Was worth it, for some fucking damn gossip?

Kate Middleton DJ Pranksters Suspended After Nurse Suicide

Fri, December 7, 2012 1:30pm EST by Christopher Rogers

Southern Cross Austereo, the company that owns 2Day FM station says that DJ Mel Greig and Michael Christian are ‘deeply saddened’ by the news of Jacintha Saldanha’s death and are taking themselves off the air ‘until further notice.’ Read on for their full statement!

DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian of Sydney’s 2Day FM station, who claimed to be Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles during a prank call to Kate Middleton’s hospital room on December 4, have released a statement after Jacintha Saldanha, the mother of two who transferred the call, was found dead on Dec. 6.

Southern Cross Austereo, the company that owns the station, has released a statement saying, “SCA and 2Day FM are deeply saddened by the tragic news of the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha from King Edward VII’s Hospital. SCA and the hosts have decided that they will not return to their radio show until further notice out of respect for what can only be described as a tragedy.”

Mel and Michael are said to be “deeply shocked” by this tragedy, according to TMZ.

The Prank Call Backstory

The DJs spoke to Kate’s private nurse at King Edward VII Hospital and were given actual information on Kate’s hyperemesis gravidarum condition

During the phone call, you can hear DJ Mel posing as Queen Elizabeth II saying, “Hello, I’m just looking after my granddaughter, Kate. I wanted to see how her little tummy bug is going.”

It’s unclear exactly what the nurse told Mel, but she says the nurse, “was giving us real information,” that left her in shock.

“We were very surprised that our call was put through,” Mel is quoted as saying. “We thought we’d be hung up on as soon as they heard our terrible accents.”

Prince William & Kate Middleton Release Statement on Nurse’s Suicide

St. James’s Palace also released a statement on the nurse’s suicide, saying, “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Their Royal Highnesses were looked after so wonderfully well at all times by everybody at King Edward VII Hospital, and their thoughts and prayers are with Jacintha Saldanha’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time.”

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/12/07/kate-middleton-prank-callers-statement-nurse-suicide/

Was worth it, for some fucking damn gossip? Paparazzi killed princess Diana and it's still legal? Everyone needs to calm down about gossip in a general way, because for a long time now the sense of moderation and decency has been substantially exceeded. For God's sake, it's time that the media can learn the lesson...

This time the good taste wins

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/kate-middleton-prince-william-win-fight-in-nude-photo-lawsuit-1.4014081

In the hope that from this precedent will arise deterrents for other similar cases of theft of privacy...
Catherine Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, was not walking on the London streets in bare tits, she was spied in private moments and the theft of her pictures was sold at a high price, as if it were the bounty of a criminal wanted by the police or photos of a rare beast and she was unaware of it. THAT is the heart of the matter, NOT her tits.
Saddens that almost no one has understood the gravity of the offense, this says a lot about where he went to finish the respect for people...in the name of gossip at any price.

Laurence Pieau, another dirty gossip bitch who doesn't understand the gravity of her actions...

Few weeks after the anniversary of Princess Diana death, killed by a reckless chase of criminals paparazzi, history repeats itself, with an hateful and unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of the British Royal Family.
For once, is almost unanimous the condemnation. Really disconcerting self-defense of Laurence Pieau, director of Closer, a french trash magazine (source: Huffinghton Post) :

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/14/kate-middleton-topless-photos-closer-magazine-editor-laurence-pieau_n_1883625.html

As in any other cases of reckless intrusion for-profit into the private lives of someone, in front of the hideousness of the act, here comes a detailed and coward justification that emphasizes how in the name of money does not even consider concepts like respect and sense of moderation.

My 'dear' madame Pieau, the problem is not merely the royal boobs shown on your tabloid...your consciousness still dirty. Try to look over your nose stupid businesswoman, because the ethical and moral problem is having chased and spied a person during a private holiday in order to steal private moments that should be private, not published as hunting trophies. I can only hope that someone captures you while you're shitting with your panties down and put the picture of your ass on front cover, this could be the only way to make it clear to you (and those like you) the meaning of stalking for money.

Undercover Attack

Two examples of cowardice subtle from:

http://www.laineygossip.com/Home/Faq

Q: What is a blind riddle? How do I find the answers?
Gossip columnists use blind items to report scandalous, dirty smut without the threat of a lawsuit. My riddles contain clues pointing to the celebrity in question and follow up clues are usually embedded elsewhere in subsequent columns which means you have to read every word. As irritating as that is though, once you find the embedded detail, it pretty much gives away the answer. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer guesses via email. Please forgive…would be happy to spill in person!

A: The ultimate in cowardice: the blind riddle, or how to destroy someone's reputation staying hidden protected from any risk and letting the people do the dirty work.

Q: Why don’t you allow comments on your site?
Under consideration – the site will be redesigned piecemeal Summer 2007 and adding a Comment Section is on the table. Still haven’t, however, figured out how to minimise the presence of freaks, spammers, and porn pervs that can sometimes spoil a discussion. Will keep you posted.

