Philosophy Challenge – The Paparazzi Puzzle

[Spiral Architect]

The purpose of this thread is to present a challenge. A philosophic challenge to be the intellectual detective Rand discusses in “Philosophical Detection”. But in this case go beyond the detective work of ideas to find the ideas, the truth, in modern culture. One thing about Ayn Rand I have always found intriguing is that she would take some seemingly irrelevant subject or event and analyzed it intellectually down to fundamentals. The story about her analysis of the streaker at the Academy Awards comes to mind. <o:p></o:p>

That is the purpose of this thread, to introduce a subject and give everyone a chance to break it down philosophically by being the philosophic detective. Everything is influenced by philosophy, so here is a chance to prove it. The idea is to have a productive conversation while stretching out of the usual subjects in everyone’s comfort zone. It could be pop culture, history, art, entertainment, sports, or relationships. It could be positive or negative. For some this might be a good exercise to confirm ideas or work the mind but for others it might help them validate a principle or make a new link philosophically. Sounds like a good goal for a philosophic website, right? <o:p></o:p>

Remember: The purpose here is selfish – The subject is not important, it’s the journey in challenging oneself philosophically by identifying the ideas. <o:p></o:p>

If this proves productive and positive I’ll keep posting them (I have a number of good one’s lined up).

This is the first try so let’s make it easy, big, and most importantly something most people consider unworthy of intellectual consideration: <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<o:p></o:p>Celebrity gossip is an enigma, the bigger the star the greater the number of paparazzi that follow the celebrity for the juiciest bits of gossip. Actors, singers, socialite butterflies who do nothing of value, and even royalty is stalked for the next photo. Once gossip was treated as the unnamed step-child of the news world but one only needs to watch the insane flash of bulbs when the red carpet is walked to realize its real demand. The less we say about the pages of Perez Hilton, the better. <o:p></o:p>

What say you, philosophic detective? What is reason that gossip is big news? What really feeds the need for paparazzi? <o:p></o:p>

Edited March 14, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[dream_weaver]

The bigger the star, the larger the potential audience of people with whom they can discuss the latest tidbit with. Tying this in with the recent thread on small talk, it can provide fodder for the socialites to discuss a popular celebrity or two of mutual interest, in many cases, as an ice-breaker,

Providing small-talk about others serves the broadest audience. To the average person, this is probably just a stepping stone to talking about things in general.

[Spiral Architect]

The bigger the star, the larger the potential audience of people with whom they can discuss the latest tidbit with. Tying this in with the recent thread on small talk, it can provide fodder for the socialites to discuss a popular celebrity or two of mutual interest, in many cases, as an ice-breaker,

Providing small-talk about others serves the broadest audience. To the average person, this is probably just a stepping stone to talking about things in general.

That is an interesting take on the issue. You see the paparazzi and gossip mags as a simple means for others to break the ice in polite conversation. I'd agree 100% in a rational culture since a rational person would look up to people who highlight acheivement, moreso in a field they find value in. I like that.

In todays culture I see the issue running deeper however. I'll take a stab at it later after giving others a shot (as the OP I don't want to direct the thread down one path).

[Nicky]

Celebrity gossip is aimed at destroying famous people's image, of tarnishing them in the eyes of the general public. And people consume it because they are envious and because they hate the good for being the good.

I understand that some celebrities have done nothing to earn their fame. But most of them do have admirable qualities. And the few who have been popping up, who don't, are just another symptom of the same philosophical trend: nihilism. They are admired for not having any qualities, and once they acquire one thing that is perceived as a quality (fame), they are torn down too.

Obviously, this is a generalization that doesn't apply to every single celebrity, every person involved with celebrity news, or every person who reads it. But it is by far the greatest motivating factor.

And don't get me wrong, this is not the cause of the phenomenon of celebrity in general. In a better culture, celebrity would be limited to people who deserve and have a use for it, and celebrity news would be limited to objective and important stories about famous people, but it would still exist.

[dream_weaver]

That is an interesting take on the issue. You see the paparazzi and gossip mags as a simple means for others to break the ice in polite conversation. I'd agree 100% in a rational culture since a rational person would look up to people who highlight acheivement, moreso in a field they find value in. I like that.

In todays culture I see the issue running deeper however. I'll take a stab at it later after giving others a shot (as the OP I don't want to direct the thread down one path).

Heaven forbid we assume a rational audience. Otherwise, what's the point? A broader understanding of irrationality?

[Eiuol]

You forgot an obligatory song! It's also a good music video for conveying relevent points, especially the "becoming more famous for being bad".

