The Narcissistic Side of Twitter

In thinking about Twitter, and the reason it lives on despite its core functionality being replicated by services like Facebook and Google Plus, two things occurred to me. First, Twitter achieved its initial rise due to an influx of celebrities. Second, Twitter allows ordinary people to follow, or even be followed by, celebrities, to engage in what seems like a conversation, and perhaps even to experience the excitement of having a celebrity respond to or re-tweet something that they have said. Second, it is the faux relationships that continue to drive Twitter. The sense that somebody you have seen on television "knows" you, cares about what you say, or is even reading and writing her own tweets. Yes, some celebrities manage their own feeds. Others have publicists or staff members who handle that for them, yet even when they're known to use proxies other Twitter members still seem to feel the thrill of contact.

Twitter serves celebrities, in that much of celebrity is built upon a false sense of communality or camaraderie, and now you can have "proof" that a celebrity likes you and cares what you have to say. It's an automation of the historically slow process of receiving fan mail, perhaps responding to it, perhaps dropping in a head shot. It's like being a member of a celebrity fan club, but where the celebrity actually "knows you you are" and "shows up". Twitter may be the virtual equivalent of the butler at the door or, for those who tweet through proxies, the virtual equivalent of the intercom between the butler at the door and you outside the locked exterior gate. But if you can't see all of that distancing, is it really there?

What brought this to mind today? A smart person who probably should know better than to care about Paris Hilton in the first place:

Paris Hilton is tweeting up a storm about how much she loves Bali. It's her first visit. She tweeted a few hours ago, "Make a wish. 11.1l.11"

Since I've stood up for Paris on TalkLeft so many times during her various legal difficulties, I thought I'd ask her a favor. I tweeted her in reply:

@ParisHilton I wish you'd visit Aussie Schapelle Corby, doing 20 years for pot in Kerobokan Prison in bli, Pls Google her name.

"I've blogged favorably about her," meets, "She's on Twitter", and somehow that seems to become, "She may listen to me and perhaps even share my outrage at Bali's legal system". Even if we assume Paris manages her own feed, and doesn't pass that task off to a publicist or intern, what about Paris would make you think that her trip to Bali and her raving about the wonders of the country is being driven by her amazement? Would it not be a safer bet that she has been comped or compensated to promote the nation or certain of its attractions, and won't be saying anything negative? (Call me cynical, but I believe Paris's raving is a thinly disguised sales pitch from a somewhat over-the-hill celebrity spokesmodel. Bali isn't under FTC jurisdiction.)

If a celebrity "friends" you on Facebook or, if we're to that point, adds you to a Google Plus circle, you can see (or search for) your face among the tens of thousands of others. Yes, if you want to browse the members somebody claims to follow or his list of followers, your account will be every bit as difficult to find. But Twitter puts the feed, not the faces, front and center. And due to occasional celebrity retweets or responses, people do get reinforced that their tweets are being heard.

I heard a celebrity being interviewed recently (it may have been Louis C.K.) and he mentioned both that he didn't like Twitter and that people got angry at him because he didn't follow anybody. (Solution: Hire an intern?) To me, this highlights the extent to which Twitter flourishes upon the false sense of "He likes me too". Even if you never look at the feed, you'll have a happier population of followers, and probably a much larger one, if you make them think you care what they say. Twitter makes that easy.

I don't mean to diminish Twitter's value as a communication tool. There are people who like it for following news, politics, business tips, etc. I just happen to be coming to the conclusion that the thing that allows Twitter to continue is the false sense of community it creates between its high profile members and their followers and that, absent that, it would be a shadow of its present self. A mere year ago, Justin Bieber was responsible for a full 3% of Twitter's traffic. What does that tell you?

L.A. Barbie Busted for Drugs in Mexico?

I thought they nabbed her in Vegas.

Oh, my bad.

No Blackberry?

Apparently they're a security risk. (I blame.... Paris Hilton.)

McCain's Bad Analogies

Yesterday on On Point, in response to an assertion that Obama's statements about his appearance as compared to past Presidents was "stating the obvious" to try to defuse attacks, National Review staff writer Stephen Spruiell said (starting at 18:31),

Stating the obvious, I mean, that's just not something that McCain and Bush have been doing, have been going around and pointing out that Obama is black. I mean, that's what he said that they were doing and they're not. Now I mean as far as the veteran card as opposed to the gender card or the race card. I mean the difference would be that being a veteran is something that you can legitimately put on your résumé and say, you know, like, this is something that I've done. You know, this is something that, you know, you can judge for yourself, but maybe it qualifies me to lead the country better than sort of a one-term Senator who, you know, had some experience in state politics before.

