I love Stranger Things. I was surprised initially, since horror and 80s nostalgia aren’t normally my jam, but the genuine storytelling’s the show’s greatest asset. It’s also revived and started several careers in Hollywood. But that’s not my focus here. Rather, I’d like to zoom in on a recent controversy, how it was presented and how damage control made the original story read like defamation.
David Harbour, who plays Jim Hopper, has built a reputation as being a lovable father-figure, not unlike Tom Hanks before him. This is especially apparent with Harbour’s other big role, The Red Guardian in The MCU. Despite only really appearing in two movies, Harbour has made an impression as actress Florence Pugh’s adoptive father, with his goofy, larger-than-life characterization making him funny and heartwarming simultaneously. If you don’t believe me, watch Thunderbolts*.
While Harbour has cultivated an image, he’s still a human being. This was supposedly brought to the surface when it was “revealed” that Millie Bobby Brown, who plays Eleven in Stranger Things, alleged that Harbour had been verbally abusive on set. On one hand, this wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary given how many celebrities have had their jolly personas destroyed. On the other hand, the paper that broke this story was The Daily Mail, which has a reputation in England for being trashy. Nevertheless, with no denial or confirmation for some time, the allegations stuck around…
…At least until recently, when Brown publicly reaffirmed her fondness of Harbour. Considering that she’s a mom, having recently adopted a baby, it’s possible she didn’t have the time or energy to rebut the allegations initially. That, and she was too busy promoting the show that made her a household name. Regardless, The Daily Mail now has a potential libel lawsuit on their hands. I’d feel bad for them, but this, apparently, is par for the course.
I get the temptation to jump into this controversy head-on. For one, this is Hollywood, home of many “eccentric” creatives. Two, actors commit sketchy acts constantly, most of which don’t get reported. Three, David Harbour was recently caught cheating on his wife, so it’s easy to paint him as a monster. Four, Millie Bobby Brown’s younger than him, and she played his adopted daughter for close to a decade on Netflix. And five, considering Harbour’s a veteran actor, it’s not impossible to think that Brown was taken advantage and was covering for him out of fear. I get all of this.
What I don’t get is jumping on a half-story. Or, at least, not acknowledging that it’s a half-story. It’s not like tabloids don’t report on still-unfolding stories, but there’s the caveat of “still-unfolding” they can use as cover. This “story” was considered gospel before all the details were present, catering to shock value. It’s an example of journalistic malpractice, and it needs to be called as such.
I get the temptation to jump into this controversy head-on. For one, this is Hollywood, home of many “eccentric” creatives. Two, actors commit sketchy acts constantly, most of which don’t get reported. Three, David Harbour was recently caught cheating on his wife, so it’s easy to paint him as a monster. Four, Millie Bobby Brown’s younger than him, and she played his adopted daughter for close to a decade on Netflix. And five, considering Harbour’s a veteran actor, it’s not impossible to think that Brown was taken advantage and was covering for him out of fear. I get all of this.
What I don’t get is jumping on a half-story. Or, at least, not acknowledging that it’s a half-story. It’s not like tabloids don’t report on still-unfolding stories, but there’s the caveat of “still-unfolding” they can use as cover. This “story” was considered gospel before all the details were present, catering to shock value. It’s an example of journalistic malpractice, and it needs to be called as such.
I understand the temptation to write clickbait. I wrote clickbait for a gaming website for almost a year, and it felt like I was selling out. Besides, writing clickbait nets more traffic than niche or thoughtful pieces, something I’ve seen on The Whitly-Verse and Infinite Rainy Day numerous times. However, with that comes criticism or inaccurate writing. Again, I’ve seen it myself.
With The Daily Mail, it’s possible the person who broke the story meant well. I don’t know, I’m not on the editing committee. But that doesn’t mean it should’ve been taken as absolute truth by other outlets. It might be easy to mock celebrities, as they engage in questionable behaviours regularly, but they’re still people. And like all people, they’re entitled some level of respect and privacy.
I know this is hard when dealing with tabloids, which invade people’s privacy for gossip columns. It’s especially hard with British tabloids, which are extremely in-your-face about it. And it’s particularly hard with The Daily Mail, which has a history of inaccuracies. But that doesn’t make this less true.
With The Daily Mail, it’s possible the person who broke the story meant well. I don’t know, I’m not on the editing committee. But that doesn’t mean it should’ve been taken as absolute truth by other outlets. It might be easy to mock celebrities, as they engage in questionable behaviours regularly, but they’re still people. And like all people, they’re entitled some level of respect and privacy.
I know this is hard when dealing with tabloids, which invade people’s privacy for gossip columns. It’s especially hard with British tabloids, which are extremely in-your-face about it. And it’s particularly hard with The Daily Mail, which has a history of inaccuracies. But that doesn’t make this less true.
As for Harbour and Brown? They deserve apologies. Brown for coercing her into making a statement, and Harbour for defamation. In the case of Harbour, while he has to contend with a ruined marriage, something he’s at fault for, that’s between him and his spouse. We don’t need to use that to shamelessly extort him, which is what The Daily Mail did.
I think tabloids serve a purpose. In a world where reality changes quickly, they keep the general public informed about the power structure. However, with that comes the responsibility to not fabricate anything, which is what The Daily Mail’s scoop is guilty of. It’s embarrassing, and it was touted as fact by other outlets that should’ve known better. Then again, when clicks are what matter most, is this really surprising?
I think tabloids serve a purpose. In a world where reality changes quickly, they keep the general public informed about the power structure. However, with that comes the responsibility to not fabricate anything, which is what The Daily Mail’s scoop is guilty of. It’s embarrassing, and it was touted as fact by other outlets that should’ve known better. Then again, when clicks are what matter most, is this really surprising?
No comments:
Post a Comment