A: Preventing to readers express different opinions, taking away the right to object about your innuendo, it amplifies the disruptive effect of defamation.


We suggest to Lainey Gossip to purchase guns and kill directly their victims, in the meaning of physical removal, it will be less fun for them but the targets and their family would suffer less...

Respect is due to anyone, celebrities and ordinary people, just as the right of reply and defense of themselves when they are attacked in their private.

Gossip, by its detrimental nature, violates article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Gossip is the devil's radio

By sonia05 
http://sonia05.hubpages.com/hub/i-hate-gossip

Someone has very rightly said that "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people!!!!

People enjoy talking about others and it is definitely not others' virtues. Gossip can be harmless but it can very damaging sometimes. It can cause irreversible damage to ones reputation,hurt feelings, create misunderstandings etc. It is better to stay away from mindless gossip for the sake of immaterial or sadistic pleasure.However,we all indulge in this activity putting worst use of our ever fertile minds.We only realize its negativity when gossiping is about us.

"Fire and swords are slow engines of destruction compared to the tongue of gossip".Richard Steele.

"Loose tongues are worse than wicked hands." Jewish proverb

"Gossip is the opiate of the oppressed". Erica Jong

We all know that it is not good to gossip without ascertaining the truth but seldom we try to find out the truth. What i have learnt about life is that its better to wait and watch and let the truth come out on its own rather than engaging in mindless speculation and gossip. Truth will come out eventually,it is just a matter of time. It cannot be hidden. Therefore, wait for the truth to emerge from the shadows instead of following the shadows of doubt and lies. It will make oneself a better human being,learning to be patient,being a considerate person and trying not to hurt others without any rhyme and reason.

We all aspire to be a better human being...one step towards it is by stopping ourselves from gossiping and gossip mongrels......lets nip the devil's radio in its very first session!!!!

The Future of Reputation

Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet 

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/EBOOKS/Y070713S.pdf

After John Travolta lawsuit fizzles, questions about attorney remain

By Harriet Ryan and Amy Kaufman, Los Angeles Times - 
May 19, 2012, 12:51 p.m. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-john-travolta-20120520,0,2532915.story

Tawdry allegations about John Travolta became a sensation after they appeared in a lawsuit. But the accusers soon withdrew the suit, leaving questions about their attorney and how the matter got so much publicity.

The actor's attorney says the allegations are baseless.

It was billed as a "shocking tell-all" and a "world exclusive," but the National Enquirer's March 26 cover story landed with a thud. TMZ, Page Six and other major players in celebrity gossip ignored the article in which a masseuse claimed John Travolta offered money for sex.

Five weeks after the issue left the checkout aisle, a DUI attorney from Pasadena put the anonymous masseuse's tawdry tale in a lawsuit and it became an overnight pop culture sensation, topping Google News, trending on Twitter and meriting a segment on "Good Morning America." Another anonymous accuser joined the suit, and Travolta found himself in an embarrassing spot just as he was preparing to promote a new Oliver Stone movie.

The case imploded this week with the accusers voluntarily dismissing the suit. What remained were questions about how a small-time attorney with financial problems and a desire to boost his legal profile got the case in the first place and why a sloppy and inaccurate court filing was able generate so much unwanted attention on an A-list star.

Travolta's attorney, who has repeatedly called the allegations baseless, said he suspected the National Enquirer played some role in connecting the Texas masseuse with Okorie Chukwudimm Okorocha, the Pasadena lawyer.

"I don't know how you would pick Okorie Okorocha out of a phone book," said Martin Singer, the Hollywood power player whose clientele includes Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Sheen and Sylvester Stallone. He said he had assigned a private investigator to look into Okorocha.

A spokeswoman for the Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc., did not respond to questions about the tabloid's involvement. Okorocha initially said in a telephone interview that he did not recall how he got the case. Moments later he said the Enquirer story was brought to his attention by a stranger at a farmer's market and that by coincidence the masseuse contacted him via email two days later.

"That's a little surreal, right?" he said. Pressed about a connection to the Enquirer, Okorocha said he and an editor from Radar Online, an American Media gossip site that posted a dozen exclusive stories about the scandal, attended the same church and he considered her a "family friend," but insisted she had not played any part in the masseuse retaining him.

The editor, Jen Heger, disputed his account of a relationship in an email, saying she was "not aware of ever meeting Okorie Okorocha," had never attended church with him and had not heard his name before the Okorocha suit. A lawyer for AMI subsequently sent Okorocha a letter demanding that he "refrain from  making any further statement or suggestion that you have a personal friendship with Ms. Heger or any other person at Radar."

Hours later, Okorocha sent an email to The Times, copied to the AMI attorney, disavowing his previous claims: "I do NOT know anyone associated or employed there. I have no personal relationship with anyone there at all. I apologize for the harm I caused."

