• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
George Michael - Disrespect
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
muggins14
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Princessxxxx:
“Hiya Babe

It's not just that rag but other too. George was a lovely bloke and generous, should leave him alone!”

When has the media ever left anybody alone? Most of what they are printing they already printed when he was alive, they are just regurgitating it all, along with a bit more from the 'friends' who are looking for a bit of money to be made selling a bit of additional information. People lap that stuff up.

The rags don't do 'rest in peace'!
Hackettboy
27-12-2016
All papers are saying he was on drugs and having wild all night parties with young men sounds like Steven gatley all over again ,why they need to dish the dirt over a dead person is so wrong he is and always will be a legend
Pitman
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Hackettboy:
“All papers are saying he was on drugs and having wild all night parties with young men sounds like Steven gatley all over again ,why they need to dish the dirt over a dead person is so wrong he is and always will be a legend”

good on him I say, I didn't like his music but his hedonism gives me new found respect
Caxton
27-12-2016
Well I suppose if people can see and comment on the good side of people, they can also see and comment on the bad side. Why not?
Princessxxxx
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by muggins14:
“When has the media ever left anybody alone? Most of what they are printing they already printed when he was alive, they are just regurgitating it all, along with a bit more from the 'friends' who are looking for a bit of money to be made selling a bit of additional information. People lap that stuff up.

The rags don't do 'rest in peace'!”

I have just done a group email to the rag asking them to respect this great, British icon.
1fab
27-12-2016
Socks and sandals? The ultimate atrocity.

Mind you, I've committed the same crime myself - I shouldn't talk.
flashfiction
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk:
“I haven't seen the Daily Mail for days but it is disgraceful.

Going on about drugs and booze, showing pictures of him looking terrible, of his partner in socks and sandals, all to just basically take the mick.”

Yes, agree with you but must say
No different than Sky's coverage, nor the Daily Mirror. Telegraph were babbling on about heroin soon after. Presume same stories in Times but haven't looked.

And no different than the majority of the comments on DSpy on the main thread yesterday.
(Guardian was better - it actually focused on his achievements.)
francie
27-12-2016
No doubt the gutter press are feverishly burrowing away looking for more dirt...ignore his good deeds, concentrate on his sexuality and lifestyle. Sickens me.
Bill Clinton
27-12-2016
I hate the Daily Mail & The Sun but admittedly they don't seem to be doing much here other than reporting on the circumstances that led to his death and it doesn't seem particularly unsympathetic so maybe they are beginning to learn and readers don't want it to be reported in a negative light hopefully.

The latest article about how much disability benefit costs Britain, now that is in their usually unsympathetic colours!

Before I heard about his death I thought randomly about him and how he hadn't had any hits for a while, the last big one that was inside the Top 10 was "Flawless, Go To The City" in Summer 2004. A good one too. I'll miss him!
Alrightmate
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“The article I think the OP refers to, is here

I know the Mail are no saints, but that article is only reflecting facts.

...and yes, he did look unrecognisable with all that weight.”

I don't see anything wrong with that article. They simply mention things about his health problems which perhaps some don't want to hear. The article also lists lots of tributes from his friends and colleagues and pays testament to the generosity of the man.
francie
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by 1fab:
“Maybe, but it could also be someone who has lost their senses temporarily.”

Eggnog you mean?
Ovalteenie
27-12-2016
A coroner inquest is a public hearing so the post mortem conclusion will be public knowledge, it will also include toxicology to see whether he had any opiates in his bloodstream. At the moment any suggested cause of death is speculation.
1fab
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by francie:
“Eggnog you mean?”

It happens.
1fab
27-12-2016
Slightly disorientating...
Princessxxxx
27-12-2016
What a sad way to go. At 53 Geroge was young.

So many young, rich stars get the wrong type of friends.

By all acounts GM was a nice man and brill songs.
muggins14
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Princessxxxx:
“I have just done a group email to the rag asking them to respect this great, British icon.”

I'm sure that will make them stop straight away.

Princessxxxx
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by muggins14:
“I'm sure that will make them stop straight away.

”

If enough of us took the time and effort, it would happen
Alrightmate
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bryemycaz:
“It's the same with Rick Parfitt. He was no saint but the papers have gone on about his drug taking, 3 wife's and womanising. He and George have given pleasure to millions of people. You can't take that away from them, no matter what muck raking the papers do. The same happened with Freddie Mercury when he died.”

