McCann. Diana. Heather Mills. Does our media / British public need to take a look in the mirror...............
Diana was hounded by paparazzi on the night she died and during her life.
For some the McCanns have been public enemy number one for months now - which is somewhat odd, given that there are many politicians far more deserving of the title.
And Heather Mills appeared on TV yesterday, very distressed and claiming that she considered suicide due to media vilification.
Is our media / the British public entirely blameless?
Or, in these times of war and famine, do we need to reflect on our behaviour and priorities as human beings?
After all, we are all far from perfect, and none of us know what it is like to pick up a newspaper every day and read horrible things about us, much of which is lies.
"Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."
If you truly believe that the primary reason for the McCanns' fund was for personal gain then I would seriously question your judgement.
- david cLv 41 decade agoFavourite answer
How can you blame the British public? Does it not occur to you that many people are sick of hearing about Diana. She actively encouraged the media attention when it suited her but complained when it did not. I do not believe she was mentally stable and I think she was at times paranoid.
As to Heather Mills do you honestly believe her performance was anything else but a big act and a bad one at that. She has bought it on herself and like the McCanns revels in the attention. She spends a fortune on her daughter's birthday party and her own little party afterwards. Yet it is only a few months ago she was pleading poverty and possible homelessness. McCartney (who I have little time for) was a vulnerable and lonely man. She saw the chance for a meal ticket and pension and took it with both hands. She says she stood by Paul and never run him down. Is this the same woman who accused him of assaulting her or is all of the press reporting lies? If so why is she not suing the newspapers? Why on earth do people like her and the McCanns need PR teams? Who on earth do they think they are? She is now going to do a series of interviews. For what reason only she must know. She says by doing the interviews she will get slaughtered in the press again. Why oh why do them then. Has she not got the sense to keep quiet instead of inviting more vilification. As to the McCanns, whatever the outcome, they neglected three young children on a number of occasions. They then created what can only be described as a circus.
As to the public:
They did not marry into one of the most famous families in the world.
They did not marry one of the most famous pop stars in the world.
They did not abandon three children so they could go out wining and dining and then protest they had done nothing wrong.
The truth is that these people invite publicity and manipulate it to their own needs.
- 1 decade ago
All these people (McCanns excepted to a degree) are quite happy to use the media when it suits them. Indeed they wouldn't reach their position within society, and all the money and trappings that go with it, without the tabloid media.
It's the same public mentality (gossip, cult of celebrity etc.) that has raised these people into the public eye so do they really have a right to complain when the media attention suddenly doesn't suit them anymore.
Personally I don't do the gossip thing, find it boring and I don't admire celebrities for their celebrity status. Think admiration needs to be earned. I think the tabloid hacks are a bunch of lowlifes who will do anything to get a story. However they will continue to do it as long as there is a market for what they do. Human nature seems to suggest they'll have a trade to ply for some considerable time yet.
- True Blue BritLv 71 decade ago
We live in a very judgemental society. And anyone who appears to "get something for nothing" is villified. Jealousy maybe?
People don't take into account the high cost - the loss of a child can never ever be replaced by money. I remember reading about a lottery winner who regretted her win, because she bought her son a motorbike, which killed him.
Let the judges sort out the McCartney's - Paul has never been whiter than white, if you read the biographies. But he's human, not evil. The same goes for Heather.
