The Trouble with Spikol  |  Make Major Moves  |  PW Style  |  Cup o'Joel

I’m Liz Spikol, and I approve this message

Feb 19 2008 | Comments 3

e021537A[1].jpg

Thanks to Michelle M/E for giving me a heads up about the below article by journalism professor and former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Q. Nomani. Britney Spears’ illness certainly is a tough case for celebrity journalism. How much is too much? What is a public person entitled to, in terms of privacy? I’ve long debated this myself because I’ve been tempted to write about Britney and then felt appalled by my own instincts, and then frustrated that I was even in the position of questioning myself, given the way that Britney has courted the media in the past. So thanks to Nomani and the Los Angeles Times for giving me the kick in the ass that I needed. I think Asra is right.

Leave Britney alone

The young star is in a fight for her life against mental illness.

By Asra Q. Nomani

I’ll never forget the first time I saw my brother strapped to a gurney. I was just a teen, and he’d been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, an illness akin to schizophrenia that causes mood swings, psychosis and violent outbursts. Our family had just committed him for psychiatric treatment, and I wept, shouting into the air, “I want my brother back.” At home, my parents sobbed. But at least we went through this anguish in private.

So it’s impossible for me to find any entertainment value in the public harassment of Britney Spears, who was released from the psychiatric ward of UCLA Medical Center last week. And as a journalist, I doubt there is news value in it either.

Mental illness doesn’t always elicit compassion; it’s hard to see, so it’s hard to understand. Perhaps in the wake of Spears’ breakdown, California mental health advocates will lobby to change the state’s involuntary commitment laws so that those who are sick get treatment, even if they don’t realize how badly they need it. In the meantime, all of us should reflect on the fact that we wouldn’t be so cruel to somebody diagnosed with another disease. Would we make a sideshow of someone with a brain tumor?

It’s easy to blame the paparazzi and celebrity gossip websites, and, granted, they are the worst. TMZ promoted a video of Spears crying with the headline, “Britney Spears on Suicide Watch?” Over a photo of Spears sitting on a curb after her fight with her manager, PerezHilton.com scrawled “Britwreck.”

But the mainstream media are complicit. After Spears’ release (over the objection of her family), A.J. Hammer, host of CNN’s “Showbiz Tonight,” stumbled over the pronunciation of Spears’ supposed medications; the words “Burning Britney Questions!” rolled across the bottom of the screen. “Britney’s Mental Illness” was the cover of a recent People magazine. The Daily Telegraph’s website featured this headline: “Mad Britney Spears detoxed by doctors,” with a link, “See pictures of the drama here.”

By exploiting Spears’ moment of vulnerability, media companies have crossed the line of basic moral decency. To me, this includes Wenner Media, owner of US Weekly and Rolling Stone, which just published an expose of Spears’ mental illness, and even Barbara Walters, who recently reported on Spears’ mental health issues on “The View.”

Enough. Time Warner Inc. (parent of CNN, People, AOL and Entertainment Weekly), News Corp. (the Rupert Murdoch firm that owns Fox News and papers around the globe) and others should halt all coverage of Spears until she is healthy. Let’s leave Britney and her family alone.

Responsible journalists long ago came to the ethical determination not to publish the names of rape victims or to air the most gruesome of terrorist videos. We can do the same here. We can get off this maniacal roller coaster that is Britney Spears coverage to remember one important fact: This is a 27-year-old in a fight for her life.

My role model in this debate is photographer Nick Stern, who quit his job Feb. 1 with the Splash news agency because he couldn’t stomach shooting the Spears story any longer. “It’s not journalism. Sooner or later, someone’s going to get killed,” he told the Independent in London. “Possibly Britney herself.”

Even aspiring journalists are making the right call. At Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies, where I’m a journalism professor, senior Erin Delmore walked off the set of a campus TV talk show. “I’m so done with the Britney coverage,” she said. “End it.”

Last week, I wrote to my editor at People and told her that I couldn’t continue working as a stringer for the magazine. I’m not being holier than thou. I wasn’t always kind to my brother about his illness. I scolded and nagged him. I called him lazy when he didn’t make his bed, unmotivated when he didn’t get a job and uncaring when he forgot our birthdays. It’s taken more than 20 years for me to understand, deep within my soul, that his mental illness is like a brain tumor, or cancer, or diabetes. It is a disease. It has symptoms such as anosognosia, which means that a person doesn’t think they have an illness, and flat affect, which saps emotional expressiveness. Right now, there is no cure.

