Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

Celebrities, "Extravagant Expectations" and the Love Life of Americans

By Paul Hollander

The recent ending of Oprah Winfrey’s talk show that ran for a quarter century is a reminder of the importance and prominence of celebrities in American society. The reverence shown toward them prompt reflections about the social, psychological and cultural conditions which underlie their cult.

Celebrities differ from the famous people of the past because their prominence depends to a very large extent on publicity - on the successful projection (or marketing) of a certain image or a "trademark" by the media. They also differ from the culture heroes of the past because their accomplishments, talents, skill or moral stature are more questionable. Most celebrities are entertainers, or known for some personal quality the public considers entertaining that may include forms of misbehavior or scandalous aspects of their personal lives.

I suggest that some of the conditions which underlie and promote the rise and cult of celebrities also play a part in the difficulties large numbers of Americans experience when trying to establish and maintain long term, intimate personal relationships. "Relating" to celebrities is a fantasy relationship stimulated by the shortage of genuine, face-to-face, one-on-one relationships - a futile attempt to personalize an impersonal world. When there is a scarcity of sustaining, intimate personal relationships and a decline of closely knit, durable communities, people seek substitutes. Celebrity worship is one of them. The endless browsing of dating sites is another one.

People admire celebrities because they seem to possess everything most ordinary people do not have: wealth, fame, huge amounts of attention, excitement and physical attractiveness.

Not unlike the difficulties many young people have in distinguishing a "soulmate" from a date or a "hook-up," fans of celebrities have an impaired capacity to distinguish between what or who is truly admirable and what or who is not. Confused values cast their shadow over the search for an ideal partner as they do on the attention and affection lavished on celebrities of questionable accomplishments and often even more questionable moral character. What seems to matter is that most celebrities are an integral part of popular culture that satisfies the enormous demand for entertainment.

In my recent book (Extravagant Expectations: New Ways to Find Romantic Love in America) I reported that the majority of a large sample of people (using a popular dating website) considered the most important human quality the sense of humor. These people were looking for somebody who would make them laugh, who are entertaining. Honesty, sincerity, integrity, intelligence, sense of responsibility were far less often mentioned as desirable qualities. I also found that conflicting and unrealistic expectations contribute to the difficulties many Americans experience in the pursuit of intimate personal relationships. It seems that Americans incline to believe that all good things are compatible, as for example adventure and security, excitement and stability, the capacity for self-promotion and authenticity, being rich and charitable, self-realization and dedication to some community.

In the final analysis the worship of celebrities and the haphazard pursuit of intimate personal relationships have similar sources.

Paul Hollander is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and author or editor of 15 books. His most recent book is Extravagant Expectations: New Ways to Find Romantic Love in America.

Print Journalism in the United States

By Edd Applegate

Print journalism in the United States is experiencing dramatic change as a result of readers favoring other media, including web sites, for their information. Consequently, newspapers are experiencing declining circulations and subsequently advertising revenue. In 2009, for instance, newspapers lost 26 percent in advertising revenue, according to the summary essay about newspapers (Project for Excellence in Journalism and Rick Edmonds), which is part of the “State of the Media: 2010.”

Newspapers, including newspapers in the major markets, have developed web sites which have become popular among readers, according to “Newspaper Web Traffic in Top Markets Leaps to an All Time High,” a press release that concerned a study by the Newspaper National Network. However, newspaper management has not been very successful in developing a system that generates enough advertising revenue from the web to earn a comfortable profit. In short, is going to the Web costing many newspapers more than it is worth?

As a result of declining revenue, newspaper management has laid off employees, especially reporters, by the thousands over the past few years. Several major dailies have even closed while other major newspaper companies filed for bankruptcy. The Tribune Company was merely one of several major newspaper companies that filed for Chapter 11 in 2009. And yet, despite these reductions, newspaper management asks their employees, especially reporters, to do more, often for the same salary.

Last year—2010—was an improvement over 2009. However, newspapers continued experiencing declines in advertising revenue, resulting in layoffs of more than 1,000 employees. Newspapers are no longer the key intermediary that companies need in order to reach consumers. Indeed, as Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell of the Project for Excellence in Journalism pointed out in the “Overview: The State of the News Media: 2011,” “Software programmers, content aggregators and device makers control access to the public. The news industry . . . finds itself more a follower than leader shaping its business.”