When asked specifically about the comparison of Obama to two "blonde, flouncing white girls" could be seen as a kind of race statement "in the music if not in the words",

That's, I think that's so ludicrous. I mean, you know, clearly the ad was comparing Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and saying that he has a lot of fame, but he has not done a lot to, you know, justify that. I mean, that is, sort of, Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. I mean, what, we, you know, you can't juxtapose Obama next to any white woman without somebody like, immediately accusing whoever made the ad of racism? I mean, that's, I, that's, that's so, so paranoid as to, you know, defy belief.

This is a pretty stupid defense of the ad. Granted, the McCain campaign's official defenses are pretty stupid, also - the idea that they're comparing Obama to the world's biggest celebrities, by pulling two blonde young women out of yesterday's news. The absurd claim that they're the #2 and #3 celebrities in the world behind Obama? Pure fiction. Citing the Forbes Celebrity 100, upon which neither Spears nor Hilton appear,

Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt.

So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married.

What they picked was two sexually available white women.

But it must have been a coincidence, because we know John McCain wants to run an elevated campaign focusing on the serious issues that America faces.

Okay, so the McCain camp's excuse for why it picked Spears and Hilton is a fraud. Perhaps that's why Spruiell tried to bend the excuse into something new - the idea that Obama, Spears and Hilton did nothing to deserve their celebrity. Except Spears did a lot to earn her celebrity status. In addition to being talented as a child - as a singer, gymnast and performer - and working harder during her pre-teen years than many people do during their entire lives, she actually picked up the pace during her period of fame. If McCain thinks his touring schedule is rough, perhaps he should ask Spears how many weekends she got to take off during the height of her fame.

Now if the analogy is to Spears current public image, muddied by her legal problems, drug problems, erratic behavior and mental illness? Let's say that type of judgment should hit a bit too close to home. It's not fun watching a talented person turn their life into a train wreck over drugs. Anybody who has lived through the ordeal of a loved one spiraling toward rock bottom should have empathy for somebody like Spears (and for her family) - to me, if that's the image of Spears that McCain intended to convey, it's disgusting to claim pride in exploiting her illness.

As for Paris Hilton, let's see.... Which of the candidates took middling political talent, mixed it with a strong family name and millions of dollars in inherited cash, and bought his way into status as a political celebrity? Hm... Strangely, it doesn't seem to have been Obama.

Indignation Over Paris Hilton

Some legal commentators, including Mike at Crime and Federalism and Jeralyn at TalkLeft, argue that Paris was sentenced more harshly than other non-celebrity defendants, including the spouse of the City Attorney who argued that Paris should serve jail time. I don't agree, and am more sympathetic to the views of Mike's co-blogger, Norm Pattis, who argues, Send Paris Back To Jail. If you were to look at the full facts of Paris Hilton's situation, I doubt that you will find a comparable defendant who did not serve jail time for similar violations. (Two alcohol-related driving offenses within six months, repeatedly driving on a suspended license, failing to enroll in court-ordered alcohol-education classes, getting stopped by the police driving in the dark, with her headlights off, at 70MPH in a 35 MPH zone, etc.) I can't bring myself to share the indignation.

But what I would like to know is, how often has the Sheriff extended himself in a similar fashion to keep other inmates from having to serve their jail time? While I recognize that we're not talking about the D.C. jail here, I would venture that the number of inmates the Sheriff has released to house arrest over claims of claustrophobia and ADHD, the rumored mental illnesses claimed by Paris Hilton, number approximately... one.

I once represented a young man, picked up on a probation violation, who was held in a jail observation cell pending the resolution of his charge. Everybody knew what the resolution was going to be - he had failed to appear in court several years before due to his being incarcerated on another charge and, after maxing out a five-year prison term, he was going to be released with credit for time served. He was profoundly mentally ill, and he was a cutter - not the type who inflicts superficial wounds, but the type who can potentially kill himself with a staple inadvertently left in a document he is allowed to handle,[1] with an ugly web of scars on his arms as a testament to his past self-injury. Not once did I hear somebody say, "He's already done his time, we know he'll be sentenced to time served, and most defendants who have no chance of jail time aren't detained, so why are we treating him so harshly?" I would venture that the L.A. County Jail has accommodated countless similar individuals without flouting a court's sentence so that the defendant can serve out his or her time on house arrest.

------

[1] This is not hyperbole.