SHE HAS A NAME

[legalbeagle]

Oimissus. I have very little time in fact. And since you ask, I'd like people to care less what a celebrity did, and more about violence perpetrated in any given society in the round. And why it happens. And what might be done about it. And not to think it isn't something they should be taxed with since it happens lots and lots of it doesn't happen near them.

Otta, the gender thing follows, sadly, in the sense that women are more frequent victims. I was interested too that all the men commenting thought I must have been making a gender point. "Woman gets cross at lack of identity of female victim therefore making gender point." Perhaps we've finally programmed you all to think that if you're in trouble you must have been sexist!

[Michael Palaeologus]

"Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by disabled boyfriend who is now charged with her murder".

Why haven't we read that headline?

Because up until a few days ago, few people in the UK had heard about Reeva Steenkamp. We had heard about her disabled boyfriend because he happened to be a Olympic and Paralympic athlete of note, and we did host the Olympics and Paralympics last year. He was on the telly allot, she was not.

Of course it is about celebrity, if they were an attractive but unknown couple, there would have been no reporting in the UK at all. Tragic though it is, why would we be interested or even care? It is not possible to be interested in or care about everybody who dies in tragic circumstances on any given day. We care about the people we know, we are interested in the people we know of. Otherwise, not.

That is not to say that we do not care about the fact of a multiplicity of tragic murders in RSA and other countries, but in the abstract not personal sense.

As Otta says, if the genders were reversed, then the same media coverage would apply. There are plenty of examples of the pornification of violence toward women. I dont think this is one of them.

[legalbeagle]

Dimbo/Bimbo/shmimbo. Not sure any of its appropriate, esp not when discussing crime victim.

[legalbeagle]

Mike, as I've said, I'm not making a gender point. Though you clearly didn't see the front page of The Sun if you think this has not been turned into cheap porn. As for the rest, I'll respectfully disagree. I don't think there is more value in telling us about a murder just because someone famous did it. I think we just want to read it because we are obsessed with what celebs do. I don't think we do only care about people we know. It's really sad to read things like: Why should we care. I would have thought that was self evident. And you are wrong. An entirely unknown woman was raped and murdered on a bus. It was reported the world over. We cared. It changed lives, and maybe her society forever.

[Loz]

But surely it is the celebrity of Pistorius that makes it newsworthy? I'm really not sure of your point here, LB? Yes, pure celebrity (Kardashian, etc) is a bad thing, but surely a noted Olympic and Paralympic athlete being arrested for murder is newsworthy? Who he is accused of murdering is in the detail, but it's not the story.

Yes, every murder is a tragedy. But that doesn't make it newsworthy on a worldwide scale.

And I think, given your posts ("Unsurprisingly all the men contributing to this thread seem to have missed the point." and "Because even in death, a bright talented woman cannot be accorded equal status to her boyfriend if he's famous.") I think there was an element of accusations of sexism, which I completely disagree with (either that or you put tour point forward incredibly badly). If Serena Williams shot and killed her (otherwise little-known) boyfriend, the headline would be just the same flavour.

[legalbeagle]

Loz I think I've covered your points if you go back and read. I'm not making a gender or sexism point. And of course celeb is why it's being reported. I'm not asking for every murder to be reported. I'm asking you to care less about celebrity, and, when a crime is reported, to give the victim dignity, respect, and an equal status.

[Otta]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta, the gender thing follows, sadly, in the

> sense that women are more frequent victims. I was

> interested too that all the men commenting thought I must have been making a gender point. "Woman gets cross at lack of identity of female victim

> therefore making gender point." Perhaps we've

> finally programmed you all to think that if you're

> in trouble you must have been sexist!

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unsurprisingly all the men contributing to this

> thread seem to have missed the point.

I wasn't trying to row with you, but that is the most sexist comment on this thread.

You're right about the poor woman killed on that bus, but it's an exceptional case. Many men and women are raped and/or murdered and we don't hear a thing about it, so in a twisted way the celebrity involvement of this case actually brings her death to the forefront of international news, and hopefully means that IF he is guilty it can't be swept away.

[Otta]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by disabled boyfriend

> who is now charged with her murder".

>

> Why haven't we read that headline?

>

On a personal note of interest, why does the fact he's disabled nees to be pointed out in the headline?

How about

"Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by famous athlete boyfriend, who is now charged with her murder".

That would be a fair and accurate headline fiven the current facts wouldn't it?

[legalbeagle]

That wasn't a sexist point, it was a statement of fact. All the men up to that point had misunderstood. Unsurprisingly you all thought I'd made a gender point. Unsurprising because no one ever thinks about celebrity and you're all used to being called sexist and assumed thats what id done and up to that point you were all male commentators.

