Celebrities and the Spectacle Newspaper Article

Working on an article for my university's newspaper. The "newsroom" is actually just a scheduled class, and because my professor loves me (as in really likes my work) she's letting me write practically anything I want. As such, I've begun using the newspaper as a sort of platform to subvert normies and get them to question things for once - presently, I'm writing an article on the lack of awareness people have for international events as a result of the interests of corporate media.

Anyways, my next article is going to be on Beyonce and celebrity-types in general. I'm always frustrated by how much praise and crap people in the newsroom have for these stars/"subhuman guillotine feed". I've found some material from Debord on celebrities from The Society of the Spectacle, but I'm also looking for some more general critiques and evidence. For example, I plan on bringing up the "This is what a feminist looks like" shirts that are made in Bangladesh sweatshops. But to clarify, I'm looking for material on how stars serve to secure the status quo by directing activity towards unproductive, consumerist crap.

Other than that, I've been looking for a critique of Tinder from the perspective of the Spectacle (requesting here because it doesn't deserve its own thread). I could write one myself, but I'm interested in what others have to say. This is for personal purposes, (hopefully) not every article I write is going to be a circlejerk for my dude Debord.

Feel free to make suggestions for article ideas, never hurts to have more

Other urls found in this thread:


why do you need to tell people what alex jones can tell them way funnier?


Because this is a newspaper and I'm actually trying to disseminate information on it that isn't garbage?

You're saying the same thing really, just with a flavour more palatable to your professor.

I'm bored of this "everything is capitalist sodom and gomora" calvinist marxism.

By no means is what I'm doing just another "flavor," as you put it, that may as well be plucked from the same popsicle stand that has Alex Jones's crap. I'm not doing this for my professor either.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Maybe you are bored of the whole "blame capitalism" thing (which I'm not explicitly even doing in my article), but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to get normies to think about it, given they for the most part would never have such thoughts without my writing.
Did you get lost trying to find the frontpage to reddit?

Mentions how the extent of celebrity activism all revolves around surface level rebellion and they are used to co-opt different political movements to sell their product.

- Nike commercial about racism or some shit is a very recent example.

Talk about how the media frames different events in a way that removes an individual from society and it effects them. Basically accepting things as a given for how things should be and will be.

Pretty normie-tier stuff but I'm not a very smart guy so sorry if I'm preaching to the choir.

I think you phrased it well enough, that term "surface level rebellion" has been on the tip of my tongue for quite some time now so thanks for that, I guess
Otherwise, I'll have to look up that Nike commercial. While I have an understanding of how corporations market to these legitimate struggles (adapting capitalism to its own "critics"), it would be best to have examples and not leave people in the dark with theory that they can't connect back to real life due to being idiots in general. I know I really have to spell it out to them

This is bait right?
You got freedom to write a journalist article about anything and you use that freedom to push an agenda instead?

Alex Jones at least sources his crap from somewhere else than a Debord book

How is a lack of "productivity" a bad thing? Do you want to subjugate what little free time we have to this Puritan madness, too?

If there's a substantial identitarian poc crowd in your university, my only advice is to tell you to spare yourself the horseshit you're about to get into.

I made a very, very similar point during a student's union meeting once, and I got pounded by everyone for like half an hour. That was 5 months ago and I still get hostile stares in the hallway over it.

The first article I wrote was about a renovation on campus, I'm not purely "pushing an agenda." I think it's important that people should see both sides of the story, a very journalistic approach. I didn't mention it, but I'm going to interview one of my "coworkers" who is all for Beyonce, not far from worshiping her.
I probably did a poor job describing what I'm really doing, I'm not setting journalistic ethics aside so I can push what I think.

Which is why I'm asking for evidence, i.e. sources.

I didn't clarify "productive" towards what end. Obviously, I could care less that people work to create a profit for porky. What I meant was productive towards the class struggle, where their energy should be invested for their betterment.

I am concerned about this as well, which is why I don't want to make it purely about Beyonce, but rather connect it to a greater, more general problem concerning all celebrities (not just POC, though I don't think I can avoid it).
Not too sure how large the idpol crowd is tbh. It's a small university, though we do have a Black Student Union that I wasn't informed of meetings for though I signed up on their email roster. I'm white btw.

bumping before I go to bed

And before I forget, I found this article about Tinder. It speaks for some of the thoughts I've been having, and then some: patheos.com/blogs/inklingations/2015/08/15/tinder-mercies-or-how-porn-destroyed-sex/

every hour spend dancing rock and roll could be spend building hydro-electric dams!

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I know that there are some bands out there who I'd get tickets for in a heartbeat because I enjoy their music. Of course I think people should live.
However, the point I'm trying to make isn't that "all enjoyment is bad," it's this excessive focus on these stars. I can like a band for their music, but in no sense do I think they should also serve as the part of the basis of my political activity and understanding, as stars like Beyonce do for the people I'm describing.
Hope I'm making sense.

People treat celebrities like they're also full time philosophers, when at best they're just a glorified spokesperson for their ideology.

Exactly. In the article I want to expand on that last point, in an attempt to demonstrate that the ideology they reinforce is ultimately a capitalist one (at least for most mainstream celebs). I don't plan on throwing the word "capitalism" in there cus that loses people, but I think something like "preservation of the status quo" may get the point across without alienating them.
Of course, this is the average college student we're talking about, so who knows how much I've underestimated their indoctrination and whatnot.

I don't think there are a lot, if any, people around who base their political activity around a celebrity or band, or they must already be part of a scene like skinhead or punk, but that's different I reckon. It's a non issue, there are people who are obsessed with a certain celebrity, but those are generally just the kind of plain dumb people who hang bruce springsteen posters in their bathroom, they're neither worth the trouble nor the scorn.

In that case, don't forget that most seemingly socialist celebs are really just shilling for socdem "capitalism with a human face" bullshit that simply perpetuates modern economic caused horrors, perhaps to a lesser extent, but for a longer duration, thanks to hiding it behind a veneer of benevolence.

Could you give an example or two? I may include that in my writing. I'd look it up now, but I need to sleep. Examples like that would be pretty helpful, thanks in advance

people have ideologies that aren't communism


But don't you think you are writing an opinion piece rather than reporting on something going on?

I know the guy is a fag but look for a video on "why modern music is shit" by Paul Joseph Watson, the video is kind of shit, but in the video he brings up some articles and studies that may help you build a better case for it. The ones i mean are the one of stockholm syndrome in pop music, how all the TOP 20 songs were actually made by the same 3 producers, and how shorter attention spans mean that producers need to artificially inject hooks into music to prevent radio listeners from switching to the next station.

Also there's a bit of a Zappa video where he talks about why having hippies run record labels is worse for experimental music than having some fat shit who just cares about making money and is willing to give anything a try.

Hope it helps, good luck.