back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Sept 26, 2021 15:22:10 GMT -5
And it’s not exactly a “who has a conservatorship in place or not” comparison, but moreso pointing out that media puts a tremendous spotlight on Britney, as opposed to another celebrity dealing mental health issues, and particularly because of her white skin and gender.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 26, 2021 20:44:58 GMT -5
So CNN is saying that the fact that we aren’t constantly scrutinizing Kanye’s every action and evaluating his mental capacity from our living rooms is a race thing? Kanye got a spot on a reality TV show with the Kardashians for his antics, got plastered all over the media for his presidential run, and etc. And the man is still treated like an artistic genius with all the freedom in the world. Like we’re really trying to make this an injustice that people don’t constantly pity him as if a multitude of highly functional celebs aren’t open about their mental disorders and ignore the very obvious fact that Britney is getting so much attention because she was essentially a victim of human trafficking? As if that’s just some causal thing with no bearing on the matter?
Jesus I’m so done bye. They didn’t even look for the point to miss it.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 26, 2021 21:00:02 GMT -5
The more the public knows, and the more details they know, is good I think because it just puts more public pressure for something to happen. She already has the public support. She was granted her choice of attorney and she and her father both already filed for termination. This was an issue that made it to the Congressional level prior to any of these docs except the first one. We don’t need anymore pressure because there is none left to apply; what needed to be accomplished already was, and let’s again be very clear: it was because of Britney’s testimony. We helped give her confidence, but it was all her. I mean, genuinely, how do these help her case any further at this point in a way Rosengart can’t? That’s an honest question, because y’all seem to be sitting on the answer to it and just not giving it up. I’m not trying to shame people for watching these by the way. If you can stomach it then do it. I personally can’t. I’m just saying that there is no angle I have been able to look at these and arrive at the conclusion that they’re helping anybody but the people who produced them do anything but make more money off of Britney’s good name.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Sept 26, 2021 21:12:26 GMT -5
I skipped the CNN special but from what people have been saying, I didn't miss much. The good thing is they evidently spent some time focusing on Lou Taylor.
Also, Sam evidently started to follow Fe on Instagram and posted Fe's message to Britney from the Controlling Britney Spears documentary. Perhaps that means the documentary is Britney-approved?
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 5:14:36 GMT -5
The more the public knows, and the more details they know, is good I think because it just puts more public pressure for something to happen. She already has the public support. She was granted her choice of attorney and she and her father both already filed for termination. This was an issue that made it to the Congressional level prior to any of these docs except the first one. We don’t need anymore pressure because there is none left to apply; what needed to be accomplished already was, and let’s again be very clear: it was because of Britney’s testimony. We helped give her confidence, but it was all her. I mean, genuinely, how do these help her case any further at this point in a way Rosengart can’t? That’s an honest question, because y’all seem to be sitting on the answer to it and just not giving it up. I’m not trying to shame people for watching these by the way. If you can stomach it then do it. I personally can’t. I’m just saying that there is no angle I have been able to look at these and arrive at the conclusion that they’re helping anybody but the people who produced them do anything but make more money off of Britney’s good name. I don't think public pressure has reached its peak though. There's always reason to cultivate more and more of that - especially considering that we don't even know if Penny will even authorize this week terminating the c-ship, or even terminating Jamie. For me, I feel like there are still a LOT of people out there who still think Britney is just "crazy", so the more these documentaries are out there, and actually show the extent of what was *really* going on, is helpful for people to understand the absolute nightmare she was living through. I think some of us have our stan glasses on and assume that everyone knows everything, but the general public still needs help understanding IMO the extent of it all. I'm a pretty cynical person but I don't see how the NYT/Hulu or Netflix ones are self-serving. CNN, maybe, because that one seems like it was put together pretty late. But "Controlling Britney Spears" was especially such a shocking and eye-opening doc, I find it personally one of the most vital pieces of understanding what she went through. The fact that us at stans didn't even know the extent of what that doc covered says it all to me.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 9:59:28 GMT -5
She already has the public support. She was granted her choice of attorney and she and her father both already filed for termination. This was an issue that made it to the Congressional level prior to any of these docs except the first one. We don’t need anymore pressure because there is none left to apply; what needed to be accomplished already was, and let’s again be very clear: it was because of Britney’s testimony. We helped give her confidence, but it was all her. I mean, genuinely, how do these help her case any further at this point in a way Rosengart can’t? That’s an honest question, because y’all seem to be sitting on the answer to it and just not giving it up. I’m not trying to shame people for watching these by the way. If you can stomach it then do it. I personally can’t. I’m just saying that there is no angle I have been able to look at these and arrive at the conclusion that they’re helping anybody but the people who produced them do anything but make more money off of Britney’s good name. I don't think public pressure has reached its peak though. There's always reason to cultivate more and more of that - especially considering that we don't even know if Penny will even authorize this week terminating the c-ship, or even terminating Jamie.You still haven’t answered the question I asked: why? How does this help? If the idea is that public pressure will help Penny make the right decision, it’s already there.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 10:04:59 GMT -5