Okorocha approached Travolta's representatives last month in an effort to settle the masseuse's grievance privately. An attorney since 2003, the 36-year-old Okorocha had one previous brush with celebrity when he was accused of trying to broker the sale of a sex tape featuring Verne Troyer, the actor who played Mini Me in the "Austin Powers" films. Okorocha's normal caseload was sexual harassment and wrongful termination claims and DUI defenses, work that didn't make for big headlines or paychecks.

Okorocha often worked for free as a DUI expert for other lawyers in hopes they would throw him some business, he wrote in a court filing in March in an ongoing child custody dispute with his ex-wife. In recent years, he slid into debt. He filed for bankruptcy last summer, declaring an annual income of about $70,000 and debts of $1.2 million.

Okorocha said that when he approached Travolta's camp, he didn't demand a specific amount of money: "I never threw a number out there. I didn't even say 50 cents."

It's not unusual in Hollywood for celebrities to avoid bad press by paying off individuals making salacious claims, even if they dispute the allegations. Okorocha said he expected that was what would transpire with his client, but "there was some miscommunication."

"I gave [a Travolta attorney] a deadline and I said, 'We need to have something by a certain day. We're not going to wait around forever.' I think somebody was on vacation or  dropped the ball," he said.

Singer confirmed the negotiations occurred and that Okorocha provided a draft copy of a suit, but said he wasn't involved until late in the process because Okorocha initially contacted another law firm that handles Travolta's business matters.

On May 4, Okorocha filed suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The nine-page assault and battery complaint demanded $2 million on behalf of a plaintiff identified only as John Doe and gave his sordid allegations a legitimacy the Enquirer did not. Since the allegations were in court filings, news outlets could report on them without fear of libel claims.

Copies of the lawsuit were widely available online and readers discovered a filing that appeared hastily written – one paragraph that referred to "assault and battery by a peace officer" seemed to have been cut and pasted from another document – but struck many as titillating and funny. There were graphic descriptions of Travolta's genitals as well as irrelevant details of an alleged January encounter at the Beverly Hills Hotel. It described a personal chef preparing hamburgers for the star and "2 or 3 wrappers from chocolate cake packages" on the floor of his SUV.

In less than 24 hours, Okorocha became a sought-after interview, his headshot running alongside Travolta's in stories about the suit. It was welcome attention for Okorocha. He had been eager to "build a name" as a lawyer, he wrote two months before in a declaration in his custody case.

"I…am doing all I can to try and gain recognition so that I can one day have a thriving practice choosing what cases to take," he wrote.

Travolta's lawyers identified problems with the masseuse's suit almost immediately. The actor's legal team provided photos, flight records and receipts showing Travolta had been in New York on the date in question. Okorocha said his client made a mistake about the timing, but stood by the allegations. He told a  camera crew in a video posted on TMZ that he was being inundated with calls by other potential victims and said he was in the process of vetting hundreds of similar claims.

But even as he was making these statements publicly, Okorocha was in search of additional accusers, according to a Los Angeles author he contacted.

Robert Randolph, who published a book this year containing allegations against Travolta, said Okorocha emailed him repeatedly looking for people with potential claims against Travolta. In a May 11 email Randolph provided to the Times, Okorocha wrote, "Is there a Travolta related matter you think I may want to look at?" After Randolph wrote that some men were fearful of coming forward, Okorocha responded: "I will keep them all confidential. They dont ever need to be disclosed." Randolph said he was worried by Okorocha's media appearance and ceased contact.

This week both clients fired Okorocha, withdrew their cases and hired Gloria Allred. The media-savvy veteran said the men were still weighing whether to proceed with legal action.

Travolta has not talked publicly about the scandal, though he will likely be asked about it at press junkets this summer. In July, the 58-year-old actor will star as a federal agent in Stone's crime thriller "Savages." Singer said he didn't want to talk about the case's effect on Travolta's career, but said that from a legal standpoint, his client had achieved a complete victory: "You couldn't ask for anything better when two people drop their lawsuits."

For his part, Okorocha said he doesn't regret taking the case, though it has come with costs. On Thursday, he filed suit against a disgruntled former client who bought the domain name okorieokorocha.com and has set up a site disparaging Okorocha's legal abilities.

Surreal, fucking National Enquirer? REALLY SURREAL??? Surreal is the existence of such trash magazines like this and people like this loser greedy 'lawyer'...and it's surreal that there is a majority of Americans who blindly believe in this shit. 

Jackals at Work

The intent is clear and evident: obtain malicious evidences in which Smith kissing a man, extrapolating from the context these images in order to still to defame this actor with usually endless gossip about his private life, such as gasoline on fire. But he did not reckon with the human and instinctive reaction of his victim...

