The Role of the Media
in the Creation of Celebrity

THE LEGACY OF THE STAR

Celebrities with star status achieve that fame by a process of collusion with the press, which enables the press to feed on the stars, and the stars to profit from the media coverage. In the old days, when movie studio moguls controlled Hollywood, they also controlled access to the stars, who were bound by complicated studio contracts. Bogus romances were created, marriages, and even sightings of stars at famous "hotspots," all of which was set up deliberately, for the purpose of developing public images of glamour and privilege. The collapse of the studio system created a new environment, which really led to the evolution in the United States, of the television star, which is a different kind of stardom from movie stardom.

With the evolution of independent producers, and the eclipse of the studio system, movie stars became more independent. Box office receipts enabled movie actors in the 1970s and 1980s to demand incredible fees, as movie profits started topping $100 million, dwarfing the receipts of movies that were made during the so-called "golden era" of the studio system. At the same time the evolution of television as a mass medium totally changed how stars were made, and in the process transferred enormous power to the men who controlled the television networks. These were men whose power was immediately dependent upon broadcast licenses given out by the government (even if they were free), and it put them in a position whereby they were obliged to cooperate with the status quo power-structure to perpetuate their power. This is very important, because these are what we call "mainstream" media, and they enjoy thinking of themselves as very sober and impartial, even though they are hide-bound by the Federal Government.

When it comes to the creation of celebrities, there is a genuine understanding on the part of those who control the media that the selection of celebrities must be tightly controlled. In the United States, as in any republic, there is no social body as there is in a monarchical society, or traditional society, because there is only a political structure, often divided by political parties. The fact that there is no national (royal) family that unifies the country outside of partisan divisions, makes the role of celebrities that much more significant, because they can act as rolemodels, or rather, individuals we can empathize with, who make us feel as if we are a part of the nation through them. The only problem with this is that celebrities really have no committment to the nation, but rather they exploit their celebrity status for the purpose of personal enrichment. Royal families, on the other hand, do not depend upon the use of their celebrity status to acquire wealth, so their underlying behavior is not motivated by the same considerations.

To the press, however, there is scarcely any difference between a royal and a movie star; the American press often makes comparisons like this, as if a pampered self-indulgent actress is the equivalent to the Princess of Wales, or the Regent of the United States. The American media is also staunchly republican in its prejudices, so that it makes believe that there is no effort going on within the United States to restore the monarchy. The notion of a royalist restoration in America is anathema to the press corps, who give daily homage to the Presidency, and ritually criticize countries where monarchies survive, as if it is merely a matter of time before they "outgrow" the institution, and join the 20th century by getting rid of their kings. The fact that this could never occur in a country like England or Holland, is just not something the illiterate members of the American media can fathom.

The making of celebrities is an intensely political process, and the public's lack of awareness of the existence of the Regency of the United States is proof that the media is deliberately pro- republican, in effect depriving the masses of free choice by controlling their awareness of current events. The Regency makes regular outreach to the American media, which is just as regularly deliberately ignored, to in effect black out the issue of the restoration in the American press. Keep in mind this is not an effort to outlaw political parties, or democratic elections, or even to revoke the civil rights of Americans, rather, it is a movement for the restoration of the ancient constitution in the American homeland. Not anything radical, but to the jingoistic republican press, the very idea that the slavemaster republic of the founding fathers is not the product of genius, and something to be perpetuated even if it destroys the very fabric of the nation, is not allowed to be questioned.

The finger-pointing in the aftermath of the car crash that killed Princess Diana is a disgrace to her memory. Susan Rook of Time/Warner's CNN "Talkback Live" TV show was quick to distance her show's sensationalized audience-based circus, from those "paparazzi" she reviled. Barbara Walters, who has made more than one person a star through her recognition, was quick to make sure everyone knew that she was the Princess' friend largely because she kept confidential information she was aware of, confidential. Everyone in the media re-iterated over and over that there was a difference between photo opportunities, where celebrities expose themselves to the cameras of event photographers, as arranged through publicists and press agents, from the impromptu "celebrity hunts" engaged in by the renegade photographers referred to as the "paparazzi." The only problem with this is that the bottom line of celebrity is that everyone, including the celebrity, is profiting from the process of the creation of celebrity status, and in the end even the event photographers are going to make something from their access to the celebrity.

