Maggie

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2008-2-18 22:41 發表
2008/02/18

在 前 天 無 籌 款 節 目 中 ， 阿 嬌 與 拍 檔 阿 Sa 獻 唱 一 曲 ， 筆 者 特 地 看 了 電 視 這 一 段 ， 感到 阿 嬌 神 色 凝 重 ， 笑 與 唱 都 很 勉 強 。 阿 嬌 所 屬 公 司 ， 在 淫 照 事 件 後 要 阿  ...

Wa... I am so amazed... I have never seen analysis so twisted...

1> Re: "「 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 權 是 受 限 制 的 ， 人 們 對 其 隱 私 有 公 眾 的 興 趣 ， 故而 八 卦 狗 仔 的 追星 可 以 被 社 會 容 忍 ， 被 曝 光 的 名 人 隱 私 也 難 以 被 隱 私 權 所 保 障 。 從這 個 角 度 來 說 ，警 方 應 更 重 視 普 通 市 民 的 秘 照 外 流 ， 而 不 是 對 於 公 眾 人 物 的 秘 照 外流 ， 以 不 惜 忽 略法 治 的 威 力 掃 蕩 ， 難 怪 香 港 網 民 要 抗 議 警 方 的 階 級 歧 視 。 」"
--- There's no source or reference so I couldn't refer to the whole article.  I don't know if the law in Taiwan is different than in HK but "everyone is equal in front of Law".  The fact that public in general is interested a particular thing doesn't make it public.  For example, if 55% of the people in HK are interested in sightseeing at Lee Ka Shing's house, those who trespass on Lee's property should not be charged as it is for the interest of the majority of people in HK?!  I think the statement that "正 確 做 法 應 是 保 護 普 通 市 民 ， 而 對 公 眾 人物 的 隱 私 就 可 以 不 了 了 之 " is truly 階 級 歧 視 and 執 法 上 的 顛 倒.  I am not commenting how the HK police handle this incident; they may have done a lousy job.  I simply do not agree with the statements in the article.

2> Re: "為 甚 麼 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 受 限 制 呢 ？ 因 為 他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益 ， 基 於 權 利 與 義 務 關 係 的 理 由 ， 也 就 必 然 要 受 限 制"
--- As the nature of the professions, people expect higher moral standard from people such as teachers and church pastors because the are the role model for the people in the area they serve.  Of course, some people such as myself do not considered actors and actresses a role model... otherwise, all the "singers" in HK should get a degree in music... or at least pass some kind of standardized exam... Seriously, we expect our doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, engineers... even drivers to be educated and well-trained in their field.  I am not sure how many people find "singers" like twins skillful singers but sure enough their albums aren't doing bad.  I find it more deceiving to have "singers" who can't "sing" (at least not at the PROFESSIONAL level) but are selling CDs than someone was found having a mess up private life.  Also, I don't think celebrity will get much 利 益 if  公 眾 關 注 the wrong things...  I mean, should 公 眾 人 物 be accountable for the fact that the society in general tend to focus on something that they shouldn't be focusing on?  Isn't that part of media's job?  Wouldn't the 公 眾 get more 利 益 if they  關 注 more on the economic growth and development of China, or if a disease is spreading rapidly in a country around them?

3> Re:"一 家 公 司 買 下 一 個 廣 播 電 台 ， 要 將 原 本 播 古 典 音 樂 的 時 段 改 播 流 行 音 樂 ， 因為 這 樣比 較 有 利 可 圖 。 當 地 政 府 要 求 FCC 干 預 這 項 改 變 ， 但 FCC 認 為 不 插 手 更 符 合公 眾 利益 。 法 院 判 FCC 得 直 ， 判 決 是 以 大 眾 喜 歡 看 而 不 是 政 府 認 為 必 須 看 ， 去 闡 釋公 眾 利益 。 很 明 顯 ， 大 多 數 人 都 對 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 感 興 趣 ， 因 此 對 公 眾 人 物 ， 隱 私權 是 有限 制 的 。"
=== it's clear that FCC is serving the public by broadcasting music for the public.  As broadcasting music is a service for the public, of course, FCC should play music that are more popular.  However, in ah-gill's incident, those pictures which were obtained illegally are not to service the public; it's purely for their private use.  Therefore, even thought general public are interested in celebrity's private life, as celebrity's private life is not part of what the being a celebrity has offered, 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 has nothing to do with 公 眾 利益.  Seriously, if 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of 公 眾 利益 , I guess celebrity has to advise the public for who they are marrying, where they are living, what kind of furniture they have in their house... since it's all 公 眾 利益!!  (so ah-gill who is presented as 清 純 玉 女 should decorate her bedroom in pink and sleeping with a teddy bear at night?!  She should get up at 7am and go to bed at 9pm?  The case used in the article is not suitable in this incident.