I don't think public pressure has reached its peak though. There's always reason to cultivate more and more of that - especially considering that we don't even know if Penny will even authorize this week terminating the c-ship, or even terminating Jamie.You still haven’t answered the question I asked: why? How does this help? If the idea is that public pressure will help Penny make the right decision, it’s already there. We don't know that though - not yet. Penny's ruling on Wednesday is still a bit unpredictable. I don't see how more public pressure hurts in any way. IMO it's always a good thing - to push this forward as much as possible for Britney's sake, and the more informed people are, I think the better understanding of Britney's situation. Maybe I'm taking more of a personal/legacy view of it as well, where I think Britney deserves as many people as possible to know the truth as to what happened. Like I said, every less person who gets what actually happened vs. thinking she's "crazy" is such a win, not just for her because she doesn't deserve people thinking that of her (not that I think she cares anyway), but also just in terms of her legacy being defined by it. I mean, even for us stans, looking back at the last 13 years through the lense of everything we've learned just changes everything we thought we knew.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 10:11:02 GMT -5
You still haven’t answered the question I asked: why? How does this help? If the idea is that public pressure will help Penny make the right decision, it’s already there. We don't know that though - not yet. Penny's ruling on Wednesday is still a bit unpredictable. I don't see how more public pressure hurts in any way. You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2022). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated.
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Sept 27, 2021 10:41:10 GMT -5
We don't know that though - not yet. Penny's ruling on Wednesday is still a bit unpredictable. I don't see how more public pressure hurts in any way. You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2023). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated. Agreed! Like I complained about in the Framing Britney Spears documentary, which we won't revisit, cause goddamn was I piled on, was that these documentaries, in the grand scheme of things, hurt Britney because they detail the chronology of events that put her in the conservatorship in the first place. They're like literally doing the work for the opposition to get witness accounts, dates, facts, to prove why she needed to be controlled in the first place. What needs to happen, right now, and what is lacking in all of the documentaries that we've seen, are expert opinions and thoughts that challenge validity of conservatorship. We need everything to point that Britney is mentally capable, stable, independently. These documents do nothing for that, public support does nothing for that, BRITNEY'S OWN WORDS does EVERYTHING for that.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 10:51:27 GMT -5
We don't know that though - not yet. Penny's ruling on Wednesday is still a bit unpredictable. I don't see how more public pressure hurts in any way. You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2023). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated. When did she do that though? I don't buy that Instagram post about "crying for two weeks" or whatever it was. Especially during a time when it was very questionable whether anything from her IG was from her at that point. I'm not sure if you're trying to insinuate I don't have respect for her or the docs don't, but I don't see how the docs aren't respecting her? Maybe I'm lost here, but the idea that we can't do a documentary on any subject because of a negative time in the subject's life is extremely odd to me. The documentaries shining a light on bad times in her life =/= exploiting low points of her life. That's just the way I see it, and again, I understand if Britney was upset seeing those images again in the sense that of course no one wants to relive low points in their life. But Britney is also not an idiot, and I would imagine she would understand why those parts of her life were used in a specific narrative context.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 10:55:16 GMT -5
You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2023). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated. Agreed! Like I complained about in the Framing Britney Spears documentary, which we won't revisit, cause goddamn was I piled on, was that these documentaries, in the grand scheme of things, hurt Britney because they detail the chronology of events that put her in the conservatorship in the first place. They're like literally doing the work for the opposition to get witness accounts, dates, facts, to prove why she needed to be controlled in the first place. What needs to happen, right now, and what is lacking in all of the documentaries that we've seen, are expert opinions and thoughts that challenge validity of conservatorship. We need everything to point that Britney is mentally capable, stable, independently. These documents do nothing for that, public support does nothing for that, BRITNEY'S OWN WORDS does EVERYTHING for that. I respectfully disagree with this - if anything, these documentaries are shining a light on how corrupt conservatorships are in general, and through the context of everything that has happened since 2008 that we've known (and mostly not known about until now), shows that Britney *has been* stable and capable all of these years. To me, the fact that they've obtained all of these texts, court documents, etc just help bolster what Britney has been saying in private all of these years - and without these docs and a rigorous investigation by outlets like NYT, we wouldn't even know. I think everything we've learned has also proven that Britney did *NOT* need to be in a c-ship from the outset, so I don't agree with the notion that everything that has been used has somehow bolstered that she should've. I think a good example of this is when Framing added all of the context of the umbrella incident and the night she went to the hospital in a gurney. Most people didn't know the context (she was trying to see her kids), but the doc made sure that was apparent and included.
