Ross's Banner
Ross

Age/Gender: 31, Male
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Job: Code Jockey

I helped create Newgrounds. Then I left. Then I came back. Then I left again. It's like that movie "Runaway Bride", but with fewer movie stars and more computer programming.

Newgrounds Stats

Sign-Up Date:
12/15/99

Level: 13
Aura: Light

Rank: Civilian
Blams: 8
Saves: 1
Rank #: 153,926

Whistle Status: Normal

Exp. Points: 1,605 / 1,880
Exp. Rank #: 20,474
Voting Pow.: 5.47 votes

BBS Posts: 186 (0.05 per day)
Flash Reviews: 12
Music Reviews: 0
Trophies: 0
Stickers: 0

Entry #30

Jump to Entry: [ 11427 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 333537 ]


Ross

R.I.P. Heath Ledger (and 6,618 others)

Posted by Ross Jan. 23, 2008 @ 1:41 AM EST

As everyone knows by now, actor Heath Ledger died suddenly yesterday. I can understand why this is news - he was a celebrity and played some memorable roles, most notably Ennis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain. It'll be a little weird watching him as the Joker in this summer's The Dark Knight.

What I don't get is why this hits people so hard. I monitor Digg semi-regularly, and popular stories there often get somewhere around 5,000 diggs. The story about Ledger's death on Digg has over 15,000 diggs, and is full of commenters offering up their grief and sympathy.

He was only 28, so his death was a shock - but he's hardly the only 28-year-old to have died yesterday. In fact, according to government statistics (and using 2006 for comparison's sake), around 6,619 people died in the USA yesterday.

What makes people who never knew this man express grief for his loss, while ignoring the many others who die every day? Why is his young daughter worthy of condolences, but the families of the nameless others aren't - is it simply "out of sight, out of mind"? Do people really care, or is it just morbid fascination? Is celebrity news somehow more compelling than "real life"?

digg.jpg

Updated: 01/23/08 9:05 PM Log in to comment! | Share this!

The People Have Spoken

35 Comments

Jan. 23, 2008 | 2:07 AM LtMcMuffin says:

People do value the life of a celebrity over that of a "real" person. Celebrities are the epitome of what everybody else should strive to be, the ultimate step in the evolution of man.
Sadly, that is how people see things, which is why those seeking attention get it. Once you hit celebrity status, you know more people care about what you wear to your court case then they do about the various wars in the world (Afghanistan? What's that?)
You become immune to the big picture. Sure, 6,619 people died yesterday, but that is just a statistic. When you throw a name here and there, it is just slightly less statistical (i.e. Hey, some guy named Frank Smith is the eighth man to die from a taser in the past year. Call him what you want, he is still Frank Smith to the reader)
If Frank were important, though, things would be different. We are told by the media that celebrities are what we need to focus our attention on, so if Frank starred in a movie recently, or recorded the newest hit rap song, then people will mourn for Frank, because we have been told he is worth mourning for.
Frank Smith the average Joe is just as important as Frank Smith the superstar, but all news outlets will tell you that the superstar is worth hanging the flags at half-mast for. It is all about sensationalism.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:45 AM Ross responds:

Does the media tell us what to care about, or do we tell them? I think it's the latter. The media is a business just like anything else, and their business is "give 'em what they want". If people weren't fascinated by celebrity news, they'd turn the channel and the media would stop reporting on it. But the trend is actually the opposite - people are increasingly more interested in Britney Spears's latest meltdown than in-depth stories about morally complex issues. So what are the news agencies going to do? They're going to give us what we want.

I think we determine what the media reports on, not vice versa.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 2:19 AM BloodthirstyLover says:

Right now. People here in Australia are pretty shocked on how he died. Even Our PM said he was one of the greatest actors to come out of Australia.

When i woke up this morning, All i could hear was: Heath Ledger, Dead at 28. At first i thought it was some fake thing but then seeing the pictures of a body bag. Caught me with surprise.

