The rise of the music industry, in dedicated music channels such as MTV, The Hits and Scuzz etc, as well as the rise of reality television taking on music conventions, is a clear indication of the change in the television landscape. The idea of a passive audience becomes apparent when the consumer is simply watching an over-paid, over-rated artist produce another “hit” single in a string of manufactured pop, or another aspiring musician hitting the wrong notes in a woeful audition broadcasted only for the cheap laughs aimed towards their target audience. On the other hand, to suggest “we are a society of passive consumers” could be wide off the mark, especially those that watch, for example X-Factor, who regularly vote and take the program more seriously than other members of the viewing public. Some, possibly through the influence of tabloids and magazines, garner a favourite within reality music shows and obviously spend their money on keeping their favoured contender in to eventually win a prize usually consisting of money or a music contract, usually both of them as they hit the music industry for three months of fame. Before they disappear into the vortex of “one-hit wonders” and celebrity shows like Big Brother as they desperately seek the attention and money they believe they worked so hard to achieve before their inevitable demise. The celebrity industry itself is a fickle business and most of these manufactured artists never hit the heights of their first single, and a result fall out of the national limelight.
So how can I relate this to the tabloid media? Well, it becomes quite apparent when leafing through a Sunday edition of the News of the World, Sunday Mirror etc, which I get aforementioned opportunity because of my job as a Sunday paper boy. They have dedicated supplements on the weekend’s action, fuelling this obsession about celebrity lifestyle, mundane shows that can sap your money and drive some people to depression.
To take a closer look at X-Factor, 250,000 odd hopefuls tried to break into the competitive music industry that can make you a millionaire, but also break your reputation, plunge into the depths of depression; reduce you to an anarchic drug-taker and possibly, even more serious ramifications. Nevertheless, through the blind loyalty to the Capitalist system, budding musicians sing not only for the fame, but more predictably for the money. We see nothing but desperate fresh-faced talent plucked from their normal, usually poorly paid jobs and catapulted into the celebrity world; most of them struggle to cope giving “sob stories” to win over the hearts of the more sensitive audience. What informs the audience as Simon Cowell plays to his “villainous” role in the Judge panel as the more sensitive, cheerful Louis Walsh tries to argue? What educates the audience as Cowell and Minogue gets into a petty argument? What is informing in music videos as another rap star poses by a swimming pool consisting of scantily clad women wearing as much as “bling” as money can buy and more importantly what is entertaining about seeing a broken woman shattered at missing out on a place in next week’s knock out stage? If you succeed, and sometimes even fail in reality music television (Gareth Gates, Lemar et al), what happens next? You lip-sync to a song clearly edited through studio interference, if you are female you simply become a sex object to the audience, thus strengthening the image that the audience are passive, and if you are male you are expected to flash your six-pack with a girl on each arm wearing the most expensive brands money can buy. This is certainly mindless entertainment, the educational or even the thought-provoking music videos are becoming decreasingly unpopular, thus replacing this with tedious escapist videos where everyone in a music video is attractive and conforming, those who are not are simply ridiculed or even punished. Not only mindless entertainment then, but articulate propaganda for the infamously obscure celebrity lifestyle that so many teenagers chase in the blind hope of gaining the affluent lifestyles these fake, manufactured show-ponies undeservedly attain.
In conclusion, these shows and music channels clearly do not educate and do not inform on a particular sophisticated level, and for some people these shows do not even entertain. Ultimately, these shows manifest its reputation to the nation through widespread media coverage, its accessibility and escapist, entertaining nature. The audience participation ensures that the audience is not completely passive but to suggest they are strung along to luxurious, mindless entertainment seems to be a cynical, yet true, conclusion to draw.
“WAH! Kate looks simply fright-ful in this ghoulish Halloween mask.”The Sun screams at the bewildered reader, “From the pale skin, puffy eyes and bags, Mossy's enough to scare small children without her slap.” A quick look at the image and it is nothing to be scared of (OK so it is Kate Moss), but simply a female without make-up. The Sun goes as far to target “celebrities” such as Natalie Portman, Mel B and Fern Britton simply because they are not wearing make-up.
What can I expect from the “gutter press” as the tabloids are less pleasantly known as, and an expression I am contemplating using more often, considering the attitudes they are taking. These days’ celebrities are made within a few hours, a cameo on some reality TV show seems to be the easiest way in the 21st Century fame culture, and if you are a good looking female then you are nothing more but a sex object plastered across the “lads’ mags” and newspapers like, ironically, The Sun and The Star, whom lead from the forefront in this respect. The woman is there to sell copies and appeal to the “Male Gaze”, a term coined by feminist Laura Mulvey, basically an object of desire in today’s patriarchal society. It seems in our image obsessed culture, if you are famous then you cannot venture outside your own house without plastering your face with the necessary beauty products that, in an interesting twist, celebrities themselves are looking to cash in on.