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Sept 27, 2021 11:15:44 GMT -5
Agreed! Like I complained about in the Framing Britney Spears documentary, which we won't revisit, cause goddamn was I piled on, was that these documentaries, in the grand scheme of things, hurt Britney because they detail the chronology of events that put her in the conservatorship in the first place. They're like literally doing the work for the opposition to get witness accounts, dates, facts, to prove why she needed to be controlled in the first place. What needs to happen, right now, and what is lacking in all of the documentaries that we've seen, are expert opinions and thoughts that challenge validity of conservatorship. We need everything to point that Britney is mentally capable, stable, independently. These documents do nothing for that, public support does nothing for that, BRITNEY'S OWN WORDS does EVERYTHING for that. I respectfully disagree with this - if anything, these documentaries are shining a light on how corrupt conservatorships are in general, and through the context of everything that has happened since 2008 that we've known (and mostly not known about until now), shows that Britney *has been* stable and capable all of these years. To me, the fact that they've obtained all of these texts, court documents, etc just help bolster what Britney has been saying in private all of these years - and without these docs and a rigorous investigation by outlets like NYT, we wouldn't even know. I think everything we've learned has also proven that Britney did *NOT* need to be in a c-ship from the outset, so I don't agree with the notion that everything that has been used has somehow bolstered that she should've. I think a good example of this is when Framing added all of the context of the umbrella incident and the night she went to the hospital in a gurney. Most people didn't know the context (she was trying to see her kids), but the doc made sure that was apparent and included. Conservatorships are not corrupt - there's an entire probate process in place for them. What we're finding out is the possible abuse on the part of her specific conservators (still has yet to be proven). These documentaries should only focus on the possible abuse - and how these allegations should, if anything, change the powers of the conservatorship. What we're also seeing is that some of the mechanisms in place can also be possibly renegotiated as she proves herself to be in a more stable and independent mental state. Understanding the context of her life that put the conservatorship in place is not going to do anything today. I would love to hear more from mental health and legal minds as to her current options, and what Judges will be evaluating when it comes to updating the terms of her conservatorship, if not getting rid of it altogether.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 11:18:38 GMT -5
You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2023). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated. When did she do that though? I don't buy that Instagram post about "crying for two weeks" or whatever it was. Especially during a time when it was very questionable whether anything from her IG was from her at that point. Sam liked and responded to a post from Lady Gaga’s manager calling these documentaries exploitative, and once Britney got her Instagram back she explicitly said she didn’t like the documentary again and wanted people to mind their business. Idk what more you want. They both made it clear they don’t want these being made. That they continue to be is what is disrespectful. ETA: Ok well I guess that wasn’t team con and she really didn’t like Framing Britney Spears lmao. Juno can finally drop the act at least. http://instagr.am/p/CRcirTFgkEE
|
|
Leigh
Moderator
Quietly better than you since 2005
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 3,773
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Leigh on Sept 27, 2021 12:31:53 GMT -5
When did she do that though? I don't buy that Instagram post about "crying for two weeks" or whatever it was. Especially during a time when it was very questionable whether anything from her IG was from her at that point. I'm not sure if you're trying to insinuate I don't have respect for her or the docs don't, but I don't see how the docs aren't respecting her? Maybe I'm lost here, but the idea that we can't do a documentary on any subject because of a negative time in the subject's life is extremely odd to me. The documentaries shining a light on bad times in her life =/= exploiting low points of her life. That's just the way I see it, and again, I understand if Britney was upset seeing those images again in the sense that of course no one wants to relive low points in their life. But Britney is also not an idiot, and I would imagine she would understand why those parts of her life were used in a specific narrative context. Honestly, this sentiment is extremely odd to me. It's Britney's story to tell and while we're all fighting for Britney to have agency and control over her own life, we're OK for her to not have that when it comes to her own story, privacy and the sordid details of what she has been through, just because we feel like we have a right to know the details? Even at the cost of her being upset, as you said. It is super clear from her own words in court that she finds the exposure of what she is going through embarrassing. She doesn't want to talk to a therapist on a one-on-one basis about it and so I can understand that maybe she doesn't want a cycle of tv shows streamed by millions about it either. The details of it really are none of our business. These documentaries have gone beyond shining a light on what Britney has gone through - the movement already got its momentum, she's finally had her voice heard in court and we all know exactly where she stands and what she wants - and they have crossed well into "entertainment" territory now. I can't see how the documentaries themselves nor us knowing more and more terrible details help Britney from this point on. Nor do they help expose the risks of conservatorship abuse; we already know more than enough details for that.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 13:07:47 GMT -5
Britney can't tell her story though right now. She's unable to, so the next best thing is for documentaries to do it and present with as much factual info and without trying to push a certain narrative.
