Friday Feminist Fuck You: TMZ
This is probably my shortest Friday Feminist Fuck You ever, but I literally had nothing else to say.
For more info, see imbroglio's "Rant" on the Community blog.
Posted by Jessica - February 20, 2009, at 05:00PM
| in
Friday Feminist Fuck You
,
Violence Against Women
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Friday Feminist Fuck You: TMZ.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12070
I couldn't agree more.
Agreed! I just happened to be on one of my guilty pleasure blogs, which I go on for fashion. And ill be damned if they hadnt posted the picture. I just cant believe it. It's like your rights get thrown away when your a celebrity. And I am tired of people saying..oh well celebrities know what their getting themselves into...well..being a celebrity shouldnt mean your rights are totally thrown out the window! It just shouldnt. Argh!!!!!!!!!!
And the sick comments are just too much for me. People saying that...its not that bad and everyone is blowing things out of proportion. GROSS.
I cant imagine how Rihanna feels...
TMZ was completely out of line when it posted the Rihanna photo. ALL crime victims should have their dignity and privacy respected!
Spot on.
The TMZ photo is on MySpace's login page, by the way. I've already deleted my MySpace account and emailed them, but I just can't believe it. Any of it.
I actually think that photos like this help people to recognize that we do have a problem with male on female violence, and that there are an unacceptable number of males who continue to think this is ok.
Part of why so many people were arguing that racism was worse than sexism during the primaries last year was because, as my father said, "black people were treated violently, while women were not." He cited highly public photos of lynchings and the police attacking marchers with fire hoses and dogs as one of the reasons so many people began to recognize racism as a problem and support civil rights.
Violence against women is generally done behind closed doors, you know, "a domestic issue." By hiding the result of the violence and it's supporting mentality, we perpetuate the notion that "feminism isn't necessary" because "women are already equal." Incidentally, I also believe that part of chivalry's underlying motivation is to make it appear that men are sooooo nice to women.
Sure, photos can raise awareness about the reality of intimate partner violence. But, this photo was released not only against the police's policy, but is a true invasion of the privacy that Rihanna deserves.
It's one thing to have a survivors decide to, on their own terms, discuss their experiences with abuse. It's against all respect for dignity and self-determination for someone else to decide to (perhaps illegally? at least unconscionably) leak and then post photos without permission, especially when it's done in the sort of spectacle way that is TMZ and other celeb gossip sites.
I concede ALL of your points.
these photos invade her privacy, which should outweigth any light it supposedly shines on DV (which isnt just male on female violence)
i dont want to compare what groups suffered more, but your example of why people said racism was worse than sexism does not take into account the experience of those that are both black and women.
I would like to point out that the example I cite is actually my father's example, not mine. I make no excuse, nor claim any responsibility, for his mentality. Actually, his mentality IS WHY I am a feminist.
Also, the notion that we need to hide her face... unless she's all sparkly and beautiful... perpetuates that only sparkly beautiful women deserve to be seen and cared for.
It isn't the notion that "we" need to hide her face, it's the notion that it's HER decision whether or not she makes public these photos.
Those things are in no way related, and as someone who cares deeply for everyone's right to not be pretty, I'm really insulted that you would conflate them like that.
I cannot fathom the kind of person who A)attempts to retrieve that photograph and B) thinks that it is EVER ok to display it for the public.
It's all kinds of upsetting.
The transcript (short, sweet, perfect):
"Fuck you, TMZ, for posting the police photo of Rihanna after she was assaulted, and double-fuck you to any other blog that reposts that picture. Exploiting a physical assault for traffic is beyond disgusting."
Also, can we get a fuck you for the New York Post, which put it on their front cover? I'm pretty sure it was the Post and not the NY Daily News, as I remember it being on the top half of the cover, and the Post splits their covers horizontally much more often than the News.
You're right, it was the Post, not the Daily News. Although I'm pretty sure the Daily News had a headline about the picture, just not the picture itself, on the front page this morning.
Also, ditto on the "Fuck You, New York Post" for this and a bajillion other reasons.
I completely agree that TMZ and other media outlets, both in the mainstream and celebrity following media, are absolutely posting what amounts to as a slasher film or a celebration of rubbernecking at it's worst for nothing other than the basest of motives; however, people should see those images:
1) With the graphic nature of his acts on display Chris Brown can not hide behind a veil (one Ms. Rhinannon sadly seems willing to help him hang) of statements meant to diminish his acts or mild apologies alluding to a misunderstanding rather than the kind of beating it actually was. "I made a mistake and slapped my girlfriend." kind of b/s that I've seen before.
