The Mirror Effect

Christopher Jacob asked whether celebrities are raising the bar of beauty to artificial standards, but maybe we should look at what causes America’s obsession with the rich and famous.

Heidi Montag is just one of many examples of celebrity narcissism in America and it's effects on our nation - most specifically our youth. While I'm personally not too familiar with her story, many reality stars could care less about their influence on society since they are so infatuated by their own pursuit of fame (which they equate to happiness), hat they are willing to do anything in order to make their dreams of stardom a reality. This behavior is reinforced by a media trying to do anything to stay above water by remaining relevant. For a magazine like People, which for years has been focused portraying the personal lives of the popular, it's no surprise that they are forced to cash in and publish an article on a reality television star.

Arguably the defining trend in television of the last decade, reality TV has exploded for 2 main reasons. First, this genre is one of the cheapest forms of programming to produce, so business executives love them. Second, they establish enormous audiences that feel a connection with these 'real' people, and seeing these 'average' Americans become elevated to stardom keeps the American dream of fame and fortune alive for their massive audiences.

People think, "Well, if Paris Hilton can be famous and she has no talent, why can't I?" To do this, they can use the Internet to post blogs, pictures, videos, etc. and try to get the world to pay attention to them. They create what is almost like a celebrity internet persona using the web to try and capture their dream of fame, and with more sites like youtube, twitter, flickr, and facebook becoming more and more popular, their potential Internet audience grows every day. These psuedo stars tend to extract different formulas of archetypes they’ve seen on reality TV and emulate the same behavior in an effort to achieve similar celebrity status. Typically, the most memorable reality TV characters are the controversial and outspoken manipulators, so naturally this is the behavior that is, to borrow a social psychology term, modeled by those who want to have similar success.


Another part of fitting into an archetype is having the right image, which is precisely why the number of plastic surgeries in America has soared in recently memory. By having a media that reinforces stereotypical definitions of physical beauty, individuals become discontent if they do not perceive that their own personal image coincides with Hollywood’s definition of attractiveness. And, after all, these individuals are trying to find self-worth through pleasing others, so they feel justified in suffering through their eating disorders or participating in self-mutilation, even if it is artfully done by plastic surgeons. The ends justify the means, right? I mean, isn’t the American dream all about working hard and overcoming obstacles in order to achieve your aspirations?

So, who really is to blame for all of this? Is it the fault of the celebrity for wanting to remain relevant? Is it the fault of the tabloids that encourage poor behavior in order to sell magazines? Should we blame the television industry for pleasing both their stock holders and their audiences by providing ‘reality’ television? Should we blame Glenn Beck… because we can? Should we blame capitalism (gasp!) for forcing businesses to pursue the most profitable endeavors regardless of what they may be doing to our society as a whole? Can’t the government do something to regulate this filth?

Well, fortunately for capitalism and my safety (disagreeing with gun-totin’ uber extremists, sometimes known as tea-partiers, can be hazardous to one’s health), I’m going to go ahead and shift responsibility to the public on this one. Ultimately, without the consumer, there would be no audience and therefore no market. Ergo, if the source is removed, the vicious cycle never starts. But what’s the best way to do this without usurping an individual’s freedom to pursue happiness ?
By sparking a change in the consumer’s preference, Americans can shift their attention towards more enlightening forms of entertainment in order to help them better contribute to society. Often times, people read tabloids or watch reality television because they are bored or don’t know anything better to do. These sorts of activities are rarely rewarding and provide little to no personal development or benefit to society at large. Other times, people say they follow celebrities as a sort of escape from the stresses of their own personal lives, and while escapism can be a valid stress reduction technique, there are other coping methods which can serve the same purpose and be much more engaging. The apathy and disinterest in personal progression can be blamed by on a whole host of sources, but ultimately every American should be held responsible for their own actions and behaviors.

But if you or any of your friends are considering plastic surgery as a way of fixing your physical flaws, please consider consulting a professional psychologist before turning to a plastic surgeon. It is estimated that at least 1% of Americans suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a debilitating mental illness with serious health consequences if it goes untreated.