 

A round of applause with standing ovation to Will Smith and to the russian asshole in bad faith, this reply:

The 'art' of selling smoke and shit, passing it off as truth

Ruffians of gossipmakers

Ricky Martin homosexuality questions 'inappropriate', Barbara Walters admits

Barbara Walters, the American television presenter, has expressed her regret over a controversial interview with Ricky Martin where she aggressively questioned him about his homosexuality.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7537896/Ricky-Martin-homosexuality-questions-inappropriate-Barbara-Walters-admits.html

12:30PM BST 30 Mar 2010

Speaking just before the Latino Pop star confirmed he was homosexual, the 80 year-old broadcasting veteran admitted she had pursued “inappropriate” questions during their interview in 2000.
Walters, who has interviewed some of the world’s biggest names over an illustrious 29-year career, asked him whether he was a homosexual, which he refused to disclose.

She then asks Martin what Gloria Estefan meant when she once told him "enjoy your sexuality" as the star becomes more awkward.

Walters, who is known for getting stars to open up on camera, continues her questioning by asking him how exactly he is "enjoying it."
“In 2000, I pushed Ricky Martin very hard to admit if he was gay or not, and the way he refused to do it made everyone decide that he was,” she told the Toronto Star earlier this month. http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/775131--barbara-walters-what-kind-of-tree-is-she

“A lot of people say that destroyed his career, and when I think back on it now I feel it was an inappropriate question.”
That interview, broadcast on the American ABC Network, is seen by many to have ruined the 38 year-old’s career.

After the interview his career in America fell flat although he is still considered a superstar in Latin America.
The Puerto Rican singer of hits such as "Livin' la Vida Loca," has long been the subject of speculation about his sexuality.


...but some months after these statements, Walters falls back in her bad vice ask the same question to a famous actor during a pre Academy Awards interview...

At the present day, people have lost all respect for every professionals working in the entertainment industry. Well aware that you can kill someone with gossip better than if you would do it with a gun, gossip becomes the perfect weapon to destroy anyone who does not like you (or just for fun sake) with unconscious shallowness, forgetting that they are human beings like you beyond their fame and deserve the same respect. 

Through a system of global mass communication such as social networks, the 'gossip weapon' greatly increases its power spreading itself everywhere like a virus, reaching millions of people in an instant. Paparazzi are  substantially like hired killers who use the camera as a gun (I still remember in this connection the murder of Diana Spencer and a long series of serious accidents caused by their reckless pursuits). But the worst in spreading this questionable practice, are professionals like broadcast journalists, television hosts or anchorman/women, both sexes without distinction and not necessarily active in the area of gossip. They are often well known and respected personalities of journalism, precisely like the aforementioned Barbara Walters, one of the most obsessed with sexuality of every celebs she's interviewing, to such an extent that she has become over the years a caricature of herself. 

Not just in the field of journalism, we can include in this big pile of gossip factory's ruffians, even supposed 'comedians' like, for example, Kathy Griffin and the now mummified from plastic surgery Joan Rivers. They are always in pole position in the questionable practice to submit their colleagues to public ridicule, giving new input to the constant gossip through something  disguised as humor but are only jokes in bad taste. The effect on the audience more superficial, people who take at face value any rumors uncritically, is disruptive. In this way the purpose is perfectly achieved and will be the same people, with their sick voyeurism, the keystone of this lethal mechanism called global gossip...the mud machine. 

Right to privacy (from Wikipedia)

Brandeis and Warren Article

The development of the doctrine regarding the tort of "invasion of privacy" was largely spurred by the Warren and Brandeis article, "The Right to Privacy". In it, they explain why they wrote the article in its introduction: "Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society." More specifically, they also shift their focus on newspapers:

"The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers....The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."

They then clarify their goals: "It is our purpose to consider whether the existing law affords a principle which can properly be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual; and, if it does, what the nature and extent of such protection is."

Warren and Brandeis write that privacy rights should protect both businesses and private individuals. They describe rights in trade secrets and unpublished literary materials, regardless whether those rights are invaded intentionally or unintentionally, and without regard to any value they may have. For private individuals, they try to define how to protect "thoughts, sentiments, and emotions, expressed through the medium of writing or of the arts." They describe such things as personal diaries and letters needing protection, and how that should be done: "Thus, the courts, in searching for some principle upon which the publication of private letters could be enjoined, naturally came upon the ideas of a breach of confidence, and of an implied contract." They also define this as a breach of trust, where a person has trusted that another will not publish their personal writings, photographs, or artwork, without their permission, including any "facts relating to his private life, which he has seen fit to keep private." And recognizing that technological advances will become more relevant, they write:

"Now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation."

In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States

"Indistinguishable"

I followed the story through "El País" and spanish TV. Both, newspaper and television channel, have spent quite a lot 'of space to each other - a quarter of a page in the newspaper and several minutes of broadcasting. The article "El País" - "Obsessive, shy and insecure" - bore the subtitle 'Psychologies', The British magazine, publishes an interview with Penelope Cruz, but the actress denies categorically."

I don't understand: if there was no interview, why they report the content? (Or so they think normal people). But the problem is clearly in denial of the actress and the declaration of his lawyers, "we are considering what legal action to take."

