Anna Nicole vs. The Troops

[L A Woman]

Aside from ANS being an internationally-famous person, let's look at the events of JUST the past 5 months. She has a daughter, then three days later her son dies in the same hospital. I think most can agree that losing a child is the single worst thing a human can be expected to endure. A day later, a boyfriend claims to be the father of the child and demands a DNA test. Then a lawsuit, then another lawsuit. She has a bloodsucking, dysfunctional family who flit about from one tabloid interview to another, wanting nothing but her money and whatever "fame" they can get. Meanwhile, she is clearly giving up...in every interview, she looks worse and worse. On January 22, her son would have turned 21 years old. Two weeks later she dies at the ripe old age of 39.

This stuff wouldn't be believable if it had been the storyline for "Passions." And THAT is why it got the coverage it got.

However, it really didn't get that much coverage - I live on the west coast and by the time I got home from work, I couldn't find anything about it at all. It was back to Scooter Libby and Tim Russert. So why the crazy reaction from DUers - the sudden concern for the coverage of the dead troops???

Please. I am a veteran, too. I distinctly recall it being drilled into my head every single day of boot camp that I could go to war (which I did, btw - the 1st Gulf War). This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone signing on that dotted line, regardless of how illegal or immoral the war happens to be. And surprise, surprise - you can actually DIE in a war! So we are supposed to expect BREAKING NEWS every time a soldier dies in a war? It would be ludicrous to cover each and every military death to the extent that a famous person's death is covered. And of course the reality is that, if the media actually did that, many of you would accuse them of manipulating the sympathies of the American people for the purpose of drumming up support for the war.

So it begs the question...why are there so many threads and posts whining about "Why was there so much coverage (three hours) of the death of a (insert sexist term here - whore/bimbo, etc)???" Pitting Anna Nicole Smith against the troops, as if without the coverage of her death, the media would be doing lengthy biographies of the dead troops.

When you peel back the onion, the answer is pure misogyny. If DU had been around when John Lennon had been shot, would there have been the same venomous reaction? (cue the fake liberals, who will no doubt come up with reasons he was "worth more" than she was). My recollection is that they covered that for WEEKS and there weren't even any cable news channels at the time. Why? Because he was famous and he died young and unexpectedly. THAT IS NEWS. But I have noticed (in my old age) that many men (and some women) don't bitch about it if it's a man; Lennon, Kurt Cobain, George Harrison, James Brown - but if it's a woman; Natalie Wood, Grace Kelly, Princess Diana, Anna Nicole - it's always, "Why is this news???? SHE was nobody. SHE was just married to somebody."

I hate that I have realized in my year on DU that Republicans do not have a monopoly on racism, homophobia OR sexism. But in a way, I thank DU for showing me that. Maybe we can fix it.

:scared:

[ixion]

1. are you saying that three days of ANS coverage is appropriate in proportion to

what is happening in the ME? :shrug:

I can't really agree with that statement, sorry.

[MoseyWalker]

2. a person dies. A real human being

and that means as much as any other. It is not the dead persons fault what the media choose to do with it.

Dead is dead, and heartbreak is heartbreak, whether or not the media chooses to play it up.

I think this is an excellent post. (sorry if that causes others to wonder about it due to their feelings about me!)

rec

[efhmc]

3. This death has made me so sad. I feel saddened by the loss of our troops also.

These things are not mutually exclusive.