It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

YOU Killed Diana

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Well here we are again, massive coverage of a dead woman, with no consideration for her surviving family and old paparazzi photo's being trotted out as "evidence" of alleged relationships, her state of mind and "proof" of a conspiracy by MI6 and the royal family to kill her.

But here's the thing;
If so many people weren't obsessed with celebrity lifestyle publications such as HELLO! NOW! HEAT! SCANDAL! as well as the lurid tabloids muckraking, there is a very good chance all the people killed in the crash would still be alive today.
Magazines

Imagine a world where people mind their own business and aren't desperate to read about the rich and famous brought about by the politics of greed and envy.

That would be a world with no paparazzi, with no motorbike chases, with no elaborate escape plans just to gain a semblance of privacy, with no drunken chauffeurs, with no need of bodyguards.

Anyone who buys the type of publications listed helped to kill these people and condemn others to a life without a loved one.

That's right - by helping to feed the media frenzy, who only report what people want to know, readers of these magazines helped to kill diana, dodi and henri paul because of their voracious appetite to read about people more fortunate only by a simple accident of birth.

Are peoples lives so empty that they have to keep these vultures in business?

Are people so stupid and gullible that they rail against the paparazzi whilst holding one these magazines in their hand?

So for readers of these magazines I say this:
You fed the vultures,
you helped kill them.

That's the reality of it.

Deal with it and stop your whining, because you're just as culpable as those on the motorbikes.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
i find your topic title offensive. i personally detest the paparazzi, tabloids, etc. i think it's ridiculous that there are people that just have to know what celebrities are buying at the grocery stores and exposing dirty little secrets like "OH NOES! some skinny actress ate a cookie!!!!!11111!one!!eleven!" i have never purchased or supported any of the media associated with this hounding.

i actually side with your side of the argument, but i won't make a blanket accusation like you did.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I think, more than anything else, this example is simply wrong. The reality is that by 1996, though anything involving Diana was inevitably a good photo, she was no longer the constant presence in tabloids and mags that she had been at the turn of the 90s. having "stepped back" from her public duties, and with the breakdown of her marriage an established fact rather than a rumour, there just wasn't the interest in her.

The same thing happened with John Lennon when he was shot - and conspiracies grew up then that he had been taken out because his influence was too anti-establishment. But the reality there too was that a public figure, whose influence was actually very much on the wane, had met with a tragic end - and it was the end itself that pushed him back onto the consciousness. It certainly wasn't his musical output by that stage.

In the same way, it was Diana's death itself that catapulted her into still giddier heights of fame and celebrity.

Perhaps more pertinently though, Budski - do you think there's much of a crossover between the readers of this site and the sort of mags and tabloids that you're attcking? I don't - which makes me wonder if you're addressing the right audience here....

LW



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Less of a blanket accusation and more of trying to push a point home to be honest.

Do you really believe that they would have died if the "paps" weren't there?

And do you really think that if people didn't buy those magazines that there would still be "paps" chasing cars?

I stand by my post - it was supposed to be inflammatory, although not insulting, as this seems to be the only way some people get the message.

If you or any others feel insulted feel free to send an alert to the mods.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by an0maly33
 


You beat me to it.

I don't buy it (literally).

I don't buy this article trying to shift the blame to the poor consumer. If a small percentage of people decide to buy this trash, why is it ALL of US who are getting the blame? Is the majority creating the demand? no.

Perhaps we should ask those who OWN the magazine why they felt so pressured to capture photos of Diana. Are members of the public harassing them to make it happen? no. It's their bosses. If one climbs the ladder, eventually you get to the ones who are really guilty, as they are the ones who are creating this hype or pressure to get the photos of the famous.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


Perhaps there is NO crossover, which is why I felt the point had to be made.

I'm not looking down my nose, or sitting in an ivory tower handing out favours to the plebs here - I'm making what I consider to be a valid point.

The people who whine most about the deaths are the very same people who helped bring the accident about - just by a more indirect route.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Personally, I would blame her driver being over the legal alcohol limit and then the papparazi. It was he who drove over the speed limit under the influence through a notoriously dangerous tunnel.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Knights]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Would there have been any need for him at all, drunk or not, if the paps didn't exist?

If there were no paps, would they have had to hatch an elaborate escape plan?

I don't think there would have been any problems except foor the paps - and who feeds the paps?

The readers, subscribers and buyers of the magazines they work for.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Would there have been any need for him at all, drunk or not, if the paps didn't exist?
If there were no paps, would they have had to hatch an elaborate escape plan?
I don't think there would have been any problems except foor the paps - and who feeds the paps?


I agree in a way, but irregardless of the paparazzi, Princess Diana could still have been a potential target for any criminal organisation wanting to kidnap her for a ransom.

Henri Paul would still have been a good driver as he knew the city well (far better than Diana's personal bodyguards) and had often run errands for wealthy guests to the hotel, nothing new driving her then. I can't say if they would have used him without the paparazzi because it can't be proven either way.

Sorry to say but I still think the blame lies on Henri Paul, then the consumer.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I don't think there'smuch doubt that multiple factors come into play, but I still think that there is more culpability than just henri paul or the paps or the lack of seatbelts.

The consumers who gobble up the nonsense printed in some magazines are not blameless, regardless of the justifications they come up with - and that's the whole point, the "blame" must be placed on many different factors.

I feel that consumer culpability has been overlooked.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Loved the OP title, and YES WE did have a part in her death.

My wife has bought rags for years from The Inquirer, Globe type trash to the more chic People, Celeb's type mags. Any grocery store checkout has many of these type papers/magazines just waiting for the huddled masses to purchase.

People can be in denial, but someone is buy this crap or it wouldn't be made. I find it cheap entertainment for her and my girls.

There are any number of syndicated TV show based on glamor and glitz of "the stars" and media personalities. There's even an entire network for the genre, E! TV.

We are all at fault for wanting to live these lifestyles so publicly shown. Everyone wants a better crib, a hotter ride, and a trophy spouse. This media influence fulfills our normal, humdrum daily existence of daily boredom doing our rut of a job.

EVERYONE here is at fault!

BTW: I have a trophy wife, but she got older... Now she has a trophy husband



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

We are all at fault for wanting to live these lifestyles so publicly shown.


as i said above, i don't want that


Everyone wants a better crib, a hotter ride, and a trophy spouse.


nope. i'm content in my apartment, but i'm looking to get a cheap house next year. i'm fine with my chevy equinox, don't need a lexus. i've actaully turned down jobs because to me the extra money wasn't worth the added responsibility or stress, and we get along just fine with just me working as it is. my spouse might not be what you would consider to be a trophy wife and i think that's probably for the better. i'm not into "hot" chicks that think they deserve an equally "hot" guy, i found someone whose company i might enjoy for next several decades - it's hard to factor looks into it when you think of it that way.


This media influence fulfills our normal, humdrum daily existence of daily boredom doing our rut of a job.


yeah, that or videogames, which is my escape.


EVERYONE here is at fault!


just because your family is into that stuff doesn't mean everyone else is. =)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join