Where will the newspaper industry be in a few years? Well, one thing is certain: the typical newsroom will not be what it was just a few years ago. Editors and reporters will be employing a multitude of platforms—not just newsprint—to disseminate information to people. Besides, newsprint as we know it may not be around.

Edd Applegate has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in advertising and mass communications for more than 30 years, primarily in the School of Journalism, College of Mass Communications, Middle Tennessee State University. He is the author of numerous academic articles, chapters, and entries which have been published in scholarly journals, books, and encyclopedias. He is the author of several books, including Journalism in the United States: Concepts and Issues, which was just published by The Scarecrow Press.

Bipolarity Revisited: Mainland China’s Response to the Google Withdrawal

By Simon Shen

Google, the world’s biggest and most famous internet-search technology corporation, has decided to cease its four-year operation in China, the world largest internet market. This also marks the end of Google’s confrontation with Beijing over the censorship of search results, as well as the alleged regular cyber attacks which have emanated from China.

On January 12th, 2010, Google first announced in its official blog that it faced cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. For example, a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on its corporate infrastructure originating from China, according to the company, was detected in mid-December. Moreover, according to Google, Beijing’s primary goal was to access the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The company, therefore, called for a review of its business in China. As a result, on January 23rd, Google announced that it would be stopping the censorship of its search service; users visiting Google.cn will be directed to Google.com.hk (Google, 2010).

The withdrawal of Google from China has caused heated discussion in the online Chinese community. The officials in charge of the Internet Bureau under the State Council Information Office commented that Google had "violated its written promise," is "totally wrong" in stopping the censoring of its Chinese language search results, and in holding China responsible for the alleged hacking. The officials further added that the issue had been politicized from a purely commercial one, while expressing their discontent and indignation to Google for the company’s unreasonable accusations and conduct (People's Daily, 2010). Within the online community, those who criticized Google’s decision shared similar thoughts, but did so with greater clarity and more detail. Extreme opinions even associated the Central Intelligence Agency with Google which they alleged to be responsible for providing information and suggestions for the US’s national security.(1) According to these netizens, Google is gaining fame by “deceiving the public on its relationship with the US government under the slogan of liberty and democracy”. (2) Some have also expressed doubts about whether Google is really facing a problem from hackers, given its advanced technology. (3) In general, the anti-Google camp have focused on the politicization of the issue, giving an even greater exhibition of a conspiracy mentality than that released from official sources.

At the same time, a significant number of discussions within the online Chinese community reflected doubt about these arguments and were explicit in putting blame on the official Chinese response. The “pro-Google” side’s consensus is that Beijing’s reaction in regarding the situation as a purely commercial issue is illogical and should be at most regarded as a self-fulfilling prophecy. (4) Han Han, ranked by TIME as the most influential blogger in China, also criticized the Chinese censorship, saying that he was disappointed by the fact that some outstanding websites like YouTube and Facebook had left China, resulting in China becoming “the largest intranet in the world” (Han, 2010). Taking this line not only triggered vigorous reaction from the younger internet users in China, but also helped popularize the incident given Han’s high popularity in the online Chinese community.

As a result, the Google incident represents another bipolar reaction among the online Chinese community with a line of demarcation drawn between the new leftists, who call for strengthening the central government in order to address social inequality, and the liberals, who call for solving the social and political problems of China by respecting the Western liberal democratic ideals. Given the stalemate in the rivalry between the two camps over the previous decade, it is impossible for any issue in China to receive overwhelming support in the online community. In other words, as long as Beijing can interpret the Google issue along the new leftist ideological line, it is bound to receive a certain amount of backup no matter how justifiable or unjustifiable its behavior is seen as being. This is probably the rule of game for the foreseeable future.

1. Message ID 98660866, SNF, assessed on 1st APR, 2010
2. Message ID 98550023, SNF, assessed on 1st APR, 2010
3. Message ID 98577455, SNF, assessed on 1st APR, 2010
4. Message ID 98548159, SNF, assessed on 1st APR, 2010

References Google. (2010). A new approach to China: an update. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from The Google official Blog Han Han. (2010). Interview with Han Han. (Tudou, miantanzhe) People's Daily. (2010). China says Google breaks promise, totally wrong to stop censoring. People's Daily.

Simon Shen is a Visiting Fellow at Brookings Institution, Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, and the co-editor of Online Chinese Nationalism and China's Bilateral Relations.