Blog #3- This Is the End...

For the last and final blog of CM 503, the cases I chose to study are Case 8-A and Case 10-E, both which deal directly with celebrity, media, and the ethical decisions that they are faced with on an everyday basis. Oddly and interestingly enough, both of the cases have a link to actor Tom Cruise, which is a never good situation. I will start with 8-A from Chapter 8: “The Case of the Well-Documented Suicide” by Philip Patterson (Oklahoma Christian University).

On August 19^th, 2012, a very well-known filmmaker took to the Vincent Thomas Bridge in San Pedro, California and caused a spectacle. No, he was not hanging out at the bridge taking in the scenery but was rather planning to commit suicide. Tony Scott, brother of Riidley, successfully achieved his goal, which had been pre-meditated, yet onlookers had no idea what they were about to be witness to.

 

Scott, who brought us “Top Gun” and “Taking of Pelham 123,” left suicide notes in all of his main hang-outs and was ultimately filmed crouching down then leaping to his death. According onlooker, Eric Brill: “I could very, very clearly see his (Scott) face. He was very determined. He was not crying, he didn’t look upset, he didn’t look sad. He just looked very resolute.” (pg. 199)

Others were taking both photos and with the advancements of smart phones, had the ability to capture video footage of the jump happening. These videos were then shopped around to media outlets and it was TMZ that revealed this news. They have both a website and a very popular TV show that is nothing but gossip. TMZ said they declined to purchase the videos but did not say how high the price was.

 

There are many ethical questions that come from this case such as whether or not photos and/or videos of a suicide should be newsworthy and sold. If Scott had not had some prominence in Hollywood society, would that change the importance? One could argue that this falls under Bok’s Model as “we must have empathy for the people involved in ethical decisions and that maintaining social trust in a fundamental goal.” (pg. 5)

The fact that Tony Scott was so troubled in his life that he felt the need to end it is something that I believe we should empathize with. However, the fact that he jumped off of a popular bridge during a crowded time, it is bound to make headlines regardless of who he was. In the end, those who witnessed the act will want to know what happened to this mystery jumper. Did he die? Why did he kill himself? Did he have a family? He was removed from the water after someone called 911 and emergency relief came to the scene.

It was not just the drivers who captured the suicide; there were surveillance cameras from a local business that captured the event as well. As to whether or not their people were ones to attempt to sell the footage, that has not been shared. I believe that there is a big difference between a photo which captures one particular moment versus a video, which brings the entire event to life from beginning to the bitter end, in this situation.

We know that the news is gritty and that nothing is off-limits but when do we cross the line to exploitation? I think that is still being examined but when it comes to suicide and matters that are so powerful and heart-wrenching, we need to consider the time and the place. If the video of Scott jumping to his death was posted on YouTube, it could be beneficial for use in a psychology class or rehab center but just because society is nosy and feels a sense of entitlement, the video should never have been shopped for personal gain.

Film what you want, watch what you want, do what you want but when you risk hurting those who have already been in pain just to earn a quick dollar, that is crossing an ethical and moral line. TMZ may have had enough morals to not buy the footage but they had no problem alerting the world that it was out there. Them taking this “high road” is just their underhanded way of saying that they are not as bad as they appear…but they are still creeps (my opinion).

Chapter 10 brought us Case 10-E, “Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and Suri Cruise: Do Celebrities Have Privacy?” (Lee Wilkins, University of Missouri-Columbia) The case starts with the notion that “people who are famous for being famous” or, as Wilkins refers to it, a definition of “celebrity.” I disagree with Wilkins on this for I feel that this definition is more applicable to reality stars like the Kardashians who legitimately do nothing and have crazy amounts of fame and money.

With Cruise, it is simple: his personal life soon became far more interesting than his professional life as an actor (“Risky Business,” “Cocktail,” “Top Gun,” “Jerry Maguire”). By 2016, he had three failed marriages, two which were highly publicized and out-of-this-world crazy antics, like jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch. His life was quickly becoming a media spectacle when he started dating a much younger Katie Holmes and literally could not contain his excitement.

 

His religious beliefs also caused a stir as he became the face of Scientology, a religion that is based on science-fiction. If you leave said religion, you become exiled, much like leaving the Amish lifestyle for the English. When Holmes gave birth to her and Cruise’s first child, Suri, we knew what hospital they were in but did not see any photos until 9 months later when the family gave an exclusive to “Vanity Fair.” The shoot was done by famed photog Annie Leibovitz and finally gave the world a look inside the Cruise lifestyle.

This was not the first time Cruise had been shy about his children as he and ex Nicole Kidman had adopted kids Isabella and Conner. Fans did not see Conner until he was a toddler so it only made sense that he would hide Suri too. Six years after Suri was born, Cruise and Holmes divorced and to keep a civil front, the parents were shown vacationing all over the world with Suri and did not hide her at all.

 

Cruise was soon compared to the likes of the late Michael Jackson, who was extremely private with his children, making them wear masks whenever they went out. I feel that the two are comparable because their behavior at times became almost like a train wreck. We should look away but we just cannot. But then, the question of is it right to photograph the couple while they were in the midst of divorcing as well as of Suri, ethical? That could also be applicable to Jackson’s three children (yes, they both have three kids) who were followed relentlessly amid his constant molestation allegations.

In terms of Cruise, any photos were solely for profit but if it proved that Suri was getting the much needed attention from both parents and that she was doing well, I think that the photos are fine. It falls under the need to know, want to know and right to know ideal. Do we need to know what is going on with celebrities, especially those who have exploited their celebrity like Tom Cruise? No. Do we want to know? Absolutely. The media has made Hollywood such a “want to know” business and it is so clear with the overabundance of gossip magazines, websites and television shows.

We want to know how these celebs are living; we like to see when they fall because then they seem just like an average person but then we have to ask if we have the right to know. If Cruise is going to go on a famed television show like Oprah and act like a nut, I feel like we have the right to know that his daughter is being taken care of. For some, it is just general curiosity but for others, it is based in concern. Fortunately, Cruise has not been seen with Suri for about two years now and was not invited to his eldest daughter’s wedding so I think it is safe to say that the kids are doing just fine without him.