So, this might surprise you, but I support wholeheartedly the insipid commentary and coverage of Paris Hilton’s prison term. Many in the Left have derided the media for wasting so much time on her, but I find it curious that they are vicariously covering Paris by criticizing the press’ coverage. I think that’s a bit hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with a guilty pleasure such as this.
The chief argument is that when so many people are getting killed everyday in Iraq, why not spend the ink or pixels on the victims of war? Well the problem is that many do not identify with abstract numbers or concepts. They are interested in the drama of people who they are familiar with. One way to address this gap in coverage would be to have more stories on non-glamorous people in war zones. I was disappointed post-9/11 when the New York Times features only profiles of those killed in the Twin Towers and not of those civilians killed in Afghanistan from “our” bombs. No doubt firemen and police officers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of our war-making efforts. Would we think differently about war if we identified with the victims of “collateral damage”?
I think it’s worth acknowledging the fact that the new media reality promotes a mythological consciousness. For too long our culture has been bogged down by science and facts to our detriment. Somewhere along the way we lost our bearings and sense of purpose. Now, I don’t particularly agree with the philosophy of our new myths, but let the people speak and have their pop culture too! I worry that media critics are becoming too much like Maoists or Jehovah Witnesses. In my book, personal tragedy and drama is the stuff of life. So maybe it is not as artful as Shakespeare, but I think we can admit that we all get a small thrill by living through others as they destroy themselves. The fact that the high and mighty can fall to Earth is a small reality check for the masses that even the rich and famous are subject to the laws of gravity. The obsession with these particular “debucelebs” has a lot to do with this sense of equanimity.
Incidentally, the above image is of a “pano” (the Chicano vernacular for handkerchief prison art) supposedly created by Paris. These days I don’t believe anything, so I don’t know if she really made it with a smuggled ballpoint pen. But…. if she did it is an interesting commentary on the two things that are her particular lifeline, a phone and being on TV. Compare that with the art made by other prisoners and you’ll discover different themes, often religious, but usually about lost love. Perhaps this is a story about another kind of lost love: the one in the media mirror.
PS Speaking of Mao, there was a faux pas committed by Cameron Diaz when she showed up in Peru with a handbag featuring Mao’s likeness. It’s sad that Cameron was unaware of the tragic history of the Shinning Path movement, and even sadder that she is unaware of Mao’s history. Goes to show the truism that in postmodern times signs are drained of content in order to live on as fashion accessories.
PPS When I originally wrote this I forgot to say that one of the main reasons people are upset about the Pairs phenom is because evening news is having an identity crisis. It used to be that if the authorities from mass media, i.e. Walter Cronkite, spoke the truth about the facts, then democracy would properly thrive. I think people are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that TV news is entertainment. My advice, get over it and build new models.
0 Responses to “Free Paris!”