In a recent editorial in The New York Times, Emily Gould, co-editor of Gawker, discussed her appearance on “Larry King Live.” During that show, stand-in host Jimmy Kimmel took her to task over the Gawker Stalker Map. For those who don’t know, GSM allows users to post celebrity sightings they have, and the information appears on a street map of Manhattan.
Gould explains that Kimmel used a variety of reasons to explain his attack on GSM, including claiming it invades a celebrity’s privacy. Is that really the reason, Gould wonders:
But why do celebrities find this “invasion” so much more reprehensible than the “invasion” represented by the carefully posed pictures and meticulously constructed narratives that we see in celebrity weeklies and newspaper society pages?
Imagine, for a moment, that you’re a celebrity who wants to show off a new hair color, is trying to land a coveted role or needs to drum up interest in a new movie or TV show. You, or more likely your publicist, call up some favorite photographers and tell them in advance where you’ll be clubbing that night. You work hard to make sure that people are going to see you exactly the way you’d like them to — and whether that’s panty-less or picture-perfect depends on what you’re selling.
But the Internet, instead of relying on the expertise of an incestuous network of reporters and managers and publicists and photographers, gets its information from an army of anonymous strangers. And no matter how long and hard celebrities work to get the well-timed, utterly staged attention that’s going to be most profitable for them, the Internet can circumvent those efforts in a heartbeat. Celebrities like Mr. Kimmel who pretend that this new generation of gossip is hurting their feelings are covering up their real concern — that it’s hurting their bottom lines.
Gould’s comments reminded me of another event where internet culture and privacy questions seemed to clash: the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech.
Many Tech students put “I’m OK” messages on Facebook and My Space profiles as a way to communicate with the outside world, while others used social networking sites to check on friends, offer support and post memorials to victims.
Cybersoc.com was one of many venues noting the strong, negative reactions journalists received when they used those same social networking sites to recruit students for interviews and first hand accounts of the tragedy.
Here are some of the approaches the media used. They all came as comments on a particular blog post about the shootings:
"Sorry to hear about this. CBC Newsworld is doing live interviews with people who are affected by the shooting. Can you please drop me a line at [email] when you have a moment? THANKS"
"This account sounds horrific - I'm so sorry for you and your friends. I'm with NPR and if you feel comfortable speaking to the media please email me at [email]. We are trying to get the full story out to our audience."
"Hi, I hope that you and Kate are doing okay. I would love to chat with you about this horrific event. I understand that phones are not working well but maybe you can shoot me an email. I was wondering if blogging, MySpace, Facebook and Friendster are the best way to communicate while the phones are tangled. Stay safe and I hope Kate recovers quickly."
"Hi--I work for MTV News and we're sending two crews down to VT. They'll be interviewing students and other people affected by the tragedy. We'd be grateful if you or any of your friends would share your stories with our audience. Please contact me at [email] if you'd be willing to talk to us. You guys are all in our thoughts.”
And here are some of the responses:
"I really don't know what else to say except it's kind of disgusting how news people are jumping down your throat."
"Good God, people, is it all just about getting that exclusive? You people are freaking vampires. leave these people alone and let them grieve in peace. You make me sick."
"I cannot believe how quickly the media has already descended on you! Too bad you and the other bloggers are, as usual, doing their jobs for them. Please keep posting, and don't let the media swarm get to you. "
But that brings us back to the question of privacy in the age of the internet. Are people who use social networking sites fooling themselves if they think the sites are private? Does our internet culture necessarily remove any hope of true privacy?
To me, this isn’t really about whether a celebrity should have any expectation of privacy. And it isn’t about the debate over journalists’ activities and ethics in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. It’s more about the broader implications...If we can record and post our thoughts (YouTube or a blog), our day-to-day lives (Webcams and reality TV), our sex lives (Paris Hilton, Screech and many others) and our fun (Facebook and My Space profiles) for anyone in the world to see, then is there anything left that’s actually private or sacred for us? And if we willingly place so much of our lives on the internet, how can we be upset when people find it and use it for their own purposes?
Recent Comments