Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Missing the Point

I just saw a headline which read, "Does Britney Deserve to Lose Custody?" I won't even bother reading the article because we're already deluged ad nauseum with information about this sad person.

But isn't the question being asked a complete non-sequitur? Isn't the real question, "Do Britney's children deserve to have a better-suited guardian?" I know celebrity news is all about vacuous-minded bimbos and nimrods. And I know this "news" is deliberately delivered with all the depth of a dried-up puddle. But this article comes from Time Magazine. Doesn't Time claim to be a little more than a celebrity rag? Doesn't Time claim to be relevant?

And isn't the relevance, in any discussion about this sad state of affairs, the children? I mean the tragedy of Ms. Spears' life is (IMHO) all about childhood's premature end. It reeks of a greedy industry wantonly using and using up those who supply talent to that industry. People like Britney Spears should be the expected product of this industry. And then not only is this all about children with regard to how they are treated by this voracious industry; it is also about children with regard to the neglect the starlet's own children have ultimately received. It is least of all about the fortunes of spoiled adults.

Why is nobody examining the music industry as a culprit? Why is nobody making a case for child protection? Even the "fans" who stand up for Britney seem to be missing the point. Does she deserve to lose the custody of her kids? The kids are the victims all throughout this story.

No comments: