« Is it just me ? | Main | Blog Stuff »

Comments

if perchance her album, concert and lingerie sales increase as a result of the media exposure from this terrible disease, can it thus be claimed Kylie has shamelessly exploited her affliction ?

That would depend entirely on whether she did shamelessly exploit her condition.

The mere fact that her sales go up would not be proof of this, anymore than the fact that Elvis's sales went up after his death was proof that he shamelessly exploited his own death. More evidence would be needed.

After reading the various media reports I believe that there is positive exploitation of Kylie's illness that is raising further awareness. I believe Kylie being who she is as a person, if sales did go up would use that to donate money for breast cancer research.Besides it is not the artists that are creating the profit for themselves, but the consumers for them.

I think what they all are trying to bring home to everybody is the fact that age, social status, nor occupation discriminate when it comes to cancer. Another way of looking at this is to think about how much money would not be donated to cancer research if they didn't somehow exploit their illness. How many people have donated money after hearing about them that has led to further advancements in treatment therefore saving the lives of mothers, daughters and sisters.

BB, it would be hard to actually quantify what constitutes exploitation. Media leaks, interviews, photo ops, medical records, chemo-cam ?

Interestingly, Michelle adopts the American primary definition of 'exploitation' - maximising resources, i.e. a positive. Whereas Aussies consider the word, first and foremost, a negative. It was in the later context I used the word.

And Michele is spot on regarding the positive awareness which comes from saturation media. Maybe, for example, it was the recent Mother's Day breast cancer campaign which inspired Kylie, and countless others now, to address the issue poste haste. To their lasting benefit.

I don't think she has exploited her illness at all. She found she had cancer. Obviously she wouldnt be able to do her tour as planned. Therefore she'd have to cancel. Imagine the outraged fans if she cancelled the tour with no explanation. So she told the truth. And can you blame her for coming home to her family so that she has their support through this? Is that the exploitation you're trying to find?

Her short, not exploitative, statement that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer unleashed a media feeding frenzy that I do not believe she has sought. All the radio stations unearthing medical experts to tell us about what treatment she will probably be undergoing. Photographers, reporters and cameramen permanently entrenched outside her family's house. Who would be seeking that? That sounds like hell. I totally agree with her publicist that "what happens now is a matter for Kylie Minogue". She's not giving hourly updates (as happened with the Pope's deathwatch). This is all unsought, probably unwanted publicity. I doubt she's thinking about record sales right now.

Well said, Fiona. If she wasn't about to embark on a tour we would not have heard a thing about this. She would have gone and had treatment and come out the other end with none of us the wiser . . . unless, of course, someone deliberately leaked the story, or if the rumour mill started churning if she was spied going into a hospital. But to suggest Kylie has sought this attention is misguided. I'm sure the media is the very last thing on her mind right now.

For Kylie to have shamelessly exploited anything, first she would have to use it to her advantage; I don't see cancelling a lucrative tour as being very advantageous. As for the other three, let's take them in turn.
First, Belinda Emmet.
Never heard of her.
Second, ONJ.
Walks on water. Has never in her entire life done anything remotely unethical, devious or dishonest. I have it on good authority that, as a child, she didn't need to be potty trained as she would never do anything as unsavoury as soiling a nappy. Pity most of her songs suck. Really.
Lastly, Delta.
I am at a loss to understand either the hype surrounding Delta, or the reaction to it. Prior to the announcement of her illness, she had a recording career about the equal of Guy Sebastian's, both in terms of sales and quality. Apart from that and a stint on Neighbours, there was not much to speak of. These days she is one of Australia's officially annointed darlings.
The main reason for this would appear to be the way that her illness - and her battle with it - have been handled by the media. Certainly, as can be seen with the current hype surrounding the Budgie, a lot of this is self generating.
The Budgie, however, is at a much more prominent place in the Australian psyche than was Delta at the time her illness was announced. Delta's illness was exploited, either by her or by those acting on her behalf. Why people have trouble accepting this - or criticise her for it- is beyond me.
It has been scientifically proven* that 96.7% of all people who enter the entertainment industry do so to become famous. Nobody has ever joined the cast of a soap opera in order to further their craft. You can't go to a conservatorium in order to study how to make an album of disposable three minute radio jingles. Delta has done both these things. Fame is her primary motivator, the same as most entertainers. Not to use her illness as media grist would have been more shocking than exploiting it. Whether she was the organiser or just a willing accomplice, her illness was exploited and she went along with it. Some people would say that she is only a girl and therefore can't be held responsible. I would say to these people - why aren't you in Canberra protesting against the shameless use of children by our armed forces?
To say someone is old enough to die for their country, but not to take responsibility for actions carried out in their name is laughable.
*No, it hasn't.

