| Revision as of 15:36, 21 June 2009 edit99.142.2.89 (talk) It's not a reliable source. You've quoted the entry verbatim as if it established a "fact". Just because the Internet forum uses the word "dictionary" doesn't make it one. It has no purpose here.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:09, 21 June 2009 edit undoArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits UNDO.Please, take and confine your arguments to article DICUSSION. Revert-waaring is not really the correct course of action here. Btw, read your own link, pls.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Yates claimed that the phenomenon was first noticed in the media frenzy that followed the death of ] and the media frenzy that occurred afterwards. He further noted that it usually occurs in times of national mourning and international disaster, and commented dryly that it primarily affects people working in media.<ref name="OB" />}} | Yates claimed that the phenomenon was first noticed in the media frenzy that followed the death of ] and the media frenzy that occurred afterwards. He further noted that it usually occurs in times of national mourning and international disaster, and commented dryly that it primarily affects people working in media.<ref name="OB" />}} | ||
| Carol Sarler, speaking as a guest columnist for ], sarcastically notes that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse.<ref name="NewType">{{cite web | author=Carol Sarler | title=This new and peculiar pornography of grief | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2402693.ece | work=Comment | publisher=TimesOnline | date=7 September, 2007 | accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref> | ] defines grief porn as "a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others".<ref>{{cite web | title=Grief porn | url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grief%20porn | work=Definitions | publisher=Urban Dictionary | date= | accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref> Carol Sarler, speaking as a guest columnist for ], sarcastically notes that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse.<ref name="NewType">{{cite web | author=Carol Sarler | title=This new and peculiar pornography of grief | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2402693.ece | work=Comment | publisher=TimesOnline | date=7 September, 2007 | accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref> | ||
| ''The Times's'' ], defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place"<ref name="Finkelstein">{{cite web | author=Daniel Finkelstein | title=Can you solve the Madeleine McCann case? | url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/09/why-are-we-rive.html | work=Comment Central | publisher=Times Onlie | date= | accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref>, but considers it misapplied at times. Using the example of the ] a four-year-old child who went missing while on holiday with her parents, Finkelstein theorizes that "we don't follow the McCann case because we are grief junkies. Most of us follow it because we fancy ourselves as ].<ref name="Finkelstein"/> | ''The Times's'' ], defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place"<ref name="Finkelstein">{{cite web | author=Daniel Finkelstein | title=Can you solve the Madeleine McCann case? | url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/09/why-are-we-rive.html | work=Comment Central | publisher=Times Onlie | date= | accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref>, but considers it misapplied at times. Using the example of the ] a four-year-old child who went missing while on holiday with her parents, Finkelstein theorizes that "we don't follow the McCann case because we are grief junkies. Most of us follow it because we fancy ourselves as ].<ref name="Finkelstein"/> | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 21 June 2009
Grief porn is a pejorative neologistic expression often used to describe a hyper-attention, intrusive voyeurism and "gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy". It is usually used to describe the behavior of the news media in the wake of a tragedy. It is distinct from Schadenfreude in that it describes a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events, whereas the latter refers to a joy at the misfortune of others. Commentators have noted that the distinction can be blurred by the 24-hour news cycle and its need to produce news stories.
Origin of usage
The term was reportedly first coined by Robert Yates, an assistant editor for The Observer in a news conference on April 7, 2005. Described as the following:
Grief Porn. (n.) Gratification derived from a tenuous connection to the misfortunes of others; the gratuitous indulgence of tangential association with tragedy; getting off on really bad news.
Yates claimed that the phenomenon was first noticed in the media frenzy that followed the death of Princess Diana and the media frenzy that occurred afterwards. He further noted that it usually occurs in times of national mourning and international disaster, and commented dryly that it primarily affects people working in media.}}
Urban Dictionary defines grief porn as "a form of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some form of disaster. It exploits the basic voyeuristic nature of humans who get their rocks off by feeling good by looking at the suffering of others". Carol Sarler, speaking as a guest columnist for The Times (London), sarcastically notes that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse.
The Times's Daniel Finkelstein, defines the term as "a rather tasteless fascination with other people's disasters and a sentimentalism that is out of place", but considers it misapplied at times. Using the example of the Madeleine McCann a four-year-old child who went missing while on holiday with her parents, Finkelstein theorizes that "we don't follow the McCann case because we are grief junkies. Most of us follow it because we fancy ourselves as (Inspector) Morse.
References
- ^ "Boo hoo, said the crocodile". ObserverBlog. The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
- "Grief porn". Definitions. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
- Carol Sarler (7 September, 2007). "This new and peculiar pornography of grief". Comment. TimesOnline. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Daniel Finkelstein. "Can you solve the Madeleine McCann case?". Comment Central. Times Onlie. Retrieved 2009-06-02.