What criticism? I’ve seen article after article, celebrity after celebrity come and support and applaud her. The only criticism I’ve seen has come from here.
TO BE VERY CLEAR IM NOT SUPPORTING HER, IM ASKING A GENUINE QUESTION.
‘Desperate for ratings in Melbourne. We don’t care, Jackie. You’re rich and have every resource at your hand. You are not one of us,’ one listener vented.
Others chimed in with similar sentiments: ‘It’s all well and good to inspire people to stop taking drugs, but not many people can afford a stint in rehab at the Betty Ford clinic.’
Another wrote: ‘Grow up with your $20m a year paycheck. Who cares about her? She has money to get help, what about the THOUSANDS of people who can’t afford help? Sounds like a “look at me” attitude.’
So they have an issue with the fact she got help for herself?
Why does it matter where she got it? Shouldn’t it only matter that she did.
It probably should be stated that Jackie didn’t actually book herself into Betty Ford. Her friend did so the “backlash” should really be directed at her if they really have to.
And using it to promote her show and make more money from her book.
Sure but you didn’t quote any comments about that. Seems to be a media spy opinion mainly.
Well, that’s your interpretation and you’re free to it. Others are suggesting otherwise.
Where is the mainstream/ public criticism though? Like I said it all seems to be mainly support for her.
Not keyboard warriors on Facebook or social media but real criticism by people who matter?
it isn’t. People outside of the MS/Twitter bubble I know have shared similar comments.
who are they?
2 Likes
Okay but again I’m talking real public criticism.
I’m yet to see any articles from any organisation calling out her planned timing. No celebrities are doing it either. All supportive thoughts and well wishes.
You usually see news corp for example happy to call celebrities out etc and I’m saying I don’t see that for her.
Cynically I might suggest the media can be very protective about their own if it suits them. I am not saying that’s what’s happening here, but it would not be unusual if it was.
7 Likes
I’m not sure about this whole “people who matter” business either. So it only matters when it comes from a celebrity or MSM?
Technically the only people who matter are her close family and friends. However, because it was her choice to go public, including publishing a book, you gotta take the good with the bad.
As far as the MSM goes, these days I tend to hold independent views and news in a higher regard than the mainstream… they seldom give you multiple sides, only what they want you to know. They have their own agenda. Seems rather calculated to me that all this coincides with her book release. And I definitely don’t need any celebrities or mainstream media articles to confirm or deny it.
2 Likes
By “people who matter” I was just saying a short way of saying people in the media. People who we know. Media organisations and celebrities. People who can actually make a difference by publicly criticising her.
I think the tide is well and truly shifting with mainstream being king. Don’t get me wrong, they still have decent influence and will for some time, but look at someone like Joe Rogan, or local YouTubers, or, dare I use the word, other “influencers”. The amount of views and influence these “niche” people have often well exceeds what you might consider people who matter, even more so with younger audiences. This is a trend that continues to gain strength as time goes on.
I guess your view of people who matter vs mine are two different views. And, sure, they can make a difference, but they’re far from the only platforms these days that are capable of doing so.
2 Likes
You’re over thinking the “people who matter” line.
I guess it was used poorly here in this. I just meant main stream, public criticism. To which she hasn’t had any.
I retract the “people who matter” line and replace it with mainstream, people in the public.
Fair enough. On the subject of criticism, the mainstream has often already decided who they will and won’t criticise. When they don’t criticise, it’s more than likely because it’s “one of their own”, or someone they agree with politically.
Mainstream aside (and MediaSpy aside), it’s clear opinions are divided on her motivation behind speaking out now.
And if anything, this is what I’d rather see, more unbiased news, and less criticism, leaving that to the comments section.
I think 100% she deliberately came out with the story now due to her book. No doubt in my mind about that. An opportunity not to be missed.
However, I also believe she’s genuine in wanting to raise awareness and help people.
You can “be” both of those things.
1 Like
Jackie O singled out an on-air stunt with the tasteless title “Dearly Deported” as another career low-point.
Producers invited two Vietnamese sisters on to the show, one of whom lived in Sydney and the other back in Vietnam. They hadn’t seen each other in seven years, and they were separated in the studio, where they had to answer three questions correctly to be allowed to reunite with each other.
They didn’t, so one was immediately sent on a plane back to Ho Chi Minh as they both sobbed, not even having been able to physically touch one another.
“I hate that memory,” writes Jackie O (so, one would presume, do the sisters).
I’m stunned by this. I didn’t know about this “segment”. That’s got to be human psychological torture? Wow. Incredible. Simply stunned.
8 Likes
Yes, from the same show that wired up a teenager to a lie-detector to talk about being sexually assaulted when she was 12. (The show apparently didn’t know about the r@pe but the mother, who dragged the teen into the show, did)
4 Likes
Really? I’m not…
3 Likes
Yes, I am.
Do what you do for the show but to not even reunite them after the segment during an ad break is just cruel.
Listeners wouldn’t have had to know and the audience would still have had that segment as it went to air but reunite them anyway off air regardless of the games result.