Look, for example, at Kelly Brook. She was one of those females pictured without any make-up, The Sun cringed and milked a rather worthless story for all its worth, but hey presto, a few days later and she is launching her own fragrance as The Sun brands her with “Men want to marry her and girls want to match her sexy style.” Double standards? Kelly Brook, it seems, is only sexy if she is wearing a lot of make-up and the best clothes money can buy. In our consumerist society, it should be expected that this usual fragrance will be given characteristics beyond its creation, Brook calls her fragrance “fun, sexy, demure and sophisticated”. Sorry love, but how can, effectively, a smell but demure (wonder how many Sun readers understood that) or sophisticated. It simply cannot be those things, just shameful advertising which, surprisingly, many “plastic girls” will buy into, humanising products to appeal to their apathetic target audience. Of course in this Capitalist society we cannot expect Brook to advertise her own products, she flogs more products!
If I could give any advice to anybody out there, it would be not to buy crap like the Sun, Mirror, and Mail et al. But do not take these types of articles seriously, girls should feel comfortable in their own skin without a layer of manufactured slop over their face, and should not feel pressurised into buying the latest beauty products. It would be naive if I said none of us conformed, because we all do, but if we all ignored the double standardising, advertising, almost intrusive nature of the tabloids beauty section, and magazines alike, society would be a better place to live in.
My first article to focus on the unfortunate, sensationalist crap so often displayed in tabloid newspapers, is one that frustrates me because the paper in question, The Daily Mirror, is targeting my football club and one of our players for a display of support, and despite an apology and subsequent punishment.
I suppose a majority of us are fed up with this fabrication in our media today, one that aims to generate a moral panic over just about anything that can sell newspapers. Think about “Sachsgate” involving Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, think about Jeremy Clarkson and his notorious behaviour. Yes they were arguably foolish and unprofessional in their exploits, saying that it was certainly blown out of proportion and surprise, surprise, covering the stories and sticking it on front pages are the adoring, politically correct, tabloids. God bless them.
Anyway, here is a quick back story to the Norris debacle this article is focusing on. During the summer just gone, Luke McCormick, a Plymouth goalkeeper (at the time), was arrested for killing two children, and severely injuring their father, in a drink-driving incident. He was subsequently fired by Plymouth and arrested for several years. In my opinion, Luke obviously deserved to go to jail, and he will now serve seven years sentence and live the rest of his life in guilt over what he has done, and rightly so.
A few months later, David Norris, a talented footballer, beginning to find his form at Ipswich Town; celebrated scoring his first goal of the season with a rather naive “handcuff” gesture to the fans. He had crossed his arms, apparently as a sign for handcuffs, but play resumed and nothing was thought of it, and no fans really considered its supposed meaning until the Monday after. The Mirror had run the story, with an interview from the children’s mother stating that the “sick goal celebration [is] an insult to their memory”. The fact the family did not comment on this on the Saturday or Sunday probably resulted in some tabloid journalist conducting the following story like this:
“I need a story, wait what’s this, Norris is crossing his arms in a football celebration? Better get in touch with Amanda Peak [the mother], around her house.”
*goes to her door*
“Hello.”
“Hello Amanda, what do you feel about Norris’ celebration?”
“I have not seen it.”
“Allow me to show it to you, let me use your DVD player.”
*shows Amanda the video*
“What do you think about this?”
“Well I am unhappy.”
“Are you disgusted? Can we have an interview? We must have an interview.”
Well, probably along those lines, nonetheless some tabloid journalist made a rather big deal about this and sparked off this mass-media frenzy, earning himself a nice sum in the process, to me this is more thoughtless than making, effectively, a signal of support for a jailed friend. Meanwhile, during a quiet day of football, Sky Sports got in on the act and dedicated large parts of its news channel to this story, exaggerating it and painting Norris as a figure of hate. They assumed Norris had celebrated to be disrespectful to the deceased children, when in actual fact it was probably in support for his jailed friend, similar to Tim Cahill’s case last season.
Surprisingly Norris denied this, however, Norris apologized, Ipswich Town fined him, Norris is set to visit Amanda and give his fined wages to her personally, and she will probably give this to charity. Surely the matter is over with, but no the tabloids continue to target this story in the desperate hope it will escalate further. Why do we live in a country where people are targeted and turned into national figures of hate, Norris was unprofessional but calls for him to be banned and calling him “sick” are over-exaggerated. The tabloids once again attempt to exaggerate a story, turning it into a moral panic and watch as some of us react angrily against it.