Because he is in the spotlight now is because he died young. It will died down someday but lets take some examples like when Anna Nicole died. She died young and it was all over the news. The media is sucked into celebrities who mess up or die. See if Britney spears died, everyone around the world would have a field day.

Frankly i see the media is to be blamed. Its what the world looks at now

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:51 AM Ross responds:

He was an actor, an entertainer. How does that get the attention of the leader of your country? What about someone who spends their live teaching, touching the lives of generations of kids? Why do we mourn an entertainer living off the fat of the land, while the real heroes die in anonymity?


Jan. 23, 2008 | 3:13 AM Afro-Ninja says:

A lot of people care, it's just that with the nameless, they don't have a chance to care. If you explained to any one person the untimely or unfortunate death of another person, they will surely show sympathy. But deaths are commonplace, evidenced by the 6,000 statistic. So when a recognized person dies, and it wasn't natural, people can't help but feel sympathy for the person they feel like they knew (albeit not really)

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:53 AM Ross responds:

I think you're right... it's that sense of knowing someone via the shared emotional experience of seeing them in a movie. We feel close to someone because of that, and because their face is so recognizable to us. But if someone is just a statistic, it's easy (and really, necessary) to not care.

I guess I just feel like the people who make a big production of grieving for a dead actor are missing some crucial perspective.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 3:33 AM Me-Mighty-Leper says:

I couldn't give a shit. The only movie of his I watched was Ned Kelley, and his accent was shit.

He was nothing to cry over. Steve Irwin was, and most people called him an idiot.

As for the goth article underneath, mine has to wear a muzzle too.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 10:55 AM Frogcloset says:

I had to look into it just to see if it effected the dark knight in a negative way.

Sure hes dead, but i like films.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 12:00 PM Paper-Shadow says:

It's the media. They are a conspricy...

They report about stupid celebs and either drug or kill the ones that keep to them selves...

R.I.P. 6618 others, he/she/they shant be mourned be strangers...

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:54 AM Ross responds:

Like I said above, I don't think there's a media conspiracy. I think they respond to what the public wants - and the public is forever fixated on the rich and famous.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 3:38 PM JohnnyUtah says:

it's probably a bunch of people worried more for the fate of "the dark knight" than for a guy that dropped dead in his room leaving a family behind

sadly, im probably with them

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:55 AM Ross responds:

It did get me to watch all the trailers for "Dark Knight". Damn, I'm excited. Looks really good.


Jan. 23, 2008 | 5:03 PM Swordstick76 says:

You ask good questions, keep devolping your critical mind. God, i sound like my mom. (pukes)


Jan. 23, 2008 | 10:01 PM KupaMan says:

It's sad, considering you know about him. I don't know any of those guys, but I've seen this guy's face. It is sad, though it's not something people should cry about, unless they know him. He was just an actor you won't get to see again (well, after The Dark Knight).

I remember, though, when my grandpa died at 67 of cancer the same day as Peter Jennings, and it was kind of the same thing. People were falling apart over a news anchor they didn't know. It was odd.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:58 AM Ross responds:

I'm in the same boat as you. I've been to an inordinate number of funerals (stopped counting at 20) and the lack of sincerity people show there amazes me. I'm tempted to think that it's because they've never lost someone themselves, and haven't experienced true grief, but I don't know if there's anything to that or not.

But it ties into what you were saying about your grandpa. When you lose someone you care about, you understand what true loss is. How could you feel anything approaching that over some celebrity you never met?


Jan. 23, 2008 | 10:42 PM ConAir says:

I think it's more because people are familiar with him as a person and feel more of a connection with him because they've seen his films than they would be with someone they've never seen in their life. Still a sad thing all those people, it just seems more "real" to everyone because they actually know who Heath Ledger is.


