In recent times, I've happened upon the Daily Mail's celebrity webpage. It is literally a collection of crappy stills of D-list celebrities and/or footballers going about their daily lives, while some paparazzo goon takes said photographs and flogs them to the Mail for idiots like me to gorge upon.
As usual, there are one or two flaws in their logic which need highlighting.
Put simply, if the paper likes a particular celebrity, then they are treated with respect and praised for their plight. If they're unliked for any reason though, they are praised slightly less. Case in point - the lovely Kelly Brook. Nobody can really say a bad word about her as she goes about her life which seemingly consists of walking towards photographers, past photographers, then away from photographers, as they photograph her. Being an exceptionally attractive young lady, such pictures are of greater interest to the public than others may be. Today, Miss Brook was pictured without make-up, having recently split up from egg-chasing injury-fan Danny Cipriani.
The headline - "Brave Kelly ventures out with no make-up"
Er, brave? What's particularly brave about not putting make-up on? I'm a fan of the New Romantic movement, but have never donned so much as fake eyelash. And where's my George Cross? It's who you know.
Another good example is tubby dick-magnet Kerry Katona. Bear in mind that her entire career spanned about 3 records 10 years ago, yet we still get to see what's she's up to on a day-to-day basis. Despite the fact that she drinks, smokes, turns up on national TV in a less than coherent state and was shown bawling at her kids on that car-crash documentary she participated in (for a small fee, I would imagine), the Mail believes we're desperate for footage of her walking down streets holding some odd-looking bloke's hand, while the reporter fawns over how thin she looks (she doesn't) and how happy she is (probably high, then).
Compare and contrast with ginger maniac Lindsay Lohan, who to a greater or lesser extent has had a similarly 'inconsistent' few years, yet the result is a massively sarcastic (and highly amusing) deconstruction of her cretinous existence, showing less-than-flattering press shots of her going flying or hanging around with Mark Ronson's brother. What? That's his sister? Never...
Anyway, the point is, these papers think they wield some kind of power, and seek to colour people's image of these various 'stars' to suit their own ends. They clearly don't have any sway over us normal folk, but some people seem to have an inability to form their own opinions of people until a right-wing rag has told them what to think. Let's face it, the majority of people who end up being photographed for this site don't actually contribute to society in an meaningful way, otherwise the pictures would be of them stacking shelves or cleaning oil off a cormorant. Instead, they get paid for doing fuck-knows-what and celebrate by pissing about in places where photographers frequent, sporting an outfit which somebody paid far more than you or I was employed to pick off a rail for them. Good luck to them as well; it's not as if they could actually do anything useful as a career if they wanted to. If you add up the brain cells available to every person on today's page (24 individuals by my count) the total is 17. And 15 of them are Kelly's. So brave and intelligent then.
In summary, anybody with a brain uses the site to have a look at the latest 11-out-of-10 bird Ashley Cole's 'dating', or to see the cellulite on Alesha Dixon's arse. And if that's not what the Internet was made for, I don't know what is.
No comments:
Post a Comment