http://www.slate.com/id/2168128/nav/tap3/
Discuss.
It looks like a link to a web page. It appears gray on my screen. I understand the Freudian “id” reference, but not the string of numbers.
Respond.
Hitch nailed a lot of my feelings exactly with this one, even the frustrating irony of commenting on something I don’t want to know about or care about.
After reading the thread title, i was hoping for pictures.
I’m puzzled as to why he thinks the best way to describe unerotic intercourse is to use the adjective ‘sexual’.
Serious contribution: It seems like a crappy few hundred words he’s tapped out thirty minutes before the deadline. He’s got no awareness of her particular fame and notoriety, and seems to be uninterested in such small matters. He’s only interested in (a) the fact that she had sex on camera and (b) she’s been in the news this week.
He’s a hack. Give him his paycheck, and ignore him.
What did he seem unaware of?
At least Chris has some grounding in reality. His brother Peter on the other hand is redefining “fucking nutcase” as we speak.
This was re-printed in the Gazette today and I read it on my lunch. Every sentence made my mind scream “bullshit”, and I took a moment to examine why I felt that way. This is what I came up with: Hitchens’ attempts to paint Paris as a vulnerable victim ring hollow because some of the reaction to her is a direct consequence of the way she has courted the media. The other thing is that her wealth affords her a large degree of isolation and insulation. She can actually be quite protected, if she’s smart about it.
(Edit: reply to Diogenes the Cynic)
Of the very clever and calculated manipulation of her identity to keep her in the public eye, whether through a TV programme, or through a ‘whoops, was caught by a photographer’ stunt, or anything else.
He goes straight from sex-tape to DUI, with no intermediate stage. Isn’t there something missing there, whether you want to condemn or condescend her?
Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby broke the law. Paris is serving a small sentence for a minor violation, a violation of the probation which she received for her first drunk driving offence. Scooter Libby is an enabler of treason, in the moral sense if not the legal. I have a little sympathy for Paris, but if I violated the terms of my probation, I doubt I’d be treated any differently. She brought the paparazzi on herself, and relishes being famous. Compare her to her sister Nicky, who has chosen a life out of the public eye, a choice for which I am very grateful.
Scooter Libby I have no sympathy for at all. He’s an asshole and very near a traitor. He deserves his sentence. The pressure put on Walton by Scooter’s influental friends is unbelievable, and if I were Walton I’d be exasperated too. Also, Hitchens gets his quote completely out of context.
Two comments:
-
Paris Hilton is not a “kid” or a “child”. She is twenty six years old. She has been an adult for eight years, and is legally accountable as such. Hitchens is not the first member of the media over the last few days who liked to reference how “young” she is, at least during last Friday night’s media circus on CNN, and I find it tiresome.
-
If you live by the sword, you should be prepared to die by the sword, metaphorically speaking. She has, by all accounts, been giving the text book example for the last several years on how to successfully establish yourself as a “celebutante”. If a person is so desperate for attention that she goes to the lengths that Hilton has, I think there is much less room to be critical of paparazzi and media attention when her fortunes taken a turn. I have much more sympathy for people who are famous who are not out seeking every last opportunity to get their pictures taken so they can appear in In Touch magazine.
He didn’t paint her as a vulnerable victim. He was calling bullshit on the sadistic sexual pleasure the public was taking in seeing her humiliated.
[Completely pointless contribution]
I’ve just found the perfect answer to kids asking the ever-annoying ‘how old are you, sir’ question
‘Same age as Paris Hilton’
[/c p c]
Cite that anything was “calculated.” I know this is a refrain the media uses to rationalize all it’s peeping. "She loves it. She WANTS this attention, etc). But what reason do we have to believe that the sex tape or the upskirt shot were “calculated” or planned on her part. The sex tape was made public by an ex-boyfriend, as I understand it. Who was the real creep there?
What’s missing? She got sent to jail for being a celebrity and America got off on it. Hitchens nailed this shut.
Sex tape != celebrity status. It’s the subsequent manipulation of the opportunity which was available which he’s ignoring.
he was clearly speaking figuratively in this column and was not attempting to paint her as a vulnerable waif but was describing the public’s own perception of her as a spoiled child. Do you get this indignant every time somebody calls her a “brat” or a “child” in derisive terms?
What lengths has she gone to?
All people who want to be on magazine covers deserve to be himiliated and have no right to privacy?
All the excuses people come up with for bashing this woman always sounded hollow and defensive to me. It sounds post hoc. I think the hatred has more to do with envy than anyone is willing to admit.
I guess I don’t know what you’re talking about either. What opportunity did the sex tape give her, how did she “manipulate” it and how does that justify her public humiliation?
Bear in mind that pretty much all I KNOW about Paris Hilton is that she’s an heiress who made a sex tape. If the media fixated on her, I don’t see how that’s her fault or how it makes her evil.
Paris Hilton has reaped what she’s sown, but I think Hitchens has a valid point about the pornography that is watching her burn out. Someone mentioned this same impulse in the pit thread about the idea of everyone trying to poke Omegaman into flaming out.
The fact is, you wouldn’t get the same treatment if you were caught violating your probation. It wouldn’t be a media spectacle with everyone chanting, “Choke, choke, choke, choke.”, the whole time watching you.
She is a human being and has been caught up in the spectacle she has created. I think some sympathy, and empathy are warranted. This is not the same as saying she shouldn’t serve her sentence, only a notice that we should reflect upon our jackal-like behavior. I haven’t seen Paris Hilton getting nailed on camera, but I do admit a slight prurient interest in the phenomenon that has been going on recently.
Also, the Darfur example is the one I always use when lamenting Hilton’s notoriety. It is entirely unfortunate that the goings on of bobble-headed celebrities rate as front page news these days.
Me, too. The woman is 26 years old; under no reasonable standard (even the West’s infantilizing one) is she a “child.” Her infamous porn tape is not something “everyone” has seen, nor was Hitchens required to view it – but how comforting to excuse her behavior there as well: She appeared to be drugged. And she’s not in prison, she’s in jail. Understanding Hitchens is not originally American, he should learn that here there is a difference between jail and prison.
I, like many, am mildly entertained by celebrity gossip. I also will admit I am not above a small amount of schadenfreude to see someone who has (A) so assiduously courted and exploited publicity for so long and (B) done absolutely nothing of value with her enormous gifts, receive some unpleasant publicity and suffer the consequences of her irresponsibility.
To have that level of interest – which, incidentally, has NEVER included feeling I had to view her ameteur porn – compared to an interest in child abuse is fundamentally insulting.
Of course he did. She’s a “tearful child,” a “lost girl.” She was “purportedly unaware” of her legal standing – despite having the proof of it in her very own car – who had only a “whiff of alcohol” on her breath. IMO, it is extraordinarily telling that he can’t make his case WITHOUT painting her as a vulnerable victim.
She’s a “lost girl.” We the public are kiddie-porn lovers. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between – Hitchens probably does have a point – but he HIMSELF is so much a purveyer of inflammatory “creepy” populism that you’d be hard-pressed to find the rational truth in his article, which is no more balanced than the tabloids. Somehow I doubt he gets that irony, but it’s pretty glaring to me.