I'm going to assume here that what is meant by paparazzi and gossip is refering to the content in tabloids - innane stuff that is usually personal trivia than anything of value. In some cases, people even become more famous for doing bad things, like cheating on another person and then lying about it. But why would anything like commoditized celebrity gossip ever arise?

Just to mention at the start, be careful when you talk about actors, singers, and socialites providing nothing of value. Actors and singers often produce plenty of value and still get stalked for photos. But you're right about socialites. As far as I know, socialites don't produce anything by definition, as it implies social prowess Lillian Rearden style. You might think what they do is trash or in poor taste, but that doesn't mean nothing of value is produced. Tabloids have little to do with what celebrities do anyway, so it's beside the point to ask specifically about who produces or not.

Celebrity as you would know it today, with media attention and pictures available to the masses, didn't really start to appear until the twenties and a little before. Charles Lindbergh is one example, so we're not even limited to just the entertainment business. Expansion of media technology and accessibility of media for the average person cheaply made it at least possible to see famous people frequently and become curious on a level never seen before, made possible by the technology which allowed massive increases in wealth at the time via entrepreneurs/businesspeople. Information was available and easily distributed at increasingly efficient rates, so it makes sense that this would apply to "information" about public figures as well as business data distribution. Celebrity gossip can be generated quickly, so it really is no problem, then and now, to provide the product at minimal cost. The goal of celebrity gossip isn't destructive per se, it might even apply to "who is dating whom".

Of course, having a product won't immediately mean people will buy it, even if cheap or free. Why might people care to spend time reading about gossip, or looking at pictures of people just living their life as a normal human being? I doubt it's hating the good for being good - it's just general envy, not necessarily bad. If I see a rich celebrity, I think "That's quite nice, I'd really like that, too". General interest in celebrities is perfectly fine and healthy, much like how it's good to admire another person. Plenty of times I like knowing about some celebrity, at times perhaps the more innane stuff. Some of the things I know about Lady Gaga are quite silly, really. Trivia, basically. When, though, does it become a bad to be interested in a celebrity?

I really only think it becomes bad when the interest is towards bad stuff, like getting arrested, going to drug rehab, etc... or for simply being famous, like Paris Hilton. On some level though, there may be a lacking variety of heroes out there in American culture. Celebrity becomes directed at anyone easily seen when there is no one else to admire. Plenty of celebrities in the entertainment industry deserve praise (David Bowie comes to mind), but how many modern scientists or business people receive attention, except for giving money for preventing AIDS in Africa?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Eiuol

[Spiral Architect]

Heaven forbid we assume a rational audience. Otherwise, what's the point? A broader understanding of irrationality?

The purpose is to strengthen our own rational faculty. It’s an exercise to find the philosophic causes of the subject and validate it in our hierarchy of knowledge.

In my opinion, the sheer preponderance of gossip mags, television shows, and dirt rags like Perez Hilton or TMZ on the internet demonstrate a decided irrational philosophy at work. They are a symptoms of today’s culture. It’s one thing for a magazine to highlight someone of value (a reasonable pursuit) while another for the sheer volume demanded to support the industry as it works today. When you have a dozen paparazzi running a red light chasing Britney Spears after a breakdown something is wrong with the picture.

Thus, what is wrong with this picture?

[Eiuol]

In my opinion, the sheer preponderance of gossip mags, television shows, and dirt rags like Perez Hilton or TMZ on the internet demonstrate a decided irrational philosophy at work.

Why couldn't it be because it's just cheap to make tabloids? When some product is visible, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a very high demand in the population at large.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Eiuol

[Spiral Architect]

You forgot an obligatory song! It's also a good music video for conveying relevent points, especially the "becoming more famous for being bad".

Ha! I didn't think of Gaga. The wife is going to raz me over that.

Just to mention at the start, be careful when you talk about actors, singers, and socialites providing nothing of value. Actors and singers often produce plenty of value and still get stalked for photos. But you're right about socialites. As far as I know, socialites don't produce anything by definition, as it implies social prowess Lillian Rearden style. You might think what they do is trash or in poor taste, but that doesn't mean nothing of value is produced. Tabloids have little to do with what celebrities do anyway, so it's beside the point to ask specifically about who produces or not.

Celebrity as you would know it today, with media attention and pictures available to the masses, didn't really start to appear until the twenties and a little before. Charles Lindbergh is one example, so we're not even limited to just the entertainment business. Expansion of media technology and accessibility of media for the average person cheaply made it at least possible to see famous people frequently and become curious on a level never seen before, made possible by the technology which allowed massive increases in wealth at the time via entrepreneurs/businesspeople. Information was available and easily distributed at increasingly efficient rates, so it makes sense that this would apply to "information" about public figures as well as business data distribution. Celebrity gossip can be generated quickly, so it really is no problem, then and now, to provide the product at minimal cost. The goal of celebrity gossip isn't destructive per se, it might even apply to "who is dating whom".

