(As of May 1, 2008, the date we checked, the application offered below
doesn't seem to be working any longer. Pity. It was fun while it
lasted. Still, we'll let it linger here, in case the creators decide to
bring it back to life. Or update THEIR website...)
Type in a name to see it in lights All European characters and accents are allowed, plus ' - and .
Share this »
Share this »
Such were the thoughts of many a future star.
Such were the thoughts of many a future failure.
Such were the thoughts of the man who killed Gianni Versace, back in 1997.
Such were the thoughts of the man who killed eight people - and then himself - in a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, USA, today.
Is he famous now?
You be the judge.
I don't know his name,
but it would be easy to find out.
However, I would not write his name
even if I did know it.
To "take revenge"?
No.
The poor, befuddled creature was enough of a "vengeance" unto himself all by himself.
And, as is often the case, he "took" others with him.
Others who, perhaps, were very happy to be alive
and had everything in the world to look forward to.
Who is to "blame" for this man's tragic fate and the huge pain he inflicted on others?
His parents?
It's very likely, although not as self-evident as some like to think.
His "friends" and acquaintances?
That is much more likely.
The media?
You can bet all your money on it.
Yes, it's the public who fuels the media.
But it's the media that fuel - relentlessly - that public's desire for consumption of celebrity.
NO PUBLICITY IS BAD PUBLICITY.
Except it is.
It is bad for the celebrity in question - as a person, as a human being - and for his/her family.
It is bad for the person reading and watching others' downfall - "trainwreck" is the popular word for it (think Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears, to name just two recent examples).
You cannot indulge in Schadenfreude - enjoying the misery of others - without paying for it dearly: with your own soul.
And, inevitably, it is bad for the society at large.
So... WHAT DO WE DO?
I wrote the following little proposal for a major British broadcasting corporation today, but I am not sure they will ever publish it. You see... it's naive.
(Code word for "it's unrealistic to expect us to forgo our public's desire to KNOW, however irrelevant that piece of information may be, however immoral it may be to feed its bloodthirstiness - which, after all, brings us hard cash".)
It's "naive", even - or especially - coming from someone who knows the media inside out.
Here is my little proposal.
(And when I say little, it's not out of false modesty. It is little. It just doesn't follow that "little" proposals are necessarily inconsequential.)
Publish the news of shopping mall massacres
and such.
By all means.
Just don't include the perpetrator's name.
You can publish his or her photo - but not the name.
The name can still be made available to those who would really really want - or need - to know. Just don't divulge it unnecessarily.
NO NAME = NO FAME ©
It's as simple as that.
What do YOU think?
