Overkill

[MrGongGong]

Don't be ridiculous .. the religion was established over 2,000 years ago with various 'branches' being formed since reflecting various points of view within it, both mainstream and somewhat eccentric, and arguably even dangerous, tiny minorities. 'Twas ever thus

I wasn't aware the "rev" Paisley was over 2,000 years old
blimey that certainly is moving in mysterious ways

and as for the persecution of people for their beliefs, I think you will find that the folks who you despise so much have also said much

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Amnesty-International-highlights-persecution-of-Christian-migrants-and-refugees-in-Libya

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/023/1993/en/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-flee-growing-persecution-africa-middle-east

(that took me 3 minutes)

[french frank]

After all - when was Carrie Fisher last in "the news"?

Last Star Wars film, 2016? (Wiki says this was a digital representation of her younger self). The previous one was 2015. I think this is another point: is it as much the 'character' as the real human being? Just as people were stunned by the death of Grace Archer? It was the fictional character that people lost in the case of the soap opera, so is it the same for blockbuster films? Or is it genuinely the person? Does everyone go to all the films a big star is in because they admire the actor? I really don't know?

[Richard Tarleton]

The same folks who insist that Eton is a "charity" ?
Hummmmm something fishy

Indeed - quite what qualifies the Charities Commission to say what is and isn't a religion eludes me

If "rev" Paisleys made up church is a religion...

To be fair, it's just a demonination, not a religion. After all, how is any religious denomination formed? One or more people decides to start one.

[Richard Tarleton]

Last Star Wars film, 2016? (Wiki says this was a digital representation of her younger self). The previous one was 2015. I think this is another point: is it as much the 'character' as the real human being? Just as people were stunned by the death of Grace Archer? It was the fictional character that people lost in the case of the soap opera, so is it the same for blockbuster films? Or is it genuinely the person? Does everyone go to all the films a big star is in because they admire the actor? I really don't know?

I think she's had a life since - the film Postcards from the Edge was based on her semi-autobiographical novel. Debbie Reynolds wanted to play her mother (in the event played by Shirley Maclaine) but was not considered sufficiently like herself to do so

The latest in the Star Wars series (The Force Awakens, 2016) features her as her older self (this was the film diring the shooting of which Harrison Ford met with an accident on set). There is talk of her appearing digitally in future films - this would not be a first - see Oliver Reed in Gladiator.

[french frank]

Indeed - quite what qualifies the Charities Commission to say what is and isn't a religion eludes me

It's not so much 'saying' what is or isn't a religion as making a ruling based on what is required of religions in order that they benefit from that status. So if one wishes to challenge the general basis, fair enough; but as long as the basis is fairly applied there isn't much to challenge in the case of one particular ruling.

The same with educational establishments: same rules for all.

[Lat-Literal]

Last Star Wars film, 2016? (Wiki says this was a digital representation of her younger self). The previous one was 2015. I think this is another point: is it as much the 'character' as the real human being? Just as people were stunned by the death of Grace Archer? It was the fictional character that people lost in the case of the soap opera, so is it the same for blockbuster films? Or is it genuinely the person? Does everyone go to all the films a big star is in because they admire the actor? I really don't know?

These things criss-cross. Princess Leia was the fantasy space princess, not soppy, who generally meant different things to girls and boys. For all I know, she might have morphed for some in the early 1980s into a more earthbound Diana. Then Fisher - previously Leia, no more fascinating than the rest of us who eat breakfast beyond the Leia persona (other than that she was an actress, related to someone called Debbie Reynolds and a singer called Eddie Fisher) - became Carrie Leia-Fisher writing Postcards From The Edge. Real but not in the sense of many of us and how could the previous version, sassy young Leia, have fallen so far? And, hey, did you hear the woman down the road has similar problems?

Then we heard on umpteen occasions from large numbers of people that David Bowie showed them what was possible. Often though not exclusively that was about sexuality or androgyny but only in a way where such things very much stood out. Ziggy Stardust and suburbia while with punk which arguably followed it, that scene was mostly or wholly about anyone standing out per se. So these people are aspects of the buyers to a degree. Convenient facts are lost along the way. Facts like long haired hippies in the late sixties troubled the elderly more - "get a haircut" - and that they probably wouldn't have comprehended a Bowie fanatic if she had walked past them in Woolworths. Or that one of the people who claimed to have been most influenced by Bowie, Boy George, was also a celebrity and his act was successful because he claimed he was an original and the public agreed with him.

