It isn’t. It is just as wrong.
Fox’s Chris Wallace has apologized for making a gratuitous and unkind crack about pop singer Kelly Clarkson’s weight on a conservative talk radio show (he was suckered into it by the host, Mike Gallagher, who has also apologized to Clarkson.)
Today I have seen the above graphic circulating on Facebook with many “likes” and snarky comments about Mick and Keith’s faces.
My restrained reply is “Shut up, jerks, and show some respect.”
Original members Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts are over 70 now. Nevertheless, they are embarking on another North America tour. They can still play, in some ways better than ever; Mick can still sing, and can still dance like a chicken. The Stones show passion and professionalism in every performance; those who have seen their concerts leave amazed. The Stones are not like the Beach Boys or the Turtles, croaking out 50-year-old hits to grandparents at county fairs. The Stones can still rock, still have musical integrity, still give their audiences their money’s worth and then some.
I wonder how many of the Facebook trolls writing about how the Stones, who are going to be 73 this year, look old—they are old, and so what? What exactly are they supposed to do about that?—know how hard performing at a professional level is, how exhausting it is, how it impossible to get to sleep for hours after a show because you are soaked with adrenaline, and how much wear and tear it places on the body, emotions and mind.
My guess? Very few. And very few of these obnoxious critics will be able to walk upstairs quickly at the age that the Stones are still rocking arenas. I give three hour, interactive ethics seminars, and I’m a lively speaker. After about two seminars in a week with the related travel, I am fried—and the Stones are expending more energy, more often, then I am. They are also a decade older than I am. I can’t be certain I’ll be able to do my Ethics Chicken Dance when I’m 73. They are an inspiration.
I wonder: why is it immediately evident to most people that insulting Kelly Clarkson for not being a size 4 is despicable, but everyone thinks it’s acceptable to mock the Stones for their wrinkles? Some theories:
1. Ageism is an accepted form of bigotry in the media and society generally.
2. The Stones “can take it.” Clarkson is a woman, so obviously she can’t. This is naked sexism and bias.
3. The Stones “deserve” to be mocked, because they have abused drugs, women and themselves. What matters most, however, is whether artists can still make good art. They can. They no more deserve to be mocked because they look like they burn the candle at both ends than Clarkson does for not passing up “the deep-dish pizza.”
4. “Rock singers are fair game.” Oh, really? Why? Well, a lot of people think they are just exhibitionists fooling around. That’s ignorance, and nothing else. Have you ever listened to Mick Jagger in a serious interview? He’s erudite, articulate, well-read, thoughtful, funny and well-educated…and interesting. He know his craft, he’s worked hard at it, and he takes pride in his work.
Either it is fair to mock the appearance of performers or it isn’t. When a performer’s appearance is critical to their entertainment value, then criticism may be justified: Britney Spears’ infamous comeback TV appearance looking dazed and out of shape was unprofessional, for example. Actor Val Kilmer’s deteriorating appearance undermines his ability to perform, and it is fair to criticize him for it. Liza Minnelli’s voice is ruined, and she shouldn’t inflict herself on audiences; she needs to be told until it sinks in.
None of this applies to Kelly Clarkson, nor does it apply to Jagger and Richards. The ethics of attacking performers for their appearance when they can still do their jobs well is deplorable, and the same applies to similar criticism of other professionals, in any line of work. It also applies to any human being, trying to get through life the best they can. Everyone deserves kindness. Nobody, male, female, celebrity or not, deserves to be ridiculed for their age or weight.
We all earn this same basic standard of respect, simply by setting foot on the planet.
Now here’s Mick:
Ethics Alarms 
Hear hear! Well seen and well said.
The Stones are amazing, and every bit as professional as you say.Thanks for the excellent point.
You’re a Stones guy? Boy, I had you begged as a Herman’s Hermits fan…
Oh Jack, what did I ever do to deserve THAT!? Ouch. I can take a lot of abuse, but that just hurts…oooff
( I confess: I always got a kick out of Noone and the lads.)
By the way, Keith Richards’ autobiography is an amazing read. He is truly his own man.
Charles, are you referring to “Gus and Me?”
We have just ordered that for our school libraries. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
No, it’s called Life, by him and some ℅-writer, with the audio version narrated in part by Johnny Depp. Not G-rated.
From the stand-point of a guy who will turn 70 in less than 90 days, KNOCK IT OFF, PEOPLE! I’ll assume that Kelly and/or her husband, Brandon Blackstone, can handle anything that comes their way, but I have about had the course with people who think ageing is FUNNY! Because, you see, unless you happen to subscribe to “Live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse”, everybody gets old! And, folks, IT HURTS! For those of you who think this is funny, I hope it hurts you more than most.
Partially Wrong.
Outside of the bounds of comedy and the Jester’s Privilege. It’s always unethical to *mock* someone.
Are the superficial reasons for mockery actually applicable to what someone is sincerely attempting to accomplish?