If no one had uttered a word, the fake interview would almost certainly  pass over in silence. The strange thing is that once the piece has been denounced as a fruit of imagination, not just the media have rushed to investigate, but have published extensive excerpts. A few weeks ago, I have observed that a large percentage of the world's population don't care about truth.

But I fear that I have sinned by excessive caution, because what is happening is far more sinister: a large proportion of the population is no longer able to distinguish truth from falsehood, or, more accurately, reality from fiction . For this reason, the old Spanish adage "Calumnia, algo que queda" - "slandered, maligned, something will remain" - has lost all meaning and in fact nowadays it's rare to hear it again.

You may have noticed that even the use of the word 'slander' is endangered. Even his sense has evaporated, as happens with the words that define an anomaly - the transgression of the rules - when the anomaly becomes norm and habit. (If everyone lied without feeling guilty and without fearing the consequences, would vanish the very concept of a lie, to become 'a way as any to exercise their freedom of speech. "Believe me, I really miss the target).

The Spanish proverb should be changed to 'slander, defame, no one will notice it." The ease and speed with which any news or humbug spread on the Internet and all of the social net working sites, makes the task to stop false rumors and put an end to the misinformation almost impossible.

For example, when someone was quick to deny that Harrison Ford had died in a bizarre car accident in Europe - denying those rumors recently running on the Internet - many users will already have mentally filed the false report but they will be unable to remove it. Although few days after seeing a new movie with Ford, they will say: 'Hey, so he isn't dead' and when people will see him somewhere else, here overlook the reflection, "...And someone said he was dead"

The informations invented, more striking are, better effect can get - continue to emerge on several occasions, although it was dismissed as nonsense.

In my novel, Your Face Tomorrow, retrace the events that led to the death of Jayne Mansfield. In 1967, the actress traveled from Biloxi, Mississippi to New Orleans, when he suffered a car accident. Her blonde wig was thrown on the bumper, and this particular gave rise to the rumor that he had been skinned, or even beheaded, and his splendid head was rolled away along the dark road of Louisiana. To his admirers inconsolable, still numerous, the remembrance of his death is full of gruesome details that really are not true.

If the legend was already so entrenched in 1967, you can imagine how 42 years later, when rumors and hoaxes abound and you can not do anything to put them to silence, when any attempt to do just aggravates the situation, even when writers (well, the demagogues in our ranks) "invite" readers to "participate" in the plot of the book and "choose" the final, thus contravening the very essence of fiction, which excludes any amendment or action by ' outside, and when lots of people do not remain attached to a story or a macabre conspiracy theory even when its groundlessness has been amply demonstrated.

In an era where the media are so diversified and therefore more than capable of controlling and establishing the truth, the distinction between true and false appears more blurred every day, almost lost in a kind of magma. Knowing or telling the truth becomes increasingly irrelevant. After all, if truth and falsehood are placed on the same plane and the truth does not matter anymore, what's the difference?

Javier Marìas
© The New York Times Syndicate 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Mar%C3%ADas 

-------------------------------------------------------

Cuando ya no se distinguen

 

26th Julio 2009

Lo vi en dos medios de comunicación que no se cuentan entre los más frívolos y sin escrúpulos, TVE y este periódico, luego cabe suponer que habrá aparecido en infinidad de ellos más. El tratamiento dado en estos dos no era parco –un buen rato en la televisión y un cuarto de página en El País, que titulaba “Obsesiva, insegura y discreta” y luego subtitulaba “La revista británica Psychologies publica una entrevista a Penélope Cruz y la actriz la desmiente de forma tajante”–. No entendí nada: si desde el primer momento se sabe que una entrevista es apócrifa y ni siquiera ha sido concedida, ¿qué hace la prensa dando pábulo a su contenido? Es probable que el problema sea el tajante desmentido de la actriz y el anuncio, por parte de sus abogados, de que “estudian qué medidas legales tomar”. De no haber dicho nadie nada, es casi seguro que esa entrevista inventada habría pasado inadvertida y pocos se habrían enterado de su existencia. Lo curioso del caso es que, al ser denunciada su falsedad, todos los medios no sólo acuden a ver en qué consiste esa falsedad, sino que además la reproducen una y otra vez con detalle. ¿Por qué, si ya se está al tanto de que nada de lo que ahí se atribuye a Cruz ha sido dicho por Cruz y, por lo tanto, ya no debería contar en un mundo seminormal? A lo sumo, la noticia tendría que haber sido el mencionado subtitular de este diario y nada más.

