![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ANS, Day Two
Feb. 9th, 2007 03:26 pmMore coverage on the Anna Nicole Smith tragedy.
Why does this intensive coverage bother me so? Because it's less news as information and more news as entertainment. And that saddens me. Because there's a lot of important information that we need.
Part of me thinks that this excessive coverage exists because we, as a whole, love to focus on her sad life instead of our own sad lives. "Aww, she led such a sad, pathetic, albeit rich life. Isn't that a shame." Don't we feel better about ourselves?
Let's face it, if ANS had done something meaningful with her life, like crusade for various social ills, MSNBC and CNN would have all sorts of interesting retrospectives to indulge in. No, we just get smarmy footage of her looking stoned.
What is ANS' claim to fame? She appears to be the first casualty of the Reality TV Stars. She married a rich old man. She fought for his inheritance. For the nation, she existed mostly as a source of ridicule-and-judgement-as-entertainment. In terms of being a celebrity, her contributions to the greater good lacked nutritional value. She was an example of what a mostly average person could do with a lot of wealth. When covering her death, news programs have nothing but footage of her walking places and looking stoned. Hell, at least with Belushi or Hendrix or Joplin, we have great comic or musical genius that will last through time. But with ANS, what do we have? We have a legacy of odd court battles. But they aren't even noble court battles. It's not Brown v. Board of Education. Not Roe v. Wade. Not Miranda v. Arizona.
Is that the draw? That for the most part, she was not an inspiration, but merely an average woman with above average means to lead a life of above average desperation? Wikipedia says she wanted to be like, and was compared to women like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. Like them, she had a tragic end, but most of her fame seems wrapped up in tragedies, and less of her talents (Playboy Playmate status aside).
Will there be any purpose served by this analysis of a life shredded by the complexities of people with more money than talent? Was that her destiny? To serve as a warning to others?
Here we witness a woman whose success relied mostly upon men's approval and adoration of her. First Hefner, then Marshal, then Stern. She latched onto powerful men for her fame and therefore wealth. By all appearances, she suffered for it. But, given her behavior all she wanted was our attention. And she got it.
I feel sorry about her baby daughter. That's probably the biggest tragedy. But given the family she was going to grow up in, the prognosis for living a well-adjusted life was slim. Hopefully she'll find a loving family to care for her.
Why does this intensive coverage bother me so? Because it's less news as information and more news as entertainment. And that saddens me. Because there's a lot of important information that we need.
Part of me thinks that this excessive coverage exists because we, as a whole, love to focus on her sad life instead of our own sad lives. "Aww, she led such a sad, pathetic, albeit rich life. Isn't that a shame." Don't we feel better about ourselves?
Let's face it, if ANS had done something meaningful with her life, like crusade for various social ills, MSNBC and CNN would have all sorts of interesting retrospectives to indulge in. No, we just get smarmy footage of her looking stoned.
What is ANS' claim to fame? She appears to be the first casualty of the Reality TV Stars. She married a rich old man. She fought for his inheritance. For the nation, she existed mostly as a source of ridicule-and-judgement-as-entertainment. In terms of being a celebrity, her contributions to the greater good lacked nutritional value. She was an example of what a mostly average person could do with a lot of wealth. When covering her death, news programs have nothing but footage of her walking places and looking stoned. Hell, at least with Belushi or Hendrix or Joplin, we have great comic or musical genius that will last through time. But with ANS, what do we have? We have a legacy of odd court battles. But they aren't even noble court battles. It's not Brown v. Board of Education. Not Roe v. Wade. Not Miranda v. Arizona.
Is that the draw? That for the most part, she was not an inspiration, but merely an average woman with above average means to lead a life of above average desperation? Wikipedia says she wanted to be like, and was compared to women like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. Like them, she had a tragic end, but most of her fame seems wrapped up in tragedies, and less of her talents (Playboy Playmate status aside).
Will there be any purpose served by this analysis of a life shredded by the complexities of people with more money than talent? Was that her destiny? To serve as a warning to others?
Here we witness a woman whose success relied mostly upon men's approval and adoration of her. First Hefner, then Marshal, then Stern. She latched onto powerful men for her fame and therefore wealth. By all appearances, she suffered for it. But, given her behavior all she wanted was our attention. And she got it.
I feel sorry about her baby daughter. That's probably the biggest tragedy. But given the family she was going to grow up in, the prognosis for living a well-adjusted life was slim. Hopefully she'll find a loving family to care for her.