If drug taking has any bearing on people's health then I think it's perfectly fine to mention it. Perhaps it's even important that they do?
mrsgrumpy49
27-12-2016
The only disrespect going on here is GM's disrespect to his own body. I thought the article was pretty neutral actually. They simply reported the facts - including the good stuff like his generosity - so good on them (for a change).
As for him being an 'icon' he is no icon of mine thank you very much. So he was a great artist. It doesn't qualify him as a saint and his lifestyle certainly doesn't. People these days seem to have lost all perspective.
Just because someone dies doesn't mean you should airbrush their problems and make them out to be something they weren't. And maybe his early death will make others take stock - should it be found to have been linked to his lifestyle.
1fab
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by mrsgrumpy49:
“The only disrespect going on here is GM's disrespect to his own body. I thought the article was pretty neutral actually. They simply reported the facts - including the good stuff like his generosity - so good on them (for a change).
As for him being an 'icon' he is no icon of mine thank you very much. So he was a great artist. It doesn't qualify him as a saint and his lifestyle certainly doesn't. People these days seem to have lost all perspective.
Just because someone dies doesn't mean you should airbrush their problems and make them out to be something they weren't. And maybe his early death will make others take stock - should it be found to have been linked to his lifestyle.”

I think you're missing the point. We admire artists like George because of their contribution to popular culture.

The fact that he was also a real person with real human issues and wasn't a saint makes him all the more loveable, to many of us.

Because all human beings have weaknesses, but some rise above them to make something great for everybody else.

His private life was private, so what right have we to pry into it and then have the audacity to judge him on health problems?
Alrightmate
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by BlueEyedMrsP:
“Those who loved him and his contributions to the music industry will continue to love him no matter what the rags print. It's the sanctimonious lot who revel in reading sordid details and doing their best tsk tsk at his lifestyle. Those are who the stories are written for. As someone said, his behaviour was well publicised when it happened back in the day, so it's not as if they're doing a groundbreaking story.”

53 is relatively young for somebody to die. On average I mean.
So I can understand when in reporting on a death questions about their health are brought up. Is it really disrespectful?
If somebody dies at 53 should we really pretend that there was nothing wrong with their health to make ourselves feel better about it?

If he had ballooned up in weight to 16st recently then I think that has some relevance and is perhaps something which is valid to report on, and maybe should be reported on. That's something I would never have known if it wasn't reported, and now I can consider whether it did play a factor in his health.
If he had been taking drugs as well, again that is something which is news worth reporting on.
I pass no negative judgement on him as a person. I think it's sad that he died. But I do think that these are valid aspects to report on. It's a newspaper which is there to report the news.
flashfiction
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by mrsgrumpy49:
“As for him being an 'icon' he is no icon of mine thank you very much. So he was a great artist. It doesn't qualify him as a saint and his lifestyle certainly doesn't. People these days seem to have lost all perspective. ”

snipped

..... "It doesn't qualify him as a saint " Indeed . It simply qualifies him as an artist.
You have the totally wrong end of the stick if u assume that he wanted to be worshipped as a saint. In his own words he was a" filthy ****er" and had little interest in conservative norms or approval.

There's another DS thread, for those who think his greatest achievement was a duet with Elton John / cover for Freddie or have limited knowledge of his career./perspective. It's in General Discussion.

Anyway family statement this afternoon:

"The statement added there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, which was reported to have been caused by heart failure.

It said: "For someone whose life was ultimately about his music and the love he had for his family and friends, his fans and the world at large, there could be no more fitting tribute than the many, many, kind words that have been said and the numerous plays his records have received.

"Contrary to some reports, there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, and from the bottom of our hearts we thank those who, rightly, have chosen to celebrate his life and legacy at this most distressing of times."
eggchen
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by bryemycaz:
“It's the same with Rick Parfitt. He was no saint but the papers have gone on about his drug taking, 3 wife's and womanising. He and George have given pleasure to millions of people. You can't take that away from them, no matter what muck raking the papers do. The same happened with Freddie Mercury when he died.”

Many rock and pop stars hit the skids and die young because they hammer the wild living, with copious amounts of drugs, booze, parties, lots of sexual partners etc

It goes with the territory.

No point trying to pretend it wasn't their lifestyle that eventually screwed many of them up, even to the point of many dying because of it.
Union Jock
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by Leicester_Hunk:
“I haven't seen the Daily Mail for days but it is disgraceful.

Going on about drugs and booze, showing pictures of him looking terrible, of his partner in socks and sandals, all to just basically take the mick.”

Pretty much what was being shown on tv national news so what's the difference?

They even mention his time in prison, how dare they.
muggins14
27-12-2016
Originally Posted by 1fab:
“I think you're missing the point. We admire artists like George because of their contribution to popular culture.

The fact that he was also a real person with real human issues and wasn't a saint makes him all the more loveable, to many of us.

Because all human beings have weaknesses, but some rise above them to make something great for everybody else.

His private life was private, so what right have we to pry into it and then have the audacity to judge him on health problems?”

The thing is, the media do not deem a person's private life to be private. Clicking on any link to the DM for example, you are bombarded with pictures down the side of the screen of X, Y and Z celebrity (dubious at times) in a bikini or costume, pictures of nipples and even a crotch watch or too. There are sleazy photographers and 'reporters' who make a living taking pictures of the nearly naked bodies of men and women (sometimes very young men and women) and showing them to the world, usually in a critical fashion. You do not hear much about the public protesting at any of this, although I'm sure that are some who do.

There is no such thing as the media, and the public who eat up all the fodder they provide, respecting a person's right to privacy or a private life.
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map