new chapter. Back when Emma Watson was turning 18, a newspaper had a COUNTDOWN to her 18th birthday. To quote Russell Howard, can you imagine following a non-famous 17 year old down the street shouting 6 days to go? Of course not! The idea is ludicrous. Yet once we begin dealing with a celebrity, this is common practise.

    What about when it isn't a celebrity? In 2010, Katie Wassiel got to the finals of the X Factor. Was she a celebrity at this point? On the borderline. Her Grandmother however? Definitely not. Yet it was her Grandmother who was exposed by the media as 'a prostitute'. It was her Grandmother was disowned by her entire family purely as a result of media outlets' lack of respect for her right to a private life. Is that fair?

      Finally, it's hard to mention unjust portrayals within the media without mentioning the infamous headline "The Truth". 1989 saw 96 people go to a football match and not return, yet The Sun took it upon themselves to tell the country how it was the Liverpool fans' fault for being drunk, disorderly and general hooligans. They felt they had the right to print "the truth" as fans "pissing on the dead." The truth? No wonder Liverpool as a city still refuse to read The Sun. How can a newspaper print lies as disrespectful as this? How can that same newspaper still be running over 25 years later? Why do people deem these lies acceptable in the name of an entertaining read?

     So when does the media go too far? When will it stop? What can we do? The cold hard facts are, as long as people read it, as long as people watch it, the media will continue to restrict the privacy of newsworthy people. So who's really to blame? Is it the media? Or is it us?

Media's Reactions to Groups

     We're all members of groups. Be that an age-group, a religion, a society, a political party, a gender, the human race. So why is it some of these groups are tarnished because of individuals, whilst some aren't? Why when mentioning The Beach Killer in Tunisia, does media feel it is important to mention his religion, but not his age, his political status, his sexuality, his job? Why, in a similar terrorist attack in Oslo, was it not mentioned that the shooter was Christian? Why did the media focus instead on his age and political allegiances? Finally why in Tunisia is it a Muslim who shot innocent British civilians, yet it is Tunisians who formed a human shield to protect further casualties?

     Media attention to the Tunisian has baffled me in all honesty. Certain media outlets are forgetting that innocent people lost their lives in a brutal attack, and it's these people who should be getting air time. Not a Heretic, disowned by his own religion. Not only that but why, if he has indeed been disowned by his religion, is his religion worthy of comment? The Tunisians who bravely formed a human shield were almost certainly predominantly Muslim, yet in the media they're merely Tunisian locals. If religion is worthy of note in the person committing acts of atrocity, surely religion is equally worthy of note in those who bravely stood up against him?
   
     Now, as hypocritical as it may be at this point in the post, I must divert my attention to the people who really matter; the victims. Recently I've been watching Criminal Minds (as a side note it is brilliant, a must watch), and there's an episode where a conversation takes place saying how it's a sad state of affairs where, in the episode's context, serial killers names are remembered, but their victims aren't. Reading and watching the media the last few days, this conversation has really resonated in me. In 10 years time it won't be the victims names talked about, it'll be the killer (who I'm refusing to dignify by naming). How can that be right? How can it be right that throughout history it is the evil that is remembered? How many people can really name 9/11 victims (except for those personally affected)? How many people can name the 7/7 victims? Even the afore mentioned attacks in Oslo? Not many, yet people know the event, and people are far more likely to remember the people responsible.

     All that remains to be said now is remember what needs to be remembered.