Death by Media

In 1997 The Dilbert Future was published. One of my predictions was that the media would start killing celebrities just to generate new sensational headlines. I based this prediction on three inescapable truths:

1. The media can influence people’s actions
2. Death is the most interesting form of news
3. The news business is a capitalist enterprise

Therefore, it makes sense that the media would eventually start influencing the deaths of people who are in some way fascinating. There’s a huge financial incentive to do so.

An argument can be made that the media killed Princess Diana, indirectly, by influencing the reckless actions that led to her demise. That happened soon after my prediction was published. Lots of people wrote to tell me how spooky it was. Britney Spears is probably next.

Arguably, Saddam Hussein was a celebrity of sort, along with his sons. One view is that the government of the United States ordered the military to kill all three of them, and used the media as a tool to do it. Another way to look at it is that the media used the government to kill three celebrities. It wouldn’t have happened without the media’s view on WMDs and the national support it generated for the war.

While the media did not originate the idea of war in Iraq, the government is full of people with ideas on killing other people, and they don’t all happen. It is the media who selects from among the many ideas and makes some reality. If the media had ignored the calls for war with Iraq, or treated the WMD situation as crazy alarmist talk, the war in Iraq wouldn’t have happened. But war is big money for the media, especially with a celebrity dictator in the mix, so there was a tremendous incentive to help it along.

By way of contrast, the United States didn’t send the military to Rwanda to stop genocide. Some think racism was the reason. Others say the lack of oil was the reason. Maybe the real reason is that you can’t name a single famous person in Rwanda. If O.J. Simpson got elected king of Rwanda, and trouble broke out, the media would make it a story, and the government would be influenced by the public to order the military to kill O.J.

When I read stories of Russia’s Putin controlling the media in his country, I ask myself how that compares to my country. On one hand, control of the media guarantees that the government will get away with things it shouldn’t get away with. On the other hand, it will keep the Russian media from pushing Russia into war. Is that a good trade-off?

My regular readers know I like to toss out provocative ideas and see what happens. It’s a complicated world, and no one theory explains everything people do. But it is worth asking whether the policies in a free country favor directions that would lead to a celebrity death.

Comments

[Tony LaRocca]

I hate to admit it, but i feel sorry for Britney Spears. The media won't be happy until they drive that poor kid to suicide.

[admiral krunch]

If the media had ignored the war the bush administration would have found a new media.

[ShakeAndBake]

Scott Adams: Category Five Moron

I know revisionist history is a hobby of your, but wow, this one is amazing. If you were actually alive in 2003, you would know that the media worked 24/7 to slime the idea of invading Iraq. (Indeed, they even started back in September of 2001.) But in your world, no... the media MADE IT HAPPEN!

Makes you wonder what you will write about current times five years from now. DilBlog readers, which Revisionism do you think Scott is most likely invent later on?

(1) "If only the media had paid any attention at all to Paris Hilton back in 2008, she'd be alive today."

(2) "It's too bad George W. Bush never mentioned that Iran was a growing threat. If he did, perhaps the Middle East would not currently be a sheet of radioactive glass."

(3) "Back before 2008, the media steadfastly refused to cover any scandal involving a politician. That's why Republicans feel they can get away with anything."

Go.

[zakis]

Ahhh , dilbert pure words of estatic wise poetry pour from your lips no doubt you must be in league with god himselg
Were you were born this "clever" or did you have to work hard at being "clever".
dumb dumb dumb dumb
America doesnt have an interest in media because media makes pennys and America isnt interested in pennys . Neither does the media have the influence to invade another country .
dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dilbert , you are living proof of evolution cause you have turned the stupidity of the stupid american into an art of your life worthy of picasso .
ALL HAIL DILBERT !
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[John Reedy]

I think they actually plan on killing 2 pac like 7 or 8 more times...

http://awritersblock.com

[smee]

Are you on their list???

[Avi]

I like your theory! My theory is that the CIA assassinated Anna Nicole Smith, and Britney Spears is a CIA agent, in order to do things to take up headline space and make us all dumb and distracted.

[Tigershire]

Makes me think of that movie Wag the Dog starring Dustin Hoffman. I have never looked at media the same since seeing that.

[Frank]

RIP Heath Ledger:
http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_8063044?nclick_check=1

[Podders]

"When I read stories of Russia’s Putin controlling the media in his country, I ask myself how that compares to my country."

I think you'd enjoy watching "The Power of Nightmares" a BBC documentary, you can find it on Google videos.

[ipsissimus_clay]

It's a daft sort of theory. Not yours Scott, the evidence for which is all right there, but the media's. Sure celebrity death rakes in the pennies, but you can't flog each one forever and when it stops being news, you're one interesting celebrity down.

So you gotta either keep killing them off [which could be why it's been made so easy to become a celebrity now - fresh stock] or work hard at constantly pushing them to the edge, reeling them back in, and pushing some more [the Bungee Spears Effect, if you will].

It's ironic that this obsession with people [and it is an obsession with people, not celebrities - we want to know about people in general, but there's so many of them we create a select group of special ones to concentrate on] has stripped those people of their humanity; as it has been noted in these comments, tragic though it is Heath's death really isn't much more or less than anyone else's death, and I'm saddened not by the amount of attention its getting but by the disconnection to the humane - not to get all Chris Crocker, but a person died. That should be sad, rather than interesting.