When I realized not long ago how cruel I had been, I told my brother what I now tell Britney and her family: “I’m sorry.”


liz | 5:28 PM | Uncategorized

ttq Says:

Britney needs some serious down time surrounded by proper medical staff. A place she can get away to, and concentrate on herself not her image. I don’t know why but Switzerland comes to mind… I wish her nothing but the best. And most importantly privacy.

Feb 20 2:03 PM

stan Says:

Dearest Liz:
Yowls! I could really sink my teeth into this area under discussion; but instead I will have to try to let my sensitive and gentle side prevail in discussing this subject matter.
To begin with, when was the last time the journalistic community really worried about ethically boundaries and behavior? I think that went out with bell bottoms, gobbler treats, and the invention of the internet. It’s all about getting the story, ratings, and readership. You work in the biz, and know all about the pressures of delivering the Dirt for the masses to consume; just like Big Mac’s and Starbucks coffee (I happen to like Starbucks coffee, which makes me as guilty as everyone else {laughing}).
Now as far as Britney goes, I’m not even sure what they are writing about besides pure gossip and sensationalism. I haven’t read anything about a confirmed diagnosis of any particular mental illness. And I believe HIPPA laws apply to celebrities as well as us unknown common folk (but then real individual privacy ended when Teddy Rough Rider Roosevelt left office, if I’m hallucinating correctly here).
We all know these types of stories sell everything from Beer to Kleenex. So I’m neither shocked nor surprised in reality in the least bit at the keyboard wolves’ devowering their prey so to speak. It’s just another small symptom of our social decline and lack of moral decency regarding others suffering (of course in saying that even as a male, and a person with bipolar (where nakedness in some mood states can be a problem and strong desire {did I snort with that laugh}; I would strongly recommend that Britney still wear underwear when using alcohol/drugs in public).
I just happen to believe Britney at some point and at the timing of her own choosing will have to come to terms with any mental illness or substance abuse issues/problems she may have. That whole personal journey and accepting responsibility for one’s own behavior concept I happen to aspire to in my own life with bipolar mood disorder. Of course I’m always the one saying “if life were so damned easy, then everyone would be doing it” {snicker}. Then again, I’m a small thinker and operate with an off kilter and befuddled mind. I also happen to believe scrubbing toilets in heaven for eternity would not be a bad job {laughing}; I have it all figured out; heavenly bodies probably would only eliminate pixie dust, so how hard can that be to deal with. You’re loyal, a little mentally distorted, or was that sanity challenged off base reader.
That Bipolaroid, Gooberness, and Dorkmire:
Stan
PS I was a little disappointed and hurt {tears welling up in Stan’s sad eyes} you excluded my Valentine’s Day comment! I guess it wasn’t politically correct enough or just too danged long. But then again Love isn’t all that politically correct either, and is usually fairly short lived on the other extreme {smile and a wink}. At this moment I’m a little more concerned about the Navy shooting into outer space with missiles! The Mother ship and the CIA genetically altered Penguins could take this as an act of war, or hopefully just chalk it up to another stupid human trick. {Finally a little sanity inserted in this comment section}

Feb 21 6:17 PM

Sally Says:

I didn’t know much about Britney before this all happened. I am reminded of something a therapist who sympathized with my plight once said to encourage me. She said, “there is no way of responding to this situation that would be perceived as sane.” She was referring to my illegal commitment. I had behaved calmly and cooperatively and thus had been diagnosed as in denial a mental illness itself, where as if I had “acted crazy” I would have been not in denial and would have been also diagnosed as acting mentally ill.

I relate to your sympathy for Britney, though of course I disagree with some of your conclusions. How would a “sane” person respond to this sort of treatment?

I think if it weren’t for Britney’s fans and the media obsession with her, she’d be locked up and forgotten. This doesn’t justify the media’s treatment of her, but what’s worse, what came first, was her parents’ treatment. And again, what is the sane response to having people monitor your every move?

Feb 22 9:49 PM

Reply:

Name *required

Mail *will not be published, required

Website

SUBMIT