[Loz]

It was still a pretty sexist post, LB. Why 'unsurprisingly'??

[legalbeagle]

Disabled mentioned to draw attention to how we use facts, and what their relevance is to what we are reporting. For example, why is it reported in headlines that she is a model? The "headline" I wrote is not one I'd like to read. It's the equivalent of what the press has done to her.

[Michael Palaeologus]

What Loz said.

It is just not possible to care about every single separate murder that occurs. As a generality, yes, we are horrified,

The vast majority do not get reported. Those that do are those that have additional aspects that make them "newsworthy".

The dreadful rape and murder of the 23 year old woman (un-named in media coverage) sadly did not generate media coverage, it became worldwide news when sections of Indian society finally revolted against the routine harassment and assault of Indian women and the uncaring reaction of officialdom. It was only then that we knew of the case.

[legalbeagle]

Loz, it wasn't sexist. I've just explained use of "unsurprising".

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz I think I've covered your points if you go back and read. I'm not making a gender or sexism

> point. And of course celeb is why it's being reported. I'm not asking for every murder to be

> reported. I'm asking you to care less about celebrity, and, when a crime is reported, to give

> the victim dignity, respect, and an equal status.

But they don't have equal status in the sense of news. If Reeva Steenkamp had have been killed by someone unknown the news would have never reported it. If Oscar Pistorius had killed someone else it would have been. That's how news works. Pistorius is the news-maker. Otherwise, what is news?

I think I am seriously missing the point you are trying to make here. And I'm not sure I'm the only one.

[legalbeagle]

Her lack of naming was a legal requirement and her rape and murder most certainly did generate news coverage. It's what caused her society to revolt in the first place.

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz, it wasn't sexist. I've just explained use of "unsurprising".

Sorry, I don't accept that explanation. It's an old argument, but had someone used 'black' or even 'women' in a similar context, you would probably be the first to chew them out.

I think you've been around here long enough to know you are pretty on the level, but that post was sexist.

[legalbeagle]

No Loz I think you have the point exactly. Our news is about celebrity. Treatment of other people in the "story" is poor and disrespectful. That's it.

[Otta]

Perhaps a loss in translation of thoughts to text is at play.

[legalbeagle]

No Loz, the post was not sexist. Chosing not to believe the explanation is a matter for you, not me.

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Loz I think you have the point exactly. Our news is about celebrity. Treatment of other people

> in the "story" is poor and disrespectful. That's it.

But were they treated 'poorly and disrespectfully'? Yes, the Sun made the normal hash of it, but most other media outlets I've seen have named and described her pretty respectfully.

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Loz, the post was not sexist. Chosing not to

> believe the explanation is a matter for you, not me.

It is. And I don't. And it was. And I'm not the only one that thought so.

[legalbeagle]

It's not universally poor. Just frequently poor enough to be worth changing. Perhaps you missed the worst of it. And enough with the sexism nonsense. It's really not important whether you believe it or not.

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And enough with the sexism nonsense.

That's really all I'm asking.

I, and others, have quite rightly called you out for it. It may have been a poorly worded post. You could have gracefully withdrawn it. You chose to defend it, rather badly.

[legalbeagle]

Loz, again I'll disagree. It wasn't sexist and that explanation was accepted by the person that asked. Ill withdraw to bed now, since my posts are meant to focus a discussion on celebrity in media, not whether you think I am sexist, which adds nothing to what I want to debate.

[Huguenot]

I struggle to believe leaguebeagle genuinely believes newspapers should write about every murder with equanimity, she's simply not that naive.

There's about 1,500 'reported' murders every day according to the UN, no point in even discussing unattributed or misreported murders. We'd be in tens of thousands then.

Does legalbeagle honestly believe they're all likely to get column inches? No. Pistorius is the story, not because of him, but because of the symbol he was for achievement in the face of adversity. Like Armstrong, like Woods, he was a role model. Like Armstrong and Woods he has become all too human for such elevated responsibilities.

THAT is the story.

Nobody gives any more of a shit about Pistorius the person than they give a shit about Steenkamp the person.

This is like Helen Keller stabbing the BFF, the story would be Helen Keller.

It doesn't take massive critical analysis to see leaglebeagle's consistent use of terms that call out gender stereotypes. Over and over again.

She may not have set out to make that point, but its saliency in her mind influenced everything she said afterwards.

The offensive subtext to her opinion is that she imagines that just because the newspapers don't talk about the suffering of Steenkamp that nobody cares. That's not a good way to think about other people, and pursuing it will make you unhappy.