We are confronted yet again with the latest in a string of episodes (Don Imus, Alec Baldwin) that have allowed the media to engage in self-righteous grandstanding. I’m talking about the video showing David Hasselhoff at his most vulnerable—shirtless, drunk and awkwardly eating a hamburger on the floor.
I generally favor the unfettered dissemination of information unless there’s an extremely cogent reason for not doing so. For example, I think the media should air graphic pictures of war, because people need to be confronted with such imagery so they’re not deluding themselves into thinking war is like a day at Universal Studios. Sparing the feelings of family or sensitive members of the public isn’t a valid reason for not doing so. We’ll save my (angry) opinion on Dick Cheney—a person elected to represent us—being able to withhold information on whom he consulted to devise energy policy for later.
But I couldn’t even watch the Hasselhoff video in its entirety; the thing made me so sad for the guy. I just hope all the posturing over his alcoholism doesn’t obscure the fact that the person who released this video to the public (don’t forget—it will live on the Internet forever) is the scum of the Earth, as far as I’m concerned. It was an unimaginably malicious act.
We’ve got it all wrong when someone’s intimately private breakdown is made public, while crucial matters relating to government policy are shielded from view. But, hey, what else is new?
This article appears in May 3-9, 2007.
Saxon — I suspect that almost everybody agrees with you on this. I can’t imagine anybody NOT agreeing, because when I saw Hasselhoff lying their drunk, my first reaction was to throw up in my mouth a little. I seriously hope KITT has a breathalyzer installed.
That said, you can’t get angry at the person who released the video without also being angry at (1) the media who choose to air such things to boost ratings, and (2) the public whose increasingly lowbrow tastes allow the media to profit from airing such things with minimal backlash.
Incidentally, I have some photographs of Janet Napolitano, in her underwear, eating “ants on a log” (celery, peanut butter, raisins). Is the Tucson Weekly interested in buying them for $20,000?
Saxon,
Call me skeptical but I think celebrities don’t mind negative publicity because at least it’s better than no publicity at all.
I’ve said this before (probably on this blog somewhere) and I’ll say it again that I was shocked when every major television interrupted regular programming to announce that Anna Nicole Smith died. That demonstrates how low our media has sunk.
Instead I would like the media to interrupt regular programming every time a soldier dies.
I so believe if that happened — the war would be long over.
It was said long ago about the likes of the National Enquirer that you can’t blame them for printing trash, but their audience for validating the trash by purchasing the rag. Further, when society quits deifying celebrities, a lot of this rubbish will go away!