The politics of death
by Matt Worley

We were sitting around, watching the TV with the sound down (Meat Puppets on the stereo) when I flipped to CNN. The image of Princess Diana walking out of a plane onto a carpeted runway, waving to whoever was wanted to be waved at. This, apparently, was the most recent footage of Princess Di CNN had on hand. We saw the scene at least 20 times over the next couple of hours. A single line of text accompanied every visual image that popped up: "Princess Diana Injured." The whole scene was very reminiscent of another huge pop culture moment.

1994. NBA Finals. O.J. takes a ride down the L.A. Freeways. We stuck with that story too (and so did the networks--Princess Diana was limited to mainly CNN and MSNBC) because we wanted to see O.J. blow his head off. Not in a mean way, but we were jaded. Kurt Cobain had blown his head off in seclusion a few months earlier, and we didn't even get to see the body--so we wanted some carnage, even it meant watching an ex-football player take his own life. Needless to say, we were disappointed.

The Meat Puppets were turned off for a little bit so we could get the story straight from the reporters mouths. The Princess, her boyfriend and chauffeur had been in a massively destructive accident in Paris. The boyfriend (rich guy with even richer father) and chauffeur were dead. The Princess was in "grave" condition. I wasn't sure if it was an overstatement or just a different word for what we call in the U.S. "critical." No one ever uses the word "grave" unless there isn't much hope. It was the word "grave" that made me realize the story would be over soon. About two hours later it was official. Between the first sighting of the story on TV and the official announcement, the running line on CNN changed from, "Princess Diana Injured" to "Princess Diana Seriously Injured" to "Princess Diana Dead."

All the details of any event can be had on CNN in about two minutes. The rest is just filler. Breaking news is met with sober reporters and even soberer eyewitnesses. Everyone was devastated by the loss. One reporter asked if the British Crown would have a statement or if they would just ignore the incident (apparently this was the not-so-sober reporter asking the questions). I think he was slapped handily after they took his microphone away. The mother of a future British king dies and the Crown has no comment? Are you knocked out on binker drugs?

Death is not a great equalizer. Sure, on the most personal level (for the dead), death is the same for all of us. But for the living, distinctions apply. And since we among the living make up the rules, the dead are forgotten for our own selfish needs. Hell, I'm writing a column about Princess Diana (as many others are) less than a day after it happened. Let's consider a few important things about this incident, shall we?

CNN's focus was almost entirely on the Princess. Two others died in the crash. Their names were not splashed across the TV (although fuzzy pictures of Di's boyfriend were--usually from front pages of British tabloids). The chauffeur was only referred to as "the chauffeur."

The reason for the crash was excessive speed, urged on by trailing paparazzi photographers trying to get less-than-fuzzy pictures of Princess Di and her new lover. In other words, the media (in the least representative of that term) caused the story. Five photographers were taken into custody and a criminal investigation of the crash and incidents leading up to it have already begun.

In Bangladesh, also on Saturday, a bus crashed on a bridge. 14 were confirmed dead. 30 are still missing. No story about this in the Sunday paper, just a two column picture and three line description.

Now we get philosophical. Is the life of one person so valuable it overshadows the death of two others involved in the same incident? Are the lives of these three more important than 44 people involved in a worse accident half way around the world? The answer to both questions, of course, is yes.

The world spends money, time, energy, film and even more money building up celebrities--and greater amounts of money when something extraordinary actually happens to them. Why was the Princess (and her companions) involved in a high speed chase not involving any kind of authority of any kind other than public opinion? Because of money. Big money.

We pay, by watching TV and buying magazines and newspapers, to hear about people we perceive as more important. By doing this we encourage the kind of hysterical activity of the paparazzi. And, also, by doing this, we kill those we want to watch.

Maybe there will be good repercussions from this incident. Maybe stalking laws will be extended to people trying to take pictures (yes, it is an invasion of privacy) around closed doors. Maybe we'll actually realize why there are closed doors in the first place.

Sometimes a kiss is not a social statement. It's only a kiss.

Matt Worley has been studying interpretive Zen by looking closely at the half eaten leaves of his backyard lawns' weeds.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page