Jan. 24, 2008 | 1:24 AM geoghan1 says:

celebrit news is more important, beceuse we make it so...example follow me if you will
if you open up a box of domioes and all of them were blue cept this red factory reject, and you git used to seeing it for years and then it dissapeared nowhere to be found wouldn't you miss it to...
the domino was differen and you gave it a differen kind of attention. sort of like the attention celebs get...ya follow

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:59 AM Ross responds:

I get your analogy, but I'd question the perspective of anyone who grieves over the loss of a red domino.


Jan. 24, 2008 | 4:15 AM SkeletonKing says:

The people who are distraught over his passing have probably been watching his films for a few years now and developed a kind of bond with his likeness. Actors and actresses can become like old friends if you go to movies often. Finding out one is now gone forever can be a shock to the system, especially when it is out of left field like Heath's. If Michael Caine died it would be sad, but he's old so it's somewhat expected. If Britney Spears died nobody would probably care, but if they did it wouldn't be that surprising because she's a dirty drug laden whore. Heath however was a young, down to earth individual with little history of partying or anything of the like. For him to suddenly drop dead threw many for a loop. The fact that he was very, very talented adds to this.

Sure, 6,619 people may have died yesterday but all the fans saddened over Heath's death have never heard of those people. They have no attachment to them and therefore no reason to care. Take that how you will, but it's human nature.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:04 PM Ross responds:

So here's a question - if, instead of dying, Heath simply stopped acting and faded into obscurity - would people be sad about that? Wouldn't their "bond" be breaking that way, too?


Jan. 24, 2008 | 4:17 AM WolfBlitz2 says:

yeah i agree with you
the other people that die are only heard of in the local papers or by friends and family unless they do it in "style" or something


Jan. 24, 2008 | 12:47 PM Rotiboy says:

Its a shame..famous people die everyday for what? just to have a little fun? i think actors and actresses should look at these kinds of situation and wake up....with this statistic thing its the media, thats another thing, the media is always making up iies..
being a celeberty is the fast lane to a road of stupidity...


Jan. 24, 2008 | 4:32 PM John-The-Biter says:

Celebrities deaths take more priority because they are figure heads. People look up to them. And besides, the news doesnt need 6,618 reports about people's deaths, we want to hear important things. Like who wore what on the red carpet.


Jan. 24, 2008 | 5:32 PM chris-the-stick2 says:

i dont know about other people, but i feel the same grief, and need to say my condolence to the family to the man (or woman) that is dead. its just the fact, that this person is more known, and well, we all have seen him in the television, and he brought us, joy, fear, or laugh, and it weird, and sad seeing him die, and especially so young. we feel familliar with someone we see in our schreens for so long, so i guess thats why people feel like that for him. ist not that they dont care (i hope) but ist because they think they knwo more about him, seeing him in many movies.

also, i feel sad that last year 6000 people died (and more). i mean... man...

Jan. 29, 2008 | 11:41 AM Ross responds:

That 6,000 figure was a daily average. In 2006, over 2.4 million people died. (And over 4.2 million were born.)


Jan. 24, 2008 | 6:31 PM Shintoku says:

You know, when celebrities that are looked at in idolistic ways pass away, it upsets people very deeply. I just think it's weird that people are reacting to Ledger like he was looked up to as a hero. He was cool in a few movies, but did he deserve hero status? I don't think so.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:05 PM Ross responds:

I'm with you. It's sad he died, but no more than anyone else. Being an actor doesn't make you important.


Jan. 24, 2008 | 7:10 PM steph2568 says:

R.I.P Heath Ledger (and 6,618 others).
I feel sad for the fact that he died when he was only 28. I really can't imagine how his family and friends are feeling right now. He was a great actor and it's shocking to see him die at a young age.
So Heath you may be gone, but you sure as hell will not be forgetten.

Peace,
Steph2568

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:06 PM Ross responds:

You're pretty much the exact type of person my little rant was about.


Jan. 24, 2008 | 11:41 PM SoulMaster71 says:

I think I read somewhere while studying evolution last year how people's brains are wired to think we know people we recognize. For many millions of years our ancestors saw only those they knew, and the pre-existing memory structure caused us to recognize them. This close connection between "acquaintance" and "recognition" was eventually wired into our brains, possibly because it gave advantages in social interaction, and there was no force like the mass media interfering with it. Fast forward to 2008, an era dominated by mass media, and yet the takeover took place within a single generation, that the connection is no weaker in us than it was in the Cro-Magnons, for there was no chance for evolution to weaken it. Even if you consider this sort of thing, with not all recognized faces and names belonging to actual acquaintances, as beginning at the origins of civilization, that was only 10,000 or fewer years ago, not enough time to counteract our liking for fattening foods (which developed with hunting), and certainly not long enough to counteract something that we've had since our ape-like ancestors became more social. Thus, when a celebrity dies (as Heath Ledger just did), our recognition "systems" make us think that an actual acquaintance has died, and we express the condolences to his family. But the "nobodies", whose names we have not heard, whose faces we have never seen, are of course unknown to us, and therefore we do not think we know them, and so do not mourn their passing.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:09 PM Ross responds:

You're right - evolutionary psychology explains it all pretty clearly. This is one of the many things I was deeply conflicted about until I realized that EP makes it not a question of morally right or wrong, but rather "this is how it evolved - deal with it".

But I still like to raise the issues for the benefit of those who never stopped to question why things are the way they are.


Jan. 25, 2008 | 6:22 PM The-evil-bucket says:

People think they know him.


Jan. 25, 2008 | 7:12 PM Wurmy says:

Personally, I've always wondered why people care so much that this celebrity did so and so and is now dating so and so and that one over there is having a baby etc..

Why should I care about some person I'll never even meet, talk to, or do anything with? And anyways, most celebrities are better off .. gone..


Jan. 26, 2008 | 7:27 PM STUFFknowledge says:

amen to this. i work with alotta girls and they all came into the lunch area exclaiming, "didja know heath ledger died yesterday?!!???!?" to which i replied, "yep he did and so did marvin tucker, lance feildstien, sarah tobias, evan lokesmith, eduardo gonzales and fetu ombalu."
they look confused and asked, "who r they?"
i said, "people who died who weren't on the news."
one girl actually said, "well they didn't make wonderful movies."
i pity that girl.


Jan. 28, 2008 | 2:40 AM mongoid says:

You answered it all in that last sentence. That, and the media is using his death to make money with higher ratings. Gotta love sensationalist news.

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:10 PM Ross responds:

But like I said - if no one watched, the media would stop. There are non-sensationalist media outlets (PBS, NPR, C-SPAN, etc). No one pays attention to them.


Jan. 28, 2008 | 5:40 AM DarkMan2003 says:

You gotta love blogs... a place where people can express their (usually not-so-important) opinions! I read pretty much every post in here... my conclusion was simply this: We all have way too much time on our hands, if we have time to post a post on someone else's Blog! I agreed with alot of you in here... sadly the more profound point you all are missing is this! You (& myself) are tragically programmed at birth to be whatever the mass societally acceptable thing is for that specific era! Our parents & their predecessors were blinded as well! You see we are all products of a manufactured environment! I'm not trying to go all crazy matrix-style here, but the fact remains that we are here, instead of making an impact in the "real world"!

For all of you who despise "Celebritydom", I applaude you! For being the most ignorant of all! Every person on this planet has their place! If it weren't for those celebrities, who would we have to look up to? Every generation has had it's heroes, it's only befitting that we have the more "Glamourized" Hollywood types to look to! I think given the fact that people do admire them so much, it causes people to be inspired to try to achieve something greater in their life! Is that inspiration bad? Sometimes... I think it depends on how you look at it! If you are the "Glass-is-half-empty" type, you're always looking for the negative anyway! So how COULD you possibly see the pros in anything?

I will not mourn him, for I did not know him personally! I will however make my own memorial tribute/blog in his behalf... for I did appreciate his ability as an actor! I don't know if he was half the person he portrayed in his movies, maybe none of us ever will! So move on... try to cherish the things that are important to you in your life! Lest you become the next tragic number in a statistic somewhere!