[Robert Roaldi]

Man, I hope you're wrong.

[wernman]

The genocide in Rwanda, while horrible, is not a threat to the security of the US. Saddam having WMDs is. It's all about national security.

[Melanie]

Just think about the 1997 movie "Wag the Dog."
The media is a very powerful beast, and people's perceptions outside the very narrow slice of world they are actually directly exposed to is often almost entirely dependent on trusting what media sources tell them.

[R]

1997.

First season of a new concept TV called "Expedition:Robinson" ("Survivor" to Americans). First ever contestant voted off committed suicide in shame, two months before the show was to be aired. The network, the non-commercial government operated public TV network created to promote education and art and funded entirely by tax money, still aired the show.
http://google.com/search?q=Sinisa+Savija

It was the last year I owned a TV.

[CC]

W"hen you think about it, celebrity-killing isn't the optimal solution. For every celebrity you kill, you'd have to go through the trouble of creating another one (otherwise you'd run out eventually). Serious resources and time must be committed to make a celebrity -- interviews, paparazzi, music and film reviewers, makeup artists, fashion photographers, etc . . . The process can take years. From an evil-media perspective, it would be far more cost-effective to simply kidnap pretty young white women who aren't famous -- you get days (sometimes weeks) of media play, without any real investment beforehand. "

Ha ha ha! I assume the above comment was supposed to eb funny? We appear (certainly in Britain) to be in an age of instant celebrity. People are' famous' and all over the paper after doing more or less nothing and for doing more or less nopthing. They are media created in a few weeks. Killing these would be the ultimate media money spinner as the interest in them inevitably runs out after a few months. Killing them would merely mean the end was spectacular, and sold papers. Killing someone properly famous (eg Britney) is more like killing the golden goose - they would probably do something you could use to generate money later on if you hadn't killed them.

[Hacker Kitty]

can we nominate the celebrity in a text poll?

[Andy Watt]

While your theory is nice and simple, and ties up the loose ends beatifully, I can't help thinking it's a little like the study of physics over the years: your theory fits the facts, but as ever, the hypothesis has been carefully crafted to do so.

The media's insanity is driven by the need to sell papers, stories, airtime etc and make money. Ultimately politicians and governmental systems have an ultimate purpose too (as you've mentioned before) - in a utopian Western Democracy this includes protecting (within reason) the citizens, and this includes keeping a stable economy.

The argument that there are plenty of people in washington who want to kill people relies on the neo-con stereotype of boys with epaulettes and big toys, slavering at the chance to crank up the money-making (see where I'm going with this?) war machine, which has ultimately boosted economies in the last 4 centuries every time war has happened, usually on the losing side recently.

I get the feeling if you drill down through your theory the nugget at the centre is still that people are sheep, wether they run are part of entire media empires (not the people who run them: I'm pretty sure Rupert Murdoch isn't a sheep) or they are high up in the military.

If the media kill celebrities, it's because the overall system, powered by cash, exposure and the sheep that are "us", whips things into enough of a frenzy to do so. It's the old addage: stop buying the trash entertainment mags, people. It's a plea to help stars live longer...

Oh - and this "nugget" is also beautifully illustrated by the increasing hysterical (literally) moves by various bits of US governmental and fiscal controllers to prop up consumer spending ;)

Help! The sheep are going the wrong way!

[twounicycles]

Massive story on the BBC about the death of Heath Ledger. Or actually Heath Ledger was mentioned incidentally while the reporter went hog-wild about Google hits, mentions in Face Book, You Tube tributes, Blog sites turned into shrines etc. I thought, the media is *not* the message here, some fella has died, tell the media story later. I was disgusted (it is traditional to write "of Basingstoke" after a missive of this nature in the UK)

[Shankar]

The basic plot of "Tomorrow Never Dies", the James Bond movie is the same.

[Michael]

Hey scott,

The dilbertblog link has been removed from your dilbert.com page... very annoying...
can you please place a link back there?

[D. Mented]

Commercials and the programs they support subtly hint at children as sex objects (to make the viewers uncomfortable so they'll remember that product) and unsubtly promote selfishness, ignorance, profound stupidity, greed, mean-spiritedness, and abuse as the coolest and most successful behaviors and personality traits. There is also a bias toward education being for losers, and anybody who doesn't break the law- no matter how sensible the individual law- just because the opportunity is there- is a stupid wanker, a loser, a creep, a rat, a narc, and deserves to be gang raped and set on fire.
So why balk at promoting death?
D. Mented

[T Simic]

That's insightful in a disturbing way.

[John McCubbery]

It was not so long ago that William Randolph Hearst told a journalist sent to cover a war he could not find: "You supply the story and I'll supply the war". The whole role of the media post 9/11 should have been to be even more critically analytical of news, not play the role of cheerleader. This is not a Republican vs Democrat thing - the fact is that the Iraq war was started on the flimsiest of pretences, the weakest possible amount of evidence for an undertaking now into the billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

And although celebrity deaths might be stretching it, certainly there is media frenzy that leads the end of celebrity relationships.

[techy]

The media is like most people to me.
Can't live with them, can't live without them.