The higher profile and more in the public eye you are, the higher the chance that someone will throw some mud at you (even anonymously, in some cases!) and that it'll stick, and there will be nothing you can do to repair the damage.
When you live by your public image, you die by your public image. Your rise likely happened in the same way as your downfall.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks. You're, after all, Caesar's wife.
Not really, the rise usually happens after years, or even decades, of paying dues and hard work.
You don't build a career in anything, journalism, comedy, whatever, by just one gesture. At least most don't.
>You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't reap the benefits of being a public figure but complain about the drawbacks.
First of all, this doesn't happen just to "public figures". A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything
Second, this doesn't make much sense anyway. One should be able to "reap the benefits of being a public figure" while still complaining about the drawbacks if the drawbacks are detrimental to society and kill public dialogue A actor, for example, can be a public figure without giving license to be stalked.
Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other.
The suggestion to also "bend over and take the drawbacks" would only make sense if the "benefits of being a public figure" were obtained in a way that called for those drawbacks (e.g. celebrities being famous because they purposefully stir trouble and put on shows for the media).
Sure, but it happens because of your public image, always with a "big break" or a "breakthrough".
> At least most don't.
Actually, most do. There is almost always the one big break, where you are launched into the public's view. It is a step function.
Pick a number of artists, and look up their career, for most of them you'll easily find their "big break".
> A person can be fired from their non public job for saying something wrong on social media, without having ripped anything
Sure, but that's a different topic. I'm focusing on the public-figure part of it.
> Public figure means their job is to make movies for public consumption, not that they have to suffer any BS paparazzi. There's no inherent tie between one and the other.
Oh, there is, and plenty of it, the relationship between the "fame industry" (magazines, publications, etc.) and the public figures is a symbiotic one.
And the more you rely on the fame industry to fuel your growth, the more you're exposed to its risks. It is a deal with the devil.
There are, however, public figures who simply avoid the fame industry. They are harder to find, and have a harder time succeeding, but they are there (Daniel Day-Lewis, for example).
You seem to have the stars in mind, which are a tiny minority of working musicians (and even less so of working actors, even less so for journalists etc). The majority of working actors have slowly building careers and never have any great breakthrough.
Stars are not the only ones targeted in such e.g. "tweet-hit-mobs" though.
For Weinstein, as the counterexample, it seems like the public accusation was necessary to get the regular wheels of justice to turn.
And to add the argument that is almost as tired as yours: “Innocent until proven guilty” is for punishment by those with the monopoly on violence, i. e. the state/the courts.
If I can not watch a comedian because I don’t find them funny (which is, unfortunately, not a crime), surely I can skip their HBO special because I believe their accusers?
Of course. But TFA asks: does it follow that everyone should be deprived the HBO special?
Edit: to be clear (I’m concerned about being seen as 100% supporting any position) my position is that if there is enough demand, a presumed minority outcry can be ignored safely (Facebook).
You'll have to find not only another company but also another cable provider and, in the most extreme case, another guild of comedians in case if they decide to boycott your channel.
It's a legal requirement for the state/the courts, but it's a just and fair principle that the rest of us should still strive to embrace.
to make a contrived example: suppose you have a friend that several other people accuse of stealing. none of them can prove that he stole from them, but each of them lost their wallets at separate gatherings where he was present.
you might not find this sufficient cause to confront him or cut him out of your life, but you would probably be a little more careful where you leave your wallet when he's around.
This strikes me as socially unhealthy behavior. In the case described, one of two things is true: 1) The accusers are right, and your friend is a theif. You've implyed that if this were the case, you would confront them and/or cut ties with them (which is reasonable).
2) Your friend is being falsely accused of a serious crime by several people. In this case, he needs your support and trust more than ever.
In neither case is continuing to hang around him as normal, with added caution against his potential theivery, a useful behavior. If he is a theif then you continue to associate with a theif and to put youself at risk of theivery, albeit with some reduced risk on account of increased caution. If he is not a theif, then it's likely that your guarded actions and internal scepticism will be picked up on, and that your friend will notice that you doubt his innocence, which may well hurt your friendship.
That all said, I agree that "guilty until proven innocent" doesn't apply in the scenario that you described. This is because there is "trial". You assume innocence while trying to uncover the truth. So in your scenario, you would assume that your friend is innocent and investigate the wallet disappearances, question the accusers and accused, track down addition witnesses and character witnesses, before finally passing your personal judgement. From there you can confront/cut out the theif, or sympathise and emotionally support the falsely accused.
things are rarely so clear cut in my experience, especially when you only have the resources of a sole private citizen at your disposal.
my "contrived example" is actually lifted from a similar experience I had in college. I found it pretty suspicious at the time, because the gatherings where the other people lost their wallets were quite small. ultimately, I acknowledged privately that I could not conclude one way or the other, so publicly I defended my friend. at the same time, I was always a bit more careful of my stuff when we were hanging out (no idea whether they noticed this).
my point is that there is a difference between taking punitive action against a person and taking protective actions towards oneself. my position is that there is no inherent contradiction in being too uncertain to punish but certain enough to protect yourself, provided that it does not unduly harm the other person.
Derrick Rose lost over a million dollars in sponsorship dollars, Kobe Bryant lost over a million too. The list goes on and on.
All those people lost a large amount of money, and reputation was seriously hurt by one accusation.
For that matter, what did Woody Allen lose? He has still been making movies.
Oh no, the poor guy might now get the occasional dirty look from some people as he fills out his lifetime appointment to the highest and most powerful court in the nation. The agony!
Furthermore, no matter how much his wife trusts him, she will still have doubt if he really raped that woman, and he is going to have to live with his kids and wife for the rest of his life also.
I would value my reputation, my legacy, the views of my kids and wife to be far more important than being supreme court justice.
So if an accusation is repeated "again and again" it's true?