2) Prosecutors will have a harder time making the typical sweetheart deal for someone based on fame or money.
3) Fans will see this and hopefully be more inclined to avoid contributing to Mr. Browns wealth and that of his label or sponsors.
4) Perhaps her family will really put forth the effort to recognize this potentially suicidal track she is on and get that man away from her.
4a) Hopefully this woman has about a dozen bothers/cousins/uncles who can re-enact my favorite moment from "Bastard Out of Carolina".
Did you read the above comments? It's not up to you or me or anyone else here to decide that the photos "should be seen." It's up to the person in them.
Well yeah, I did read the comments. I simply do not agree with some of the conclusions made in the statements while pretty much agreeing that TMZ and similar outfits are cultural lampreys, etc.
We agree, I think, on a very primal factor here: domestic violence victims are stigmatized, and it's for no good reason; we need to change this. By choosing to express to others at every opportunity the facts that there is no more shame in being a DV victim than there is in being the victim of a car accident. It can happen to anyone and chances are you know someone to whom it has happened.
Where you and I disagree is that one way of preventing abuse and de-stigmatizing it is doing whatever needs to be done to prevent more victimization by any means necessary, including stepping in even when they do not want to be acknowledged. In many states when police respond to a DV call and there is even a little evidence of disturbance or a witness claiming this is the case they are required to arrest at least one party. Thus once choice is removed from the victim, and most people agree that this is ultimately for the best. It's obvious why such a law exists, we all know that victims will put themselves back into jeopardy given the choice.
In many instances these steps are sufficient because the average citizen cannot afford the kind of high dollar legal representation available to someone like Mr. Brown, and therefore actually get time in jail and/or anger management counseling and often enforced restraining orders based on just officer/EMT testimony.
This is not often the case with someone like Mr. Brown, who can easily afford the kind of litigation that will have most prosecutors looking to cut a deal right away. Also the average abuser is not dependent on public image to remain employed and so exposing Jane/John Doe's tragedy is not often of great motivational benefit nor punitive for that matter.
Pause for a moment, please, and think of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman; would they still be alive if the public knew that OJ was a monster before 1994 and thus pressured the DA to force him into some kind of counseling? Maybe, maybe not. But the possibility of preventing or avoiding danger is where I'm arguing from.
Finally when the public sees that DV victims and perpetrators are not only the dregs seen semi-blurred on C.O.P.S. but people they admire, then maybe they will rethink their ideas on the those who are the victims.
I've yet to see anyone provide hard data concluding that privacy is of any material or overwhelming benefit. Just people doing what I am, speculating on a solution or a problem based on their own perspectives and ethical/moral compass.
Wait a second - you were pretty much shaming her in your first comment with all that *veil she's helping him hang* crap and then basically calling her suicidal. I really don't mean to have a combative tone here, but maybe if you want the stigma to be gone, you could watch your language and show more compassion than condescension.
Where do you get me "shaming" her from the statement: "one Ms. Rhinannon sadly seems willing to help him hang"? (in reference to the aforementioned "veil")
Really? This is your argument? I'm willing to engage you here, but this argument of yours is a paper tiger. I can respect your wish to disagree with me, but you're attempting to modify my argument to suit you. It is completely unreasonable for you to attempt to imply that I am blaming or condescending to this young woman.
As for implying that she's suicidal. Well if the basis for that statement is accurate (meaning if, as reported in some places, she has gone to reconcile with him in Hawaii) then N.O. D.U.H.
Lack of willingness or ability to preserve one's own life is kind of an underlying predicate to my entire train of logic. The fact is, as mentioned above, we have decided to intervene in people's rights at self determination (as ambiguous a concept as "right to privacy") as a matter of routing justice. Helping those who won't or cannot help themselves is already part of our culture and legal system.
I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming her, but I thought that your tone was pretty condescending. I don't really know enough about her situation to pass judgment on how she is dealing with or planning to deal with this. I don't know how you conclusively know enough to say that she's helping him hide or making excuses for him (which is what I got out of the veil comment).
