Caroline Flack found dead

Mwengwe

Shelga wrote: »

Is she somehow more virtuous because she “doesn’t court the paparazzi” but puts hundreds of self-portraits on her Instagram, knowing there’s a high chance the Daily Mail and other rags will take those photos and make stories out of them?

What’s the difference?

The DM will just as readily do that to you if you ever have the misfortune of ending up in the news. Your only option is making Instagram private, which isn't something she's going to do.

SusieBlue

Shelga wrote: »

Is she somehow more virtuous because she “doesn’t court the paparazzi” but puts hundreds of self-portraits on her Instagram, knowing there’s a high chance the Daily Mail and other rags will take those photos and make stories out of them?

What’s the difference?

I really don't think that behaviour is unique to her, though.
The vast majority of people, famous or not, use Instagram for that purpose. Selfies are part of popular culture now. While it may be an alien concept to you and others, for a lot of people its the norm to mostly post pictures of them looking their best on their feed.

I don't think the fact that they choose to utilise their social media that way justifies the level of intrusion, and at times harrassment, they have to tolerate from the media at all.

Shelga

SusieBlue wrote: »

I really don't think that behaviour is unique to her, though.
The vast majority of people, famous or not, use Instagram for that purpose. Selfies are part of popular culture now. While it may be an alien concept to you and others, for a lot of people its the norm to mostly post pictures of them looking their best on their feed.

I don't think the fact that they choose to utilise their social media that way justifies the level of intrusion, and at times harrassment, they have to tolerate from the media at all.

True. I guess the main point is that Laura Whitmore and people like her want to be famous, whereas to me, it is literally my worst nightmare. I feel tense even thinking about it.

Everything else just ends up going round in circles. If people want to spend their days posting photos of themselves, in order to get 800 comments saying "you look stunning hun xx", let them at it. I still think it then somewhat weakens their argument that photographers shouldn't want to take photos of them. Not saying it's right necessarily, but I'm not going to act horrified that she had her photo taken when it didn't suit her.

the_pen_turner

i dont see the problem with instagram . lots of companies use it to show off what they sell. look at kitchen companies, loads of pics that make themselves look good.companies want to look good but also keep in customers thoughts. the product these celebs are selling is themselves. its no diferent.

Boggles

Shelga wrote: »

True. I guess the main point is that Laura Whitmore and people like her want to be famous, whereas to me, it is literally my worst nightmare. I feel tense even thinking about it.

So what you are saying is different people want different things in life? Hardly a mental concept is it?

Whitmore is a television and radio presenter, "being famous" goes with the territory.

She comes across as a very intelligent and highly capable and driven person who has made a great career for herself, which is multi faceted.

I think if that makes you feel tense, the problem isn't with Whitmore or anyone else TBF.

Shelga

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are saying is different people want different things in life? Hardly a mental concept is it?

Whitmore is a television and radio presenter, "being famous" goes with the territory.

She comes across as a very intelligent and highly capable and driven person who has made a great career for herself, which is multi faceted.

I think if that makes you feel tense, the problem isn't with Whitmore or anyone else TBF.

What problem? This is a discussion board no?

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Whitmore is a television and radio presenter, "being famous" goes with the territory.

I think lack of privacy goes with the famous territory though.

Boggles

Shelga wrote: »

What problem?

Your anxiety that you just told us about.

FullMoonFever

Mwengwe wrote: »

She had Flack's blessing and encouragement by all accounts.

Flack was doing the noble thing. Whitmore was rubbing it in her face.

I don't think they were as close friends as LW is making out.

the_pen_turner

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think lack of privacy goes with the famous territory though.

no it doesnt. look at cameron diaz and others. they live very private lives. presumably that takes work though
she had a baby (presumably seragate or adoption) months ago and noone has posted pics of the child or published how or when it happened.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think lack of privacy goes with the famous territory though.

Absolutely there is a bit of a sell off.

That doesn't mean the scum get to have carte blanche.

Shelga

Boggles wrote: »

Your anxiety that you just told us about.