Dije aquí hace un par de semanas que a una gran parte de la población mundial la verdad ha dejado de importarle. Me temo que me quedé corto y que lo que ocurre es aún más grave: una gran parte de esa población es ya incapaz de distinguir la verdad de la mentira, o, más exactamente, la verdad de la ficción. Y por ello, el antiguo dicho español “Calumnia, que algo queda” ha perdido sentido y se oye cada vez menos. Para empezar, si ustedes se fijan, el verbo “calumniar” se emplea ya rara vez, y hasta su significado ha empezado a desvaírse y difuminarse, como suele ocurrir con los vocablos que definen algo anómalo –un quebranto de la regla– cuando la anomalía pasa a ser normal y la regla. (Si todo el mundo mintiera y además lo hiciera sin cargo de conciencia ni temor a las consecuencias, el concepto mismo de mentira quedaría privado de sentido y ésta quedaría tan sólo, probablemente, como “una forma más de ejercer la libertad de expresión”: camino de ello vamos, no se crean.) Hoy el dicho debería ser: “Calumnia, que nadie lo va a notar”, o “Calumnia, que tus calumnias acabarán nivelándose con la verdad”.

La velocidad y la facilidad con que cualquier patraña o rumor se expanden hoy por Internet y a través de los SMS hacen casi imposible atajar los bulos y las informaciones falsarias. Para cuando alguien avisa de que, por ejemplo, Harrison Ford no ha muerto en un estrafalario accidente en Europa, como se corrió por la red, habrá mucha gente que ya habrá “archivado” esa noticia en su cerebro y que será incapaz de borrarla del todo aunque a los pocos días vea a Ford con aspecto saludable en un estreno. Pensará: “Ah, pues no ha muerto en Europa”, y a la siguiente vez que lo vea es fácil que por su cabeza cruce rápidamente la idea: “Mira que contar que había muerto en Europa …” El dato inventado, cuanto más llamativo más, aparecerá y reaparecerá, aunque sólo sea para descartarlo como disparate.

En mi novela Tu rostro mañana hablé de la muerte de la actriz de los años cincuenta y sesenta Jayne Mansfield, una rubia platino mucho más exuberante que cualquier otra que ustedes puedan conocer o recordar. Sufrió un accidente de coche cuando iba de Biloxi a Nueva Orleans, y la peluca rubia que llevaba puesta salió disparada hasta el guardabarros, lo cual dio lugar a que corriera la voz de que había muerto escalpada, o bien decapitada y que su hermosa cabeza había rodado por aquella oscura carretera de Louisiana. La verdad ha sido incapaz de imponerse, y para la mayoría de sus aún numerosos y nostálgicos admiradores la idea de su muerte está teñida de una truculencia de la que careció. Si la fuerza de la leyenda era ya tan grande en 1967, imagínense cuarenta y dos años después, cuando los rumores y las invenciones vuelan; cuando no se les puede poner freno o si se les pone es peor, como en el reciente caso de Penélope Cruz y su anodina entrevista de paripé; cuando hasta los novelistas (bueno, los demagógicos) “permiten” que los lectores “intervengan” en la trama y “decidan” el final, negando así la esencia misma de las ficciones, que justamente no se pueden enmendar ni contradecir; cuando tanta gente no está dispuesta a prescindir de una historia si ésta es conspiratoria o macabra, por mucho que se haya comprobado su falsedad. En la época en que más medios hay para contrastar y verificar las informaciones, mayor es la indistinción entre lo verdadero y lo falso, confundidos en una especie de magma, y cada vez va teniendo menos sentido decir y saber la verdad. ¿Total, para qué, si ya casi pesa lo mismo que la mentira y apenas cuenta?

JAVIER MARÍAS

El País Semanal, 26 de julio de 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Mar%C3%ADas 

Did you know that gossip is a form of violence?

Have you ever been victim of gossip? People invent false stories about you, or maybe you told something confidentially to someone who has betrayed your trust? Although if we do not give much importance to some rumors, gossip is a form of violence can cause serious problems to those who are victims of it.

Veronica Vazquez Garcia, a researcher of Postgraduados, told BBC News that in some cases, gossip is used as a mechanism of social control, discrimination based on sexual preference or gender subjugation, especially against women.

Gossip as an instrument of violence occurs in all levels of society, although there are sectors that are particularly vulnerable as adolescents and women in rural communities.

The researcher Vázquez García has done several studies on the relationship between gossip and gender violence and its effects on students. Since students come from nearly all of Mexico, have allowed a more extensive in the country.

Who's most gossipy: men or women?

The surveys are part of the study and these revealed that both men and women are gossipy in the same way.

And also, as in other areas, this practice can become a mechanism of punishment, something that other researchers have found in several countries.

The victims of gossip can suffer from depression, low self esteem or adjustment problems, but strongly religious societies can have greater consequences.

"You start to say that this girl has a boyfriend and her father will not allow it. These girls could even be driven to suicide, "says Vazquez Garcia. According to researchers and civil organizations, gossip can pull over some people to kill themselves. In Mexico there are no statistics on the number of suicides because of it.

Gossip have varied topics as sexual, physical appearance or professional performance.

Some researchers claim that gossip is not always negative. According to them means they know information that otherwise would not know, this is in the social field. Such as institutions where there are no clear rules of operation: the lack of internal communication is replaced by the version told in hallways.

