SHE HAS A NAME

[Huguenot]

Incidentally, if anyone else wants to pursue a gender issue on violent death, please be aware that 75% of all deaths by violence (not including war) are male. They don't deserve it either.

I'm not saying that I have gender issue. I don't, death is binary. We all deserve respect.

Worrying about what the newspapers say is a rich world problem, the rest of the world is fighting for survival.

[legalbeagle]

Hello Huguenot! Wondered when you'd turn up and set is all straight! I'll stick with what I've originally said if that's ok. Clever though you may be, you don't know what I was thinking and are doing your usual trick of misreporting. I don't think I said anywhere that I wanted all murders to be reported, nor that nobody cares about victims. I think sections of the press don't care enough but I think you know thats not the same thing. Nor have I said all murders should be reported with equanimity. I've said that where celebrity is involved, victims are rarely given the status or dignity they deserve.

[Alan Medic]

How should the status of the victim be reported in this instance in your opinion?

[Huguenot]

Why would I misreport?

I'll take you at your word that you set out to complain about celebrity reporting. There's no reason not to. Seems a bit silly since newspapers cover everything about celebrities from what they have for breakfast to who they snog, but hey, whatever.

How many celebrity Olympiad women's partners can you name? Right now? Jessica Ennis? Nicole Adams? Victoria Pendleton? Helen Glover? Heather Stanning?

It's your language that demonstrates (consciously or unconsciously) a gender issue. Examples have already been listed by other people.

If Pendleton had murdered her partner would you know who they are unless their relationship was clarified?

Given the amount of comments on that subject, it seems I'm not alone in seeing it?

Anyway, this isn't a celebrity story, it's a story about the destruction of hope, symbolized by Pistorius. Nobody is human in this story, it's an allegory.

[the-e-dealer]

who is this Oscar bloke?

[legalbeagle]

Newspapers do indeed report everything celebs do, it's part of my point. No, I can't name the boyfriends if those women listed, but that's to miss the point. We aren't reading reports of what they might have done to their boyfriends during the committal of a crime, so I don't see the relevance of your point there. My language reflects the fact that this was a man shooting a woman who is then objectified and devalued in the press because her BF is famous and she is a model. Had it been woman on man, language would have reflected that. You are not alone in assuming a gender issue, but that doesn't mean I see one. It's more likely to mean that what we type is briefer than what we say and thus open to misinterpretation. To continue to insist I have a motive when told I don't just detracts from proper debate.

And this is not, in fact, a story of lost hope. He has not yet been tried or convicted and few confirmed facts are known. This is a poorly reported celeb obsessed story that has degraded a bright and talented young woman.

[Otta]

Lets just leave this argument. LB, you weren't particularly clear in your opening post about what bothered you about the story (you never once used the word celebrity).

I disagree for the most part that she has been degraded. Even showing her in a bikini isn't exactly degrading when you consider that she was a model. Unless you think that modelling is degrading, but that's a whole other thread. Tabloid press is what it is, and could probably be more tasteful in the way they report most things.

[jamster]

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

Why is his disability relevant to the alleged crime?

[the-e-dealer]

Harder to use a gun if disabled?

[StraferJack]

Having a tabloid culture (or any paper for that matter) shouldn't give them a free pass

Time and again they cross a line and they should be held accountable - if not by any Leveson type recommendations, then their public/customers are well within their rights to shout them down, without being told "oh hush now - you know what they are like"

I'm don't want to speak for leaglebeagle but I can say "that cover" bothered me - not because she was known/unknow, or male/female, or only there because she was killed by someone famous

What bothered me was that someone, knowing she was dead less than 24 hours, chose the most salacious shot they could find, put it on the front page where, unless you bothered to read the tiny text, she looked for all intents and purposes like she was posing for the Sun itself

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2013/2/15/1360932523284/The-Sun-Oscar-Pistorius-f-001.jpg

Was she a model? Yes.

Was that all she was? No

She was a paralegal and applied to the bar in 2011

When Beckham pops his clogs, the front page ain't gonna be this

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG8991439/m/becks-1_2099211a.jpg

Why would that be? Could they not find any pics of her doing anything else? Please...

The sun published these pics and knew

a) it would outrage people (who they could dismiss as PC)

b) sell more copies

Their call - but don't suggest we can't call them out on it

The mentality that thinks it's ok to put that picture on a front page less than 24 hours after they were shot? I'm guessing the sort of person who shoots women has that as part of their mental make-up already...

[Huguenot]

Sorry SJ, you're not really suggesting that Pistorious was part of an international conspiracy to shoot women, evidenced by a willingness to publish photos of women in bikinis?