I don't suffer from anxiety, thanks for the concern though. I said I don't like the idea of being famous. I would have thought this was the default position for most people.

Boggles

Shelga wrote: »

I don't suffer from anxiety, thanks for the concern though. I said I don't like the idea of being famous. I would have thought this was the default position for most people.

Good but TBF I can only form an opinion on what you post and you were a little more forthright then "default" position.

Shelga wrote: »

True. I guess the main point is that Laura Whitmore and people like her want to be famous, whereas to me, it is literally my worst nightmare. I feel tense even thinking about it.

"Literally my Worst nightmare" invoking a physical reaction?

I wouldn't like to be famous either, but I can think of far worse nightmares TBF, maybe that's just me.

Mwengwe

FullMoonFever wrote: »

Flack was doing the noble thing. Whitmore was rubbing it in her face.

I don't think they were as close friends as LW is making out.

That's possible, I'll give you that. On both counts. But we don't know.

Shelga

Boggles wrote: »

Good but TBF I can only form an opinion on what you post and you were a little more forthright then "default" position.



"Literally my Worst nightmare" invoking a physical reaction?

I wouldn't like to be famous either, but I can think of far worse nightmares TBF, maybe that's just me.

Why don't we just get back to the topic at hand? Do you think celebrities like Caroline Flack and Laura Whitmore are complicit in a toxic celebrity culture that is ultimately detrimental to women and society at large?

borderlinemeath

Shelga wrote: »

Why would any close friends WANT to go? To stand and pose on a red carpet and fake smile?

Because that is their job. That is what their career earnings are. It's a lucrative career, but for most a short one. Only the very few successful ones maintain it long term so they have to be ever present or they'll fall into obscurity.

It's not my choice as a career, but I get it. When you're in the public eye in a transient career such as this you need to be ever present. I'm not going to slam them for it, or call them a lot of the names bandied about this thread.

Boggles

Shelga wrote: »

Why don't we just get back to the topic at hand? Do you think celebrities like Caroline Flack and Laura Whitmore are complicit in a toxic celebrity culture that is ultimately detrimental to women and society at large?

Oh you are asking the wrong person there, I would close down social media, the rag scum and all reality TV in a heart beat.

I would jail any editor that purposely oversaw the publishing of verifiable lies which resulted in the harming of anyone.

Seriously no one would want me in charge.

borderlinemeath

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no it doesnt. look at cameron diaz and others. they live very private lives. presumably that takes work though
she had a baby (presumably seragate or adoption) months ago and noone has posted pics of the child or published how or when it happened.

Lots of people keep their children private on SM. They tend to say that their children didn't choose their lifestyle so they can make the decision for themselves when they are old enough, but when they are babies/children they can remain anonymous.

the_pen_turner

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Lots of people keep their children private on SM. They tend to say that their children didn't choose their lifestyle so they can make the decision for themselves when they are old enough, but when they are babies/children they can remain anonymous.

the point is that they can choose how they use the media in a lot of cases. some choose to be private and other use it to put them selves all over the media

0127647

I take no issue with LWs success. I'm not sure why anyone would. 95% of her business career has been reality tv/teenie bopper/Sleb tv. The height of her acting career has been voiceover on the Eurovision so id say the Emmys are a bit down the line.
if she's able to carve out a niche for herself, more power to her but she can be called out on her self serving embarrassing behaviour since her supposed friends death.

a great comment yesterday that this could have for 15 mins at least shone a light on mental health but has now become an unedifying side show regarding the tabloids.

zero dignity has been afforded flacks family by the likes of whitmore
even that eoghan mcdermott is having his piece to say on the late late tonight.

disrespectful disgraceful behaviour from self serving bottom feeders

Mwengwe

0127647 wrote: »

I take no issue with LWs success. I'm not sure why anyone would. 95% of her business career has been reality tv/teenie bopper/Sleb tv. The height of her acting career has been voiceover on the Eurovision so id say the Emmys are a bit down the line.
if she's able to carve out a niche for herself, more power to her but she can be called out on her self serving embarrassing behaviour since her supposed friends death.

a great comment yesterday that this could have for 15 mins at least shone a light on mental health but has now become an unedifying side show regarding the tabloids.

zero dignity has been afforded flacks family by the likes of whitmore or Chris o dowd.
even that eoghan mcdermott is having his piece to say on the late late tonight.

disrespectful disgraceful behaviour from self serving bottom feeders

I'm not really understanding how Chris O'Dowd has slighted her family

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Absolutely there is a bit of a sell off.

