Inasmuch as it's possible these days, I live under a rock when it comes to pop culture. I don't own a TV, I have two radios, each set to a different NPR station, and if I'm listening to music, it's probably on my laptop when it's not connected to the Internet. I make it to the movies about twice a year.
But even I had heard the singer Rihanna was allegedly beaten by fellow-performer boyfriend Chris Brown, accounting for the pair's sudden and unannounced absence at a Grammy Awards pre-party (and the awards show itself).
To say the least (and perhaps the obvious), this is awful. And while the domestic violence itself is certainly the worst part of it, there's more going on here.
Police departments generally have a firm policy on not releasing the names of alleged domestic violence victims. News outlets generally have a loose policy on not disclosing the names of alleged domestic violence victims when they find out.
So why did the entire world know who both the accused and the alleged victim were? Well, arrest records are public information. But Rihanna's name? That should have been kept under wraps.
And tight ones.
The fact that she's a celebrity does not make her public property. Some things the public simply does not need to know.
But wait, there's more.
In these days of information, information, information, everybody just had to know, right?
So sometime Thursday, a well-known celebrity Web site (which I will neither name nor link to here) published a photo of a bruised and bloody Rihanna that the Los Angeles Police Department says appears to be a leaked evidence photo.
Of course, other sites just had to hop on it as well, re-posting it.
I haven't seen it, I'm not interested. And I'm not going to link to the other sites I've learned second-hand have re-posted it, either.
It's disgusting, really, and goes to the basest part of human nature. It's the part of us that (a) hands over the fork and says, "try this, it's awful" along with the part that (b) thinks we own people who have become famous.
And it's getting worse. We can surely blame the Internet as a disseminating technology – which isn't to condemn the medium, just those who use it for ill. But more than that, we need to smarten up about what we're willing to see, what we're willing to distribute, and what level of respect we expect of ourselves.
It's positively awful that someone at the LAPD sent this photo out. It's even worse that some Web sites had the bad taste to post it.
Some quick reactions from my favorite feminist bloggers:
» Tracy Clark-Fleury :
I suppose there's a hint of silver lining: It's possible that the photo will spark a national conversation about domestic violence. But shouldn't Rihanna get to decide whether she becomes the literal poster child for the cause?
» Jessica Valenti: A .
» Cara at Feministe: .
December 26th, 2009 at 09:01
I couldn’t agree with you more here. I hope they find the person who released the photo and got paid and fire that person publicly. I also found it interesting to see who, on TV, was going to show it or not. I was glad Access Hollywood didn’t show it, but bothered that not only Entertainment Tonight showed it, but Oprah’s show put it on also. Oprah should have known better, and it looked like she was quickly uncomfortable with it being shown and tried to move them away from it as fast as possible.
We seem to feel that we have a right to know everything, and that no one is telling the truth, no matter what they say. The same goes, in an odd way, for Alex Rodriguez. Seems that he tried going a different route in trying to be honest about having taken steroids, and yet the media frenzy not only doesn’t believe him, but no one wants to let it go. No wonder all of these guys want to lie; what’s the benefit of trying to be upfront about anything?
December 26th, 2009 at 09:01
I’m shocked to hear that Oprah showed it, actually. It sounds very out of character for what she’s about.
Remember about A-Rod that he’s taking the being honest after not being honest route. He told Katie Couric in 2003 he had never taken steroids. Maybe he said that the day before he did take them, but if he wanted to be honest, what he should have said was, “There were no consequences. Why wouldn’t I have taken them?”
Instead, he went for the, “Yeah, I was young and stupid, and didn’t want to know what this stuff was.” Frankly, at 28 years old and a 9-year MLB veteran, you no longer qualify as too young to know better. And if you’re making what even that time was the biggest salary in the history of the game, you don’t just start putting stuff in your body.
But that’s a much different rant, for another time.