Addiction has long plagued man (and woman). (Even, as was shown at the Central Park Zoo a few years ago, polar bear.) There are the standard traps—alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, and, if you are a polar bear, your 9 by 12 artificial arctic pool. But addiction is not only a by-product of human nature, it’s also a creature of its time. As a result, there are always new and interesting practices that people can get taken over by—crystal meth, online shopping, computer gaming, non-stop twittering or facebook checking (non-stop “stat” checking if you are a blogger), texting while driving, the 24 hour news cycle. Even worse than an addiction to the 24-hour news is an addiction to the 24-hour celebrity news cycle; worse than that, is the intense craving for celebrity status itself–the obsession with achieving fame.
Some addictions are obviously more damaging than others. I, for example, view an addiction to either (a) Robert Pattinson, or (b) the Twilight books, as relatively benign. They may be damaging to one’s reputation as a serious and/or thoughtful person, but they are a relatively cheap indulgence, don’t truly harm others (except, perhaps, a thoroughly bemused spouse), and can even be satisfied in chocolate. (See e.g. new Twilight assortments with foil wrapped and embedded portraits! )
Both Twilight and Pattinson also have the absolutely most healthy quality an addiction can have, which is that they get pretty boring pretty quickly. (No offense, Rob; it’s not you so much as the dialogue.)
The addiction to the pursuit of celebrity status is a little more troubling. Recent examples include Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the couple who crashed last week’s White House State Dinner, and Richard Heene, the father of the “Balloon Boy,”–all people apparently addicted to the pursuit of their fifteen minutes.
What’s more worrisome to me, however, is the Salahish, I mean salacious, pursuit of celebrity by people who once played serious and dignified roles in our culture. I particularly mean people in the news business, who seem, increasingly, to want also to be people “in the news.”
In the early years of televised news, there was a dignity to the newscaster–Walter Cronkite, Frank McGee, David Brinkly, were TV personalities, but soberly somber. We all know how this has changed in more recent years. The reasons are obvious and not new—advertisers want ratings, outrageous and/or boorish commentators, perky blonde reporters, and “news” which is really entertainment (i.e. reality shows, sports, sensational crime shows) apparently achieve them. Recently, however, the “celebritization” of newspeople on TV has not only become more intense, it has also spread to other sections of the press, which, due to commercial pressures and online versions, have become increasingly TV-like. For example, the New York Times now posts photos and videos, and advertises blogs and tweets, of its op-ed writers. To some degree, this is useful; you can better understand the overall stance of a commentator, and, if you like, you can read a lot more of them, but sometimes, well, you end up wanting to read a whole lot less.
Politicians increasingly crave “celebrity-style” status as well. (Yes, Sarah Palin.) As Colbert has demonstrated through his “Colbert bumps,” it’s better, election-wise, to be known, even if slightly ridiculed. (Ideally, if apearing on Colbert, it’s better to be known, and if ridiculed, also good humored.)
I guess people want circuses, even when bread is in short supply.
ManicDDaily 
Recent Comments