Links and Such

• Let's Talk Gossip
• Buying and Selling: It's a Celebrity Market Out There
• Notorious Celebrity Gossip Bloggers
• Works Cited

Works Cited

Bleek, Wolf. “Witchcraft, Gossip and Death: A Social Drama.” Man, New Series 11.4 (1976): 526-541.

Eder, Donna and Janet Enke. “The Structure of Gossip: Opportunities and Constraints on Collective Expression among Adolescents.” American Sociological Review 56.4 (1994): 494-508.

Kurzman, Charles, et al. “Celebrity Status” Sociological Theory 25.4 (2007): 347-367.

Linaker, Tanya. “A Witch, a Bitch or a Godess? Female Voices Transcending Gendered as heard and recorded by Checknov, Mansfield, and Nabokov.” Slovo 17.2 (2005): 165-178.

Marshall, Max S. “Legalized Gossip: Judge Not...” Journal of Higher Education 35.6 (1964): 322-327.

Oudshoorn, Nelly, et al. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 29.1 (2004): 30-63.

Notorious Celebrity Gossip Bloggers

Celebrity gossip plays a big role in a celebrity’s public perception; this perception, in turn, plays an even bigger role in determining what kind of job a certain celebrity will be offered. This is the reason why public relations teams work diligently in crafting the persona that a celebrity is known for; tabloids are oftentimes used for this particular reason. Setting themselves apart from the tabloids are the celebrity gossip blogs, which are oftentimes maligned by celebrities because of their unconventional style of reporting. Most often than not, celebrity gossip bloggers are unafraid of showcasing their feelings about a particular celebrity, even mocking celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, and Lindsay Lohan.

In doing so, these writers have become celebrities in their own right. Bleek observed that “gossip is a form of information management to further personal interests (Paine I967). Interests should not be understood in strictly economic terms but rather should include any sort of social prestige” (540) and rightfully so, since most, if not all, the celebrity gossip bloggers I will discuss in this section -Michael K., the Cele Bitchy writers, and The Superficial- have achieved a sense of celebrity in their own right. Each post has a comments section, in which readers are encouraged to respond to the individual piece of gossip, creating a dialogue between the writer and the readers, something print tabloids are unable to offer their readers.

Though tabloids offer a web version of their services, as well, celebrity gossip blogs seem to be updated with more frequency and with less reverence towards the celebrities. In this sense, celebrity bloggers find themselves in a unique placement amongst the entertainment industry; with a cult following, they are able to support themselves financially though the placement of advertisements in their websites, are liable to lawsuits, and create an online persona who may or may not be a reflection of their “real world” self.

The first step indicator of the online persona is the website itself. Oudshoor, et al explain that:

In the last decade, scholars in the fields of gender and technology studies, cultural studies, and media studies have emphasized that users play a crucial role in shaping technologies (Cowan 1987; du Gay et al. 1999; Lie and Sorensen 1996; Oudshoom and Pinch 2003; Saetnan, Oudshoor, and Kirejczyk 2000; Silverstone and Hirsch 1992). In this body of literature users are conceptualized as codesigners of technology. (54)

Because technology is more user-friendly than in past times, the user now has the tools to either configure the website himself or herself, or to be able to afford such services. Though oftentimes created by a third party, the design of the website is essential in creating the blogger’s brand. Cele Bitchy’s website, for instance, is designed in a clean fashion with white and yellow borders, displaying headlines and pictures the users can click on in order to attain the piece of gossip. The links to the piece of gossip seem to resemble a modern picture frame on a white wall, which perpetuates the notion that the writers are female. Contrasting this is The Superficial’s website, featuring a crimson background, the profile of unidentifiable blonde, and a maximum of six complete, scroll down posts in the first page. This design, blonde bombshell and all, accentuates the fact that the anonymous writer of the blog claims to be a man’s man. Michael K’s DListed, interestingly enough, seems to be the in-between in this case. DListed’s website design is clean, and displays posts in their entirety -much like The Superficial- and its header is comprised of a combination of blue, black and white, providing a simplistic design that lets readers concentrate on the content of the blog rather than on a flashy design.

Both the design and content of the blog are integral for the branding of the blogger in terms of transforming opinions into business. For the handful of successful celebrity gossip bloggers, blogging has become a business via the placement of advertisement space in their webpages; traffic generated by the content of these gossip blogs make it appealing for companies to advertise their products in them. In order to get traffic, however, the content of the website has to be appealing and set itself apart from similar websites. When examining a single piece of gossip, the branding of the website is very evident in the way a single piece of gossip is covered. In this case, I will be observing the piece of gossip pertaining Lindsay Lohan’s recuperation of the Gotti film role after the producers had denied she would reprise the role in CeleBitchy, The Superficial, and DListed. The titles of the celebrity gossip blogs should be sufficient in determining the recurrence of gender roles, as CeleBitchy is written by a group of women, and women feel the pressure in this day and age to be “a bitch” to other women, The Superficial is written by a straight man who focuses on female celebrities and their appearance, and DListed which is written by a openly gay man was previously called The DList -until Kathy Griffin’s team threatened legal action.