That doesn't mean the scum get to have carte blanche.

Well I mean as they wish within the law. Say the pap yesterday wasn't doing anything wrong as such?

I don't agree with it, and I'd have no interest in being involved in such work but he's just trying to feed the family I guess.

hetuzozaho

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no it doesnt. look at cameron diaz and others. they live very private lives. presumably that takes work though
she had a baby (presumably seragate or adoption) months ago .

Doesn't seem very private ha but yeah I get your point.

I think maybe actors and musicians can manage it if they want as the product can stand on its own. It's tricky if the product is you maybe.

Bob the Seducer

Shelga wrote: »

Is she somehow more virtuous because she “doesn’t court the paparazzi” but puts hundreds of self-portraits on her Instagram, knowing there’s a high chance the Daily Mail and other rags will take those photos and make stories out of them?

What’s the difference?

Control.

Pure and simple, a person has total control of the photos they upload to instagram. They choose what is shown or not shown, who they're photographed with and where. They can post a thousand photos or only a handful if they wish.
The big thing is that at all times they (or their social media manager) have control over what parts of their private life are made public and what remains private.

Boggles

0127647 wrote: »

a great comment yesterday that this could have for 15 mins at least shone a light on mental health but has now become an unedifying side show regarding the tabloids.

The tabloids and their role in destroying people is not a side show and very much front of center in this sad case.

Or do you think Number 10 is disrespecting the family and indulging in bottom feeding by highlighting it.

The UK had to have an inquiry into how tabloids acted, the findings were damning and the recommendations severe.

A member of the Royal left because of the tabloids, stating the reason being the welfare and safety of his family, a month later a woman of similar age is dead.

But yeah the tabloids are a side show.

:rolleyes:

Hannibal_Smith

Shelga wrote: »

Is she somehow more virtuous because she “doesn’t court the paparazzi” but puts hundreds of self-portraits on her Instagram, knowing there’s a high chance the Daily Mail and other rags will take those photos and make stories out of them?

What’s the difference?

She posts photos by choice. She asked him to stop.

Hannibal_Smith

Shelga wrote: »

True. I guess the main point is that Laura Whitmore and people like her want to be famous, whereas to me, it is literally my worst nightmare. I feel tense even thinking about it.

Everything else just ends up going round in circles. If people want to spend their days posting photos of themselves, in order to get 800 comments saying "you look stunning hun xx", let them at it. I still think it then somewhat weakens their argument that photographers shouldn't want to take photos of them. Not saying it's right necessarily, but I'm not going to act horrified that she had her photo taken when it didn't suit her.

I know plenty of people who post pics of themselves online. Someone posts a pic they dont like and they ask them to take it down. Ive been on nights out with the girls and we'll all be messing and sometimes you'll hear...'here dont put that on FB'.

ShimSlady

FullMoonFever wrote: »

If your friend was having personal and emotional problems would you post a video like this to social media celebrating how you benefitted from taking their job?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7864665/Laura-Whitmore-dances-delight-finishing-day-filming-Love-Islands-new-host.html

That sort of behaviour definitely gives the impression she didn't care too much for Flacks feelings

Like many social media stars, they live in their own bubble of self importance

Boggles

ShimSlady wrote: »

That sort of behaviour definitely gives the impression she didn't care too much for Flacks feelings

Like many social media stars, they live in their own bubble of self importance

Did you miss the part where it was actually Ms. Flack who got her the job? :rolleyes:

ShimSlady

Boggles wrote: »

Did you miss the part where it was actually Ms. Flack who got her the job? :rolleyes:

Link to the story please where she got her the job?