Poor Jade fading fast - she looks quite beautiful......

[PillicockSatOnPillicockHill]

and do you know what

i wont have a bad word said about her

Poor girl

Shit parents and crappy childhood
YES she went in BB and acted like a fool and YES she went in BB a second ime and said some ignorant racist stuff

but she was 'ill educated' and she did not 'know better' but in her favour :

she educated herself

she learned her lesson

she apologised and meant it

I AM a fan of Jade

I like her a lot and feel much sadness at this vibrant and humour full life cut short

Her little boys were goign to have the mother she never had and i SO relate to that

so KISSES for Jade tonight and much love -sign in if you wish !

No dessention please - not on here!

The real victim is the audience (though we collude in our victimisation). Because as Aitch says, the general news agenda gets pushed and twisted by our increasing expectation of that kind of celebrity creation-and-consumption.

News suffers. But what suffers even more from the whole 'reality' thing are documentaries. All of them these days seem to be made like reality TV shows, following people, allegedly to explain an issue, instead of examining the issue itself. We end up just gawping. We used to have so many excellent documentaries, now there are just a few.

i didn't say she didn't actively invite the media following for money,but the media is much more powerful than jade and the media is fickle with their celebrities so it is a very uneven alliance and not one that someone like jade would be able to manage when not in her favour.

So all the power in the relationship is with the media in that way she is at their mercy because they are basically without scruples.

The media will manipulate people as it suits them, they don't worry about the effect it has on them,only sales.

She is a person and altho she is responsible for deciding to sell stories,go in bb etc,she is not responsible for the hounding of her and inappropriate loss of privacy over things she didn't want to do or show.

but you she can't sell her soul to them without selling her soul to them... it's an all or nothing deal and she knows that. it's just that at the time she made it, it was an amazing deal. actually still is, those kids wouldn't be at private school if she was a dental nurse.

so true about documentaries, threadie. it's all experiential these days. and if i hear one more pr telling me that there's real 'jeopardy' for the presenter, that he'll LOSE EVERYTHING if it doesn't work out etc etc...

kenneth clarke must be spinning in his italian marble mausoleum.

TW; maybe people like watching ordinary people...people they can relate to?

well she may have sold her stories but she didn't actually sell her soul i repeat its the media especially the tabloids who should have some moral responsibility.
Your view of it is too simplistic.

Let them watch soaps.

I think people have to take responsibility themselves as well.
so you want to get married, you can do it quietly....but no lets have a massive wedding and sell the rights to it.
at the end of the day you reap what you sow.

er...soaps arn't actually real are they..

Nor are the edited and manipulated versions of people in docu-soaps.

funny, i think your view is far too simplistic, morningsun, viewing as it does 'the media' as one amorphous mass rather than hundreds of competing businesses. hundreds of competing widget factories will differentiate. some will make high quality widgets, some plastic throwaway ones, their responsibility will be to their shareholders. these papers SELL... for a reason. perhaps daftpunk's reason, relatability? big buzzword in tv at the mo, much to my regret.

but yes, i'd rather learn something from a doc (heartily recommend unreported world on ch4, clashes with corrie on a fri) and see my 'relatable' faces on a soap.

reality shows really, really aren't real. nor are these 'journey' or 'mission' documentaries, with casting and plot in place prior to shooting.

"at the end of the day you reap what you sow" what does this comment mean in the context of this thread?

i'm not defending jade's judgement but i don't think agreeing to some things should allow loss of freedom and harassment for the individual either.

sorry that question was for 2shoes

those kids wouldn't be at private school if she was a dental nurse.

The do have a dad

By beanieb on Fri 06-Mar-09 11:10:04
"at the end of the day you reap what you sow" what does this comment mean in the context of this thread?

that by making her whole life public, haveing cameras follow her recording a tv programme, having a public wedding... and all the rest, she can't then be a victim.

i have no problem with jade being "famous for doing nothing"...why shouldn't she be?

jordons famous for having mahoosive tits, posh spice is famous for being married to david beckham.....people follow them.

If you agree to allow the press in your life you can't pic and choose when or how, that's not the way it works and she knew that, really she did, it's how she's not a nobody after all!

dp posh was in a big girl band

in the context of the recent posts i imagine it means the hounding that morningsun referred to. i take it you weren't suggesting that 2shoes might have proposed that she'd reaped her cancer...

well aitch i suppose what i mean is the standard of reporting is to the lowest common denominator and feeds off societies more base attributes so altho i don't agree with people selling any stories to the papers or tv equally i don't agree with exploitation and harassment of individuals especially in the name of comic book level "reporting".

Perhaps blanket media coverage is manipulative enough to result in a subtle shift in our cultural reality or national psyche or some such thing.

How much for each individual depends on if people chose to read the tabloids or limit themselves to bbc etc. Feeling emotionally heightened by an event would be more likely occur if you saw something about a particular event everyday (of course).

The thing I do wonder about is whether this is everlasting. It could be that the media dominates in one area for a particular length of time. But after it blows through people go back to how they were before, or perhaps stories like Jade can only happen because she is the first, it couldn't happen again, but something else needs to be more outrageous for it to receive the same attention.

Any how I don't really lament the explosion of reality tv shows over documentaries, mostly because they seem to be on the same spectrum, only one has the veneer of truth, which I suspect isn't the case anyway. Although I do Love a good science programme or Specifically a good Physics programme on the radio 4.

2shoes..if she hadn't married db she'd be on celebrity master chief by now...a z lister.....(and she was the only one in the spice girls who couldn't sing.)

"that by making her whole life public, haveing cameras follow her recording a tv programme, having a public wedding... and all the rest, she can't then be a victim."

you don't mean she can't then be a victim of cancer do you?

You mean she can't be a victim of the press?

true, tamarto. they do have a dad. in fact they wouldn't exist if she was still a dental nurse, as she wouldn't have met him etc etc. my point was really that all the money she's earned, in return for doing not very much other than letting people see her, might seem like a very good deal for her personally. culturally, i think it's a bad sign, though.

and i hardly think people being dense enough to follow a soft porn star is a good defence for the phenomenon of the 'famous for nothings'. what about achievement? talent?