Of course, having a product won't immediately mean people will buy it, even if cheap or free. Why might people care to spend time reading about gossip, or looking at pictures of people just living their life as a normal human being? I doubt it's hating the good for being good - it's just general envy, not necessarily bad. If I see a rich celebrity, I think "That's quite nice, I'd really like that, too". General interest in celebrities is perfectly fine and healthy, much like how it's good to admire another person. Plenty of times I like knowing about some celebrity, at times perhaps the more innane stuff. Some of the things I know about Lady Gaga are quite silly, really. Trivia, basically. When, though, does it become a bad to be interested in a celebrity?

I really only think it becomes bad when the interest is towards bad stuff, like getting arrested, going to drug rehab, etc... or for simply being famous, like Paris Hilton. On some level though, there may be a lacking variety of heroes out there in American culture. Celebrity becomes directed at anyone easily seen when there is no one else to admire. Plenty of celebrities in the entertainment industry deserve praise (David Bowie comes to mind), but how many modern scientists or business people receive attention, except for giving money for preventing AIDS in Africa?

Just to clarify since must not have made it clear: I certainly consider actors and singers to have great value. I'm a huge music fan actually. The socialites are another issue as they relate to gossip. Christopher Lee is worth reading about, Kim Kardashian is not. I just grouped them together as I figured gossip as a whole was a better subject to dissect. But I really liked your take on this and hadn’t considered it. The lack of heroes and their substitution is an excellent angle too.

One more question…

Why do we lack heroes today?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[Spiral Architect]

Why couldn't it be because it's just cheap to make tabloids? When some product is visible, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a very high demand in the population at large.

True enough. I would suspect the sheer number of them or the fact they generate TV programming would indicate otherwise. I have no hard facts so you could be completely right, I'm just working off of a theory I'm considering right now.

[Nicky]

Why couldn't it be because it's just cheap to make tabloids? When some product is visible, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a very high demand in the population at large.

Could be, but it's not. It's not only in the tabloids, it's all over the mainstream media too. FoxNews runs articles about who's gotten fat, ugly or too old for their clothes on a daily basis on the front page of their website. It's the second item, right under the Obama bashing news headline usually.

[Eiuol]

Even if there are a lot of views of some article, you still can't say a whole about how many of those people care, or in what way they care. I suspect that a lot the more trashy stories really are just easily produced, and receive enough traffic that they're worth posting. Markets can still consist of "meh, I don't care that much, but I'm curious enough to look". I don't know how many people actively seek out such articles like they might about politics or science. Even if there is a decent portion of the population that does care and has nothing better to do except wonder about what Snooki is up to, In some sense, it's just an aspect of capitalism - a lot more trash is produced that scrapes the bottom of the barrel. At the same time, a lot more good stuff is produced, just because production numbers are higher across the board.

Whatever the reason typical celebrity gossip of who is fat today is present in media, there aren't many heroes to overshadow people like Snooki or Paris Hilton, or anyone else who is merely famous for being famous. Pop stars are able to fill that role to some extent by being creative, productive, and pursuing personal goals. I think these people are perfectly fine to have a strong interest in, given that they have admirable traits (not all pop stars, of course). There is no need for stories about those people to stop. But who else is there? Paparrazi and tabloid type news fills in the gap, and an apparently sizable one at that. A celebrity shoplifting can be news because there are no other interesting people doing stuff.

[Spiral Architect]

Even if there are a lot of views of some article, you still can't say a whole about how many of those people care, or in what way they care. I suspect that a lot the more trashy stories really are just easily produced, and receive enough traffic that they're worth posting. Markets can still consist of "meh, I don't care that much, but I'm curious enough to look". I don't know how many people actively seek out such articles like they might about politics or science. Even if there is a decent portion of the population that does care and has nothing better to do except wonder about what Snooki is up to, In some sense, it's just an aspect of capitalism - a lot more trash is produced that scrapes the bottom of the barrel. At the same time, a lot more good stuff is produced, just because production numbers are higher across the board.