For more information on the subject, please pick up Dr. Drew Pinsky’s NY Times Best Seller, The Mirror Effect.

The Democractic Public Intellectual: Overcoming Failures of the Government and Media

In times of turmoil and hardship, people need role models that function as change agents to inspire hope. A history of corrupt decision making has led many Americans to be skeptical and cynical of the once honorable institutions of government service and journalism, so leadership must come elsewhere. Gone are the days when Walter Kronkite and John F. Kennedy gave our nation something to believe. They have been replaced by headlines profiling Tiger Woods’s newest mistress, the drug and/or alcohol abuse of Hollywood socialites, collateral damage and car bombings in the Middle East, natural disasters, or the literal and figurative infidelities of Washington. America needs heroes with clean records that connect on a human level with Americans through empathy, leaders who are willing to make the tough choices and give people what they need even if it’s not what they want, and scholars who relay their education and experience to their fellow citizens. America needs public intellectuals, one’s like Dr. Drew Pinsky, who are ready and able to serve the public’s interest, picking up where the mainstream media and politicians have utterly failed.

The survival of the human race has been dependent on our ability as individuals to come together and work within formal and informal organizations. The success of these social groups and networks rely upon each member’s willingness to trust one another in order to work towards a common good. This interdependence of humanity is ingrained into the psyche of the human mind from the time we are born as our mothers nurture and raise up their young. These social qualities remain and actually blossom throughout our lifetimes as our social networks expand to different spheres made up of extended family, friends, members of informal groups, co-workers, fellow citizens, and even a greater global network as the current information and communication revolution helps us form intercontinental connections. However, today’s western societies focus so much on promoting the interest of one’s self and immediate friends and family that the benefits of working towards the public interest have forgotten. Furthermore the greater good is often considered an impediment stifling personal development. The resulting nation of individuals only trusts that others will act according to their own, short-term interest. Without unity, though, are we really the United States?

Along with the political polarization of our nation, this has created a complicated conundrum for our society at large. A democracy founded under the principle of popular sovereignty mandates the participation of active and informed citizens in running the government. While much can be said about the divided nature of our government and media, there’s no doubt that the tabloid-esque story lines of Washington have raised the public’s interest in politics. While the public’s political activity is peaking on the national level with the highest voter turnout in forty years resulting in Barack Obama’s presidency, this still does not address the issue of an adequate way of providing reliable information to the public. As Americans’ trust in the government on the federal and state levels reaches new lows despite Obama’s uplifting message of hope, and a similar lack of trust toward is shown toward the media, the responsibility of enlightening the American people falls upon a third group: the public intellectuals.

As a service to the public good, these outstanding individuals are classically defined as trained academics and professionals who provide objective and critical analysis free of bias stemming from personal agendas. It is up to these men and women to restore balance to the country by juxtaposing subjective and sensationalizing pundits with objective critiques aimed at aiding the understanding of the American people. Public intellectuals like Dr. Drew Pinsky, known as the ”national face of addiction medicine,” hold the opportunity to restore order to the nation by providing credible information to advance the public interest.

Dr. Drew Pinsky exemplifies the characteristics necessary of today’s public intellectuals and amplifies his area of influence by consistently going above and beyond the call of duty on a daily basis. His credentials are impressive both in quantity and quality. Professionally, Dr. Pinsky graduated from USC’s Keck School of Medicine where he now teaches psychiatry. He is a board-certified physician, addiction medicine specialist, and also runs the chemical-dependency department at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena.

Dr. Drew was first introduced to the public back in 1983 when he was asked to contribute to a new radio show called Loveline on Los Angeles’s contemporary rock station. Dr. Drew answered all sorts of questions from listeners calling in with an assortment of diverse questions ranging from issues with relationships, sexuality, drugs, and anything else that might be thought of as uncomfortable but necessary. With an easy tone and understanding to even the most taboo and vulgar of questions, Dr. Drew andLoveline became a safe haven for the youth of Los Angeles to get much needed advice from a reliable, nonjudgmental source. By 1995, the show was nationally syndicated and still airs from 10pm-midnight PST five days every week across the entire nation. With an audience primarily made up of adolescents, Dr. Drew has earned the trust of his listeners by providing an outlet for the most relevant questions pertaining to America’s youth with an honest exchange of medically sound answer. His empathy allowed for introverted youth to let down their walls and barriers and pose very person and pertinent questions, and everyone listening benefited.