As I suspect commentors here don't believe the exploitation theory, unless it's done positively in the name of cancer awareness. And I fully agree.

However Dirk has reservations re Delta Goodrem's cancer experience,

I am at a loss to understand either the hype surrounding Delta, or the reaction to it. Prior to the announcement of her illness, she had a recording career about the equal of Guy Sebastian's, both in terms of sales and quality.

The inference being she used her cancer to bolster a sputtering career. Which ignores the fact Goodrem already had an album and two No 1 hit singles by the age of 17 - prior to her cancer diagnosis.

Plus the mere fact she writes, plays and performs her own material is testament to a prodigious talent, rendering comparisons with Guy Sebastian laughable. Goodrem was not only an established musician and actress pre-illness, but was always slated for success, cancer or no cancer.*

Delta's illness was exploited, either by her or by those acting on her behalf. Why people have trouble accepting this - or criticise her for it- is beyond me.

Dirk, people are more likely to accept that claim when you present evidence to support it. Until so, it remains an unfounded and fanciful assertion. Such as,

Whether she was the organiser or just a willing accomplice, her illness was exploited and she went along with it.

You're inferring she could have stopped the 'exploitation'. What precisely could she have done to dispel perceptions of cancer exploitation ?

*Personally, I don't care for Goodrem's music but recognise undeniable talent.

I am at a loss to understand either the hype surrounding Delta, or the reaction to it. Prior to the announcement of her illness, she had a recording career about the equal of Guy Sebastian's, both in terms of sales and quality. - quote from me.

Which ignores the fact Goodrem already had an album and two No 1 hit singles by the age of 17 - prior to her cancer diagnosis. - quote from Adrian.

Given the obvious popularity of Australian Idol, BMG signed up Guy Sebastian for a record before Christmas. His first single "Angels Brought Me Here" debuted at number one having set a record for first week single sales for a debut artist and for an Australian artist. Only the Diana, Princess of Wales tribute by Elton John sold more singles in its first week of release. It went on to go platinum forty four times. However, many people considered the album to be rushed (it was recorded in two weeks, in order to comply with the Christmas rush) to have any real substance.

Just as I am was released in December 2003 and debuted at number one on the charts being the best selling album in Australia during the Christmas of 2003. So far it has gone platinum six times which means that it has sold over 400,000 copies.

The second single "All I Need is You" also debuted at number one in the Australian charts. He wrote the song himself which was incredibly important to him, saying on his web page I think the credibility in having your own stuff makes you as an artist. - quote from Wikipedia. Research Adrian, it'll backfire on you if you don't. Besides which, do you seriously expect me to believe the average pop-punter gives a rat's who wrote or played on the CD? How do you explain boy bands, Divas and indeed Kylie?



Dirk, people are more likely to accept that claim when you present evidence to support it

No worries, I'll just go and break into her management's office and steal confidential agreements before voicing an opinion shall I/ Get some consistency Adrian, if I have to present evidence before I give an opinion, so do you.

What precisely could she have done to dispel perceptions of cancer exploitation ?
I dunno Adrian, how about issuing a press release announcing her illness, asking for her privacy to be respected, then remaining private?


Fair enough Dirk I underestimated the strength of Sebastian's work and sales. Granted I made an unfounded assumpton he didn't rate; my mistake. Yet curiously you relied on such wild success as evidence of a career for both of them, of 'not much to speak of'..? You're a hard man Dirk.

To claim needing to break into Goodrem's manager's office is of course absurd. But when one makes such an outrageous claim of manipulating cancer, one may need to go to such extremes. Either that, or have a lawyer conduct an official discovery of documents, if defending a charge of character asassination.

Like Kylie, I understand Goodrem did issue a press statement requesting privacy, then directing fans to a website for updates. It is also my understanding thereafter, Goodrem did not speak to the press during her ordeal.

However you're imputing the opposite is true. Whilst I'm offline for the next 18 hours, I'll give you the opportunity to prove me wrong on this. After the excrutiating embarrassment over Sebastian, I'm prepped !

Hi Adrian. At this stage, the media have been predictably intrusive, but Kylie has obviously got other things on her mind at the moment.

The women's magazines, which I will admit to reading, will have a field day this week and when Kylie does finally talk about her illness it will be a good thing in terms of getting the message out for women to get screened.

Delta's a big star, I thought, but I am notoriously without hipness so what do I know.