Think of it like this, why would a tabloid pay $1 million for a picture of someone that Barbara Walters wouldn't interview? The fact that Barbara goes after an interview with someone, or Oprah Winfrey, indicates that the target of this campaign is of a calibre of established fame, that they hope to cash in on it. One of the coveted interviews of the late part of this century, before the lady passed away, was the Jackie Kennedy Onassis interview. The eminence of Jackie Onassis is such that it doesn't even need to be explained why the interview was so sought after. In the United States the accepted route to fame and fortune is through a political candidacy, but this also ties the hands of the politician, so that he can never rise to the level of being a statesman, because that would tip the balances that are keeping the status quo in place, and the republic in power. As the mass media is forced to accept the influence of such things as the Internet, for example, so that it can no longer exclude opposition figures, the power of the media to create celebrity status is also undermined. And that is bothering all the pundits, who make their living making, enhancing and destroying the star status of modern celebrities.

The example of what was done to Orson Welles at the hands of William Randolph Hearst is a good illustration of the secret use of power in America, to make and break stars. Orson Welles first came to everyone's attention with his radio performance of the H.G. Wells classic, the War of the Worlds. He played on the gullibility of the mass audience, and the fact that the new medium of radio was not yet controlled by laws making it mandatory for news broadcasts to be clearly identified. His performance of the classic tale of the invasion of Earth by Mars was perceived to be a genuine news event, causing mass panic. The following day the police took Orson Welles into "protective custody," as a result of his little prank; and he announced his surprise that anyone would confuse the famous story by Wells, with a news report. But this led directly to the implementation of rules that required that news reports be labelled clearly, and to a contract for Orson Welles with a Hollywood studio.

William Randolph Hearst was one of the first newspaper tycoons, who literally invented tabloid journalism. His family made its fortune in Nevada silver mines, and he used his wealth to buy up newspapers, and to "make news." One of his most famous stunts was to hire someone to jump into San Francisco Bay, to see how long it took for City emergency services to respond. Another of his more famous antics revolved around the Spanish-American War. He had hired the famous artist Remington to go to Cuba, and send back drawings (pictures) that were relevant to the growing conflict between Spain and the United States, regarding Spain's colony Cuba. The United States has always been dominated by an expansionist mindset, a revolutionary ideology that basically held that it was okay for American politicians to meddle in the affairs of foreign states, if it was in the best interests of the United States. (In the past this aggressive mindset was rationalized as Manifest Destiny, and in terms of legal principles, it was laid out decisively in the Monroe Doctrine).

When Remington wired Hearst that there was nothing going on to depict in a drawing, Hearst was insistent that if Remington would supply the pictures, he (Hearst) would supply the war (that is, the news event). He became very powerful behind the scenes, and he openly intended to use his power to make himself politically powerful; but in the end, his persona was too opportunistic, and he was unable to succeed as a political figure. At about middle-age, he became infatuated with the silent film star Marion Davies, and he used his ownership of a Hollywood studio, and his chain of newspapers, to boost Miss Davies' career, and these themes inspired Orson Welles, who saw in the Hearst story the penultimate tale of the American tycoon, the power wielder behind the scenes of the Washingtonian republic.

