Skip to main content

Fallen idols and lost innocence

We must stop investing so much in celebrities. A person who comes to prominence through some endeavor, be it artistic, sporting or some other regarded action is not endowed ipso facto with other qualities we like to project onto them - kindness, charity, forgiveness, love, goodness. This is true even where the celebrity does 'wonderfully good' charitable acts. These are all part of the 'being' for a celebrity.

It is a media circus - the building up of celebrity status. The subsequent fall from grace where it might occur is also part of the media circus. The once idolized become demonized - gone the smiling, kind photographs substituted now for those that show the 'evil' person. These are media choices. For one fallen idol recently a news program thought it important to show a photograph of them taken when charged - he looked like a criminal was the message.

So many in the media now suggest the 'knew' there was something 'wrong' about Jimmy Saville. But here is the classic example of someone elevated to 'goodness' personified status by the very media that now demonizes him. Jim 'fixed' it for so many people. Now we know he fixed it in more ways than we would have liked he is now the personification of 'evil'. One by one former idols are tested -  some probably unjustly, some to meet justice head on. One by one they come to stand in front of the cameras and address the media.

It is painful to watch. It gives little pleasure to see these idols fallen from grace. Innocence is a victim - our innocent assumptions about the goodness of those we 'like'. It would be better if we did not invest so much naivete in the status of celebrity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more