I watched the CNN special, that one we could've gone without, since it was just Framing Britney Spears lite, but mostly for general public who might not know the extent. I still don't see a problem with the NYT ones or the Netflix one, especially since the Netflix one has been in the works for 2 years apparently.
And if we're using Britney's words in court, she also said via her lawyer that she wanted the world to know what was going on, and that it shouldn't be locked up like a family secret. Again, that's always best via her words, but these docs are helping break the silence of what's been going on. I think fans underestimate how big of a deal Framing was for the general public to understand what's been going on.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 13:15:17 GMT -5
She wanted her words to be heard in court. Let’s qualify that one. And what she said was very different than what the docs are covering. Britney can't tell her story though right now. and the urgency for it to be told right now is…? Like why can’t we just wait until she can if she even wants to? We don’t even know if she does, and it’s her business. I’m not sure why nobody is bothering to ask that question and just feels entitled to all of this.
|
|
back2blk
4x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2020
Posts: 4,560
|
Post by back2blk on Sept 27, 2021 13:18:01 GMT -5
Britney can't tell her story though right now. and the urgency for it to be told right now is…? Like why can’t we just wait until she can if she even wants to? We don’t even know if she does, and it’s her business. I’m not sure why nobody is bothering to ask that question and just feels entitled to all of this. Right. And all these outside movements "shedding light" are making her trending. Which means sources like CNN and Netflix profit off her circumstance, which does nothing for her. Unless all the proceeds are going towards her legal fees.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 27, 2021 13:35:00 GMT -5
I think I agree with both sides here to an extent. there is certainly an exploitative aspect to all of these documentaries and CNN specials and whatnot. do we really need a new Britney doc or podcast coming out every week? probably not. but it guarantees solid financial return for the producers, because people want to get as much information as they can about this, and there's still so much that's seemingly yet to be uncovered.
on the other hand, (most) of these are journalists and investigators. Britney Spears is an icon and a legend that has been tortured for the past 13 years, in silence. she's been isolated, drugged, forced to work without fair pay, surveilled against her will. that's a lot of crime that the courts let slide. this story is bigger than Britney Spears, and it's only natural for journalists to try to fulfill their watchdog duties and bring to light all the ways the conservatorship (and the conservators' abuse of it) harmed Britney and people close to her.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 14:15:31 GMT -5
Two words: ethical journalism.
