In what ways does Dooce relate to kinds of media performances that are called gossipy?
Dooce herself (it's her nickname as well as the site name) has become a small-time celebrity, probably because her blogging was indiscrete enough to get her canned from her job, but also because she spills her guts online about her depression and hospitalizations, and because she gets personal about her relationship with her daughter and her husband -- all items that relate to the concerns of young and middle-aged women who raise children.
It seems to me that in some ways Dooce is very similar and in some ways very different from gossip mags and the schlock that's called entertainment news. Gossip mags like People make a lot out of celebrities' very personal lives and problems. Many people find this either predatory, trivial or both, yet very many people are fascinated by all this, including people who would rather not admit it.
If the most personal parts of our own lives are the parts we value most, in what sense is knowing about those parts of other people's lives trivial or nosy?
Now, what does this say about someone like Dooce, who's not telling us about other people's lives? (Well, alright, I reckon she has had a talk or two with her husband and has some doozies coming up with that daughter, but she's not ratting out strangers or acting like she's personally concerned with people she has never met.) Is this only a moral distinction, like a person has a right to talk about personal things they're details from that person's own life? Or if the nature of this information differs from tattle-tale reports of Ms Spears' or Ms. Hilton's recent difficulties, how does it differ?
3 comments:
Dooce whose real name is Heather Armstrong held satirnical accounts about her work place and co-workers. According to urban dictionary.com the new slang word "dooced" arose from this case. Meaning getting fired over something written online. I could not find any of the exact quotes of what she said about her co-workers but from accounts on other websites and articles on google.com. My belief on this is that she is an office worker for a company. In a company all employees must perform in a certain degree to achieve the goal the company has. These employees must be able to perform in peak standards. They have to be physically healthy, emotionally stable, and have motivation as a driving force. If somehow any of them were dissrupted it will slow down or affect the work environment. So "Dooce" by publically posting sensitive information about her co-workers and that is information that can affect them emotionally, it is therefore subject to punishment on her part. If her posts were private and would hinder work performance then necessary actions would be taken.
In the media celebrities are often the cornerstone of the media. Whether in images (movies, T.V.), radio (Tom Lykas, Howard Stern). They are subject to constant criticism from audiences and viewers. It is their job to create controversy, havoc, and a show for entertainment. They create business and now people will sbscribe to certain magazines. And in Dooce's case her gossip posts will only hinder work performance. No one will care for the average employee. So her actions were not only of moral topic.
This also brings up another topic I found on an aritcle http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/07/19/france.blog/index.html?section=cnn_tech Another "dooced" case where a French woman was dismissed for "gross misconduct" by posting information vital to the company. The thing is employers ususally tell you to not make anything public any information that will in danger the company especially when it involves potential investors. I was told this during my internship by an airline. So this just did not come from nowhere but was probably already warned.
Another case I can think of similar to this is a Flight attendant by the name of "Queen of the Sky" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/airline_blogger_sacked/
she put "sexy" pictures of herself in her flight attendant uniform on her blog. And even posted stories of flight crew behavior during layovers. She was fired and her blog is now gone.
Depending on the severity I do belive at the workplace action should be taken towards bloggers that may involve the reputation and performance of a company. And celebrities such as Ms. Hilton are subject to public criticism. It is all part of being in the lam light. And judging from her case she seems to have A.D.D. so in some ways she may crave all this attention. And in no way are cases of celebrities and employee bloggers the same.
Interesting background, Kimble.
Dooce must have First Amendment rights to expression, inside or outside work. On the other hand, being fired is not the same as being prosecuted legally. Clearly, at least some things said outside of work can be costly to companies and individuals (I don't know what Dooce wrote that caused trouble).
But if corporations can prevent employees from expressing themselves on their own time, can they not prevent them from organizing to strike, for example, or from expressing certain political opinions?
How should such a law be written?
I do believe that public persons have different rights from private persons. For example, in a libel case, public persons have a harder time winning the suit because according to the law they must prove that there's a destructive intent. Public persons include celebrities, sports stars, political candidates, and such. However, is it fair that they have different rights? Do all public persons choose to be 'stars.' What if they chose to do their jobs because they like it? Must they endure the pain of having no privacy? Why do people love buying magazines with gossip? If it wasn't true, these companies would flop. Society thrives on knowing the teeniest details of the celebrities. Why is that? Is it because we don't want to deal with the drama going on in our own lives? Are celebrities so much different from other people? In the case of Paris Hilton, people complain that she did not have a full jail sentence because she's paris hilton. If a layperson were to do what she did, they could find no way out of it. But, do we see the layperson's sobbing face plastered on magazines and television screens around the world? I know that she should be responsible of her actions, but celebrities have both ups and downs of being in the lime light.
Post a Comment