Revered actor Paul Newman appeared haggard in public recently. According to his friend A.E. Hotchner, co-founder of Newman’s Own, he has cancer. I went to his Wikipedia article and reflected on his varied career, and how the page’s editors treated his failing health.
Death is a difficult and challenging thing to write about on Wikipedia, especially in today’s media saturation. How far should Wikipedia go in reporting details of a person’s declining health? Should it just be a fact once it happens, or is it a fact as it is happening?
All of these questions are made more difficult by a familiar routine: the Celebrity Death Cycle. This is how it goes:
1. The celebrity, the studios, the media, the publicists, the agents and the rest of the Hollywood machinery tirelessly work to promote, and create public fascination with, the celebrity as they try to get their career moving.
2. Years and years of things such as branding products with their name, selling their lifestyle, selling their sex appeal, selling their personalty and selling their talent ensue.
3. As they get older, people reflect upon their career, television portrayals ensue, “Remember this person” specials air about their lives.
4. Like every other human alive, this person eventually is taken ill, becomes disabled or has other things go wrong with them as they mature.
5. Suddenly, everyone is supposed to drop their interest in the person and give them some privacy.
This cycle is so played out in the media that it is annoying. Unless a person immediately succumbs to death with no warning, like Bernie Mac, the entire public is supposed to forget that they are conditioned to be interested in this person and their life. Who they are dating, what they like to eat, what they like to wear, where they vacation, how they divorce and all the other topics that feed the celebrity media grist mill.
Death is a part of life; it’s one of the fundamentals. When cultural touchstones are felled by disability, death, disease or drugs there is naturally widespread public interest. It’s a moment not just in that persons’ life, but in everyone’s.
In fifty years the name could be Justin Timberlake instead of Paul Newman. For the people who see Timberlake now in all his youthful, beautiful and talented glory, that day they learn an 80-something Timberlake might be dying will carry special significance.
So will Madonna’s. So will Michael Jackson’s.
Instead, we are treated to sermonizing pundits decrying the lack of privacy for individuals who long ago made the decision to give up their privacy. Suddenly, the lifetime of cultivated interest in their lives is replaced by people wagging their finger in disgust. The same people who lap up details about their sex and dating lives with insatiable hunger (think Britney Spears) and by the media that feeds it. Amusingly, when a column like this is written, it gives you all the details people want and rehashes the entire saga (like Tom Dorsey’s below).

Instead, let’s face reality: When you invite massive public interest in you, expect the public to be interested through every cycle of your life. I’m sure Dana Plato would have liked some privacy to deal with the mental illness that killed her; Lindsay Lohan, Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty would enjoy some privacy to handle their drug abuse; Alec Baldwin would enjoy some privacy handling his child custody.
Nobody calls for that, though. It’s only when the problem is seemingly honorable we are all supposed to shut up and have some manners:
“This isn’t a new story. A couple weeks ago the media, especially the TV tabloid and entertainment magazines, along with that great grist mill called the Internet, pounced on Newman like ravenous tigers. [....] Another picture of a haggard-looking Newman at a charity event was plastered on the Web by Martha Stewart, apparently another friend. Some friends Newman has , but it looks like he posed for it, so what are you going to do?” Tom Dorsey, Louisville Courier-Journal.
Not only do we get a column from Dorsey telling us what is news, we even get him second-guessing Newman’s friend and Newman himself as he lambastes the media for telling all the details that…he just told us. Dorsey comes off looking like a self-righteous hypocrite.
I say we give Paul Newman a break. He has lived a wonderful life, giving so much to others through his Newman’s Own Foundation. He deserves privacy, just like we all do. Lisa Fayed, About.com
Lisa should give us a break. People simply want to know what is happening with someone they admire and feel they know. Someone who defined an era for them. To respond, “You’ll find out when he’s dead” is a callous thing to say to a public who have been conditioned to care about Newman. I think Paul Newman and his family are more preoccupied with reflecting on far greater things than what the blogs are saying about what a family friend said about his condition.
“If Newman doesn’t want to tell us about his cancer (if he has cancer), why should he? As he has said so often about his private life, “It’s nobody’s business.” Patricia Bosworth, Vanity Fair.
That statement is correct. If he does not want to tell us, it is not our business. My issue is with the people in the media who take us to task for even wondering, “How is he doing?”
“How is he doing?” It is with that question in mind that Wikipedia’s editors have handled his health problem, and they have done a good job (as always).
Recent Comments