It just sounded to me like you were assuming that she's some poor silly girl who has been taking this abuse for a long time and will continue to do it unless outside forces step in, which really denies her autonomy. I mean, maybe she is - but then again maybe she's strong enough to deal with it on her own (with the support that she chooses), you know? Maybe she should have been allowed to make her own decision about whether or not that photo came out. If she had, I think the picture could have been pretty powerful - but instead she's just been made a victim all over again, this time at the hands of the media.
So the victim of abuse has to have her privacy violated in order to punish the abuser?
Pretty much, yeah.
I'm not saying it's ideal or even good. But I'm thinking about what is good for society at large and ultimately what is best for other potential victims.
In this and other countries we recognize the concept of a "Good Samaritan". At times we have even enacted "Good Samaritan" laws (admittedly with dubious results depending on the tenor of said legislation); however this is a fairly clear case where a person who is sadly a victim should be obliged to report and assist in prosecuting the crime for which they are a victim.
Ms. Rihanna has, through her actions, demonstrated why individual "rights" (BTW: The right to privacy does not exist in this context. In Canada they do have a blanket of media silence for cases of domestic abuse lasting until a set date after a trial/verdict, but no such law exists here in the U.S.) are not sacrosanct. As of my latest reading she has done not much other than to attempt to mitigate Mr. Browns responsibility in the matter, nor has she cooperated with prosecution or investigation at this point.
Mr. Brown is an abuser, a violent abuser. He will not likely stop on his own and his latest victim does not appear willing to help stop him. So any and all means of making him accountable should be explored. If Ms. Rihanna is unwilling to help then she shares a burden of responsibility for potential future victims (yes yes, I'm "victim blaming" of course, right? Not. I'm not blaming her for being a victim, I'm blaming her for having the opportunity to prevent further victimization and failing to taking it).
His potential to assault others trumps her unwarranted shame at being a victim.
We can, as a society, change the perception of abuse victims by pulling the matter out of the shade and letting everyone know just how prevalent this is and that victims can strike back at their assailants and be supported on doing so. This will not happen to the comfort or satisfaction of all involved, but I'll take discomfort over another act of violence any day of the week.
Frankly anyone who thinks otherwise is IMHO a part of the problem and partially culpable for furthering a system where abusers are sheltered by their victims.
Shame on anyone who would choose otherwise.
While I absolutely agree that victims need to assist the prosecution and authorities to bring abusers to justice, I'm still not exactly sure why that means a picture of her in a moment of real vulnerability needs to be released to a the masses (who have nothing to do with this case) against her will. And while I haven't been following the case super closely, I'm fairly certain that the allegations that she isn't cooperating (or is trying to downplay the situation) comes from speculation in the media, not sources from the police or DA. In fact, those claims come from tabloids and sites just like TMZ, real trustworthy. Rihanna is not obligated to come out and be available to the general public for scrutiny after being victimized. So long as she is assisting in moving the case along on the legal side, I don't see why she should be required to feed the media circus.
I agree in principle. Unfortunately I feel it is undeniable that celebs get a pass far too often and that the public pressure that the exposure is bringing may be the difference between another instance of something being swept under the rug or being given a punishment that is deserved and hopefully some kind of mandatory counseling.
I'll absolutely admit that my basis for the above statements is founded on the possibly erroneous reporting of her lack of cooperation. If that reporting is mistaken then so am I in related statements.
I will, however, maintain that exposure of the real face of domestic violence can serve to enlighten people who would otherwise be blissfully unaware of the reality of this crime and the extend of its reach into all levels of out society.
In that case, let's publish all police photos of battered women attached to the name of their abuser. I mean, public shaming is your answer right? Watch and see how many woman will report their abusers knowing those photos will be made public.
The point is that women shouldn't be ashamed about being victims of domestic abuse; the abusers should be ashamed.
Secondly, I believe Logrus is referring specifically to celebrities (who have pretty much already vetoed their right to privacy, some might say. Not to mention there is no explicit Constitutional right to privacy).
Celebrities are admired and people will often take celebrities' priorities and make them their own. As celebrities it is their responsibility to make the public aware of certain situations which can often mean that they must sacrifice their privacy.
Those who are fans of Ms. Rihanna will be outraged by this stark evidence of battery.
Many of Mr. Brown's fans will realize the seriousness of this offense. Too often celebrities are released with a slap on the hand and nothing more and the public allows this. Photos like this will open people's eyes to the reality of domestic violence.
I don't know about a legal right to privacy and maybe that's what's being argued here.
