Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Monica Lewinsky: Classic case of famous for being famous

By Richard K. Barry

Here's what the magic Wiki says about the origin of the term "famous for being famous:"
The term originates from an analysis of the media-dominated world called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America (1961), by historian and social theorist Daniel J. Boorstin. In it, he defined the celebrity as "a person who is known for his well-knownness". He further argued that the graphic revolution in journalism and other forms of communication had severed fame from greatness, and that this severance hastened the decay of fame into mere notoriety. Over the years, the phrase has been glossed as 'a celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous'.

Now we hear that Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern and once-up-a-time pal of President Bill Clinton, is slated to do a TED talk in late March.  

Here's the kicker. Lewinsky’s talk will focus on  “a safer and more compassionate social media environment, drawing from her unique experiences at the epicenter of a media maelstrom in 1998.”

In other words, she's going to give a TED talk about what it's like to be famous for being famous. 

I don't care one way or the other about Ms. Lewinsky. I surely do not care what she has to say about this topic. 

Labels:

posted by Richard K. Barry at 7:35 AM

Bookmark and Share

1 Comments:

  • I've heard a lot of Republicans cynically refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network." They claim that CNN adores Bill and Hillary Clinton.
    Hmmm, that's odd. I recall during the Lewinsky "scandal," CNN led with this story 24/7, 365 days a year for 18 long months. It didn't matter if there was no particular new development in the case----every day, it was the top story.
    I wish CNN had given a tiny fraction of all this saturation coverage to taking a look at Bush's case for war in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003.
    It's clear that the American people never really gave a damn about the Lewinsky "scandal." Their anger was mostly with the Repukes, for their relentless pursuit of this case. Recall how the longer the witchhunt went on, the higher Bill's approval ratings went (his ratings were at 70 percent at the peak of the "scandal.")
    Do I blame the Repukes for all this? Not so much. They were simply doing what the GOP does.
    What I DO blame, though, is the MSM, for giving this "scandal" 18 months of around-the-clock coverage. CNN couldn't have given this "story" more coverage if Karl Rove had been in charge of that network.
    Between that shameful behavior, and then the MSM's horrible performance during the Iraq War, I lost all confident in the U.S. mainstream media. Since then, I mainly read the European press ("The Guardian" and "The Financial Times," mostly).

    By Blogger Marc McDonald, at 11:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home