But gossip itself can damage the reputation of a good person. It is something much more serious than we think!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

¿Sabías que el chisme es una forma de violencia?

¿Alguna vez has sido víctima de chismes? Inventan historias falsas de ti, o tal vez contaste algo confidencial a alguien de confianza que terminó defraudandote. Aunque a algunos chismes no le tomamos mucha importancia, el chisme es una forma de violencia que puede causar serios problemas a quienes lo padecen.

Verónica Vázquez García, una investigadora de Postgraduados, explicó a BBC Mundo que en algunos casos, el chisme es utilizado como mecanismo de control social, discriminación por preferencia sexual o sometimiento de género, especialmente contra las mujeres.

El chisme como instrumento de violencia ocurre en todos los niveles de las sociedades, aunque existen sectores que son particularmente vulnerables como los adolescentes y las mujeres de comunidades rurales.

La investigadora Vázquez García ha hecho varios estudios sobre la relación del chisme y la violencia de género y más efectos en sus estudiantes. Puesto que sus estudiantes provienen de casi todo México, le permitió tener un panorama más extenso del país.

¿Quienes son más chismosos: los hombres o las mujeres?

Las encuestas son parte del estudio y éstas revelaron que tanto los hombres y las mujeres son igual de chismosos.

Y también, como en otros espacios, esta práctica puede convertirse en un mecanismo de sanción, algo que otros investigadores han encontrado en varios países.

Las víctimas del chisme pueden sufrir depresión, baja autoestima o problemas de adaptación, pero en sociedades fuertemente religiosas pueden tener consecuencias mayores.

“Se empieza a decir que tal chica tiene novio y el padre no lo permite. A estas chicas las pueden hasta matar”, advierte Vázquez García. De acuerdo con investigadores y organizaciones civiles, los chismes pueden orillar a algunas personas a quitarse la vida. En México no hay estadísticas del número de suicidios cometidos por esta causa.

Los chismes tienen temas variados como de índole sexual, apariencia física o desempeño profesional.

Algunos investigadores afirman que el chisme no siempre es negativo. Según ellos mediante ellos se sabe información que de otro modo no se sabría, esto es en el ámbito social. Como por ejemplo, instituciones donde no hay reglas claras de funcionamiento: la falta de comunicación interna se sustituye por las versiones contadas en pasillos.

Pero un chisme sí puede perjudicar la reputación de una buena persona. ¡Es algo mucho más serio de lo que pensamos!

Source: http://www.planetacurioso.com/2011/06/30/sabias-que-el-chisme-puede-ser-una-forma-de-violencia/

The bad habit of coming-out imposed by endless gossip

No one can be forced to come out (Ricky Martin)

Tori Spelling blames paparazzi after car crash

Tori Spelling was involved in a car accident on Monday morning, after allegedly being “chased” by the paparazzi, the star said in a post on her Twitter page.

Access Hollywood
6/13/2011

Source: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43383865/ns/today-entertainment/t/tori-spelling-blames-paparazzi-after-car-crash/

“Paparazzi chased me w/the kids 2school. I was trying to get away from him and had a pretty big accident. Took down whole wall of school,” Spelling tweeted.

However, according to Spelling, who is pregnant, the accident didn’t deter the paparazzo from trying to get pictures of the celebrity mom and her kids, Stella, 3, and Liam, 4.
“He thn STILL got out to try to get pics,” she added. “10 school moms chased him away. Wht will it take? Someone dying for paparazzi to stop?”

Although she didn’t say in her tweet if anyone was hurt in the incident, Spelling — who confirmed her pregnancy in April — did indicate she was headed straight to the doctor’s office.

“Going to dr now to check on baby. I think its just shock,” she wrote.
Access caught up with Spelling's mother, Candy Spelling, at the Tony Awards on Sunday night in New York City, where Candy spoke about attending Stella’s third birthday party over the weekend in LA.

“Everybody was there. Denise Richards was there. All kinds of people were there,” Candy Spelling, who flew from LA to New York after the bash, told Access. “I had a great time.”

Candy Spelling also said she would soon be back in LA to join Tori, who was scheduled to go for an ultrasound appointment on Tuesday.

A rep for Spelling was not immediately available for comment for more information on the incident when contacted by Access Hollywood on Monday morning.
Additionally, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department had no knowledge of the incident when contacted by Access.

Paparazzi: modus operandi of jackals

It's illegal to murder someone, paparazzi killed princess Diana and it's still legal?

Penelope Cruz e l’intervista mai fatta Quando l’invenzione prevale sulla realtà

Lo scrittore Marìas riflette sul rapporto tra informazione e verità virtuale

Ho seguito la storia su «El País» e alla Tv spagnola. Sia il quotidiano che il canale televisivo hanno dedicato un bel po’ di spazio alla vicenda — un quarto di pagina nel giornale e diversi mi­nuti di telediffusione. L’articolo di «El País» — «Ossessiva, timida e insicura» — portava il sottotitolo «La rivista inglese 'Psycholo­gies' pubblica un’intervista con Penelope Cruz, ma l’attrice smen­tisce categoricamente». Non capisco: se non c’è stata nessuna intervista, perché riferirne il contenuto? (Almeno, così pensano le persone normali). Ma il problema sta indubbiamente nella smenti­ta dell’attrice e nella dichiarazione dei suoi avvocati, «stiamo valutando quali azioni legali in­traprendere ».