Good heavens.

[StraferJack]

time and place for tongue in cheek comments H?

[StraferJack]

"time and place for tongue in cheek comments H?"

rereading that it makes it sound like the death of this woman has touched me in a way that the thousands of others hasn't - and that isn't the case

Had that front page not happened I wouldn't be commenting either way - but that front page did seem to have a whiff about it that bothered me. Still wasn't commenting - but to see so many people then say nowt really wrong with it....

[Otta]

Who said you shouldn't shout them down for anything?

I suspect (and this is not my opinion) that they would argue that she was an attractive young woman who modelled and that they were somehow paying tribute to her beauty.

Of course that's bollocks, but it probably did sell a load of papers and that's what they're paid to do, whether we think it's in good taste or not

[legalbeagle]

To go back and answer earlier question, I've already answered why my "alternative" headline referenced disability a page or so back.

[Jeremy]

Every single day we see stories in the news which are only there because they involve a celebrity. That's not going to change any day soon.

Believe me I loathe celebrity culture as much as ayone, but Oscar is a guy who's acheived a hell of a lot, so to describe him as a mere "celebrity" is doing him a disservice. IMO this is more newsworthy than the Kate/William wedding by some significant margin, let alone anything the Beckhams get up to.

The thing that does annoy me about the coverage is the repeated reference to her as his "model girlfriend", which is just pure sensationalism.

[StraferJack]

Jeremy - agree totally

This is a news story of some magnitude and it shouldn't be dismissed as mere "celeb-fodder"

[legalbeagle]

SJ thanks, I wasn't linking to the Sun since I don't want to give them the readers but actually you made my point very well.

[StraferJack]

"Who said you shouldn't shout them down for anything? "

probably expressed a bit strongly but you, for example have said "the tabloid press is what it is" and even in your last post "it probably did sell a load of papers and that's what they're paid to do, whether we think it's in good taste or not"

the subtext of which, to me, suggests "no point shouting them down about it"

also, to say "I disagree for the most part that she has been degraded. Even showing her in a bikini isn't exactly degrading when you consider that she was a model. "

seems odd to me. Because if you are her family, do you look at that picture, not in it;'s original context which seems fine to me, but in the context of her still being warm on the slab, you don't think it's out of order?

[Michael Palaeologus]

Re-reading some of the coverage, is does seem that much of it is focused on the Pistorius the Hero not being the Hero he seemed.

Part of that story is his dumping of his long term girlfriend to replace her with a blonde, model who was a media celebrity in RSA. He is being positioned as a gun obsessed, abuser with anger management issues.

Ms Steenkamp has been positioned as a beautiful and intelligent woman who did good work with kids living in deprived circumstances.

Of course these pictures are simplifications, but this is the British popular media we are talking about. They rarely do complex.

The media and celebrities feed off each other, in life and death.

However, we do know her name.

[Huguenot]

The headline rather makes my point for me: "Blade Runner Murders Lover on Valentines"

The human identity of these individuals is not relevant: it's a comic book caricature.

In that sense Steenkamp isn't degraded by it, since from The Sun's perspective Steenkamp is not a real person.

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> "Who said you shouldn't shout them down for

> anything? "

>

> probably expressed a bit strongly but you, for

> example have said "the tabloid press is what it

> is" and even in your last post "it probably did

> sell a load of papers and that's what they're paid

> to do, whether we think it's in good taste or

> not"

>

> the subtext of which, to me, suggests "no point

> shouting them down about it"

Nope, I fully support shouting them down, and saying when they're out of order. The point I am trying to make is that there are a load of people who will buy it and see no harm in it. Please don't try to paint me as one of them, but as long as they are willing to buy the paper, the paper will continue doing what it's doing. Because it's making money and that is why it exists. You may disagree with porn for example, but as long as the industry makes money, it won't close up because other people don't like it.

> also, to say "I disagree for the most part that

> she has been degraded. Even showing her in a

> bikini isn't exactly degrading when you consider

> that she was a model. "

>

> seems odd to me. Because if you are her family, do

> you look at that picture, not in it;'s original

> context which seems fine to me, but in the context

> of her still being warm on the slab, you don't

> think it's out of order?

Bit fed up with you putting words in my mouth. Yes it is out of order, I wouldn't buy that shite, and haven't even looked at it, but plenty of people want to, and so it exists for them. Would a lot of families like what is put in the tabloids about them? Of course not. Would this family be up;set by the Sun's cover? I don't know if they'll have even seen it, I imagine right now they wouldn't really be in a place to bother getting upset about it because they are trying to come to terms with their relative's death. But they have people like you to be outraged for them, so that's okay.

