Rebecca Traister in Salon:
She is poisonous and culty and insidiously evil, and her tyranny must end.
Traister is writing about Paris Hilton.
Paris Hilton is more than a punch-line-rich pest. She is poisonous and culty and insidiously evil, and her tyranny must end. Last week, as she spread like a rash to Spears, the scariest image was not Spears’ nude lady-parts or the weird fishnet-trading Toulouse Lautrec get-up that Hilton arranged for the pair. It was a picture of the young women walking hand-in-hand, Hilton in a T-shirt that read “I’m Paris Hilton, I can do whatever I want.” Next to her, Spears wore a shirt reading, “I’m Paris Hilton, I can do whatever I want.”
She must be stopped. Before she kills.
What I’ve been wondering about, and my segue is some of the comments on suz’ MSM thread, is two things really. It’s now trite to say that Fairfax’ online strategy is trash celebrity goss. Or trash blogs like “Sam and the City”. It’s also trite to observe that you won’t lose a buck in the magazine publishing game by putting out trash magazines full of largely made up stories about celebs. But it seems to me that there’s merit in discussing this, and what limits and boundaries are pushed. Trainter is only one of the writers for major publications in the States who turns a wonderfully nasty phrase about celebdom but also writes up a storm in holding up a mirror to what the celeb culture reflects. Why aren’t we doing that here? Should we be? Why in Australia do we just do import the trash ourselves and not hold the can up to gaze into the darkness and muck and wonder what our interest in it all says about us?
And does Traister have a point?
Kim,
But surely most of us couldn’t give a toss about celebs once we escape out teen years. I would prefer to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than read something about Paris Hilton’s antics. Unless she joins Al-Qaeda or is caught in bed with the Pope, I’m not interested in her or any other intellectually dull tart with unseemly wads of cash.
Well I was going to post something snarky about celeb culture, but after reading Traister’s piece I’m dumbstruck. Jeebus, can that woman write or what?
After reading the first line,I thought that the post was going to be about Anne Coulter
Alex, I’ve just been to her 60th birthday party!
How was it, Christine? Any guns fired?
Got pretty ugly actually, Kim.
Still wearing that same little cocktail dress she’s had since she was 20, hormone therapy gone all crazy and weird, and eyes staring dementedly while she screamed something about her last territorial demand.
O’Rielly thought she was “cool.”
I can tell that from the rakish angle of his bow-tie, Christine:
<img src="http://www.sundaypaper.com/Portals/0/061806images/oreilly-and-coulter.jpg"
But surely most of us couldn’t give a toss about celebs once we escape out teen years.
Well you and I don’t, but many, many people do seem to really care, at least to the extent of buying magazines and watching telly that’s full of nothing else.
Well someone out there gives a toss about them, because there’s money in them there celebrities. And as I’ve said before, I’ve tried to ignore La Hilton and hope she goes away, but it isn’t working.
Well, now that I’ve calmed down from the excitement of Ann’s party and Traister’s article, a couple of comments.
Fairfax’s online strategy has a few high points, but many, many lows.
Highs are reprints from the print edition like magazine watch http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/what-the-gossip-mags-say/2006/12/18/1166290480943.html, and short video features like Doug Anderson’s short TV reviews.
And Walkely award winner Jack Marx is sometimes a good read, available only on blog, and features nowhere on the front-end.
Just look at this random collection from the Herald’s front end from this morning:
1) Life’s a bitch for some celebs: Britney Spears takes over from Paris as the world’s worst celebrity dog owner.
2) Sam and the City TV: Video Summer Specials: The best of Sam and the City. Is bigger better?
3) Tough Love tells all: Fireball Courtney Love says she’s in “actor jail”.
All in all it’s a pretty rubbish mix. And I haven’t made my mind up whether this has to do with bad design or bad content.
Now compare it with the Grudaain http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Easier read, serious news up front, but the site also a fair amount of fun trash content – you just have to know where to look.
That’s it from me for the moment. I’m going away to ponder (a charming seaside village in SE England full of quirky characters).
After looking at that photo, my eyes are burning.
“And as I’ve said before, I’ve tried to ignore La Hilton and hope she goes away,”
Sadly, she’s actually coming (so to speak) to Sydney for NYE. It’s alleged that she’ll be “performing” at a Home nightclub soiree.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20946702-5001026,00.html
Traister does have a point, and she’s not alone. I’m not upto debating this one, it’ll show my hypocrsy
I’ve seen the photos. My first question: what is BS on?, my second question was what is this friendiship based upon, who wants what?
Go here.
I am sorry, but that is a cultural trainwreck that I cannot take my eyes off. The kid looks like a napalmed penguin and Kidman is channelling Princess Di.
She looks like a violinist who had just been given a Strad.
You read it for the different style of war lies, right Christine? Hey, you and me both. I’m not ashamed.
Caught me off guard there, David. I thought it was Nicole at Matt Lucas’ wedding.
I struggle to understand why Paris, my future daughter-in-law (if my plans come to fruition) arouses such strong antipathy amongst the masses. She’s just a girl having fun, a liberated woman doing her own thing! All good what?