Too bad. Mockery is not the vehicle for correcting that individual or steering them towards a better way.
Maybe The Daily Mail thought they were making fun of Rolling Stone for the rape story scandal…
I think you’re missing a point. Fat-shaming a woman might encourage young girls watching at home to develop eating disorders (thinking they need to be thin too). On the other hand, old-shaming a man is not going to have any effect on anyone but the man himself. (Boys don’t worry about getting old and wrinkled.) The destructive effect in the female case is more widespread.
But I’ll agree it’s kind of mean-spirited in either case.
You do blame the lying witnesses, though, correct? The statement about “Jackie” smacked as off-target partisan, feminist sucking up. Everyone is writing about how bad this incident is for legitimate victims of rape, so she was taking the position that the less everyone beats up on Jackie, the better. So Rolling Stone’s publisher says its not really culpable because it was tricked by a liar, and Columbia says that the liar isn’t at fault, because if RS did its job, her lies wouldn’t have hurt anyone.
As usual, nobody’s at fault, nobody’s held accountable, and no lessons are learned….and the culture gets more corrupt by the second.
The CSJ report says that nothing Jackie said appears to be based on verifiable facts. The conclusion seems to be res ipsa loquitur, and yet it announced the opposite conclusion. She is not to blame means, to most listeners, “she did nothing wrong.” Who believes that?
“Kind of mean-spirited” is a shrug. The point is that both are denigrating performers gratuitously for personal characteristics unrelated to their performance, which is per se disrespectful, unfair and irresponsible. Over emphasis of women’s weight sparks eating disorders, and over emphasis of appearance generally, for men or women, causes narcissism disorders, and prompts insecure men as well as women to undergo expensive, wasteful and harmful surgical procedures. The acceptance of male-bashing and reflex repugnance at similar cruelty aimed at women is a double standard: they are both Golden Rule breaches, and the same breach to boot.
I haven’t read the actual CSJ report, I’ll declare up front. But it occurs to me, it’s a school of journalism; they have standing to critique RS, but it’s outside their brief to render judgment on a source.
Seems they’d be totally justified in saying nothing the source said had any external proof, and that’s an indictment of the paper – but did they actually say anything exculpatory about “Jackie” other than that she was completely unverified? Wouldn’t they be going outside their bounds by saying anything more than “RS should in no way have relied on a completely non-credible source?”
I am with the late Joan Rivers, if they are making pots of money in the public eye THEY are fair game for everybody about everything, take no prisoners !
Joan was a professional comedian, and made fun of people for a living. Yet she still wouldn’t mock someone’s race or religion…if people are widely discriminated against for a physical characteristic like weight or age, all that kind of thing is doing is leading the mob on. It’s wrong. Simple as that.
” if they are making pots of money in the public eye THEY are fair game for everybody about everything, take no prisoners !”
I totally disagree, although a great many people think like you do on this issue. They are paid to entertain the public but the public does not own them. They are making money off the public, true, but the public receives a product in return for the money they spend. End of contract. They are not being showered with money for nothing. Buying a CD does not give the purchaser the right to use the celebrity as a punching bag, or to hold them up to ridicule for “fun”.
There was a social media brouhaha over untouched pictures of Cindy Crawford that were released a month or so ago. The photos were praised for being ‘real’ and as countering ‘society’s standards for female beauty’, it went
on for a few days. The problem is, the release was not authorized by Cindy Crawford, they were released by a third party. A third party decided to release unflattering photos of a celebrity without her permission to make a point. 90% of those on FB and Twitter were all for it.
One reporter at CNN made some good points about it-
“So it’s no surprise that when photo of Crawford was shared all over social media, many people commended White for making it public and Crawford for having “the guts” to open herself up to such scrutiny.”
” The release of the photo and the response it has generated is quite the opposite of inspiring. The message it seems to convey is that the only way we celebrate a woman’s aging body is when we bear witness to its flaws.
After all, we call women like 32-year-old Australian model Erin McNaught, who released photos of her toned body four weeks after giving birth, “vain,” “insecure,” and “attention-seeking” because we don’t find any comfort in seeing those photos.
So let’s call a spade a spade. We don’t like Crawford’s image because it’s “real.” We like it because it’s a little startling and a little unattractive, and therefore makes us feel better about ourselves.
But that isn’t what empowerment is — using others’ faults to downplay or justify our own. We’re also not cheering Crawford’s bravery in showing the world what even the most genetically blessed 50-year-old women look like, since the photo was very likely shared without her permission.
We’re using her to make ourselves feel better. Which, of course, could not be more unattractive.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/drexler-cindy-crawford/
saw Paul McCartney twice last year. 4 hours of awesome each time. It was exhausting standing and singing along for parts of it…and the whole time that 70 year old rocked it.
I get the impression that the photo above was chosen to make the Stones look as bad as possible!