I woke up this morning, just as you probably did, to the news that Whitney Houston had died, aged 48. It's one of those days when frankly I'd rather not be on Twitter. We follow the same pattern we've seen on recent events.
Initial Responses
First come the people announcing the news. Many people wake up and tweet it as if they are breaking some news. Look at your timeline first and you'll realise that 1/3 of the tweets probably relate to it.
People then express their upset. It's often heartfelt if they are fans. For this to be a big story it means that the person involved had or used to have a major fan base. Even if you haven't bought the person's records recently, or seen a film they've been in, or watched the sport they played, you'll have seen their name and know who they are. For me in this case the news brought back memories of my 15th birthday and a song that was in the charts. Like it or not, "celebrity" forms a big part of our every day existence.
The RIPs flood in. I guess this is just a way of people expressing their sorrow, but there is very little can be said and when you've seen the 18th in a row, you wonder a little what it is adding, even if it harms no one.
The Worthies
Next we have the "worthies". These are mainly people on the left who attack the "cult of celebrity". Yes, you have a point. Children were killed in Gaza, people were murdered by their government in Syria, homeless people will be freezing to death in this weather. Thanks for pointing this out. Does it mean though that someone expressing their upset about an artist they liked cannot feel upset and outrage about this too? Why is it one or the other? Is emotion like a pie that has to be shared out in a limited number of pieces? Do you think for one moment that the press will change its ways because you've got on your soapbox? In any case, the news *is* actually full of stories about Syria and it's a sickening upsetting sight we're all to familiar with. My timeline has been full of discussion about it. Do you feel better, more intelligent, or that you've somehow proved your moral integrity for having tweeted about this?
You're also missing an important point: we have a "relationship" with celebrities that we do not with the people involved in these other matters. I can feel horror and pain at the sight of a nameless child on my TV, but he or she has not formed part of my memory and day to day life in the way a celebrity has. I know who Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse or Gary Speed "was": it is only natural I will a degree of association I cannot with the other victims unless I've family or friends in the place affected. That in no way means the death of the individuals elsewhere is less important (and it's a bit idiotic that I have to add this sentence for the avoidance of doubt.)
The Jokes
Next we have the sick jokes. They're not even original. The one below appeared six times in a row on a search. People aren't even crediting it, they're stealing it from one another. I like to think I have quite a good sense of humour (who doesn't) - but frankly, just fuck off.
I've got no time for anyone in my timeline who thinks it's amusing to joke about the recent death of a mother and to compare that to a load of murdered teenagers.
Moral Lessons
Next come the moral lessons. In some cases, for example Gary Speed, Twitter served arguably a good function in getting people to talk about the issue of suicide. I found that day personally a bit overwhelming and had to get out. Anyone who has thought about suicide is well aware of the issues and I do have some residual doubts that his tragic death will have "served the greater good" in any way, but the intentions are no doubt good.
With Whitney Houston, we've already had people falling over themselves to warn of the dangers of drugs. The first point here is no one knows if her death was drugs related. People did exactly the same with Amy Winehouse, and it looks like it was actually alcohol that killed her. The next point is that I remember well when River Phoenix died. Did his death have the slightest bearing on me in my twenties as to my own behaviour? Of course it bloody didn't. WE ALL KNOW drugs are a bad thing that can and do cause deaths. You'd have to be an utter moron not to. I really don't think that my tweeting "now kids, remember, don't do drugs" is going to have any effect on any of my followers.
Into the moral lessons come the snide remarks about someone's life. Yes, Whitney Houston apparently had major substance issues. How about feeling compassion, rather than judging her when she has not even been dead 12 hours? Again what does that do? Make you feel oh so smug? Well good for you.
Saying Nothing
Twitter is about saying things. It is Camus in action: it wouldn't exist if we didn't say things: we'd be looking at a big blank screen with nothing going on. I tweet, therefore I am. The same can be said about this blog: why am I even bothering to blog this? It's not about dictating how people should react or tweet, it's about thinking a little bit more about things. You can agree or disagree, but at least you've considered the issue.
It really is the biggest cliché but I do think the saying "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" could applied a bit more frequently. An event like this brings out the worst of people. Worthiness, smugness, judgement, sick jokes. Someone has died: I can see the arguments breaking out already on my timeline and people taking objection to things others have said. Isn't that a bit sad?
I didn't know Whitney Houston: I didn't particularly like her music. I didn't feel the need to tweet anything about her this morning: Bren (above) just said it perfectly for me. I'm so glad Twitter wasn't around when Princess Diana died: it would literally have been unbearable. When Mrs Thatcher dies it will be the same. You don't have to worship someone, agree with them, or even like them at all to realise a death is a genuinely sad thing for many people. In my view it's not hard just to see it in those simple terms and to respect that.



I think with amy winehouse, people forget that alcohol is a drug as well. However people were quick to jump on the band wagon that it was powdery substance abuse
ReplyDeleteOh, indeed! After all, what are the odd? I mean everyone would have bet on a croc or a snake for Steve Irwin, but he didn't die in bed, did he?
DeleteTwitter is about saying things, but it's also about ignoring things. If it upsets you to the point you feel you have to deliver public lectures about it, you probably need to take a break from it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Peter sounds upset, he's just telling it like it is.
DeleteHmmm, you forgot the stage in the process where a plethora of people decide they hold the solution to celebrity death comments on Twitter and deign to inform the world of their wisdom.