Jan. 29, 2008 | 12:13 PM Ross responds:

You're seriously trying to equate actors with heroes? Are you joking? A hero is the firefighter who ran into the World Trade Center on 9/11. A hero is the teacher who spends their life making little money in horrible conditions because they care about kids that much. A hero is the person who does the right thing, even when no one's looking.

A person who did nothing more than get paid millions of dollars to act in movies and soak in the world's attention is not a hero.


Jan. 28, 2008 | 7:04 PM knuxrouge says:

Some people are too obsessed with celeberties. I heard of Ledger, didn't care too much as I didn't know him personally, but condolenses should always go to the dead. Other people are too stupid to see that under the fame and rectotrauma, he is a human being no different than anybody else. I hate tabloids and things of the such, they make too big of a deal of this kind of stuff, do you know how much money was made from Anna Nicole's death? Alot.

My Heath Ledger rest in peace, but in no more peace than. anyone else shall he rest in.


Jan. 30, 2008 | 6:17 PM cursedone says:

People make big deals on celebrity death. When I heard Anna Nicole Smith died, I was a bit shocked but I got over it easy. So when Heath Ledger died, again I did the same thing. Some of my friends took it pretty hard but then again they were major fans. Me, he had some good movies. And it's sad that he died young. But that's just life. There are tons of people who die. A lot had great talent. A lot were well known. But no one really hears about them. Celebrities get a lot of attention. But really is it a big deal. A lot of things they do that are either stupid or wrong, we do the same. After I while I go who cares. He's dead. Deal with it. Life goes on. You can say I'm heartless or cold. I can't always give a damn about every little event that goes on nor care about it.


Jan. 31, 2008 | 6:48 PM gamerk1d51 says:

LT. McMuffin, you have somewhat of a point, but not everyone pursues the lifelong goal of happiness through the acheivment the pursuit of fame and fortune. I won't say i am the MOST compassionate person around, but i value each human life no matter whose it is, and wether or not the person who live that life was famous, but the fact remains that everyone is a real person, and you are mis-construding the fact that the common folk of the US of A have a pre-set mentality of valuing life simply because it is that of a celebrity.


Feb. 2, 2008 | 9:47 PM Chad-T says:

I grieve more for ledger - only because in a small way.......I knew him. I watched all of his films, some multiple times and I have a small relation with him because of his films. I don't know any of the other people that died, so I don't care.


Feb. 3, 2008 | 6:12 PM LtMcMuffin says:

I disagree. I think it was once determined by a minority of people. It is just that Americans have been so dumbed down (i.e. the new MTV generation) that nobody really gives a fark about the important issues. In days of old, war usually had more importance than a crazed, washed up singer.
There was a time when celebrity news meant less... but then people started being programmed to care about it.
If those who run the media decided that current events mattered, beyond the obligatory blurb in a typical newscast "12 Americans died in Iraq today," then current events would be discussed more, celebrity worshipping would die down (to a degree at least).
ET has had "exclusive gossip" and "secret information" on the whole Heath Ledger deal, and had all the inside scoops on this "breaking story." They have been heckling his girlfriend and making all these speculations, giving us important questions to consider like "was it really suicide?"
It's the media telling us we care about Heath Ledger and the aftermath, by running the topic into the dirt. I'm surprised they don't start with the typical fearmongering: "how did the late Heath Ledger die? The Bogeyman! Funded by terrorists, he has been sneaking into your homes and forcing you to overdose!"
It's bloody ridiculous, no matter how you look at it, though.

Feb. 4, 2008 | 2:25 PM Ross responds:

That just doesn't make sense to me. If human nature was to yearn for stories that really matter, why wouldn't one of the news networks say, hey, we could really score ratings if we dropped all the celebrity news, because that's what people want! And they'd switch to that format, and everyone would go watch their news.