It's so sad to see that people are encouraged to be 八 卦 in a way that people try to find excuses to justify themselves and make themselves feel better of what they did...

Maggie

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-2-19 08:09 發表
no, u are wrong, "if 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of 公 眾 利益 ....."
公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 is part of those 公 眾 人 物 的 利益 too
if they dont want to get attention, go find other jobs

Definition of "public interest"

I am 100% with you in terms of 食得喊魚就要抵得餲啦.  Just like people who are in an open-competition will get criticized by judge as well as public.  If you want to be popular, you of course have to get people to be interested in you.  When it comes to the entertainment industry, in stead of purely interested in their work, people also interested in their private life and this is part of being a celebrity... it's just the nature of the job.  And of course, with no doubt the celebrity got benefit from becoming popular.

"Greene says that “You simply have to be present, in the right place at the right time.” Whereas “...public[ly famous] people were once defined as such based upon the fact that their remarkable skills had brought them to the attention of the public,” Greene states that with reality TV, “one can become a public person just by being a person, in public.”

Celebrities often have fame comparable to that of royalty. As a result, there is a strong public curiosity about their private affairs. Celebrities may be resented for their accolades, and the public may have a love/hate relationship with celebrities. Due to the high visibility of celebrities' private lives, their successes and shortcomings are often made very public. Celebrities are alternately portrayed as glowing examples of perfection, when they garner awards, or as decadent or immoral if they become associated with a scandal.

Tabloid magazines and talk TV shows bestow a great deal of attention on celebrities. To stay in the public eye and to make money, more celebrities are participating in business ventures such as celebrity-branded items including as books, clothing lines, perfume, and household items."  Celebrity on Wiki

HOWEVER, what I am trying to say is, yes people are interested... but what is the boundary?  
One scenario: You found whoever eating alone at food court and reporters wrote an article about it saying that this particular individual looked so miserable eating alone... must be having financial problem etc etc... This is perfectly understandable as this person is in public and may not look like things have been well... Even though honestly the fact if that person is rich or not doesn't matter to anyone else, there's still a boundary there.  Later on, this person went into the washroom and reporter collected some "left over" and learn that this person is on medication for last stage cancer... then reporters then further investigated on this case and interviewed nurses or other clients in the clinic and published an article that this person will die in 3 months with all the supporting details... Has the reporter stepped on the boundary?  To make the case stronger, the reporter took pictures of the person receiving painful treatment without make up and wearing proper clothes... totally opposite to the image that the public used to see.  

We know there are two types of being famous: 流芳百世 or 遺臭萬年... I think these people and their companies are smart enough  to figure out what is the right thing to do.  Therefore, it is not always true that celebrity 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益.

Gosh this is taking too long... gotta go now... to be continued...

Maggie

原帖由 big_tooth 於 2008-2-20 09:16 發表

Why stop at computer?  When you put your underwear in your drawing, it's already up for grab.  Whatever you put into your wallet is also up for grab.

So it's fair game to take your underspants and whatever in your wallet.

Great point.  Thanks big_tooth.

I just don't understand the concept of justifying their act of taking advantage of people who are in a vulnerable position.
Again, I totally agree with the fact that there's a price to pay and sacrifices of private life (such as their family...  i.e. Eason's dad for being Eason's dad which made the case 200% more interesting to public...) for being a celebrity; it's all expected.  However, for general public to believe that they have all the right to violate celebrity's privacy is a social problem.  To me, this kind of behavior (one believes that they are in the position to judge and exploit others who are in a different position) is not any better than bullying in elementary school --- the stronger-built kids has the authority to do things to another kid for being a geek.  And of course, they feel good about what they are doing; being able to humiliate legitimately brings people satisfaction.

Gosh talk too much again.  gotta get back to work.  to be continued...

Maggie

原帖由 SAZABI 於 2008-2-19 09:47 發表

I think that it is somehow right that "他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益".  Those professional you mentioned don't get anything from public attention.  So, I don't know why you wrote such reply as an arguement to that point.

