Being Famous Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Great Debates
1

Why is it that famous people can do all kinds of crazy heinous things and no matter what, people will forgive them and love them and sleep with them?

I first began to ponder this when my wife was teaching *Harrison Bergeron * to her freshmen this past year. Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, is a story that takes place in a world where a Handicapper-General has forced everyone into perfect equality – pretty people wear masks, people good with their hands wear oven mitts, smart people wear electro-shock caps that disrupt their thinking periodically, right?

During a class discussion, one class horrified my wife by concluding that the government had a right to do these things to the people. They were the government, after all. And it was for their own good, right?

A side issue of the discussion had to do with the news anchorman who appears in the film and the story – if everyone is truly equal, then why does the anchorman get to be on TV?

My wife said, “Huh?”

Eventually, the kids were able to explain to her what they meant: Being on TV makes you better than other people.

My wife said, “Huh? No it doesn’t. Being on TV just means your job requires you to be on TV. It’s a job, that’s all, just like working at McDonalds. True, being on TV generally PAYS better, but…”

The kids weren’t buying that. Apparently, there is something about being in front of a camera and having your image beamed into thousands of homes that somehow ennobles a person, that uplifts and exalts him above and beyond his fellow man.

Hey, don’t look at ME that way. That’s what the kids were saying.

…and I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

Elsewhere on the SDMB, there is this here thread about OJ that brought this same issue to mind.

I mean, with OJ, it’s one of two things: He is:

(a) a filthy slimy murderer who by virtue of celebrity and a hot team of lawyers and a not-too-bright judge, got away with butchering his wife and a complete stranger, or
(b) kind of a scumbag former celebrity kind of guy who almost got framed by the system for the murder of his wife and a complete stranger.

Either way, the guy has not acquitted himself well, based on the indisputable facts of his trial. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I ain’t impressed with the guy, particularly by virtue of what he has to say in that link up there.

…so why are people interviewing him? Why are people offering him work? Why are women still willing to be alone with him, much less seen in public with him?

Then we have Reagan. He’s dead, God bless him, and I can see why some people simply refuse to admit the man ever did anything wrong; he did make conservatism popular again, and even the liberals gotta admit that. So, sure, some folks wanna canonize Reagan. But I understand that, at least.

…but Nixon? When Nixon died, man, nobody had boo to say about the Red Scare, about the Checkers Speech, about Watergate… y’know, I don’t think I heard word one about Watergate the entire week the man died. Heard tons about his trip to China, but not a peep about how he tried to fire Archibald Cox for refusing to stand down on the Watergate investigation.

…and then, there’s George W. Bush. The man mystifies me. It seems to me that Bush’s mistakes while in office are obvious for all to see… and every time I’ve opened a Pit thread with the name BUSH on it, I see a raging argument between those who would discuss those mistakes… and those who would defend to the death the right of a plutocrat to bleed the country dry.

What is it about certain famous people? Why do people love them, and love them so rabidly? Why is Bush even bothering to run for reelection? Why does Ashton Kutcher still have a career? Why do people still care what OJ thinks about anything?

Somebody explain it to me.

2

This is something that intrigues me: With your reality programmes and your Popstars/Big Brother TV shows and, to a certain extent, boy bands and the like, we seem to be living in a society where people want to be famous for being famous. Why is that?
Why do people think they will be respected for having no talent aside from the ability to get on TV? Are they?
As for thinking/speaking well of the dead - I don’t think that’s a preserve solely of the famous.

3

It is a weird thing about TV. Look at the lengths people will go to be on it. Jerry springer, dr Phil? Are these people retarded? YES.
I was at a Phillies game the other week and whenever a camera guy would appear to put people on the big screen, masses of people started acting like dunces. It worked by the way.

Maybe it’s a technological spreading of ones mental seed or “memes” to the masses that stems from some innate other process and the two just got mixed up.
It could be that people think that their lives are more valid if they can become a bigger blip on the screen. Anyone who does becomes more valid and thus more important.

Alan Iverson was just on the news for parking his Bently in a handicap parking spot at the airport and leaving town. Although he did get around $1000.00 in fines, they used a dolly to move the car to another spot instead of towing it away like anyone elses car.

4

…and acting like a drooling moron on the camera at the game, or like combative inbred hillbillies on drugs on Jerry Springer improves one… how, exactly? And large numbers of Americans believe this makes you a better person?

I just don’t get it. How are you a better person if you’ve been on Survivor and I haven’t?

5

Maybe since you see those famous people a lot, you’d feel a “connection” with them, like a friend or something. Thus it is easier to ignore their shortcomings.

6

This might have been more useful if you’d kept it apolitical. I don’t see the connection to Republican presidents.

Nixon was villified for most of the last 20 years of his life, and as Clinton said, it was time to admit he did some good things too and move on.

And I’m sorry that you do not have the ability to recognize that intelligent people can differ with you about Bush. There is very little being said about him that is different from what was said about Reagan (Stupid, naive, cowboy plutocrat). History will judge.

I don’t see the connection to the rest of your OP.

7

Media is a form of idolisation. Because said person is seen by millions of people we are able to connect to those millions of people through that person. We become part of a community and just by looking at society today it can be seen that we enjoy being in communities. It doesn’t matter if the person is a hero or a villain, if it helps to connect the people to each other it is better, and therefore they are better. Also they do something we cannot normally do and we are shown this. It is not like the carpenter down the street who goes unnoticed. When someone does something you don’t or can’t and puts it under your nose like a tempting piece of steak, you flock to watch, envy and in a way idolise.