Along with this civil service via the radio, Dr. Drew has also used television and cinema as mediums for his services. Along with a version of Loveline for MTV, he has also hosted Strictly Dr. Drew, Sex… With Mom and Dad, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew, and Sober House. With the exception of Strictly Dr. Drew, which airs Thursdays at 10pm on the Discovery Channel, some of his critics have attempted to discredit Dr. Drew for broadcasting his shows on MTV and VH1, channels whose reality shows reinforce the vary narcissistic tendencies that he warns against in his most recent book The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America.

In a rebuttal to his doubters, Drew showed the leadership necessary to make the hard decisions and replied that “the people that need what we have are watching VH1… Not the people watching educational TV, the NPR crowd. You gotta give ’em what they want so you can give ’em what they need.” His basic strategy encourages everyone to poke their head in the door to find out what all the excitements about, then serve them the chicken noodle soup they need. For years on Loveline, Drew’s sidekick, the colorful every man Adam Carola, juxtaposed the doctor with a raw and often outrageous comedian with a unique perspective, providing a truly unique entertainment experience that proved both captivating and incredibly informative. Drew, like everyone public intellectual should, takes advantage of this exposure to deliver the necessary treatment to the patients that need it the most. Providing analysis on the hypocrisy of conservative politicians for Keith Olbermann’s Countdown is simply redundant and does nothing to facilitate the public discourse, but providing a little conviction for the people who need it most is how we redirect a lost nation and make progress as individuals and as a united country.

In order to do ensure his message reaches as many as possible, he’s made numerous public appearances on many of America’s most well-known talk shows. In 2009 alone, he was on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Tonight Show with Conan O’brien, NBC’s Today Show, Howard Stern,Glenn Beck, and The View. If he does not seem like a busy enough man as is, he is an actor (often playing himself), medical magazine editor, has participated in many college talking tours, and also has authored five books including the aforementioned New York Times’ BestsellerThe Mirror Effect.

Oh, and did I mention he tries to run five miles a day, is a classically trained opera singer and has sixteen year old triplets? And I thought I was busy. This work ethic and his ability to balance these multiple responsibilities, while maintaining his passion for service, makes it even easier for outsiders to relate and connect with Dr. Drew.

While Dr. Drew has been able to establish a genuine rapport with his audiences, the same cannot be said about most politicians in America. In his first State of the Union address, even President Obama addressed the “deepening cynicism Americans feel toward their government and called for mending what he characterized as a ‘deficit of trust.’” People see our government as a distant entity hundreds or thousands of miles away that cannot possibly relate to their day-to-day experiences. These elected public servants are not perceived as representatives of their constituents or their needs, but are merely pawns following the protocol to remain in political culture. President Obama pleads for politicians and journalists (usually Fox News contributors) to abandon a status quo that emphasizes a fiscal bottom line and incorporate the interest of America into one’s goals and objectives.

With many politicians more interested in preserving their own careers, Americans have a hard time believing that they truly strive towards achieving the common good. When one considers the widespread corruption of government through lobbyists, citizens worry that politicians are being bought by corporations whose agendas may not coincide with those of the people. This fear has only been amplified by the recent Supreme Court decision to give corporations the same rights as a person, potentially opening the floodgates of corporate financing through campaign contributions.

Just like in this case where the long-term ramifications of this decision are unclear, much of the government is complex and confusing for the common man, fostering a fear of the unknown. Even with Obama increasing the transparency more than previous administrations, there is still a level of distrust since certain agencies (see “Secret Service”) are, by nature, necessarily cryptic. Additionally, our system of checks and balances, confusing jargon such as filibusters and reconciliation, numerous agencies and levels of the bureaucracy, create a slow and inefficient political process that the average American does not always understand.