I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: you can report on conservatorship abuse and the illegal practices of the companies surrounding this particular conservatorship and others like it without framing it around Britney Spears’ personal struggles.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 27, 2021 15:02:07 GMT -5
Two words: ethical journalism. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: you can report on conservatorship abuse and the illegal practices of the companies surrounding this particular conservatorship and others like it without framing it around Britney Spears’ personal struggles. I'm not sure I'm following. how can they present facts about the mishandling of this conservatorship without framing it around Britney Spears' personal struggles? I think Controlling did a good job at following journalistic and ethical standard. Framing was slightly more out of line, but it did what it needed to do: validate the conservatorship saga for those who had only heard about it on Twitter and gossip blogs/podcasts, and introduce the situation to millions more who hadn't even really heard about it. I can understand the pushback on this, and I get why Britney herself might not enjoy watching this (I hope she didn't see the full thing and re-live her worst moments, tbh). however, they did handle those moments with care, and did not paint Britney as a villain but more so as a victim, providing context behind the paparazzi shots etc. it's important to remember who the target audience was (or wasn't) for this: not Britney, not the Judge, not her biggest fans like some people in this thread. obviously, in an ideal world, Britney would have gotten out of this already so she could narrate it herself (which she still could do in the future if she wanted to—I'm sure all the networks and streaming platforms would jump on her movie). that's why I get both sides of this argument. no one can do her story justice like Britney can, and her testimony has been more impactful than any Hulu/CNN doc could ever be. but I also don't think that means the journalists' efforts were all in vain or unethical.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 15:20:16 GMT -5
Two words: ethical journalism. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: you can report on conservatorship abuse and the illegal practices of the companies surrounding this particular conservatorship and others like it without framing it around Britney Spears’ personal struggles. I'm not sure I'm following. how can they present facts about the mishandling of this conservatorship without framing it around Britney Spears' personal struggles? You said it yourself: this goes beyond Britney Spears. If the goal here is to shed light on conservatorship abuse, then do that. Don't make it a multitude of Britney documentaries on one specific conservatorship with equally specific circumstances then play it off like this is anything other than a cash grab. Buzzfeed of all places ran an article that does this quite well. Britney is mentioned in passing (a total of four times in the whole thing), while the bulk of the article focuses on conservatorships and guardianships in America. The following two entires in the series use entirely different examples from others who were involved in similar situations. So that leads me to my point about ethical journalism. Let's say you want to make this more digestible to the public, so you use an easily recognizable public figure who is going through said abuse. You now run into two problems. First, you can't get this person's consent to report on their life because of the terms of the conservatorship. Second, the person has already stated—twice now—that she's not happy with them. So, I'll ask you. Do you think it's ethical to completely disregard the victim's wishes in order to shed light on a broader issue, limited in scope to only their circumstances? Put another way, is it ethical to involuntarily make someone a martyr?
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 27, 2021 15:33:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm following. how can they present facts about the mishandling of this conservatorship without framing it around Britney Spears' personal struggles? So that leads me to my point about ethical journalism. Let's say you want to make this more digestible to the public, so you use an easily recognizable public figure who is going through said abuse. You now run into two problems. First, you can't get this person's consent to report on their life because of the terms of the conservatorship. Second, the person has already stated—twice now—that she's not happy with them. So, I'll ask you. Do you think it's ethical to completely disregard the victim's wishes in order to shed light on a broader issue, limited in scope to only their circumstances? I'll check out the Buzzfeed article, sounds like a good one that looks into the broader issue. We don't necessarily have Britney on-record saying she doesn't want any documentaries. And while Britney's blessing would be ideal, it isn't unethical for journalists to report on a legal matter concerning a public figure, using court records and testimonials by actors in Britney's life that are coming forward to draw attention to this. Especially when it's done in good faith, which I think they have been as much as they can be under a capitalist society. EDIT: I don't think Britney is made into a martyr, lol. Not by the documentaries, anyway. People are trying to free her out of this bs. Britney has been involuntarily made into a martyr by the justice system that allowed her conservatorship to exploit and abuse her for over a decade. Others are just reporting on this and making it known.
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 15:43:38 GMT -5
So that leads me to my point about ethical journalism. Let's say you want to make this more digestible to the public, so you use an easily recognizable public figure who is going through said abuse. You now run into two problems. First, you can't get this person's consent to report on their life because of the terms of the conservatorship. Second, the person has already stated—twice now—that she's not happy with them. So, I'll ask you. Do you think it's ethical to completely disregard the victim's wishes in order to shed light on a broader issue, limited in scope to only their circumstances? I'll check out the Buzzfeed article, sounds like a good one that looks into the broader issue. We don't necessarily have Britney on-record saying she doesn't want any documentaries. And while Britney's blessing would be ideal, it isn't unethical for journalists to report on a legal matter concerning a public figure, using court records and testimonials by actors in Britney's life that are coming forward to draw attention to this. Especially when it's done in good faith, which I think they have been as much as they can be under a capitalist society. EDIT: I don't think Britney is made into a martyr, lol. Not by the documentaries, anyway. People are trying to free her out of this bs. Britney has been involuntarily made into a martyr by the justice system that allowed her conservatorship to exploit and abuse her for over a decade. Others are just reporting on this and making it known. The Buzzfeed series is good, I would recommend it. The bold is the journalistic equivalent of "well, she didn't say no" though, lol. She hasn't straight up said "stop making these," but between the two Instagram posts concerning her disapproval of them, one of which she said she cried for two weeks, Sams's response to them, and the Page Six report that Netflix produced the doc without her blessing and she's not happy about it, I really don't think she needs to literally say no for people to take the hint. As far as my comment about being a martyr goes, I don't think she would be if people didn't constantly strive to shed new light on this issue in ways that aren't necessary in my opinion.