Se nessuno avesse fiatato, l’intervista fasulla sarebbe quasi certamente passata sotto silenzio. La strana cosa è che non appena il pezzo è stato denunciato come frutto di fantasia, ecco che i media non solo si sono precipitati a indagare, ma ne hanno pubblicato ampi stralci. Qualche settimana fa, ho avuto modo di osservare che una vasta percentuale della popolazione mondiale non si preoccupa più della verità. Temo però di aver peccato di eccessiva cautela, perché ciò che sta accadendo è di gran lunga più funesto: una vasta percentuale della popolazione oggi non è più in grado di distingue­re la verità dalla menzogna, oppure, per essere più precisi, la realtà dalla finzione. Per questo motivo, il vecchio adagio spagnolo «Calumnia, que algo queda» — «Calunniate, calunniate, qualcosa resterà» — ha perso ogni significato e difatti ai nostri giorni è raro sentirlo ripete re. Avrete notato che anche l’uso del verbo calunniare è in via di estinzione. Persino il suo senso è evaporato, come accade alle paro le che definiscono un’anomalia — la trasgressione alle regole — allorché l’anomalia si trasforma nella norma e nella consuetudine. (Se tutti mentissero senza sentirsi in colpa e senza temere le conseguenze, svanirebbe il concetto stesso di menzogna, per trasformarsi in «un modo come un altro per esercitare la propria libertà di parola». Credetemi, non manca molto al traguardo).

Il proverbio spagnolo dovrebbe essere modificato in «Calunniate, calunniate, nessuno se ne accorgerà». La facilità e la rapidità con le quali una qualsiasi voce o fandonia si diffonde su Internet e in tutti i siti del social net working rende pressoché impossibile il compito di bloccare le notizie false e di metter fine alla disinformazione. Per esempio, quando qualcuno si è affrettato a smentire che Harrison Ford avesse perso la vita in un bizzarro incidente stradale in Europa — sbugiardando così le dicerie che ultimamente si rincorrevano su Internet — moltissimi utenti avranno già archiviato mentalmente la falsa notizia ma saranno incapaci di cancellarla, anche se pochi giorni dopo vedono Ford a una prima cinematografica. Si diranno, «Toh, allora non è morto», e quando lo avvisteranno da qualche altra parte, ecco che si affaccerà la riflessione, «E pensare che lo davano per morto ». Il dato inventato — più sorprendente è, meglio è — continuerà a riemergere a più riprese, benché sia stato accantonato come una sciocchezza. Nel mio romanzo, Il tuo volto domani (Einaudi), ripercorro gli eventi che portarono alla morte di Jayne Mansfield. Nel 1967, l’attrice viaggiava da Biloxi, nel Mississippi, verso New Orleans, quando fu vittima di un incidente stradale. La sua parrucca bionda venne scagliata sul paraurti, e questo particolare fece nascere la voce che fosse stata scotennata, o addirittura decapitata, e che la sua splendida testa fosse rotolata via lungo quella strada buia della Louisiana. Per i suoi ammiratori inconsolabili, ancora oggi numerosissimi, il ricordo della sua morte gronda di particolari raccapriccianti che non ci furono mai.

Se la leggenda era già talmente radicata nel 1967, vi lascio immaginare come sia 42 anni dopo, quando abbondano dicerie e fandonie e non si può far nulla per metterle a tacere; quando qualsiasi tentativo in tal senso non fa che aggravare la situazione; quando persino gli scrittori (beh, i demagoghi tra le nostre file) «invitano » i lettori a «partecipare» alla trama del libro e a «scegliere» il finale, contravvenendo così all’essenza stessa della finzione letteraria, che esclude ogni emendamento o intervento dall’esterno; e quando tantissime persone resta no attaccate a una storia macabra o a una teoria della congiura anche quando la sua infondatezza è stata ampiamente dimostrata. In un’era in cui i media sono talmente diversificati e pertanto capacissimi di controllare e stabilire la verità, la distinzione tra vero e falso appare ogni giorno più offuscata, quasi smarrita in una specie di magma. Conoscere o dire la verità diventa sempre più irrilevante. Dopo tutto, se la verità e la menzogna vengono poste sul lo stesso piano e la verità non conta più niente, che differenza fa?

Javier Marìas
© The New York Times Syndicate (Traduzione di Rita Baldassarre) 

http://www.corriere.it/cultura/09_agosto_23/cruz_marias_6473a344-8fc1-11de-ab60-00144f02aabc.shtml