This thread has now turned in to the debate that LB claims she was trying to start in the first place, and it's a debate worth having. I only got involved in the first place because the OP didn't actually put any kind of point across and it took a whole page of posts before we managed to work out the subject.

I agree with Jeremy that Oscar P is not a mere celebrity, and I totally agree that the victim should not just be described as a "model girlfriend". I do however understand why the headline would say "Oscar P accused of murdering girlfriend", because that is more likely to get people's attention than "Oscar P accused of murdering Reeva Steenkamp" because people would have said "who?".

I basically agree with LB and SJ's thoughts on this, I'm just shocked that you're shocked about the Sun's article. It's the Sun, and shed loads of people buy it, so it'll carry on doing what it does.

[red devil]

RS's romance with OscarP and her subsequent participation on a TV reality show, suggests she was more than happy to follow the celebrity road and all that it entails. When asked about whether the TV prog should now be braodcast after her death, a family spokesman said, and I paraphrase, ''It's what she would've wanted''...

ETA Typo...

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

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

> 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.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to have this swept under the carpet. You don't get to decide if your post was not sexist. It's not your call, else everyone with dodgy opinions would be exonerating themselves. Sexism and racism should never be just pushed aside like you are attempting to do.

And I assume you mean Otta as the "person that asked". I see no indication he accepted your 'explanation'. Maybe he can clarify.

[jamster]

legalbeagle Wrote:

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

> To go back and answer earlier question, I've

> already answered why my "alternative" headline

> referenced disability a page or so back.

Apologies I missed that.

> "Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by disabled boyfriend

> who is now charged with her murder".

>

> Why haven't we read that headline?

>

> Because celebrity is more important than anything.

> Because even in death, a bright talented woman

> cannot be accorded equal status to her boyfriend

> if he's famous... The extent to which we are happy

> to peer at his fall from grace, and not care at all

> how she is devalued, plastered across front pages

> in a bikini, is shocking.

When I read this, I thought that this thread was about you finding the coverage of this alleged crime degrading to Ms Steenkamp.

Oscar Pistorius is a well known sportsman. His celebrity is secondary to that, and at this point in time his involvement in this matter is still unexplained. To subjugate to him to being the "disabled boyfriend" is equally degrading.

If we take your point to be that the media should not propagate discriminatory or degrading perspectives in a sensational way simply to get a salacious headline, I think this is reasonable comment.

To be honest I found it hard to take your point as so, because of the implication that you only care about this going one way (men devaluing women) based on your own use of sensationalism: "**Unsurprisingly** all the men...".

Nevertheless, I'm very happy to be corrected that your real concern is about the cult of celebrity.

> 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?

To answer your point specifically, her being a model is relevant here as it is biographical of the victim. Google "stockbroker murdered", "doctor murdered", "factory worker murdered" ... etc... and you will find plenty of equivalent examples. At best it is formulaic, rather than inappropriate, reporting.

> The extent to which we are happy to peer at his

> fall from grace, and not care at all how she is

> devalued, plastered across front pages in a bikini,

> is shocking.

The fact is that she **was** a model and as a result the newspapers have a large library of photos of her, photos that she presumably got paid to be in, and so they don't have to resort to stealing a blurry photo from Facebook.

There is a question about whether this is dignified (which to my mind is a separate question as to whether it is debasing or denigratory).

But your point is about our interest in Pistorius' celebrity, right?

> Because celebrity is more important than anything.

> Because even in death, a bright talented woman cannot

> be accorded equal status to her boyfriend if he's

> famous. Is this a story about running fast or about

> murder?

...

> 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.

The NY Times has an interesting take on this:

"[The matter...] stunned a nation that had elevated Mr. Pistorius as an emblem of the ability to overcome acute adversity and a symbol of South Africa?s ability to achieve on the world stage.

...

Even in an era that has seen idolized sports heroes fall from grace at a rapid clip, from the doping of Mark McGwire and Lance Armstrong to the philandering of Tiger Woods, Mr. Pistorius?s arrest stood out for the severity of the charges, the unique hardships he had overcome and the outsize triumphs he had won, not just against other disabled athletes but against able-bodied ones as well."

(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/sports/oscar-pistorius-shooting-south-africa.html?_r=0)

So perhaps that is why his disability is relevant and why the matter has been reported in this way.

Nothing to do with the cult of celebrity?

Thought provoking stuff - thanks for starting the thread.