8

Don’t blame the famous people. They only have as much power as we give them. Somebody “famous” pulls some shit you find depolorable, cut them off. Don’t spend another nickel, if you can possible help it, on their product. Don’t watch their shows, cheer at their games, or go to their movies. Hit 'em where it hurts: The wallet. You’d see plenty of contrition, if everybody would just do this.

9

–Disclaimer - this does not pertain to any of the celebrities/famous persona’s mentioned in the thread. I may/may not agree with some of those named in the OP.–
Humans in general are like sociological sheep. They follow the flock. In fact there are mathematical models that are used predict how certain types of crowds (for example, sports fans) will react in specific situations (for example, at a stadium).

Thus we tend to all go along with the popular trends of the day. Remember the Roman Colloseums? They weren’t just popular for nothing. Anything that can inspire a sort of hive-like mentality in humans, more often than not, tends to do so.

It also explains certain popular fashions. For example, the Beatles came at just the right time (with the tide of swinging hippy-ism and general sexual freedom) and thus were able to exploit the common trends prevelant at the time. They developed a cult-like status.

How does this relate to the OP? The cult that revolves around these semi-worshipped celebrity icons are forged by the process of international marketing that has become prevalent in mainstream 21st century media. The greater mass media technologies that are now available to us allow us to reach the general populus far more easily than was the case centuries ago, and has thus re-inforced this zombie-cult addicted society we find ourselves drawn into. We let these celebrities evade thier legal responsibilities because of the power they wield - not necessarily political, but more than anything else, sociological.

And it’s the human vote that counts.

10

I would expect teenagers to think of a TV personality as better than others. Teenagers function on a very fundamental level, steered by the fact that hormones have them hopped up higher than Tim Leary after bogarting his lab. TV means popularity, popularity means sex, sex makes you better than other people, thus TV makes you better than other people.

What bothers me is that society in general seems to be dominated by this stunted mental state.

11

By Master Wang-ka

I’m not really sure. It’s not a doctrine I follow or anything but I was just trying to help the OP along until the smart people arrived.

Perhaps it improves them in the sense that their immediate circle of friends finds them more interesting or noteworthy and gives them better prospects in their stoogedom???

12

Well, if you’d been on Survivor, you wouldn’t be Master Wang-Ka. You’d be Master Wang-Ka from Survivor!

What do you mean you don’t see the difference?

13

I can just imagine the Tribal Council:

“I voted for Master Wang-Ka because he’s not a team player and he clearly doesn’t understand the sociological impact of televised events.”

14

It’s not so much the sex thing, although that would be high on up there, but more the inability to see that the TV world is just make-belief.
For a lot of people it seems quite real, the younger you are the more you identify and dream of this nice and shiny world, where everyone says the right things, has interesting stuff happening all the time, has a big house, nice car etc etc etc.

To get your face on TV is seen as a step toward that goal, to be FAMOUS. To actually live in that world on the other side of the screen.
If you get your face in front of that camera and act ‘real cool’, you know somebody might just see you. Someone might discover you and see that you should be up there with the other special people, you belong in that world.

15

I disagree with the OP.

Harlan Ellison is acknowleged by sci fi fandom as a great author. He’s also seen as an arrogant, lying, prick.

Any cinephile can tell you that Birth Of A Nation is a masterpiece and D W Griffith was a close minded, hateful man.

Or search for threads on the debate over whether Roman Polanski should be eligible for an Oscar.

Or search for threads on Dave Sim and Cerebus.

16

That was something I noticed in the follow-up episode of Showbiz Moms and Dads. Shane, the kid with no talent, was asked by a prospective agent where he wanted to be in five years. “I’d like to be featured on MTV’s Cribs,” he said. No mention of what he planned to do to become noteworthy enough for that: he just wanted the mark of fame.

And I think a lot of people these days feel the same way: that becoming famous is a goal in and of itself. To an extent, this is understandable: it’s not the easiest thing in the world to “get on TV”. But every year, there are more and more opportunities for people to get known without doing anything worthwhile, and I think that soon, the media is going to collapse on itself.

There was a thread a year ago, or more…I can’t remember what the subject was, but at some point, one of those names came up, like Kato Kaelin or Monica Lewinski. Someone said, “Well, any exposure they can get is good,” and someone posted back to say, “What? You think there’s some International Bank of Fame where pseudo-celebrities can cash in on their names being mentioned in the press?” Quite a few “famous” people are living below the poverty line, because they can’t make a living in their chosen field, or what they intended to be their chosen field, and can’t get “regular” jobs because of their notoriety.

Nitpick: Hippy-ism and sexual freedom arose while the Beatles were popular. When they first came on the scene, that stuff didn’t exist. The reason they caught on in '63 and '64 is because British youth were just starting to establish their identity after years of post-war deprivation, and Americans in general were still reeling from JFK’s death and the destruction of “Camelot”. It wasn’t hippy-ism that appealed to these people: it was a fresh, invigorating sound, confidence that stopped just short of arrogance, and the image of slightly bad boys disguised as good boys (long hair and matching suits). “Swinging” came later.

17

was at a Phillies game the other week and whenever a camera guy would appear to put people on the big screen, masses of people started acting like dunces. It worked by the way.

18

I know, it was weird watching the funeral for Pres. Reagan today. People with signs like they were outside the NBC studios and then applauding when the coffin made it’s appearance. Where do they think they were? The man is dead. I wasn’t a fan, but. . . applause?

19

Maybe they thought he was like Tinkerbell, and would come back to life if they clapped hard enough.

20

It was a little undignified, but it was directed more at Nancy than at the coffin. The applause was more for here coming out of the limo to watch the coffin being put on the caisson.