Orson Welles crafted a script for what became the movie "Citizen Kane," the storyline of which was the thinly disguised life of William Randolph Hearst, (the only really fictionalized part of it being the girlfriend of the lead character Kane, who was depicted in the film as a talentless actress who relied on her powerful lover for her entire career.) In real life, Marion Davies was an acknowledged star in her own right, and was widely recognized as a talented performer. But when news of the storyline leaked out, Mr. Hearst's mouthpiece, Louella Parsons, made it clear that her boss would have revenge. When he was done, no one ever hired Orson Welles again, even decades after Hearst was dead and buried. And no one would admit publicly that they were intimidated by the Hearst power juggernaut, that to this day controls valuable national mass media properties. (Marion Davies, years after Hearst's death, did at one point candidly admit that she and Hearst purposely destroyed Orson Welles, who was widely acknowledged to be one of the great 20th century geniuses of the cinematographic arts).

The most powerful weapon of the social register families, besides their wealth, and their connections, is their power to shut out opinions they deem politically incorrect. They own the very cities and towns and countryside as their personal property and assets, and the masses wind up either renting from them, or buying from them using mortgages and deeds of trust, that basically put them in debt for the remainder of their lives. The average middle class person has no genuine independence, because if he wants to make anything of himself at all, he must cooperate with the whole system by which property has existed up until the point that he, himself, is allowed to buy property. He doesn't own enough property to have any power, but he owns just enough to give him a sympathetic ear to the policies of the police state, who make it possible for wealth and plenty to exist amidst poverty and impoverishment.

Princess Diana was acutely aware of this, and she always enjoyed reminding listeners that her father, the Earl Spencer, had always taught her to have regard for all the people in her life, regardless of their social standing. She would have hated the fact that for the first two days after her death, the driver who shared her fate, and her bodyguard, remained nameless in press reports, identified by nothing more than their roles as servants. The press that was so determined not to be lumped in with the people the current Earl Spencer, brother to the late princess, said had blood on their hands, overlooked the two men who shared that fateful midnight ride with the tragic princess and her escort. This was because they, themselves, the mainstream press, felt that these two underlings were not important enough to have their names known.

The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the London Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, all have a role to play in the creation of fame. If they ignored the marriage of the Prince of Wales, who would know anything about Diana Spencer Windsor? To say that Diana created herself by soliciting celebrity is to overlook the original position into which she was thrust, at barely 20 years of age. The members of the Windsor family are brought up from birth to withstand public scrutiny; that is part of their calm public exterior, a demeanor they have cultivated through generations of family members having to perform the functions of monarchy for the nation. But to a young girl who is unprepared for life as a royal, the entire world of the royals is strange and frightening. The royal family is governed by tradition and customs that are stronger than law. To act as a modernizing force, as the Princess of Wales did, shook the 1000 year old edifice to its roots, making the British monarchy stronger than ever. Now the tragic death of the Princess of Wales, at a time when the opinion polls are at their lowest since the reign of Queen Victoria, gives the institution of the Crown more strength than it has had since the martyrdom of Thomas Becket (1170).

The announcement by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that Princess Diana was a "people's princess" elevated her to a new, unique status in the British constitution. There are no set rules for the way the Princess' funeral is to be handled, because her status was unique in the constitutional history of Britain. There really are no precedents in terms of how to handle the divorced former spouses of heirs to the throne of the House of Windsor, and none of this would have come up except for the fact that the princess suffered the untimely fate of a premature death. The only even vaguely similar controversy arose from the abdication of Edward VIII, when there really was no established protocol for how to handle a former king who continued to live after his own reign. (The only other precedent was James II, and since he had been overthrown by a revolution, the creation of the former king as the Duke of Windsor was actually the pioneering of new conventions where there had been none previously).

A major error in terms of the British royal families' handling of the last rites for the people's princess, is the refusal to call for a state funeral on the part of the monarch. The nature of a people's princess means that the people, themselves, recognize her as a canonized person, and the beginnings of a popular cult were already in evidence only hours after Diana's death was confirmed. We don't hear this today, but many of the saints elevated during the Middle Ages were individuals around whom local cults developed, who became the recipients of spontaneous worship because they met untimely deaths, and they had come to symbolize a greater principle of spirituality through the deeds of their lives. The church sought to share in this spiritual limelight, which they did through the process of beatification and canonization of official saints. Princess Diana will live on for centuries, as the tragic princess who shall remain eternally young as an icon of the holy royal family, and it would not be surprising if in the next five or six decades, popular demands appear for the Anglican Church to declare her a bona fide saint.

