Media rape
3rd March 2009
Passing the Royal Marsden Hospital, there they were: sinister, cold, with long lenses, all men. Possibly the 27 year old woman inside, in her last days of life, was feeding off them as much as they were feeding off her. Possibly there was a contract there. But there are many where there is no contract, at least not one that extends beyond the concert hall, the recording studio, the photo shoot, the first night. We, as a society, tolerate a situation where those that step into the limelight are not allowed to say no. Having become illuminated, it is not sufficient that they give pleasure, that they perform, entertain. They have to be invaded, probed, picked at. When I speak about this, invariably the response comes (and from well educated, civilised people too):"they crave the attention" or "they use the media, the media is entitled to use them". So where's the contract? For me, I buy a ticket, I watch for two or three hours; that's the contract. An actress appears at a razamataz first night, she performs, photographers photograph; that's the contract - both sides happy. I don't care how much someone uses the media; while they're doing so, there's equilibrium, fairness. But they need to able to say no, in the same way that a woman needs to be able to say no. She may be provocatively dressed to draw attention, but she must have the right to say no. It is no defence to say she was asking for it. Rape is against the law (although barely given the dismal crime statistics). An actress, or anyone, must be able to say you may not photograph me on holiday; you may not photograph my children; or my husband; or when I'm shopping. When I'm on show, you may photograph; otherwise you may not. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?