My point is that the attitude surrounding this issue needs to change so that victims shouldn't be ashamed to come forward; they shouldn't WANT these incidents to remain private.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with publishing photos of abused women with the names of the abusers. This issue should NEVER be swept under the rug in order to avoid "public shaming".
That attitude just makes the world safer and easier for abusers to exist and allows the cycle of abuse to continue.
We as a culture must abandon this notion that women need to be silent and ashamed of their victimization.
Pillories were effective. This is the modern-day equivalent.
i hope you hold that view next time the right to lifers say that the public good of saving babies from abortions outweights a woman's right to privacy
Black and white ideology is never logical or helpful.
It's intellectual laziness, and nothing more.
These are completely separate issues and to suggest that one's ideals in one circumstance should be exactly the same in every other circumstance is absurd.
For example: Murdering is always bad until it becomes a matter of self defense, right?
Using one moral standard for every quandary is inappropriate.
Ideally, moral dilemmas should be examined with a case by case approach. But we as a society and as individuals don't have time to do that so we invent methods of ethical expedience (like legal precedence).
But these methods are flawed and should be used sparingly.
Suggesting that someone is going to minimize the issue of privacy in every situation is rationalizing and a childish use of logic.
what you are doing is childish and intellectually lazy. for one murder is a term of art under the law and is always a crime. your example makes no sense. killing, on the other hand, may not be a crime in certain situations, such as in war, execution or in self defense (some may add abortion, because the mother's right to privacy, among other rights, allows for it).you're just picking and choosing to use the right to privacy to your own ends. if, as its been argued above, that there is no right to privacy or it can be waived for the public good, it may very well extend to abortions as well. privacy forms the bedrock of the rights that surround abortions today. you cant argue to shave it off here just because you think it suits your ends, but then restore it when it comes to privacy.
i never suggested a moral standard but a legal one. consistency is how these standards are important and the norm, not what you are suggesting. just because she is famous does not erode her rights in this area. which is why the LAPD is looking into the leak. you may call it intellectually laziness or whatever words confor you, but i call your position hypocritical and damaging to battered women.
Actually the LAPD is looking into the leak because it was stolen from police forensic evidence or the hospital and is private confidential property.
If someone had taken a pic just as revealing but through informal means and a telephoto lens, would your argument be conceded?
Exactly.
You said exactly what I was trying to say this morning when the pictures popped up on the Today show, and all I could do was throw the remote at the TV and stomp around the house.
Thank you, Jessica.
I was infuriated when I saw it on MSNBC's website in the story about TMZ obtaining the photo. I couldn't find anywhere to contact.
Then I was watching our most respected news station around here about a half hour ago, and they displayed it as well. I definitely wrote them an email. If for no other reason, it's an illegally-released evidence photo of a crime. Why is that acceptable to display? Because she's a celebrity?
Ugh.
a few young people at the rad organization i work for in chicago (women and girls collective action network) wrote an amaaaazing piece about the chris brown/rihanna dv situation. its seriously brilliant. check it out!
http://womenandgirlscan.org/voices/
Usually, I'd agree but in this case it might be a way to shut ignorant people up. The ones who are just brushing it off or siding with Brown. It's hard to deny the seriousness of the situation upon seeing that photo.
This photo was posted on another forum I go to and the general reply was "omg i didn't think it would ever be that bad!!". As much as domestic violence is common, there's still young people out there that have no clue about how terrible it really is. I'm sure the majority of people were expecting a few cuts and bruises...nothing like the trauma shown in the actual photo.
I am sad for Rihanna but at the same time, people NEED to wake up to this issue. When people hear about a man bashing a woman, then not expect it to be "that bad!" something is wrong.
Usually, I'd agree but in this case it might be a way to shut ignorant people up. The ones who are just brushing it off or siding with Brown. It's hard to deny the seriousness of the situation upon seeing that photo.
This photo was posted on another forum I go to and the general reply was "omg i didn't think it would ever be that bad!!". As much as domestic violence is common, there's still young people out there that have no clue about how terrible it really is. I'm sure the majority of people were expecting a few cuts and bruises...nothing like the trauma shown in the actual photo.
I am sad for Rihanna but at the same time, people NEED to wake up to this issue. When people hear about a man bashing a woman, then not expect it to be "that bad!" something is wrong.
it hasn't had that effect on my sites. a lot of people say it isn't that bad or that they had a history of violence, where she struck him a lot and that he just never pressed charges. violating her privacy hasn't worked to punish the accused
Somehow the local news station decided that while they should show the picture, it would be inappropriate to show the picture, so when they did show the picture, they blurred out the entire thing and just put a big smudge on screen. It was kind of bizarre.