It should be noted that each writer has a kind of moniker for Lindsay Lohan. Whenever Kaiser, of one of CeleBitchy’s writers, is reporting on any piece of gossip pertaining Lindsay Lohan she chooses to name her “Linnocent.” Kaiser’s nickname for Lohan seems to stem from claims of innocence and portrayals of victimization made by the star’s publicity team in the face of criminal charges. Not only does this moniker come as a direct reaction to the crafted celebrity that blogs attack, but it seems to reinforce the notion that women prey on other women and exploit their weaknesses when they make a perceived mistake, as “there is no denying that writing is influenced by gender and the social limitations imposed on women, which affect their themes and genres” (Linaker 166). The Superficial’s anonymous writer, on the other hand, uses the term Lindsay(TM) when referring to Lohan. He claims to be a straight male writer whose main focus of the blog is celebrities in bikinis. Coupled with his sexualized references in other posts and jokes about his penis size, this writer’s style perpetuates the objectification of women though his posts. It is clear that the content of the site is dedicated for a male audience. Conversely, Michael K. from DListed seems to write for a mostly female audience. The language used in Michael K.’s posts most closely resembles CeleBitchy’s posts. In fact Michael K.’s nickname for Lohan is LiLo, an abbreviation that denotes familiarity with the starlet, yet not objectification.

The names assigned to Lohan in these websites are not the only aspects of reprising gender roles that these writers indulge. The title, content, and pictures selected for these occasions are highly indicative of their stance and what it means to be a man, a woman, or a gay man writing about celebrity gossip. In the case of being a woman writing about celebrity gossip, the headline, the pictures, and the content chosen for Lohan’s -Linnocent, according to Kaiser- piece of gossip is indicative of an exploitation of Lohan’s weaknesses, a headline that indicates Lohan “crack-hustled her way back into a job” (CeleBitchy) unflattering pictures that are indicative of some kind of cosmetic procedure, myriad references to drugs and her stage parents, expressing hopes of failure for Lohan’s career, and an added piece of gossip via Star Magazine that Lohan is no longer sober. In examining the same occurrence of gossip in The Superficial one can observe that a man writing about gossip writes noticeably less than a woman about it, comments that the new role has a sex scene commenting that “so basically Lindsay negotiated her way down to playing an extra who does nothing but flash her tits” (The Superficial), chooses a more flattering picture of Lohan, and diminishes her acting skills. Though Michael K. does poke fun at Lohan by calling her mother delusional, he seems to take more of a sarcastic and humorous approach to the situation. In expressing his annoyance with the Gotti movie, he writes, "You know that little extra sharpness that comes out in your voice when you scream 'THIS BITCH' at the Extreme Couponer in front of you at the supermarket checkout counter? Bring out that same sharpness when you read this: 'THIS MOVIE!'" (DListed). Adding to this comment on popular culture, the writer also references his picture choice, “because your eyes haven't left the extremely entertaining frontline photo bomber in the picture above. Let's be real, she should play EVERY role in the Gotti movie” (DListed). Michael K. infuses his writing with the humor expected from an openly gay man; in other posts and content he references to his homosexuality in using sarcastic humor. The language, content, and pictures chosen for a post are indicative of the gender roles these writers represent.

These three sites brand themselves in the aforementioned ways, which include perpetuating the gender roles of their writers in their writing. One can only wonder if the writers are aware of these, or if the gender roles they inhabit are the ones peeking out in their writing. More often than not, these writers adopt a persona, just as celebrities craft an image with the help of their publicity team. In the end, these personas that these bloggers create differentiate them from amongst the hoards of blogs out there devoted to celebrities. In a capitalist economy, it seems to be fair to adopt what is expected of one in order to make a living. Some say sex sells, but gender roles sell just as well.

Buying and Selling Celebrities: It's a Celebrity Market Out There

Stemming from the previous discussion on gossip and its role in society, one may begin to wonder what is the fascination with celebrities and why does talking about their lives bring people together? According to Kurtzman, et al, the concept of the celebrity is relatively new (352), but one can scarcely imagine American culture without the influence of Hollywood, where the cult of the celebrity seems to have been manufactured, amongst other things. What is a celebrity, anyway? Kurtzman, et al, may have found the answer:

To be a celebrity is to be “known for [one's] well-knownness,” according to Boorstin's (1962:57) well-known definition. The roots of celebrity reach back to Alexander the Great, whose manipulation of publicity and global ambitions may make him ‘the first famous person’ (Braudy 1986:32). However, celebrity acquired new significance in the era of mass media. (352)

Mass media has made the celebrity a product to be sold and marketed to specific generations, “celebrities are a creature of capitalism: they involve the commodification of reputation.” (Kurzman, et al 353). This has its roots in the development of motion pictures, where people recognized the high marketability of actors and actresses as commodities, as dreams to be sold.