Finally, since there is distrust for the government, citizens become more hesitant to participate in a system they do not understand. This undermines Jeffersonian theory which argues that participation is precisely the means by which people should learn about the government. This anti-government sentiment perpetuates the problem as citizens become reluctant to partake in governing their own land, turning our democracy into more of an aristocracy comprised of members who understand how to manipulate the system for their own good.

And speaking of individuals and groups focused more on achieving their personal agendas, our attention is now turned away from the government and towards the American institution of “journalism” whose calling is to connect individuals with the events of the outside world and to act as watchdogs and protect the people from government abuse.

First, it is essential to understand that our 24 hour news organizations are for profit businesses that honor their stock payers and CEOs more than their journalistic code of integrity. This means their ultimate objective is to make money and not to serve Americans the information they need to be productive citizens.

Due to the expansion of the Internet, additional competition of news sources has been created and companies have been forced to turn to cost-saving measures to survive. Because of all these threats that was did not exist when the people got their news from the paper in the mornings and the network news hours at nights, general news groups been forced into specialization to create a unique product to entice an audience. For example, Fox News has chosen to present a conservative perspective, MSNBC covers the liberal basis, and CNN has attempted to take the route of BBC and fulfill the objective void in between the other two networks.

Unfortunately for CNN, they have suffered due to attempts at providing objective, critical analysis while engaging in the other prevalent trend in today’s media, sensationalism. News groups have been providing the public with what they want, resulting in multiple groups covering the same ‘important’ stories. This means that in order to steal the audience from the other competitors, they try and make the stories as entertaining as possible, and obviously, entertainment does not necessarily translate into a productive information exchange. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love his music and everything he’s contributed but personally and threw his many philanthropies, but how many months of Michael Jackson coverage following his death did we really need? I hope this question to be rhetorical requiring no further discussion along this line of thinking.

The third major consequence of competition in journalism is the downsizing staffs, especially during the 24 hour news cycle, sparking the decline of investigative journalism. It is a lot cheaper for corporations to stick in front of a camera entertaining, opinionated talking heads surrounding by pretty flat-screen, high-definition panels and let them rant for an hour than to send a crew of reporters, translators, cameramen, producers, etc. to a foreign country to get a story. From this, we get the Keith Olbermann’s and the Glenn Beck’s of the industry that provide us with a high entertainment value and an equally high degree of bias. This has left the public to do one of the two things, reject the subjective reporting and search for other means of informing themselves or embrace these puppeteering pundits parading around like politicians superimposing their opinions upon their cult-like follower. Ergo, those that choose the former will be hesitant to trust any media source, while the latter will follow every whim of their leaders and distrust all dissenting opinions without a single critical thought. Either way, it is a failure in the establishment of journalism to fulfill its essential purpose.

This is where Dr. Drew and other public intellectuals have the responsibility to overcome these obstacles and provide the public with the sort of analysis they need to become better citizens of this global community. They must present clear, jargon-free reporting based on credible evidence to ensure all laymen can absorb the necessary information needed for civic engagement. Additionally, a willingness to present their body of knowledge on any show, regardless of its place on the political spectrum, will ensure that their useful information reaches those who need to hear it the most. In order to retain credibility while discussing and debating with these pundits, a public intellectual must refrain from muddling quality analysis maintaining a professional position in the face of partisan pandemonium.

After failures by the government and the media to contribute to the personal development of American citizens, it is up to the public intellectuals, whatever their background may be, to stimulate the American people who are equally important as the intellectuals themselves in running a democracy by the people and for the people. According to Dr. Stephen Mack in his essay questioning the supposed decline of the public intellectual, as they create and enrich the public discourse, they fulfill their function of criticism, an obligation shared by every citizen regardless of their training or background. So, while the last great generation of the classically defined public intellectuals may have been those born during the roaring twenties, a new generation spawning from unorthodox sources has the potential to rise up and return America to a true democracy. As Americans discuss these issues, they reforge the social ties and connection with their community that were destroyed by years of lies and isolation. This also reinstates the importance of trust and encourages politicians and journalists to embrace a culture that values integrity. By stimulating this networking, we can unite a polarized nation of red states and blue states into one United States of America.