How Should We Remember Our Fallen Stars?

25^th June, 2009. I’m relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and instantly flick on a news channel.

Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s dead.

A similarly bewildering moment happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.

One of the advantages of this modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion when we lose an influential figure.

However, with these new mediums of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public property, how should that public remember them?

Case in point: sitting with a friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.

With the death of Whitney Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?

Without doubt, the talent of the young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was released in 1985.

Houston enjoyed seven consecutive number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up another batch of sales posthumously).

Serene images were shattered with Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice was broken.

Yet, which era of the star’s life should the public focus on?

Unfortunately, intrigue and bad news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers, more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in society, without a saving voice, so to speak.

Of course, perhaps without the fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention, they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured decline, or of outer afflictions?

Society is constructed in such a way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never defeat their demons.

But do their devils add meaning to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s indiscretions and media attention.

However, for the stars like Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their gifts, and should be thought of in this light.

In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy."

Perceptive as this analysis is, perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in public responsibility.

Just as we facilitate the rise of a star, we are compliant in their demise.

Remembering where I was when I heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.

"Statutory Regulation is not Required" - Leveson Inquiry Latest

Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into the media misconduct recommenced this month after the Christmas period to as much furore as had previously shrouded the case.

Over the past week, a number of official apologies have been issued to the victims of hacking from corporate giant News International. The statements released mark an interesting and significant development in the proceedings in the court examination, as the executive groups in charge of News International had held their ground in rebuking all the claims even till the latter stages of 2011.

Among those high profile figures who have now settled are actor Jude Law, politician Lord John Prescott and athlete Gavin Henson, alongside several other famous figures and ordinary persons alike.

It is hoped that with the admissions made by the firm, there may be some further ground covered as to how far the alleged transgressions had become common practice.

Of course, the revelation that emails were also targeted by many news groups has released fresh controversy that is not too difficult to imagine by any stretch of the imagination. Should these allegations prove true, it not only adds an extra dimension to the case, but ensures that there may need to be further sessions, divided by invasion category.

After all, Lord Leveson has made public his intention to release the first findings in September and the nine month period could easily be filled by thorough investigations of the initial claims.

In an inquiry whose costs are now expected to be in excess of £10m in compensation, it is the ethical value of the newspaper corporations that shall now be the method of payment for many of the firms. Open and transparent contributions are expected of all, and are anticipated as a form of apology, a form of exoneration, from many reporters and key figures.

When the story originally broke with the Guardian, one aspect that caused the most concern was the belief that executives, chiefs and editors at News Group Newspapers (NGN) were aware of the malpractice of their employees within the papers they printed.

With the eight week of the inquiry being proliferated with various editor figures from across the media domain, it was perhaps the comments of the Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, which gained the most attention. In addition to proffering a different tone with his witty satire, he claimed that “statutory regulation is not required.”

In the face of the widespread controversy, such an outlandish statement appears insulting to the work of those leading the investigation, and to those whose privacy was invaded. However, Hislop developed his argument, citing that all the charges facing the accused relate to practices that are already illegal.

Instantly, Hislop has pointed out a crucial oversight of the public eye. Whilst there have been calls for tighter administration of the newspapers, this only invites government control, censorship, propaganda. The press is first and foremost a domain of free speech. By employing methods which impede on this right of print, the subsequent material cannot be expected to achieve the same insights, the same coverage, the same depth as has come to be expected of the British broadsheet.

Rather than focus on the produce of the paper, there need be a reformation of the central structures, ensuring that the sources of stories are trusted informants, open to public query at any junction. Perhaps this approach may result in fewer people offering information that may have some backlash, but in the interest of paper pride, this method of printed sources would align with a freedom of information that satisfies the public at large and permits media groups to remain insightful and current.

Yet, as a consumer conscience always craves the latest scandal, the irony of the media position was emphasised as Lucie Cave argued that the public had an interest in exposing hypocritical behaviour. The newspapers, once the source of scandal, now the subject of its wrath.

"We Lost Our Way": A Media Blame Game

Current climates suggest that it would be a difficult time to join my desired profession. Already being a domain of decline since the advent of internet and the more recent economic recession, the industry has taken a huge blow of late that shows no relent. The continuing saga of the phone hacking scandal, subsequent closure of ‘The News of the World’ (one of Britain’s most widely distributed and read papers) as well as the forced withdrawal of the Murdoch BskyB takeover plans leaves a rather precarious sphere, where press is continually scrutinised for more proof of these events.

“Simply, we lost our way” read the final editorial statement from News of the World, whose last edition circulated on 10 July 2011. The sentiment is deeply interesting: whilst the actions of the paper were undoubtedly grossly misjudged in their event, the conception of such tactics is grounded in a much more logical problem: worldwide newspaper readership is declining in favour of other mediums. Simply, the paper lost its way amongst a conglomerate of internet sites affording more up-to-date stories.

Moreover, there has been established a universal scandal dichotomy. Public interest is skewed so as the vast majority want to read cutting edge stories: scandals, new information, no matter whose privacy is taken away. Originally a specialist niche of the gossip column, tabloid news now has to cater for a population who want to have hidden secrets uncovered; the resultant number of injured parties reads like a dictionary of showbiz. Now add NotW to the collateral damage, for in its mission to bring the public an ever more reliable service, it ventured to extremes that the readership secretly covets, yet was stung by the social etiquette by which we are openly governed.

As such, the public, as well as those involved at News of the World, lost their way and are equally as culpable in the continued and relentless invasion of privacy which papers are expected to carry out.

Consequently, the media domain is under a watchful eye that is all too reminiscent of a certain George Orwell novel (ironically the aforementioned author was quoted in the final edition of the News of the World). The arrests of several members of the staff team are merely scapegoat routines: in order for a prolonged change, there need be a revolution in our consumption of the news. Whilst it is all too tempting to lay full blame on figures such as former editor in chief Rebekah Brooks, a fully functioning news room works on an independent and free flowing nature: in order to achieve maximum output, not every journalist can (or should be expected to) pitch, write and have each idea checked for concrete backup. The sphere of reported news would slow to a pace not considered acceptable since the railroad revolution. 

Extended ripples have meant the withdrawal of the BskyB bid. Indeed, the event is exemplary of how fragile any industry is to a cynical nation without faith in a product. A takeover that was once considered a fundamental step in the unity of Murdoch’s media empire is now the bane of social contempt. Yet, for all the furore, the planned purchase of the group was quite the separate entity and completely unrelated to the media scandal. Ergo, public demands for scandal comes full circle, so crippling an industry that functions based on their personal whims.

However, there remain serious lessons to be learnt. The hacking and various attacks, slanders and invasions should not have been allowed to continue for such an extended period. Individual journalists should be using legitimate and trustworthy sources and methods. This is both a business of freedom of information and data protection as is conversely necessary. From the ashes of a floundering news system, may a new generation of considerate publications take care as to both print and approach. Integrity of the media and the public interest are both balanced on this sensitive issue. 

An issued statement of apology, signed by Murdoch himself, tells that “a free and open press need be a positive force in society. We need to live up to this.” However, the burden is not one of the press alone. To play a positive role, the demands of the consumer need be socially acceptable on all levels.