I'm not imputing anything at all, Adrian, as well you know. I have made the following 'outrageous' statement -
Not to use her illness as media grist would have been more shocking than exploiting it. Whether she was the organiser or just a willing accomplice, her illness was exploited and she went along with it.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that all the media hype; including the photo coverage, none of which (that I am aware of) was of the Princess Di telephoto lens through a window type, was achieved solely through the zealous efforts of investigative journalists?
You have greater respect for the work ethic of Australian journalists than I do.
The fact that you were not aware of Sebastian's record speaks volumes for where Delta would have been if she had just laid low until she was past her crisis. She - or her management were aware of this, which is why the media were kept on the drip. Once it reaches a certain point, the circus feeds on itself and no further input is necessary.
I stand by my statement, you have yet to offer proof to the contrary and any lawyers who come calling can get in the queue - I've beaten them before and I'll beat them again.

when Kylie does finally talk about her illness it will be a good thing in terms of getting the message out for women to get screened.

Good point Darlene, which is also applicable to Goodrem. After her treatment Goodrem granted an exclusive interview to Women's Weekly, on the proviso the fee, $200,000 went to cancer research. She also launched a Kids for Cancer website in London last week. Proof postive of your point.

Dirk, by stating (at 7.49pm, in bold type at that),...then remaining private?, you are indeed, by extension, imputing Goodrem did not remain private. Leaving the only conclusion that she exploited her affliction.

The following confirms the same point, ...if she had just laid low until she was past her crisis. You're saying in effect Goodrem publicly hawked her illness to garnish self-serving media attention. Given I've already asked for, yet received no supporting evidence of this, I can only assume you're unable to provide it.

So why make this claim on a public website ? It's pub-talk at best with about as much credibility, i.e. none. Therein lay my claim - it's 'outrageous'.

As for your cute reversal of the 'standard of proof', in placing the onus back on me... Mate, you made the insinuations so surely the onus then lay with you, to substantiate that which you imply. As would be tested in a court of law.

Given this Dirk, I'm sceptical our debate can advance any further. However in saying that, I do thank you for the civilised nature of your arguements. For this reason I enjoy our infrequent jousts and now offer you the last word...Cheers,

I'm sceptical our debate can advance any further. However in saying that, I do thank you for the civilised nature of your arguements. For this reason I enjoy our infrequent jousts and now offer you the last word...Cheers,
Damn, beat me to it. Anyhoo,
As for your cute reversal of the 'standard of proof', in placing the onus back on me... Mate, you made the insinuations so surely the onus then lay with you, to substantiate that which you imply.
I 'implied nothing, I 'insinuated' nothing. I made statements which most people would interpret as saying that her publicist was doing his/her job. That is all. Nothing sinister, nothing evil, nothing 'outrageous'. In fact, I have yet to see anybody, anywhere; except for yourself, express outrage that somebody should state this opinion. As such, any onus which may be on me is equally on you, cute references to legal procedure notwithstanding -
As would be tested in a court of law.
The relevance of this is...?
I suppose you are going to tell me that every opinion you have expressed on 'Man Of Lettuce', or other forums, is fully supported by witnessed affadavits and documentary evidence. Or perhaps this was some kind of warning that the long arm of the law is going to be reaching out for me? I hope so. Seriously.

I would ask you what is so 'evil' about using a newsworthy condition to generate publicity?

You appear to have made a greater emotional investment in this story than it warrants. This investment appears to have distorted your judgement. Goodrem (via her management) arranging for a photo opportunity is no different from Madonna issuing a message of support for Kylie on her own website. If she was serious, she would have sent a private message. Same as Delta - if she was serious about wanting to remain out of site, we would only now be beginning to hear about her comeback.
Wake up and smell the roses Adrian, having cancer is not the first stage of beatification.

Dirk, I'm only responding to dispell any impression I'm threatening legal action. Obviously there has been no grounds in our debate for an action to be brought. My mention of 'testing in a court of law' was simply used to theoretically identify the ultimate method of adjudicating on a contentious point. I apologise for not making that clear.

Shut up Dirk. Just shut up. And preferably go away.
thanks for the blog adrian, and taking the time to reply to this sarcastic knob.

I wonder, now that its been reported that Minogue is
writing a diary that will be pulished and SOLD that
the above still applies?

Is minogue now cashing in on her illness because
she's writing a book about her treatments etc.
I thought she wanted this to be PRIVATE?

I guess we should put in bold.....AND KEEP IT PRIVATE in bold after Minogues name too.

The comments to this entry are closed.