Politicians have condemned press intrusion, calling for more regulation of both traditional and social media after the death of TV presenter Caroline Flack.
The former Love Island presenter is understood to have taken her own life on Saturday at her home in Islington, London. She had been charged with assaulting her partner and was due to stand trial in several weeks’ time.
Labour leadership contender Keir Starmer criticised mainstream outlets for “amplifying” damaging social media posts about Flack, and signalled he would take action to “diversify” the press if he won the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn.
The former director of public prosecutions said the presenter’s death “shocked a lot of people”, adding: “It wasn’t just social media, it was the media amplifying what social media was doing. It was both strands. There is a human impact.
“The press more widely have to take responsibility as well. Not just for the hatred and abuse but for the vilification constantly of Labour MPs and Labour leaders. We have got to do something to diversify our press, to have a better media.”
Fellow leadership contender Lisa Nandy said social media companies could not be left to police themselves, suggesting the current situation was like the “Wild West”.
“I worry about the approaches that say we allow the social media companies to regulate themselves,” she said. “In no other area of life would we allow private companies to police themselves. We ought to make sure the state has a system of regulation and support around that.”
So the media and social media are blamed here, and perhaps fairly so, though I do accept the simple fact that if people didn't click on these articles then perhaps the media wouldn't print them and people wouldn't get into such irate opinions over pointless things but..
..do the media have a responsibility not to amplify what are essentially non-newsworthy stories or..
..or should people not chase fame?
Andy Warhol famously said "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes", though it's getting to the point where 15 minutes of anonymity might be a better aspiration. The culture of fame is overwhelming, especially given the plethora of 'real life' TV shows, with wide parameters of what constitutes 'real life'. The news item above is about a presenter of a programme called 'Love Island', where random people go to an island and try to shag each other senseless.. brilliant. I chanced across a show on YT the other day called something like 'Come Dine with Me, where four people make meals for each other and are scored but it's so clearly apparent the producers try anything to get them to flirt or cause any form of interest at all.
One of my favourite actresses is Judy Garland, in part because her real life is in such stark contrast to the life portrayed to the public. Fame seems rarely glamorous, fraught with intrusions into your life, prone to addictions and mental health issues and, quite simply, placing you on a stand for the world of internet edge lords to write the most vicious things imaginable.
As Ricky Gervais noted, 'if you want fame for fame's sake, go murder someone', and frankly people already do?
Should fame be something to aspire to, is it more damaging than not - even if I take cinema, there's incredible actors doing amazing work in theater getting paid nothing, because we prefer our fake, popcorn munching, special effects, photoshopped stars blowing shit up - or is it something to strongly discourage in todays society.
Personally I think people should be careful for what they wish for, and fame is not a good wish.
What say ye NSG?