As the debate thickens over who is the "legitimate" press, and who are the "predatory" press, remember that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two, that fundamentally makes them a single media, dictating the mindset of the masses. If the prominent trendsetting media didn't emphasize the agendas of those celebrities they choose to highlight, none of the tabloid press would be interested in taking their picture, or knowing what they are doing. The public's appetite for news about celebrities is generated by the so-called mainstream media, and it is this appetite that the tabloids exploit; but they could never do it without the groundwork laid by the Establishment press, which is always responding to market pressures exerted by the tabloid press. We don't need to be college graduates to recognize that even the mainstream press has gotten less high brow, and more "pictorial." Shows like Hard Copy and Entertainment Tonight have made powerful inroads on the Evening News, and Meet the Press. Rupert Murdoch has made a fortune "dumbing down" his readers with tabloid journalism that has made him, and the Fox media empire, a world player.

Today the number of media conglomerates is getting narrower and narrower, and once highly honored news agencies are being assimilated into massive powerful information cartels, so that names like CBS News become just another commodity in the bottom line of a corporation. The control of information is descending into the hands of a corporate cabal, so that the making and marketing of movies, movie stars, and celebrities is increasingly under the thumb of a handful of powerful individuals, in a corporate chain that is probably a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the anti-trust laws. For example, Time Warner owns Warner Brothers Studio, and it owns Time Magazine, and Time Warner Records, and CNN/Turner Broadcasting. You don't have to be a high school graduate to realize that a movie made in the studio could be promoted through the magazine and TV broadcasting/cable units; and that the reputation of Time magazine could be easily exploitable as a quality brand for CNN. (When Ted Turner sold out his interest in TBS to Time Warner, to become the media giant's biggest shareholder, he openly stated his ambition to be one of the big players; that he was tired of being small potatoes).

But through all of this, Diana Windsor was nothing more than a hot property. "Diana, give us a look, come on Di, if you give us a good shot, I'll be able to send my kids to a better school..." Comments like that tore her apart. Of course she wanted the photographer to be able to send his kids to a better school; but she also wanted her little boys to enjoy as normal a life as she could give them. She knew instinctively that she was outgunned by a family that had been on the English throne since 1066. Even if she had lived a long life, she would have always felt as though she lived under the shadow of the House of Windsor; and indeed, she would have. She was the mother of a future king, but even kings must have regard for the constitution. Ultimately, it shall be for the future King William to decide the status of his sainted mother, for it will be within his power to guarantee that Princess Diana's memory is never forgotten.

It is vital for us not to confuse true devotion to duty and country, with the superficiality of movie stars and entertainers playing the part of patriot. Princess Diana was a true princess, she made sacrifices of herself for the people; movie stars only play princesses in the movies. Even the other members of the royal family have to act out the ritual roles of the national family, whose life events and tragedies become the means by which the common and ordinary people feel a familial bond of union with them. You cannot substitute the long-term bonds of a royal family, with the short-term speculations of presidents, who fade away in the wash of presidential families, a flood of First Families who never possess the loyalty of the average American. It is also vital to our well-being that we decline to believe the pretension that some members of the media are somehow better than the paparrazi, that there exists a class system within the media itself, and that the members of the higher classes are actually more moral than the members of the lower classes. The media, unlike the nation, is one big melting pot, and the thing that makes that melting pot boil is monetary profit.

RECOMMENDATIONS: At this time, the law does not allow persons with fame to enjoy privacy. The tragedy of the death of the Princess of Wales should be the catalyst for the introduction of laws that restore the ordinary rights to privacy for public figures.