Indeed, capitalism played an integral part in making actors and actresses stars, and it has not stopped ever since:

Stars were created by public relations campaigns: the agent for a little-known actress named Rita Hayworth invented a fictitious organization to name her the best-dressed actress in Hollywood, then talked Look magazine into planning a layout on her and her clothes, then convinced the Saks department store to lend her a wardrobe for the photo shoot in exchange for her promise to proclaim that she bought all of her clothing at Saks (Gamson 1994:26). (Kurtzman, et al 353)

Though one would like to believe that celebrities are no longer being sold as commodities, any advertising campaign boasting reality-TV stars, celebutantes, famous athletes and movie stars proves the capitalist notion of the buying and selling of celebrities. Even gossip has been part of the creation of such a economically-feasible persona.

By moving from a print tabloid phenomenon to a viral one, celebrity gossip has accelerated both the creation and destruction of celebrities. The public’s fascination with celebrities has ensured that this media is a lucrative one for the celebrities and their teams, the photographers who take their pictures -also known as paparazzi, and the people who write about them. It is the latter group of people who interest me most in dealing with celebrity gossip and how it is reported. In recent years, bloggers have taken it upon themselves to deliver current celebrity gossip without any hint of objectivity. This lack of objectivity and superfluous use of subjective language makes reading celebrity gossip sites by these bloggers almost the equivalent to talking to your catty, gossipy and hilarious friend. These bloggers may sometimes prove to be vicious in attacking stars and their crafted persona, openly admitting to the crafting of a star’s image. However, sometimes even these bloggers can be bought in order to keep creating the masks celebrities hide behind.

It is the entertainment industry, after all.

Let's Talk Gossip

Gossip is bad. At least this is what we are told as children, tweens, teens, and even when we become that liminal space that we dub adulthood. The reasoning behind such a qualitative judgement is that it is considered impolite to speak about another person's life in his or her absence, especially if such conversations include scandalous details. Marshall describes gossip as consisting "in discussions about personalities, habits, faults, talents, education, productiveness, compatibility-and you name it. It suggests importunity, interference, criticism, and judgment based on dubious evidence, perhaps no more than vague rumors” (322). In defining gossip in this way, Marshall misses the one element that gossip can offer; gossip, for better or worse, can help strengthen social ties between individuals, and may be seen as an integral part of socialization.

When seen this way, one can appreciate the possibility that all gossip is not bad. Eder and Enke suggest that “Unlike collaborative story-telling where it is often necessary to have participated in a shared event or experience in order to engage in collective talk (Eder and Enke 1988), shared experience is not necessary for gossip participation” (498). Because gossip does not rely on the shared experience, virtually anyone can join in the conversation. The fascination most people possess for other's people's lives transcends differences in characters, and some people may find themselves bonding over a piece of gossip, whereas before they could not find middle ground. This is what gossip, indeed, offers. Gossip, in this sense, is a way of connecting with others through some privileged or scandalous piece of information that incites awe and could be the gateway to further socialization.

Though I am not implying that gossip is the only form of socialization, gossip is perhaps the necessary catalyst for certain types of socialization. Gossip as a catalyst is especially useful at times where the interaction between individuals is essentially a novelty. In sharing pieces of gossip, people arguably share tidbits of their character. These traits shown by socialization through gossip are arguably seen as essential when determining the level of social interaction one person wants to have with another, or even with a group of like-minded people. In studying the gossip patterns of middle school students, Eder and Enke observed that “participation in gossip draws on and further develops the shared knowledge of group members. Shared knowledge ... [is] needed to interpret ambiguous comments well enough to expand on them” (501). Even though their studies were conducted in a middle-school setting, it is arguable that the type of social interaction they witnessed is commonplace in the workplace as a mode of both socialization and professional advancement.

Of course, most professionals would like people to believe that gossip is not part of the workplace dynamic; however, the fascination individuals have with other people’s lives is merely part of the social environment we inhabit. The sharing of this fascination combined with the constant flux of information makes for a richer social environment. Though I am against the condemnation of people, I find that gossip not only strengthens social ties, but it provides an outlet through which people can let go of their problems and focus on lives that are not their own.

Perhaps this is what makes celebrity gossip appealing to a wide audience, especially to women. By focusing on the lives and mishaps of celebrities, people who are unreachable for the majority of the population, one can feel a relieved sense of self and the pressures brought by daily lives. If celebrities can fall as hard -if not harder- than most of us, perhaps we can find consolation in this fact. Furthermore, celebrity gossip has arguably become an integral part of social interaction; it provides a safe target of gossip, and creates opportunities for conversation where none could be found prior to discussing the rich and (in)famous. Some people might even bond over disdain for these celebrities, if one can call most of them celebrities in their own right. Reminiscent of royalty, celebrity now exists in varying degrees; from reality-TV fame, celebutante fame, to movie-star type fame, the targets for gossip are essentially safe to discuss and dissect. After all, if there were no such fascination, then why are we still watching?