advertisement


Caroline Flack has died

Wasn't aware of her until this latest event that put her in the news, sad that she thought this was her only option though.
 
cobbers said:
R.I.P. but I'm sure many others have died today,just don't happen to be a 'celebrity'.
Click to expand...

True, but in a society that upholds celebrity ideals, a suicide such as this brings society to re-evaluate itself. And then do nothing...

Andrew
 
Yomanze said:
No sorry, you can’t entirely blame victims of propaganda.

The tabloids use fear-based, weaponised tactics that would impact any nation it was peddled to. The tabloid media are a huge part in setting the narrative of fearing others, false sense of “patriotism”, and slamming body confidence of women. They also have a nasty habit of latching onto women. Jade Goody, Princess Di, Amy Winehouse, Meghan Markle, and now Caroline Flack.
Click to expand...


^^^ 100% this ^^^

Couldn't put it any better myself.
 
Yomanze said:
No sorry, you can’t entirely blame victims of propaganda.

The tabloids use fear-based, weaponised tactics that would impact any nation it was peddled to. The tabloid media are a huge part in setting the narrative of fearing others, false sense of “patriotism”, and slamming body confidence of women. They also have a nasty habit of latching onto women. Jade Goody, Princess Di, Amy Winehouse, Meghan Markle, and now Caroline Flack.
Click to expand...

Extremely well put. When Leveson was published I and many others campaigned for its recommendations to be implemented. I remember a media studies university lecturer speaking at one event I went to who said if Leveson were to be ignored completely it will green light the gutter press to not only continue their behaviour, but to ramp it up and hide under the guise of 'the freedom of the press' and 'public interest' arguments while victimising individuals in order to peddle their crap to the social media enabled masses with nothing better to do than soak it up and re-peddle it accordingly. That is exactly what has happened and still they go utterly unchecked. That said the amount of apathy I encountered and still do from a lot of people who think it's all a storm in a teacup and these people are 'asking for it' beggars belief.... I simply suggest that perhaps they should ask the Dowlers how much they were 'asking for it'.
 
In any sane world this would lead to implementing Leveson pt II, sadly we live in a society where the government and the most vile gutter press are all but a single entity.

PS As ever please support #StopFundingHate. Given how fundamentally corrupt and complicit the current government is in all this the only hope in hell is to hit the Tory gutter press-barons where it hurts, i.e. hit their advertising revenue.
 
Yomanze said:
No sorry, you can’t entirely blame victims of propaganda.

The tabloids use fear-based, weaponised tactics that would impact any nation it was peddled to. The tabloid media are a huge part in setting the narrative of fearing others, false sense of “patriotism”, and slamming body confidence of women. They also have a nasty habit of latching onto women. Jade Goody, Princess Di, Amy Winehouse, Meghan Markle, and now Caroline Flack.
Click to expand...

I agree about the downside. Further down however is the dilemma that poses.

The blunt truth is that we now have an almost entirely unregulated social media, and a lightly regulated press. At least the press can be proved to be responsible for harm, censured and reigned in, although each time that happens a tiny piece of freedom is chipped away. But the mass media, the people pouring their scorn, hate and bile onto this woman (who is simply one, public example) are in practice unregulated, and as it is now, the social media carries at least as much impact on the vulnerable as the press do, I think more.

So if it must be regulated, then it should be self regulated. The only alternative is government interference, and frankly who do you trust least?
How do you regulate? Look at PFM. Posts are taken down but it's always too late. The viewer has viewed by then, the insult delivered and for the vulnerable, the damage done. And here, in perspective, it is very well run and barely any nonsense goes unchallenged for more than an hour or so, but even a minute is too long.

The sad fact is that 'we' have given a voice to a million million people, amongst whom are the thick, the unbalanced, the psychopathic, the people who love to hurt and etc (sry to be so un pc and blunt but I feel some things have to be faced...everyone, all the good people will have to lose their freedom, so I'm not unhappy to put names to those I think are responsible for the coming unwanted government control) . Only government regulation can prevent them from doing continued wide-scale damage, though it's a task so huge that it would probably mean the end of those sites as we know them. And it's an end to that kind of freedom of speech.

There must be a balance to protect those vulnerable, but what that is I have no idea. I don't want a lack of freedom, I don't want anyone hurt, and I don't want hurtful, deliberately unpleasant people to be able to spread their venom without penalty or sanction. How?
 
Any suicide is a tragedy, that's for sure. Ms. Flack or the unknown 18 yr old lad in my village last year, and the thousands of others.

