Making money out of tragedy
A friend’s ex-wife, who had the misfortune to be involved in the London bombings a couple of weeks ago, has apparently pocketed some cash from talking to the media (tv and magazine).
My first instinct was: “That’s shocking. Making money out of a tragedy and other people’s misery.” But actually her story didn’t come across like that and truthfully I don’t care what her motives were and are. It is my own reaction, which was identical to those of the friends and family to whom I mentioned it, that interests me.
How is it that a woman who gets paid to talk to the media about her experiences “instinctively” becomes an object of scorn? When mass-media journalists or photographers sell their words and experiences, we do not see anything wrong with that. But when an ordinary person does the same it is suddenly “bad”.
Why?
Yes, sure, some media reports on — and profits from — tragedies, in the interests of public education and human compassion and to help generate support for the victims of the tragedies. But plenty of others just sensationalise this news — and they do it because people read it, just as this woman told her story to the media because the media bosses know it’s what people want to read.
OK, it’s true many us don’t have a lot of respect for the integrity of much of today’s media reporting. Nevertheless, we don’t react to the general media with the same abhorrence with which we respond to an individual selling the story of his or her own experiences where others have suffered.
Our society has clearly conditioned us but — largely as a direct result of reading The Tao of Equus — I am starting to question those things we take for granted and adopt as our own thoughts as if they are truth — fact — just because we’re told it’s so.
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:43 am
Yes, I see your point. It just it has the appearance of being a mercenary act. Opportunism – akin to grave robbing.
But!
Would we not turn a dollar if it was there to be made? We all find it far too easy to justify what we do and criticise someone else. What is done, is done and being paid or not being paid for an interview with a commercial media company is really neither here nor there. If you could take a dollar out of the pocket of Murdoch for instance, I see no reason why you shouldn’t go for it.
Power to the people!
Howie.
July 23rd, 2005 at 10:28 am
There’s that too, Howie. But when I gave it a second thought, it didn’t matter to me what her motives were for talking to the media for money about a tragic event. That’s not for me to judge. It could have been opportunism — or it could have been the fact that her husband died earlier this year and she’s in the middle of a battle with his mother over his life insurance, and that she just wants to provide for her daughter. Who knows? I don’t care. It’s her business.
As I said, what I found interesting was how ingrained it is in us to judge individuals for doing something a group of professionals (in this case, mass-media journalists, photographers and the companies that employ them) do every day. I still can’t quite work out why it’s ok for them but our reaction to an individual is to scream “Traitor! Opportunism!”
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:46 pm
“OK, it’s true many us don’t have a lot of respect for the integrity of much of today’s media reporting. Nevertheless, we don’t react to the general media with the same abhorrence with which we respond to an individual selling the story of his or her own experiences where others have suffered.�
I react with abhorrence to the media almost every day. An individual succumbing to making a few paltry dollars is nothing. The media are “supposed� to be guided by a code of ethics; they are “supposed� to be professional and impartial and fair.
Those same media people knock on individual’s doors waving contracts and dollar bills and cogent arguments as to why the individual should feel ok about selling their story. I don’t see anything ethical about the commercial media, they are pariah dogs of the very lowest order.
And as for blogs, I do recall a certain person deriding blogs some time ago..dare one say one told one so .. and add a nerr nerr or two ?
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:01 pm
I’m sure you’re thinking of someone else. 🙂
Actually – I don’t remember deriding blogs. It’s just that they didn’t interest me for a while. Now I think they *can* be good for many reasons.
And these days as blogging has become pretty much an industry, the reasons can be very diverse.
But yeah, regardless of how much (or little) we like or trust the media, I still think it weird that the people I spoke to reacted with disdain at this woman accepting money to tell her story about the bombings… that *instinctive* “ooh how could she?” that then gets quelled by the “why shouldn’t she?”
August 4th, 2005 at 5:15 am
I’ll be using my LJ as a travelogue. I’m off to Europe for a year in a few weeks time, what better way of keeping friends and family up to date?
One LJ post fits all.
Speaking of media, how about the Corby nonsense? I blogged that too and gave the media what for.
.btw.. it’s good to see you doin’ ok 🙂
August 4th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Ta… and ditto. 🙂
August 4th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Oh speaking of Corby… here’s a nice quote from the June 16 – July 13 issue of BRW, in the Slithershanks (by David James) column:
Indonesia: [Other related stuff snipped] Indonesia has a legal system in which injustices happen, as opposed to Australia, which has an injustice system in which legalisms happen.
August 5th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
I think that may be clever, I’ll just have to read it a few more times.