Why does the media react so differently to foolishly fatal choices of some celeb

1. 79

   bethperryposted 11 years ago

   Why does the media react so differently to foolishly fatal choices of some celebrities...
   
   while remaining noticeably mum on the equally foolish fatal choices of other celebrities? I was reminded of this tendency by the differences in media reaction to the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman -by heroine use- as opposed to the death of race car driver Roger Rodas -who, witnesses say, was speeding, just before the collision that killed him and actor Paul Walker. While Hoffman's heroine use has resurrected media moralizing against the drug, we heard scant media denunciation of drag racing in the wake of the deaths of Rodas and Walker. What gives?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 0

   Adityapullagurlaposted 11 years ago

   Because its Media ! They like to hype stuff, they believe world is made up of celebrities. They do not care about sick and dying kids, they focus more on what they are wearing on red carpet. Double Standards !!! Sigh

   replyreport
   1. 63

      deecoleworldposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      preach!!!! the media is a bunch of sociopathic flip flopping phonies .... btw NSA kiss my arse!!! lol

      replyreport
3. 60

   Lee Lee 513posted 11 years ago

   I think the big difference is the two car drivers,  died doing what they love but in their right mind. The other man died from an addiction that was not necessarily the thing he loved to do but what he could no longer control. When the Crocodile hunter (Steve Irwin) died it was tragic but everyone knew , he would have wanted to go doing what he loved, his passion the wild. So it's easier to take then somebody with an ugly, mind altering addiction.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      bethperryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting, Lee Lee. But it does pose the question: were the car drivers recklessly addicted to high speed, or Steve Irwin recklessly addicted to dangerous thrills?

      replyreport
   2. 63

      deecoleworldposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      this is interesting   .... and i thought death was equal smh

      replyreport
4. 61

   The Examiner-1posted 11 years ago

   The editors/reporters write stories on what will sell their papers, magazines, etc. They go for dangerous, exciting, famous - stories which interest most of the public. All that they are concerned about is money, not being caring - unless it sells.

   replyreport
5. 63

   deecoleworldposted 11 years ago

   The media sucks there is your answer (ha ha ha). I think people moralize and sympathize with Philip Seymour Hoffmann's death more because he died a broken, sad man. He let life get the best of it, and lost to life. It’s sad because we can all relate to this, and it’s tough to see a fellow man lose to the harsh realities of life. Philip can be us, we can all end up just like him. So we pity him when deep down we are all scared. As oppose to the race-car driver and Paul Walker. Most people don't choose to something as openly reckless as speed racing and driving (doing drugs is reckless too, but its a different, more personal type of recklessness). We look at them as being fools who tempted life and die as a result of their naivety and "stupidity." Taking drugs is stupid too, especially the more serious kinds, but we empathize with Philip in a personal and impersonal way (yes both). Its also way easier to relate to Philip then Roger Rodas and Paul Walker because most people don’t willingly, openly and boldly put their life in danger.
   In relation to media they understand this and use it to their advantage to promote their own agendas. They love to play the devil’s advocate, but they switch roles so easily and swiftly. The media also loves to play all sides, and when they are called out on it, they retreat, take no responsibility and play the blame game to divert attention from them. The media also loves to undermine and deceive people. In this case the agenda is speed racing is bad, and don't get out of line, while drugs are bad, but its ok because we can use and capitalized your death, as an example that drugs are soo bad. Its weird but its seems like the media seems to display the message that dying from a drug overdose is cooler and more acceptable way to die.
   
   Even so, three men are dead. Dead and leaving behind families, children, "fans" and admirers. People that love and care about them. It's unfair about how the media chooses who died "better" who died "good" and who died more "acceptable-ly (i know they are not words lol). Even so, life is not fair and it isn't supposed to be fair.
   
   btw lee lee your answer is interesting ... the speed racers died doing what they love while Philip died doing something he had to hide and was ashamed off (until the end) maybe the media is also giving us the message that death is this really bad scary thing that we should all be afraid of and that best/acceptable death is a death  that is deserved cuss death is bad. hmm..

   replyreport
   1. 61

      The Examiner-1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with that, 95% of "the media sucks". They would rather write about "One Rich Person who dies in a Freak Accident" than "Ten Hobos who die in Bank Robbery".

      replyreport
6. 71

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   Drug addiction is viewed as an illness where people struggle with rehab and falling off the wagon. Thus far speeding has not been classified as a disease or illness. :-)

   replyreport