|
|
Leigh
Moderator
Quietly better than you since 2005
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 3,773
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Leigh on Sept 27, 2021 15:49:30 GMT -5
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 15:50:28 GMT -5
This is what I'm saying - this is why the docs (that are ethical and investigative, as we're talking about) are necessary. Without 'Controlling', we may not have known the extent of this matter, and it appears that Matthew may or not have, but even so, it's clearly bolstering his case, and for good reason:
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 15:53:35 GMT -5
I'm the biggest Britney stan there is but she's not making sense here at all, and I'm not sure why she's constantly focused on the footage and how it makes her look bad? Given the only 'bad' footage is of 2007 and some of those tumultuous times. Meanwhile, her lawyer is using the doc to bolster his case, and she's saying it's not true, even though most of what was in the doc was backed up. I don't understand why she's not only undermining things that are meant to help her case. I seriously do not buy this is her. The stuff that she posts on her Instagram is just not the same as what we heard in that testimony. Not sure what she's talking about with the dialogue either, or how the 'drama' is in the past, when it's very much in the present, in her own words in recent court filings! EDIT: If she's speaking about the CNN doc, I guess some of this could make more sense, but it certainly doesn't with the Controlling doc. If she felt so strongly, she could make a video like she did before (those few days she got her iPad and was talking directly to the camera), but then it appeared that got 'revoked' and she was back to these generic photos/videos...
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 27, 2021 15:59:29 GMT -5
Two words: ethical journalism. I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: you can report on conservatorship abuse and the illegal practices of the companies surrounding this particular conservatorship and others like it without framing it around Britney Spears’ personal struggles. I don't think "Controlling" really focused on her personal struggles that much.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 27, 2021 16:03:09 GMT -5
|
|
Koochie
Moderator
truthfully about Koochie idgaf
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 146
Staff
|
Post by Koochie on Sept 27, 2021 16:18:06 GMT -5
So I guess they have control over Sam’s insta too? lol I swear
I don’t care what her reasons are or how valid they may or may not be to anyone, it’s still her business. Let her live in peace!
|
|
Marooned@Midnight
6x Platinum Member
It’s me…HI!…I’m the problem, it’s me
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 6,628
|
Post by Marooned@Midnight on Sept 27, 2021 17:43:50 GMT -5
We don't know that though - not yet. Penny's ruling on Wednesday is still a bit unpredictable. I don't see how more public pressure hurts in any way. You’re missing the point. I never said Penny is going to make the right decision. I said if the argument for these documentaries is that it bolsters public support to pressure her into doing it, then that’s weak, because Britney already has it: but you literally said right here why that doesn’t matter. Even with it, we don’t know what Penny’s verdict will be (and we know the hearing on Jamie’s petition to terminate isn’t even scheduled until next year, so it very well could carry on into 2022). Regardless, this idea that public pressure has any bearing on the courts is this new thing I’m seeing in the Britney bubble and it’s just not… real. That’s not a thing. If it was, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman would be rotting in jail. I want to say this again because it’s important: Framing Britney Spears did nothing, and changed nothing, about the case. What did was when Britney spoke. If anything gets done, it’s not because of CNN, Netflix, NYT, or anything her fans are saying online. It’s because of her. The public support isn’t a bad thing by the way, and I never said it was? What I said was bad was these documentaries continuing to talk about her when she’s asked them not to, disregarding her wishes, and profiting off of her as such by exposing personal information and low points of her life. Just have some respect for her, that’s why I’m frustrated. I actually disagree with a small piece here. Britney herself said that she had spoken to the court before and she doesn’t feel like she was heard or that anything changed. I don’t think what turned the tide was her speaking at all. I think it was the fact that her testimony was public and the subsequent public outrage that it caused. To that end, I personally think the NYT documentaries and the public outrage that they spark could result in additional pressure being applied, which I think is clearly needed here. Look at what has been revealed. People should be outraged and the CA court system should be embarrassed. So many people have a lot to answer for. Do I wish this could be accomplished without being exploitive in any way? Of course. But I don’t think the additional pressure and attention it creates is a bad thing if the ultimate goal is to make this conservatorship end. I absolutely hate that it makes her uncomfortable…but it’s a really fucking uncomfortable situation. And WE are the ones that should feel uncomfortable for supporting this and everything tied to it over the past 13 years. I don’t know that there is a way to be in this right now and not be uncomfortable.
|
|