Whatever the reason typical celebrity gossip of who is fat today is present in media, there aren't many heroes to overshadow people like Snooki or Paris Hilton, or anyone else who is merely famous for being famous. Pop stars are able to fill that role to some extent by being creative, productive, and pursuing personal goals. I think these people are perfectly fine to have a strong interest in, given that they have admirable traits (not all pop stars, of course). There is no need for stories about those people to stop. But who else is there? Paparrazi and tabloid type news fills in the gap, and an apparently sizable one at that. A celebrity shoplifting can be news because there are no other interesting people doing stuff.

I've been noting a lot more gossip as entertainment on TV as well but also note how it has been creeping into regular news outlets. Online news sources show a lot more gossip news on their front page. Some of this is cheap and easy (I do consider your point a valid argument - I'm sure to some extent that is exactly why some people get into the business) but some of it is not. Good Morning America is the number one morning news show and they still brought in an anchor from Entertainment Tonight for their second hour programming. Gossip news is also now filling in the first hour as well. They would only do this to increase their ratings so there has to be a demand they are reacting too. There is likely another thread on how the news is trending towards "Reality TV" as well these days.

I

think you have valid points (I admire your positive approach) but I think it goes beyond that since there are too many signs of high demand.

[Spiral Architect]

Here is my take on the subject. I see this being broken into several generalized categories of people.

The first group follows gossip or celebrity news for rational purposes. I really like Eiuol’s insight into heroes and part of that plays into here. People who seek to live and do so by gaining and keeping values will naturally look up to those who exemplify those values. “Gossip” in this sense isn’t really tabloid but much deeper. It’s about people keeping up with icons. For example, I like music so it is natural I will read articles about artists I like. It would also be interesting to explore the roll of heroes in this positive way too.

At the opposite end are those that I would dub the “Jerry Springer” audience. This is a small group and exemplified by what I heard a former friend once claim, “I like to watch Springer because it makes me feel better about my life”. This plays into Nicky’s analysis on nihilism as this mentality simply likes to watch others be destroyed or at minimum seeks to survive emotionally by watching others devalue themselves. I see this as a consequence of nihilism corrupting the virtue of pride. People prop-up their self-worth by watching others devalue themselves.

Between those two extremes would be the majority of people that are your typical result of a culture influenced by the bad ethics running amok today, sort of the spiritual version of the mixed economy. They are not nihilistic, they do want to live but are simply going about it as a consequence of another major destructive idea many have implicitly accepted– Altruism. This results in looking at how altruism can corrupt the virtue of pride.

The first question of ethics is not what is ethical but who the beneficiary of virtue is. Altruism opposes egoism by saying others are the purpose of ethics. If egoism leads to the virtue of pride, the process of experiencing self-esteem and valuing one’s ability to gain or keep values, then it would reason that altruism would have the exact opposite effect. In this case, a person stops being their highest value and to various extents replaces others in that role. Pride is reengineered to be a feeling felt as a reaction dependant upon others. Pride becomes prestige or the emotional side effect of living as a “Second Hander”.

Unfortunately I haven’t come up with the right word to describe that yet, the state of receiving “pride” second hand versus the process and experience as independent thought and action.

The high demand for gossip (and by gossip I mean mundane or nonessential news about celebrities, whether they are of value or not) is the result of a culture containing too many second handers. In trying to be virtuous according to altruism, but still trying to live, people end up in a muddled middle-ground of contradictory ideas they work through daily in feeding their pride. The Fountainhead deals with the second hander brilliantly as a concept involved in the virtue of independence. But beyond that, how would that play out in the real world? I see the second hander drifting towards gossip as a source of validation to feed his artificial pride. They need to know what others are doing just as much as they need to think (or not) about what they do. Celebrity mags go from healthy sources of hero and value confirmation to high demanded news that can act as surrogate pinch-hitters for the space where someone’s self-esteem should have been.

This also explains why you can end up with any kind of celebrity being popular news, it could be someone of real value like an actor (say Christopher Lee), or someone of no real value (a socialite like Paris Hilton). It doesn’t matter since they do not have to be a value to you, but simply of value to someone. They are famous for being famous. Someone else thinks they are important so good enough. Keeping up with someone who is important to others becomes quick and easy through gossip. This also results in varying degrees of interest in gossip depending on one’s integration at this level. One person could read gossip mags just to shake their head and “tsk” at it all; another could do it because it makes them dream of another life (instead of acting on their own – important distinction), while a third could rubber neck TMZ.

Those are the ideas I’m working on (I do not claim to be an expert). I’m still working through it but it certainly has been interesting. Not gossip but the ideas involved - It has pushed me to work through the virtue of pride as well as the nature of the second hander. I suspect there is a whole paper someplace waiting to be written on the consequence of altruism or “the second hander” and how they would transform the six virtues.