But isn't it the case that there are people who seek fame, court the media, milk it for their own exposure and profit - and try to control all that, then cry foul when their less desirable behaviours are shown? I'm not arguing that the negative exposure is right, but you don't have to buy it. I don't. I suspect that the fans of the cult of celebrity are the very same people buying the rubbish mags when their idols are being knocked , that they were buying when the stories were positive. It's a marketplace driven by the consumer.
 
Ginger said:
Any suicide is a tragedy, that's for sure. Ms. Flack or the unknown 18 yr old lad in my village last year, and the thousands of others.

But isn't it the case that there are people who seek fame, court the media, milk it for their own exposure and profit - and try to control all that, then cry foul when their less desirable behaviours are shown? I'm not arguing that the negative exposure is right, but you don't have to buy it. I don't. I suspect that the fans of the cult of celebrity are the very same people buying the rubbish mags when their idols are being knocked , that they were buying when the stories were positive. It's a marketplace driven by the consumer.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a marketplace driven by the consumer, so is any market. Cocaine trafficking is driven by the people who put it up their noses. This doesn't make it right or mean it can't be regulated.
 
What's everybody doing in this thread Steve? Assuming that the media drove her to suicide when they don't actually know that. But they purport it to be the truth. Don't think there's been an inquest yet... but we wouldn't want fact to stand in teh way of assumption, would we?
 
It is well known that she has been hounded and ripped apart by the press the last few months over her personal life. The very ones that have dedicated pages to report her death...
 
But you don’t know that’s the reason why she ended her life. She may have had many other issues , existing mental health problems for example . You simply don’t know .

Her friend Laura Whitmore is quoted on a BBC report today saying that she had many issues.
 
Ginger said:
What's everybody doing in this thread Steve? Assuming that the media drove her to suicide when they don't actually know that. But they purport it to be the truth. Don't think there's been an inquest yet... but we wouldn't want fact to stand in teh way of assumption, would we?
Click to expand...

Which of the rags do you work for?
 
Ginger said:
But you don’t know that’s the reason why she ended her life. She may have had many other issues , existing mental health problems for example . You simply don’t know .
Click to expand...

A lot of this kind of commenting happens on here. Assumptions v being objective as it suits.

It will be a suicide verdict at inquest. But the causes won’t even fully be understood, nor agreed.

It’s very sad, tho.
 
"I don't know who she is but..."

Sorry but the cliché has got stuck in my brain cell.

Not my favourite presenter but I wouldn't wish this on her or anyone and she doesn't deserve it, that I do know and it saddens me that another young life is taken.

I could say the same of Paula Yates, Peaches Geldoff, Dale Winton etc all likeable people in my book.

Is there something about TV presenters that makes them vulnerable?
 
Everyone deserves to have a private life. Sadly in these modern times, the behaviour of the tabloid press and individuals on social media has led to incessant harassment for some. I only met her once briefly last year at the Cheltenham Jazz Festival. She had come with Danny Cipriani to hear Gregory Porter. After the gig, they both waited back stage to meet GP. No-one bothered them. They were charming and very happy together.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility for the consequences - that is true of media outlets as well as keyboard warriors. The internet is marvellous thing for many, but it is a curse for those in the public eye.
 
Ginger said:
What's everybody doing in this thread Steve? Assuming that the media drove her to suicide when they don't actually know that. But they purport it to be the truth. Don't think there's been an inquest yet... but we wouldn't want fact to stand in teh way of assumption, would we?
Click to expand...
we're sitting about talking about an event. The difference between us and the media is that we know it's just opinion and nobody here is pretending to be reporting facts.
 
Does a safety net really exist anymore for the majority of troubled people - and it has to be said there are increasing numbers of those?

I recently had a friend who was genuinely terminally depressed having lost his Father and his job, whilst his wife had left him, all within a very short period of time. He never even left his flat. I could visit maybe twice a week but that was all of his social contact. I managed to get him to contact the NHS and we finally got him an appointment with the mental health team. I went along to the appointment and they could have been in no doubt that he was suicidal.

The consultant wanted to see him again urgently and in the meantime prescribed some really heavy medication. I recall taking the letter from the consultant to the main desk and handing it over. It contained a request for the next appointment. The receptionist burst into laughter, explained why, and just said they would see what they could do. We both went along again to the next consultation. Three months later.

We managed to get him through those three months but what about all of those who either have no friends or refuse their help? Three months? For a suicidal middle aged man? It's enough to make you cry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top