I am in no doubt that Andy Kershaw would have been among hundreds in showbusiness to condemn Phil Collins for writing and selling albums about his separation and divorce. "Self-pitying, embarrassing, god awful" etc but they sold in buckets because that Phil was very much the consumers. Subsequently, Biggie Tembo of the Bhundu Boys was the ultimate fun loving best mate. Genuinely joyful - it was in his music - and so taken was our Andy that he made programmes with Tembo and his family at the family home. I am pleased he did. It was atmospheric and educational. We were then all able to experience what it would be like having that sort of mate and almost shared their joyous experience.

When Tembo went, it was that sense of joy that momentarily went rather than Tembo per se. But to take Bowie again, he was to me a different sort of possibility. He was "Space Oddity", "Starman" and "Life on Mars". They were about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin who in turn spoke of the potential of being reasonably bright, not ever to be hampered by irritating and oppressive down-to-earth requirements like being at school or in a workplace. There was also that thing about looking into the skies and wondering what the hell any of us is doing here. His passing coincided with the experience of decades in school and workplace and the knowledge that sadly we never do live on our own planets, any of us. (Outer space hasn't gone - an achievement at my age - but it is social, it resides in the CDs, this forum and a concept of Zimbabweanesque joy, no ambition, the sky is just the sky)

As for John Peel - because I feel he needs to be mentioned - he was ostensibly a character. In the early eighties we would not in my student home have wished to know or think about the house he lived in or his wife or his kids or his travel schedule and even his support for Liverpool was inconvenient. No, the fact that we had a much older bloke in the kitchen or the second hand car at 11.30pm playing peculiar sounds was that he/it was an aura. It symbolized who we were - students at a time when only 25% of our generation became students connecting with the 25% on the non-mainstream musical fringes. We were not necessarily going anywhere but it enabled us in some way to fly with/as the night.

Finally, re religion. I did walk the Mall looking at the flowers for Diana but mainly because I was working round the corner. We were told by the critics it wasn't British because it seemed so Roman Catholic. That was a big point at the time. Actually, I am not persuaded that the British are historically reserved but our formal occasions have tended to be.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Last Star Wars film, 2016? (Wiki says this was a digital representation of her younger self). The previous one was 2015.

But you see that these news "reports" were the result of her appearance in the films - the papers weren't "keeping her famous", they were cashing in on her popularity. Their reports had nothing to do with the impetus to make the films: the films weren't made in order that an actress made famous by the media could be featured on the billing.

I think this is another point: is it as much the 'character' as the real human being? Just as people were stunned by the death of Grace Archer? It was the fictional character that people lost in the case of the soap opera, so is it the same for blockbuster films? Or is it genuinely the person? Does everyone go to all the films a big star is in because they admire the actor? I really don't know?

Amongst the millions of people who have enjoyed the films, there are probably a few who might have confused character and performer, but film audiences are generally much, much savvier than radio listeners of sixty years ago. How films are made, how special effects are created - this is all learnt by kids of ten and younger; there's greater "knowingfulness" in contemporary audiences.

[P. G. Tipps]

I wasn't aware the "rev" Paisley was over 2,000 years old
blimey that certainly is moving in mysterious ways

and as for the persecution of people for their beliefs, I think you will find that the folks who you despise so much have also said much

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Amnesty-International-highlights-persecution-of-Christian-migrants-and-refugees-in-Libya

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/023/1993/en/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-flee-growing-persecution-africa-middle-east

(that took me 3 minutes)

The fact you had to go hunting with a few hopeful words in the direction of Mr Google for rare and honourable exceptions is surely on a somewhat different par from this horrible mass persecution being headlined and reported regularly in the media?. Still credit where credit is due for those honourable exceptions which report all mass atrocities however 'unfashionable' the victims may be in modern Western culture. I don't 'despise' anyone but, just like yourself, Mr GG, I'm not above a bit of mockery from time to time when blatant hypocrisy rears its head. After all, my own has been pointed out on many occasions.