Why hasn't that happened, and why will it never happen? Because that's not what human nature is. People that work in media know what sells, and it's sex, blood, shock value, celebrities, etc. (Isn't that what Newgrounds started out as?) Some news broadcasts are more respectable than others, but a good celebrity death story trumps all (whereas daily body counts in Iraq barely get a mention).

Updated: Feb. 4, 2008, 2:26 PM

Feb. 9, 2008 | 4:19 PM LtMcMuffin says:

Sex, blood, and celebrities didn't always sell, though. Look at shows like I Love Lucy, where it was controversial because they slept in the same bed (which was deemed overly sexual). That's not why people watched it.
Once upon a time, clever writing and family values are what made a show. The Bradys didn't run around with AK-47's.
Sure, right around the corner were more "intense" shows, but for a long while the media was safer. Those who cried against early sitcom characters sharing a bed were bombarded with sexual images until they became desensitized and programmed.

Newgrounds is more mature (in some aspects) than the standard media. This is a place where everybody can come together and express themselves. Sometimes it is about immature subjects, others are more serious, but this is a place where everyone can express themselves. It is a place that gives power to the people. It began a little violently, but innovation is what truely kept it alive.

I'll let the arguement die if you'd like. Every time it seems like a "no, no, this is why you are absolutely wrong" thing, and I am sure you are growing tired of dominating the debates hah

Mar. 9, 2008 | 10:06 PM Ross responds:

You think people weren't having sex back when "I Love Lucy" was on the air? There's little difference between what goes on behind closed doors today, and what happened 50 years ago. The only difference is that today we're able to talk about it, because these silly Puritanical walls are, slowly but surely, being broken down. I don't consider that "desensitization", I consider it progress - and again, if people didn't want to see it, why didn't they just stop watching? Why'd they allow themselves to become "programmed"?


Feb. 13, 2008 | 6:08 PM Vectore says:

lol Goth who walks girlfriend on leash is told "No Dogs Allowed" ha know how is that not more popular?


Feb. 14, 2008 | 10:58 PM SkeletonKing says:

"So here's a question - if, instead of dying, Heath simply stopped acting and faded into obscurity - would people be sad about that? Wouldn't their "bond" be breaking that way, too?"

I would imagine so. There difference is one of human perception and consequent reaction. Were Heath to suddenly find Hollywood disgusting and quit acting, perhaps opening a delightful petting zoo, that would be an entirely easier pill to swallow for most of his fans than "Good morning. Heath no longer exists."
If California were to gradually sink into the ocean it would be much easier to deal with than if it were to suddenly sink overnight.


Feb. 19, 2008 | 8:27 AM Thunderfist421 says:

Man, they told that Heath died and people are swimming for Heath that they said on E!


Feb. 22, 2008 | 1:27 PM CompanionCube says:

People only value celebrities lives when they have effected their lives in some way, Heath Ledger's death got a big response because he touched our hearts in one way or another. Its just like Steve Irwin.


May. 14, 2008 | 8:49 PM LtMcMuffin says:

No, I am pretty sure they did have sex, but back then people deemed it unacceptable to talk about it. Behind closed doors, we're all the same. It's just now people are more determined to discover what happens behind closed doors.
I have stopped watching, and not everybody realizes they are being conditioned. When you walk into a Wawa, where do you see the cigarette ads? Right at eye level with a smaller child. Programming isn't always blatant. People aren't always supposed to know what's happening to them. Dare I cite the Matrix as an over the top example? No, but still.
Not all desensitization is progress. When loss becomes statistic and people try and capitalize off of death, desensitization loses what I would call beneficial.
That Miley Cyrus photo shoot scandal? I thought to myself, "oh good, that must mean the war is over," but sure enough at the bottom news crawl, I see "x number of soldiers die in a bombing."

It is all desensitization and programming.

I just sound paranoid reading over this arguement. Oh well.
I hope you see this, I miss ya

Jump to Entry: [ 11427 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 333537 ]