I can see arguments for and against, to be honest. There are definitely times when public interest overrides privacy. And I think there's a great potential for hypocrisy here.
During the ongoing Iraq war, some news outlets have shown pictures of dead or injured civilians and soldiers in order to highlight the horrors of war. Other news outlets have decided for various reasons to not do so - privacy or respect, or sometimes just "sparing the reader". However, there's some media that have shown injured civilians but not US soldiers, in order to protect their specific privacy. As if it was worth more.
I'm wondering whether a lot of people here would be as upset if it was a woman in a documentary photograph from some distant war zone who hadn't given her consent. It's very easy to think of Rhianna as rational and western and human and dehumanise the distant and the poor who are snapped by the cameras of photojournalists. They can become symbols of the horrors of war, while Rhianna can't become a symbol because we feel we "know" her.
This was a great post. It brought up issues I hadn't thought of before. Thank you.
I mean, great comment, not post.
When a country is involved in war, the entire country deserves to know the details of what's happening in that war. Everyone is effected, directly and indirectly. Photographs of innocent civilians who are killed provides evidence for how tragically wrong the war is. The deaths of the Iraq war reflect the decisions of our government, who we have elected and are meant to represent us. We are all involved.
When a woman is beaten by her husband, the entire country does NOT deserve to know what's going on in that very personal situation. No one else is involved, and I definitely don't see how you can argue that this is an example of when public interest trumps the right to privacy.
Wake up, people. The picture of Rihanna's battered and bruised face is not going to change the way people think about DV. It's been posted on countless blogs and the comments sections are still the same: she must have really pissed him off, I'll never stop supporting Chris, you know how Caribbean women are, BLAH BLAH APOLOGISM BLAH MISOGYNY BLAH.
People will not have feminist awakenings due to Rihanna's picture, because people are motherfucking assholes who practically get off on depictions of violence against women. To think that releasing this picture without Rihanna's consent is going to contribute to the greater good is incredibly naive.
And it's not just TMZ. Yeah, TMZ was the instigator here, but the fucking NBC affiliate in DC posted it live on the air during a broadcast! The anchors just casually mention it then move on to the latest bank robbery story.
Thank you. Do people really think DV apologists and misogynists somehow have no idea what a battered woman looks like? I'm sorry but one picture won't change their minds.
Well, there are always going to be internet trolls and the media will always be shameless.
But I think most people are better than that. So let's see if Chris Brown has a career after this...
Wow, those comments are that common huh? I saw this on the huffpo, and couldn't believe some of the comments. I thought maybe it was just a right wing troll trying to piss off liberals.
This depresses me.
Exactly.
I have seen some pretty disgusting comments from other sites in regard to this picture, especially "man, she must have pissed him off!" As if any of her actions or words are worth a beating like that.
I don't really see how anyone's mind is going to change just because of this.
I agree. TMZ is trash. I don't particularly pity celebrities, but TMZ is all about harassing people and invading privacy. And it encourages our society's unhealthy celebrity cult.
And yes, they really take it over the top if they post pictures of Rihanna that she didn't want posted after her assault.
Pure trash.
I work for TMX and find your comments inaproppriate and offensive.
what's TMX?
Another example of how violence against women crosses the class boundary. We're not protected by money, nation, fame, or even supposed power. I'm really disappointed that Disgrasian posted the picture. They're usually smarter than that.
Yeah, I'm going to email them after my anger subsides. Don't they understand how triggering that photo is? Don't they understand they've just engaged in the behavior they're calling out?
As a survivor of DV, this has been really stressful.
I don't how to feel about this one.
I was watching Oprah for a few minutes on Friday, and she showed the picture as well. She said something like "TMZ leaked this photo of Rhianna. blah blah, so we are going to show it."
I listened to them talk for about 30 more seconds about Chris Brown and Rhianna, and I had to turn it off. Fuck all the media outlets who felt it was appropriate to show this photo. Assholes.
As an abuse survivor, perhaps she feels that she has a right to be open about it... even if she's being open about other people's abuse. She's not known for her sensitivity.
Ugh I was watching MSNBC yesterday morning and they decided to show that picture too.