- SusanLv 44 years ago
Sorry for such a long post, but your question was quite general. I tried to structure it in order of relevance to the question and simplicity, so just read till you get bored or find what you were looking for. This is perhaps more a question of philosophy and/or psychology than of science. Although there is certainly some interesting data from neurology when it comes down to it. For the obvious scientific answer, I'd have to say not really. However, this is simply due to the inversion of images in the mirror; if you raise your right hand, it appears as though the person in the mirror is raising their left hand. I don't think that is what you're asking though. From a philosophical perspective, I don't believe it is possible to determine how another individual perceives even things as simple as colour. If there were some process by which a person's memories and, as such, their associations of colour could be implanted into another person's body, then it is easy to imagine that they could discover that what they always associated as being green (e.g grass), is, with their new brain and optical processing system, what they would have previously called red. Just like with colour though, they will have come to associate a certain make-up of features with 'you'. Therefore, if they observe a very similar make-up, such as in a photograph, or well-done drawing, it will trigger their facial-recognition of you. When you say 'even in different mirrors and lightings, I look different', do you really find that surprising? If I look at myself in the mirror when there's a single source of relatively dim light shining from an angle, then the shadows of my muscles are enhanced, making me look well-toned, instead of like the scrawny weakling that I really am. Rock Star Mommy also makes the good point that people are generally a lot more critical of their own appearance than other people are of it. In extreme cases this manifests in conditions such as body dysmorphic disorder (check sources). Now, to continue with psychology (and a bit of neurology), we find where the question gets really interesting. Although there is debate on the topic, lots of people believe that some of the processes we use for face recognition are used exclusively for that purpose and not, for example, in recognising the difference between two similar objects. Thing is, when it comes down to it, although it may not seem it, most faces are pretty similar. There are some things that I think are testament to the fact that human recognition is pretty special. One of these is the 'uncanny valley' effect. You know how some doll look spooky? Well, it's been suggested that this occurs most strongly when the deviations from what real humans look like, or how they move are slight. As such, alarm bells ring to tell you that something is not quite right. There is also a very interesting condition called Prosopagnosia which pretty much prevents people from being able to recognise faces properly. It sometimes occurs after brain damage or stroke. It can even affect the ability to recognise your own face. However, there is usually no problem with recognising objects. There are also various psychological disorders that fall under the umbrella of delusional misidentification syndrome. These are very interesting, and if you take a look at any of my sources, you should look at that one, even if it is somewhat tangential. There is even a syndrome where people think that who they see in the mirror is a different person! It is also interesting to consider why it is so much more difficult to tell the difference between sibling dogs sometimes (even if they aren't from the same litter) than it is with people. Oh, and as a final note concerning a previous answer, the fact that your voice sounds different in recordings is completely unsurprising. This is because of the fact lots of the vibrations affecting your eardrums are travelling through your tissues, as opposed to through the air as they do in recordings. Also, few recordings are of good quality.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Having watched Ms Mills, i consider that Paul is well shot of her, it wasn't reasoned argument but a total rant, as to Diana i agree on that, the paps were certainly contributory in her death, and the jury is still out on Kate and Gerry, many of the papers support them and some clearly don't. We can only make our own minds up from the information we are given, from TV news and newspapers, how else are we to make any sort of judgement, particularly on the bigger issues like our government and its policies.
- James MackLv 61 decade ago
The red tops (comics) in the UK are a total disgrace and a real danger to democracy, as too many people actually confuse the 'stories' they print as facts and they sickenly influence how people vote.
I stopped buying all newspapers in 1984 and if a significant proportion of the population did the same, they would soon clean up their act.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
the media are like hyenas they sense distress and close in for the kill,and when they have destroyed these people,we will be reading gleeful exposes about their fall from grace,and how tragically sad it all is.then they will move on to the next victim.
while the demand remains for bottom feeding journalism,it will continue.lets face it maybe we all feel a bit smug,sitting out of harms way reading this trash.
- checkmateLv 61 decade ago
The trouble is we are already looking in a mirror. The newspapers are only partly responsible for current fascinations. They only reflect what people want to hear about. If we stopped buying the rags, they'd stop printing the rubbish.
- northern lassLv 51 decade ago
It is said that a country gets the government it deserves, perhaps the same could be said of its media.
- #1 bossmanLv 51 decade ago
just a perspective from the outside looking in.....you could be like us and have Paris, Brittney, Nicole, O.J. , Phil Spector, and Robert Blake......who looks worse in that mirror I have to wonder? At any rate, it is the media, both yours and ours that feed these things, and not likely to change unless the people change it. funny how I listen to the BBC and don't really gain alot from our domestic and politically biased media.....lol......is the grass really greener on the other side? not really....we're all just looking for something different hoping we really aren't as bad as we think we are and that there's hope in other places.....go figure......