h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yesterday a TV presenter got arrested for drink driving.

Why do I have to hear about this (so far) 4 times in the last hour on the radio. It's tittle tattle. Gossip. Does anyone really care that much?

Is this one of those things that is of interest to the public rather than being in the public interest? Journalists seem to muddle this up frequently.

PP.

Sensational "news" will always take precedent over real news.

You should see how the American networks react when a new royal baby pops out. If it were only the "Entertainment" news shows, I wouldn't be bothered, but the National news will dedicate nearly a third of their half hour to these privileged brats and even the local stations will as well.

Over here, the justification for favoring popular drivel over substantive current events is the simple fact that the viewers are not the customers for News programming, we are the product they sell. Sensational drivel gets more eyes and ears paying attention to the advertising they sell.

I plead guilty to being interested in the royal brats. I've read biographies and historical fiction about their ancestors, so why shouldn't I want to know how the latest products of their gene pool are turning out?

Plus, it's unimaginable to me how *many* people that gene pool has cranked out! Queen Victoria's mother was valuable to the Royal family for being one of the "brood mares" of Europe: phenomenally prolific. Thus, Victoria's ability to produce nine children who lived long enough to reproduce themselves. Leopold, who lived the shortest life because of hemophilia, sired princess Alice of Albany, who lived to be 97. Leopold's son was an ancestor of the King of Sweden.

Yes, and it seems to be the norm for genealogists to go crazy over royal blood lines.
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/empire2britain.wps.htm
Take these genealogies with copious amounts of salt.

>I plead guilty to being interested in the royal brats. I've read biographies and historical fiction about their ancestors, so why shouldn't I want to know how the latest products of their gene pool are turning out? tongueout<


Perhaps because they might have had some actual power and some effect on history. What effect do they have now? Very little if any.

Tis true though - I was most surprised when I lived briefly in Italy in the 90s just how much MORE interested - elsewhere were in our royal family.

Nothing the press like more than slavering over the sad personal problems of a celebrity.

I suppose it distracts the journos from their own copious drinking.

(ooh that was unkind - sowwwwy)

It's not unkind at all. Journalists need to be regularly reminded of their hypocrisy.

As to this individual, yes, it's a sad case, and I hope he gets the treatment he needs. He's part of a very popular act.

But I wonder why it comes to this. Why didn't he employ a driver? - he can afford one.

"Nothing the press like more than slavering over the sad personal problems of a celebrity." [orcus]

Particularly a sad celebrity whose acting career is so-so, hence the need to be on the cover of celebrity mags several times a month, moaning about a failing marriage or bragging about the baby bump that would have developed into seven children by now if it had been real.

If the case of Ant McPartlin was that, I would agree with you - but it is very far from that in this case.
His career is not on the wane - or at least wasn't.

>But I wonder why it comes to this. Why didn't he employ a driver? - he can afford one.>

I once saw Michael Caine interviewed about why he'd never learned to drive. He said that he hadn't bothered when he was young and by the time he got enough dosh to buy one - because he was a famous actor by then, a chauffeur was cheaper than the insurance premium

It's probably also cheaper for him to pay a driver for the same reason. It's an excellent point.

Some people are petrol heads - gotta have some sort of status symbol car and drive it like a dangerous prat.

I do wonder about the driving laws sometimes. - if he'd killed that little girl he'd be look at a long stretch for causing death by dangerous driving.
Because he missed and she's likely OK (by pure fortune) - it will be a MUCH lesser charge.

The driving is the same in the two scenarios - just the outcome - I don't really see why reckless driving - in law - is OK (ish) until you kill someone.

Timothy Leary makes a good argument against how many intoxication laws are handled. Most if not all DUI laws are predicated on blood alcohol content. But is that actually a valid way to adjudicate reckless driving? It's an arbitrary number. People vary. No doubt some people should not drive after even 1 drink. But some people can and do drive reasonably well after many more. The actual reasons for reckless driving related to intoxication are suppressed reflexes, impaired vision, inattentiveness, &c. And there are many other conditions that can cause someone to drive recklessly that have nothing to do with blood content. Driving sleepy can be just as detrimental as driving drunk. Driving distracted is an ever increasing problem. Reckless driving should be considered a more serious crime in general regardless of what proximate causes might be attributed to the recklessness.


It's much easier to determine a penalty based on the results of a seemingly empirical test, but maybe the driving itself should be the main issue.

I was thinking about Jennifer Aniston, who should have a lot of kids by now, based on the number of "baby bump" photos she's shown on magazine covers.

Testicles.

They get lucky.

PP.

Agreed. It takes very little to affect your concentration levels. Alcohol doesn't 'sharpen your wits' as some serial drink drivers seem to claim.

It's not just alcohol. Even small doses of prescription drugs can have a major effect. I almost completely passed out at the wheel once after taking some cough medicine. I thankfully reached some motorway services just as it hit me, then parked and fell asleep at the wheel.

So, you were driving while coughing?

No, it cured the cough

But it almost cured something you didn't want cured.

Returning to the original question, I rather feel it's because there are just so many news broadcasts/channels/internet sites. They've got to fill them with something.
In this particular case is it perhaps the idea that celebrities should set a good example to all their fans?

I'm not sure that celebrities *can* set a good example. Think about what we know most celebrities for: acting. Their real lives may be completely different from the roles they portray, in fact it's better if they play against type. To pick an extreme example, I'd rather not want to know whether Anthony Hopkins eats people in real life . Another extreme example: Meryl Streep has played at least 80 different roles, almost all of them unique. Which one would she be like in real life?

Another type of celebrity is a star athlete, like Michael Phelps. I felt sorry for him when a stealth photographer caught him on film smoking pot. I know that's not setting a good example, but his privacy was grievously violated! And after that episode of pot smoking, he went on to win more Olympic gold medals. In an ironic twist, the public interest might have been better served had those photos been banned because some aspiring swimmers might think that pot-smoking might enhance their chances. Let Phelps do what he chooses to do in private. If he's smoking pot in a state where pot-smoking is legal, and he isn't making other people watch him, how are there any victims here?

Just my two cents' worth. If I shock anybody, my apologies.

I'm not saying I think we should expect celebrities to behave well - in fact some are known for the fact that they don't! On the whole I couldn't care less what they do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life.

Do we need to differentiate between people who are celebrities because of their occupation as in actors, sportspeople as opposed to those who are portrayed in the public eye as 'themselves' being 'nice people' eg TV presenters. There seems to be a certain assumption (which I don't agree with) that they are like that all the time or at least should appear to be.

Of course actually they're just human like the rest of us & subject to the same flaws.

I like your reasoning a lot.

A celebrity TV presenter who drives drunk is probably not especially newsworthy. Now, if a driving instructor drove drunk, that would be horrific.