ReplyDeleteAgree with many of your points, though humour - however depraved and sick - has long been a very human response to death, but it becomes almost as tedious as the responses you refer to, to read a stream of tweets by bloggers etc where they criticise what others write on Twitter. Why not just reply to any whose feed you are following if you take objection to something they have tweeted?
It may not be the nicest aspect of human nature that some people will not be sad when Thatcher dies, but it remains a genuine, and heartfelt, feeling, born of how she was responsible for misery in their lives - and to tell people they should not express how they feel simply because you do not like how they feel seems a tad authoritarian to me and indeed goes against the purpose of Twitter...
If you find it tedious, you're obviously under no obligation to read and comment.
DeleteTwitter is limiting with the 140 character restriction and hence people tend to blog as a way of expressing themselves more fully.
I have added a section in about whether or not I'm "dictating" to people: that is not my intention and it's a shame you misunderstood that.
Using "free speech" as an argument and suggesting I am being authoritarian seems a bit odd to me. There is nothing in this blog to suggest I believe free speech should be limited by anyone. I am not the State, and I am not forcing you to say anything or not.
The point here is that just because you *can* say something does not necessarily mean you *should* say it. That's for you to judge and to realise it may then encourage a reaction. It's hardly rocket science to suggest that.
I'm expressing a view point here: you may agree or disagree with it. To Asjam who sees this as a "lecture" again the point applies that you don't have to read it. I'm not upset by what I saw on Twitter, I simply find it sad that someone's dying leads to some of the reactions I have seen. I'd say the beauty of free speech is that we can think about these issues and then present a view point that encourages thought and debate.
A great blog post, Peter. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a lot of wisdom in this post.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, this is a good example of the death of a celebrity with a large fan base but who doesn't mean much to me. I don't like her music, though I wouldn't say I dislike it. I just can't for the life of me think of a song of hers other than the one from the Bodyguard. I also lack the connection that would come from knowing about her (because she isn't connected to scifi or football) and didn't even know about her drug problem. So I find myself feeling vaguely uncomfortable with the twitter grief. There is a definite temptation to tweet something a bit worthy, to say that I don't care, to actively exclude myself from the general mood. Instead I just don't say anything.
In Twitter your just eavesdropping on smatterings of conversations which will have been previously held up and down the land. The difference is that you just get to see it.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal note, the only tributes I've seen on my timeline are all from singers I know personally. She meant something to them. To them this isn't a "celebrity" death, which these days is a loaded term.
You've espoused your opinion here, people are doing that on Twitter. Sorry you don't like it, but that's what It's all about. Tune out, switch off.
ReplyDeleteWith Amy Winehouse, like so many, it was probably the huge pressure not to take illegal drugs that meant she died from alcohol. Had she been able to get clean heroin legally it's doubtful she'd have drunk herself to death. So, either way you look at it, it was drugs that killed her. I'd bet anything Whitney went through drugs too. A slow suicide, which is very sad.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Peter. Sums up, better than I could have done, about why I've always preferred to remain in the 'say nothing' camp.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is "Hear, hear". Excellent article.
ReplyDeleteSpot on. Please forgive the self promotion but here's something I wrote about Amy Winehouse on similar lines. http://olderthanelvis.blogspot.com/2011/07/rave-on-john-donne.html
ReplyDeleteI took a break for a couple of hours too. I have a close family member who has been struggling with alcohol and drugs for half her life. I can't cope with the smug "I have no sympathy with junkies" comments. I'm not a Whitney fan, but the death of someone immensely talented at a relatively young age, leaving a grieving family, is surely always to be noted and lamented.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Completely agree. I think the sanctimonious people who said things like "good riddance to another druggy", "she ruined her own life, she deserves to die blah blah blah" grated on me the most today.
ReplyDeleteYes I completely agree with all that you have said above. I am terribly disenchanted with humanity after some of the crap I've read today. I was a huge fan of Whitney and I was hoping she would be a huge star again. Her last album was beautiful. I wanted the best for her. The press and the trolls that believe what they read did not. How about we wish someone well for once? Isn't that what we're taught from day one? Isn't it morality?
ReplyDeleteAGREE! It makes me sad that we have another loss... drug related or not.
ReplyDeleteThe only acceptable form of censorship is considered self-censorship. As you say, sometimes not commenting is the right thing to do - people misinterpreting that as you trying to control others' speech is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteI have just a teensy gripe. You say "we all know drugs are a bad thing". I appreciate this is a short article, so you're skimming through the points, but that's an oversimplification too far for me. Drugs *can be* a bad thing (I include legal substances like alcohol). But in the sense that they are a means to alter one's experience (get high, chill out, or whatever) with a risk attached puts them in the same category as, say, extreme sports.
Clearly some drugs have a very high risk - and clearly some people can't handle the risks however great and get hooked, which can destroy their lives. But moral simplifications like "drugs are bad, avoid them", which are trotted out even more often after the death of a celebrity who had a problem with substances, are at best an unhelpful response.
Otherwise, great as ever :)
I enjoyed reading this, said just what I was thinking, but better.
ReplyDeleteThere's an old Munkeh proverb that goes 'just cos ya can say something, doesn't mean ya should'.
It's really not about limiting freedom of speech y'know
Yeah, definitely one of the days to avoid twitter.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder whether bothering to read some of the small minded, petty things people write on twitter is a valuable exercise (for recognising it for what it is).
I think I know what the answer is.