Some random musings, in light of recent events:
1) The whole Tiger Woods folderol has done nothing but reinforce for me the notion that there is very little in this world that would make me wish for celebrity in this day and age.
Full disclosure: There is, admittedly, quite little possibility of that happening anyway, but you will get my point momentarily.
Celebrity is a specious pain in the ass. Today's NY Post is a perfect example. Screaming front-page headline: "Tiger & Me: Beautiful 'other woman' reveals truth about her relationship with sport's biggest star". Juicy, salacious, utterly in keeping with the Post's history of headline-writing over the years (my personal favorites: "Headless Man in Topless Bar", "Three Bimbos of the Apocalypse"). Thing is, the entire two-page article on pages 4-5 does nothing but have the 'other woman" completely (and, to me, somewhat convincingly) deny the whole thing. On the Huffington Post today, I read a critique of this article, whereby an alleged journalist "breaks down" the article, concluding that there is nothing in it "proving she did not have an affair with Tiger Woods."
(UPDATE July 23, 2010: This was written two days after L'Affaire Tigre first broke, and well before the laundry list of his alleged mistresses came to light. It's fair now to say that "whether" he had affairs may well be moot; however, the basic principle still holds.)
Hang on a moment. Seeting aside the basic tenet of American jurisprudence of one's innocence until proven guilty, how in hell is she supposed to prove that? I've never met Mr. Woods, but I cannot prove that, either. Proving something didn't occur, I imagine, is a hell of a lot harder than proving something did.
OK, I buy completely the notion that newspapers need to be sold, and that what passes for journalism these days bears little resemblance to journalism of years past. Tabloids, the Internet, and 927 different cable channels will do that for you. However, if we write whatever the hell we want, simply because it cannot be proven untrue, where does that leave us as a society?
Sadly, that's not even the point. Whether or not Mr. Woods had an affair with anyone is a matter between Mr. Woods and his family. That this passes for global "news" is simply appalling. This will likely be seen as a position of considerable naivete, and I could not possibly care less. What do I want to know about Tiger? How the hell he bends a six-iron around trees from 205 yards to three feet from a pin tucked behind a bunker, with a major championship at stake. Tell me that, I'll read every word.
2) Celebrity has become an end in itself. I recall some years ago, when Paris Hilton was about 16 or so, that she had decided to become a celebrity. Through some extremely shrewd public maneuvering, she managed exactly that, despite not having accomplished anything whatsoever meriting it. In other words, she had access to dough, is rather photogenic, and just decided to put herself in the spotlight. In subsequent years, she has attempted to add some substance to her celebrity via her forays into the music and film worlds, and I will leave it to the reader as to her level of success.
3) The notion of the "Public figure" entitles the public to scrutinize whatever they want, by whatever means necessary. OK, let's go over that one just a moment. I will readily buy the notion that certain public figures, and politicians come to mind, do hold themselves to a higher standard by the weight of their office, and the responsibilities therein. If, for an historical example, a President of the United States is suspected of various crimes & misdemeanors against political opponents, and subsequently covering them up (see Nixon, R.M.), then it's damned straight we as the public have a right to know about it, and our media as a profession has the responsibility to pursue the story and bring the truth to light. Anyone who runs for President, or other high office, without knowing this in full is unworthy of the office in the first place. The weight of the office simply requires that higher standards apply.
However, there are different levels of "public figure". If, for a completely made-up example, the aforementioned Ms. Hilton goes to a party, has too much of whatever, and is seen staggering out on her Jimmy Choos, what possible difference does it make? Is John Q. Public going to notice any tangible difference in his life? Has national security been compromised?
Or has at least a sizable segment of "journalism" become little more than entertainment? Have we as a nation become so enamored with celebrity that we feel we OWN these people, and are therefore entitled to each and every detail of their lives? Methinks we do.
Please do not give me the argument, "Hey, they get all that money, they have to take the heat." Baloney. Warren Buffett is one of the three or four wealthiest people on the planet. I will bet he can come and go as he pleases, or at least to a significantly greater degree than, say, Brad Pitt or Tiger Woods can. Last I checked, the wealthy are as entitled to their own lives as anyone else, and I say that from the perspective of someone decidedly NOT in that economic strata.
What gives us the right to demand from certain public figures complete access? Does the fact that Mr. Woods is the finest golfer on the planet, and has parlayed that accomplishment into wildly successful business dealings outside of the golf course permit me as a member of the public to demand anything of the man? It says here it does not.
4) The Internet has changed everything. Well, duh. Of course it has. On the one hand, the 'Net has proven itself to be the most democratic, all-encompassing, body of information the world has ever known, and it grows at fantastic rates every day. You will notice the use of the word "information" above, as opposed to "knowledge". The Internet allows world-wide access, in near-real-time, to damned near anything, from anyone (including blogs such as this one). The problem is one of veracity. Just because Bill Rooney has written something in this blog does not necessarily make it fact.
We as a people are seeing our ability for critical thought diminishing. We increasingly tend to take whatever we read on the Internet as Holy Writ, without considering whether or not it is actually TRUE, or even makes a modicum of sense. Further, the ready ability of "instant publishing" in blogs like this one must carry a certain responsibility for clarity of thought, as opposed to just saying whatever comes to mind, and then claiming it as fact.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I will support that notion until I shuffle off this mortal coil. However, the 'Net has added weight to opinion, by sheer dint of the number of people out there who can potentially access that opinion. One only has to look to things like YouTube for that; viral videos can go from a small chuckle to a national phenomena in a matter of hours.
With that weight, I believe, comes responsibility. I do not claim that anything on this blog is anything but one man's opinion, and I will continue to try to support those opinions with reasoned argument. If, however, I were to publish something saying, "Celebrity X worships the blood of trees!", you just KNOW there's some bonehead out there who will take it as Gospel. You get enough boneheads believing something, and momentum builds that can get pretty dangerous, pretty quickly.
The point of all of this? For heaven's sake, PLEASE question what you read. Not every source of information has the standards for veracity of, say, the New York Times. Further, the distinction between levels of "public figure" is more blurred every day. We do not have the right to take ownership of our public figures, simply because they are in the public eye. We can root for their accomplishments (or not), we can admire them (or not), but we cannot own them. If we do not like what they do, we do retain the right to ignore them. "15 minutes of fame" can pass pretty quickly.
Of course, that's just one man's opinion. Until next time,
Excelsior!