These professional, if they are caught doing something like EDC did, people will react to it because people expect higher moral standard from these professions.  Maybe it's beneficial for them to be popular, but mostly like, they won't get much 利 益 from 公 眾 關 注.  Also, ah gil and EDC were blamed for bringing bad influences for the society as they are supposed to be role models.  If a doctor is caught for not having a valid degree, this doctor will be in big big big trouble.  However, how many of those who considered and called themselves "artists" or "singers" are artistically/musically talented and are able to sing in a professional level?  How many of them got their degree in vocal music?  Therefore, I think having "singers" who can't really sing (not in a professional level yet produce albums and earn money from public out of it) is a bigger and more serious problem than having "artists"/"singers" taking hardcore pictures of their private parts.
With that said, I think 公 眾 should pick the right thing to 關 注. It is very bad for a child to believe that "I don't have to reveal much good inner qualities and master in what I do as long as I have a cute looking face".
沈殿霞 is remembered for her professionalism in terms of techniques (her singing as a singer and hosting skills as a MC for many big events) as well as her inner qualities (punctuality, love and care for friends, generosity, willingness to teach and assist unexperienced "youngsters", respect towards her mother and affections for her child).  Think about all the Hong Kong "artists" in this generation: how many of them will be remembered for their inner qualities and techniques?  If only a minority of them can be truly considered a true artist, shouldn't 公 眾 in Hong Kong pays more 關 注 towards the quality of their "artists" since their children (or even themselves) considered them "role models"??

Maggie

原帖由 superberry 於 2008-2-24 00:47 發表
Maggie, I don't agree with your points.... seems like you getting two things mixing up.

1. All professionals that you mentioned have their own union/organization to guide their code of conduct. Peopl ...

Exactly superberry.  Occupations such as doctor has high education requirement (as well as moral of course, they have their own codes of conduct) and pastor has the Bible.  Other than the specific requirements in their own field, they are also judge by public.  I am sure we have heard our mom and their friends sharing tips such as which family doctor is better, which accountant is more helpful and which church has friendlier people.  It proves that other than the "standard" requirements from their own field, people "grade" their doctors and etc according to their own needs.  How come only "professional artist/ actors/ actresses/ singers" can be exempted from their "professional requirements"?  I don't know if you play any musical instruments but I think most people know that there's standardized exams for musicians such as violinists and pianists.  There's formal training for singers too and there's exams such like for singers exactly like violinists and pianists.  In addition, Eason Chan had formal vocal training when he was in UK; not sure what grade he got however.  Also, there are acting schools and singing schools.  Many HK celeb attended 香港演藝學院.  You have pointed out the problem that I have.  Artists/ actors/ singers have EVERY formal trainings they need just like other professions.  How come Hong Kong people are okay to accept and buy albums of a "singer" who is simply selling her image, not her singing skills?  Shouldn't the public feel deceived?  Why do they have such low expectation on "artists" comparing to other professions??  Shouldn't the core focus be the qualification of the "artist" just like we have on other professions even though they were not required to present their degree as after all, "art" which is not scientific study.  I don't know how much good 純情玉女 image does to a singer.  Anita Mui was never really a 純情玉女 and I think she is a great singer.  Twins had sung live shows and I wasn't really impressed by their singing skills nor their dance.  Since they called themselves singer, because I can't see themselves as singers by their level of singer, I did not buy their 純情玉女 image.  By the way, since I don't really believe that she is/ was a 純情玉女, therefore I wasn't that offended or disappointed when those pictures were out.

In summary, the questions that I have are:
1) Why the public has such low requirement and expectations from "artists/ actors/ actresses/ singers" in terms of technical levels?? Isn't their skills in what they are doing the most important (more important than??  They make lots of money from YOU!!!!!
2) Why people are ok with singers who can't sing but not okay with someone who has a 純情玉女 image but not a 純情玉女 in reality??

So weird... people's reaction in the past while is just illogical to me...

Maggie

原帖由 Alcoholic 於 2008-2-25 08:30 發表

1. obviously the honger artists have very low technique, even if they went through any "professional" training. The whole world knows that most honger artists' skills SUCK. we don't want any of that  ...

so i guess we can conclude that the adaptability of HK audience is wonderfully and amazingly excellent.  All they need is more "artists" like ah-gill who doesn't have natural talent in what she is doing as her career, inner qualities as a person and pure image as a "commercial product".  Eventually, HK audience will be able to be satisfied with anything they get, and they will be able to appreciate any form of entertainment.

It made me LOL when I heard the news that Chinese government will penalize "artists" who matches with the recording instead of singing live.  It's so funny...