However, swiftly returning to the main topic, the fact that the BBC, ITV and Sky News all had the death of a pop-star (however sad and significant for his family and friends) as their main headline is in rather stark contrast don't you think?

[MrGongGong]

However, swiftly returning to the main topic, the fact that the BBC, ITV and Sky News all had the death of a pop-star (however sad and significant for his family and friends) as their main headline is in rather stark contrast don't you think?

It is a stark contrast indeed
but TV is theatre sometimes in other clothes



There is a danger of ascribing narratives to the reporting or "non reporting" of events which most people do from time to time

Stuff like this

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-ashura-islam_uk_57fe7ccce4b0e982146bbae9

http://awarenessact.com/media-blackout-as-london-muslims-march-against-isis/

Is never in the mainstream media
while things like this are rare

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

[french frank]

But you see that these news "reports" were the result of her appearance in the films - the papers weren't "keeping her famous", they were cashing in on her popularity. Their reports had nothing to do with the impetus to make the films: the films weren't made in order that an actress made famous by the media could be featured on the billing.

Do you think such stars would become just as 'popular' if nothing was written or broadcast about them until they die? How far are one's own feelings validated by knowing that they are shared by so many others?

Amongst the millions of people who have enjoyed the films, there are probably a few who might have confused character and performer, but film audiences are generally much, much savvier than radio listeners of sixty years ago. How films are made, how special effects are created - this is all learnt by kids of ten and younger; there's greater "knowingfulness" in contemporary audiences.

Just how 'savvy' people are these days is illustrated in a BBC story I read ten minutes ago - how fake news and other stories gain credibility by being circulated on social media. Doesn't suggest savviness or knowingfulness

I say nothing of Carrie Fisher, specifically, since I haven't seen a Star Wars film, nor have I read her novel(s) or heard her in any way. She may have been truly 'extraordinary'. But the discussion is about the adulation accorded to show business celebrities in general, especially when they die, how they - and their 'images' come to be so important to people. Yes, people feel they 'know' them - but they don't.

[jean]

I say nothing of Carrie Fisher, specifically, since I haven't seen a Star Wars film, nor have I read her novel(s) or heard her in any way.

I've never seen the films, but I did know she had spoken out about her bipolar disorder - is she not known and admired for that, too?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Do you think such stars would become just as 'popular' if nothing was written or broadcast about them until they die?

What do you mean by "nothing"? As the Thread is about News media, I think that the answer here is "yes" - the new Medium of the Internet is now far more influential than printed "professional" opinion. "Word of Mouth" via the Internet is now far more powerful. That's why newspaper sales have dropped so dangerously (for them) low that they have to attract customers with prominent coverage of celebrities the buying public has made famous. The papers follow the customers who have left them behind.

How far are one's own feelings validated by knowing that they are shared by so many others?

I don't know - I would imagine it's about the same as some other people's feelings are validated by knowing that only a select few share them. And, of course, there are very many people who can spend the afternoon adoring a lunchtime performance of The Art of Fugue and then look forward to a reshowing of one of the Star Wars films in the evening. (A showing that they've heard about on the Internet, not from a newspaper.)

It's a human characteristic to feel better when we meet with people who share our tastes/affections - but it isn't essential.

Just how 'savvy' people are these days is illustrated in a BBC story I read ten minutes ago - how fake news and other stories gain credibility by being circulated on social media. Doesn't suggest savviness or knowingfulness

As opposed to the critical detachment that Daily Mail readers bring to their reading of the newspaper? And how do you know if that television news story is accurate?

The Internet is a new medium, and people (particularly those whose education didn't include Computer Studies) haven't yet got used to using it yet - but younger people (and they're in their forties now) are much more competent handling it. They get used to sifting facts from opinion and from fake with much greater facility than their elders are/were able to separate truth from fantasy in newspaper reports.

I say nothing of Carrie Fisher, specifically, since I haven't seen a Star Wars film, nor have I read her novel(s) or heard her in any way. She may have been truly 'extraordinary'. But the discussion is about the adulation accorded to show business celebrities in general, especially when they die, how they - and their 'images' come to be so important to people. Yes, people feel they 'know' them - but they don't.

