The ethics of celebrity profiles
ISAR's code of ethics states,
How would you like it if -- just because you were a public figure and your birth information was in the public domain -- somebody picked your psyche apart online or in print? I'm not sure I'd be keen on it.
So why do we do it? In our consumer culture, we treat celebs as commodities. They feel so far removed, that we feel we have carte blanche to treat them like objects, rather than real, vulnerable people with feelings. I'm not saying that the Don Imus' of the world shouldn't be held accountable for their public, racist comments, but who are we to put their inner worlds on display?
It's one thing to study a celebrity chart to become better astrologers. It's another to be akin to gossip bloggers. We don't make slanderous comments -- we're a pretty nice bunch -- but is a thorough, public astro-analysis less invasive than a few insults?
I don't know if I'll change my own behavior in light of above, but it's something to ponder.
Interpretations of the charts of public figures are confined to areas that are considered public domain due to specific achievements or notoriety as revealed in interviews, published documents, or recorded observations. When interpreting charts of public figures, astrologers refrain from making slanderous comments.How often, as astrologers, do we limit our chart interpretations to "areas that are considered public domain"? We frequently opine about celebrities' inner lives -- their psychological make-up -- to make sense of their gaffes. (Michael Richards, Mel Gibson ... I'm as guilty as anyone else.)
How would you like it if -- just because you were a public figure and your birth information was in the public domain -- somebody picked your psyche apart online or in print? I'm not sure I'd be keen on it.
So why do we do it? In our consumer culture, we treat celebs as commodities. They feel so far removed, that we feel we have carte blanche to treat them like objects, rather than real, vulnerable people with feelings. I'm not saying that the Don Imus' of the world shouldn't be held accountable for their public, racist comments, but who are we to put their inner worlds on display?
It's one thing to study a celebrity chart to become better astrologers. It's another to be akin to gossip bloggers. We don't make slanderous comments -- we're a pretty nice bunch -- but is a thorough, public astro-analysis less invasive than a few insults?
I don't know if I'll change my own behavior in light of above, but it's something to ponder.
posted by Jeffrey Kishner at 4/13/2007
12 Comments:
I try to look at celebrities as ENTERTAINERS. Brittny's rehab, whatshernames weight gain or loss, Nicole's baby, are all, really, none of my business. I think we as astrologers shouldn't foster "celebrities" as role models, either, or invade their privacy. WhenI need INSPIRATION I go to the library and get biographies out about REAL heroes like Linus Pauking, Marie Curie,Sally Ride, and men and women of SUBSTANCE! All just my humble opinion.
This has been bothering me a little lately, Jeffrey though I wasn't aware of any Code involved.
I mainly try to relate to charts of well known people who are no longer with us. This seems a valid way to watch how astrology can be seen working.
I've been talking more about live characters lately, politicians and entertainers. I usually limit comments to areas of their professional life. I hope I haven't crossed over a line?
It's hard not to look at and comment on things in the news, which inevitably, for astrology bloggers, lead to someone's birth chart.
I'm a little nervous now, and interested to see other comments from astrologers.
Twilight, I don't know what the line is, so it's good to have this discussion. I like Madeline's comment about looking at celebs as entertainers. I love to see how actors "tick," and especially how directors pour their psyches into their films. To some degree, when an artist exposes themselves through their craft, it seems more ethical to dissect their charts for public consumption than to look at Britney's latest exploits.
I write celebrity profiles mostly for the purpose of educating readers about astrology. They know something about the celebrity and it makes the astrological signatures more meaningful.
Still thinking about this one-- I think that dissecting the AVERAGE person's chart for purposes of teaching would be even more meaningful, since, really, how many of us can relate to the lives of the "stars??" For instance, a great chart interpretation of a gifted scientist, a librarian, a nurse, maybe a stay at home Mom-- now, charts like that might teach us a WHOLE LOT about how to navigate our real worlds vs. the fantasy lives of the celebs. Not quite so "exciting" at first, but, I truly enjoy REAL LIFE stories and REAL LIFE PEOPLE'S journeys sSO MUCH MORE than ,say, Ms. Hilton's.
Also--the planetary signatures are acte dupon in VERY DIFFERENT WAYS by movie stars and public figures, vs. the "common fold.." so, celeb. charts, to me, are for entertainment only, just like their subjects. (If I read them at all--) Give me a nice meaty REAL LIFE PERSON'S nativity anyday!
I thought more on this, too Jeffrey.
All the astrology magazines I've read over the years almost always carry at least one clebrity profile, sometimes more. Those profiles are not presented to make a particular point (relating to a new item or event), they profile the individual more completely.
If celebrities and public figures objected to having their birth details analysed, I think that some law suits would have ensued by now. I wonder if any objections have ever been made?
Twilight,
Ethics and law are two distinct fields. I doubt a celeb can sue just for having their chart dissected in print, especially if the article is not libelous.
Besides, astrology (in print or on the web, outside of horoscopes) probably has such a small readership in comparison to The Star or People magazine, that most celebs wouldn't even notice we're writing about them.
I have never had an interest in analyzing celebrity charts myself, although I do enjoy looking at famous historical figures like Mozart, Tesla and so on. Today’s celebrity culture doesn’t seem very trustworthy to me. What you see may not be what is. On the other hand, it can be interesting to correlate obvious (usually superficial) situations and traits with the astrological symbolism. As a public figure, like it or not, there is a little bit of this that just comes with the territory. I would never make public a person’s chart who was not a public figure without their permission. What has always gotten my ire up are astrologers who analyze celebrities’ motivations, intents and soul purpose from deeper perspectives such as past life or evolutionary. That is what feels like crossing the line to me because we cannot possibly know who they really are as people underneath the Hollywood masks without an in depth conversation. Hubris. In my opinion :)
You raise a very interesting point, Jeff. As a journalism major, I had to take classes on libel law. There's a legal definition of "public figure," and most celebrities fall within this category. Public figures don't have the same expectation of privacy as ordinary citizens have. It may seem unfair, but that's how the law is written, and it's how the celebrity gossip rags are able to stay in business. To sue for libel, a celeb has to prove that the story wasn't true, that the writer knew it wasn't true, and that the untrue story was published with malicious intent.
Not that we as astrologers shouldn't hold ourselves to higher standards. The best use of a celebrity chart, as Lynn Hayes so nicely states, is to make astrology come alive for readers. I can't imagine that a star would find that as offensive as, say, the paparazzi shooting a glimpse of cellulite on her thighs.
What I think we're more guilty of is using astrology to criticize and put down people we don't like. George Bush is a prime example. I have yet to meet a fundamentalist Republican astrologer. As a whole, we're a pretty liberal lot, and we vehemently disagree with Bush's politics. The temptation is strong to analyze his chart to demonstrate why he's so evil. This is not a valid use of astrology -- whether for Bush, a Hollywood celebrity, an ex-husband, or anyone else with whom we have an ax to grind.
It's pretty naive, but personally I try to be equally respectful toward all people whose charts I read, no matter who they are.
It's easy enough to dissect horoscopes of celebrities, but then, I'm often reminded that these people LIVE their charts and it humbles me greatly.
HI JEFF--where are you? Miss your posts!
MADDIE
Where am I? At ! I only hang out here once in a while, but I post there every weekday.
Post a Comment
Get email updates when new comments are added to this post
(There must be at least one comment already posted for this to work.)
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home