Again, from my personal experience of working with kids aged eight to nineteen (and accepting that standards might well have plummeted since I stopped teaching nearly two years ago - cause & effect, of course) younger people can make this distinction with far greater facility than Soap Opera enthusiasts of sixty - or even thirty - years ago.

Millions - millions of millions, in fact - of people greatly enjoyed the Star Wars films (I think I've only seen the first one all the way through - the others so bored me that I've not sat through them, and have only seen various snippets) and were much saddened by the death of the actress who was so important to those films. From those millions (whom I embrace with a kiss for all the worlds) there are medical surgeons, research chemists, Music teachers, taxi drivers who win "Mastermind", Social Workers, Oxford professors of Poetry, Historians, dustbinmen who pick up loose rubbish and put your bins back where you want them ... in other words, people who aren't so thick as to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It may (for all I know) validate the feelings/prejudices of some people who haven't heard of Carrie Fisher to assume that those who have are all/mainly intellectually challenged - but it ain't so.

[french frank]

What do you mean by "nothing"? As the Thread is about News media, I think that the answer here is "yes" - the new Medium of the Internet is now far more influential than printed "professional" opinion. "Word of Mouth" via the Internet is now far more powerful. That's why newspaper sales have dropped so dangerously (for them) low that they have to attract customers with prominent coverage of celebrities the buying public has made famous.

No, I didn't just mean 'news media'. Especially as even 'newspapers' have their special show biz pages. It's the world of publicity, and that includes PR and, now, social media. But the 'news' becomes important because so many millions are interested. I think that's a point I made some while back: that entertainment has become a huge global business because of the increased forms of dissemination - of both the original performance and the news about it. That is the phenomenon that, as far as I can see, explains the media 'overkill'. And the mutual feeding of the performance and the publicity.

That is what I was trying to say: I am still bemused that film, television and generally 'artistic' performances (of whatever kind) play such a large part in people's lives, not the fact that they enjoy Star Wars or Doctor Who or the various TV series that people regularly report that they've become 'hooked' on. I don't think that I would be immune, or in some way superior to 'all these people'. The only thing that differentiates me, indiividually, is that I dislike the idea of spending so much of my time on these pursuits and that's why I don't have a television or go to the cinema. I don't think I've suggested that anyone is - to use your phrase - 'intellectually challenged' because they enjoy them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not sure, then, what was the purpose of your Do you think such stars would become just as 'popular' if nothing was written or broadcast about them until they die? - as "fame" and popularity depend on people talking and writing about someone, you seem to be asking "do you think they'd be as popular if they weren't as popular?"

I'm sure you don't think that "anyone is ... 'intellectually challenged' because they enjoy them", but in raising the point about people in the past actually grieved at Doris Archer's death, and the story that many people believe false stories because they've read them on the Internet in the context of people grieving more for the character rather than the actress does "suggest" that you are making some kind of connection between people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

And that is a different line of enquiry from why the Media gives such events the coverage it does. I think you're right (as was kernelbogey) to note the relationship between the news sources and PR - anyone would think that the people who owned the newspapers and television companies also owned the film companies! But nobody put Freddie Garrity's death exclusively on their front pages, or took up half of a news bulletin with the news; his "product" wasn't as attractive to very many people and nothing they could have done (had they chosen to cover his every move throughout his career) could have won him widespread admiration - the media did with Carrie Fisher, because they knew that that would attract a bigger readership/audience than if they hadn't - and that their competitors would have made much bigger profits on that day. The Media "overkill" is explained entirely by their need to follow the money, selling to the largest public. It's a comment on the Media's fear and uncertainty of their future - not on the public.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm sure you don't think that "anyone is ... 'intellectually challenged' because they enjoy them", but in raising the point about people in the past actually grieved at Doris Archer's death, and the story that many people believe false stories because they've read them on the Internet in the context of people grieving more for the character rather than the actress does "suggest" that you are making some kind of connection between people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I remember Doris Archer's death well, and some tabloids frequently headline the happenings of TV soaps as though they were facts.

Poor Gwen Berryman hardly got a look-in.