Why Irish bloggers and Tweeters swoon when celebrities look their way

Two cases in point: George Hook and Ryan Tubridy.

1. George Hook
George is an ego-centric man who presents radio items as if he himself is part of the story. (Never more so than at Barack Obama's inauguration, where at least half of the show was about how he, himself, was feeling about it all.)
He is also fond of berating the little or the powerless guy (as I have personally witnessed). He rarely takes on powerful figures. In other words, he is a bit of an ass. Twitter-folk can see this. And they used to comment accordingly. Until, that is, George entered Twitter. Then, would-be critics started to fawn at his feet. Imagine! A celebrity! And he's talking to me!

2. Ryan Tubridy
In a fairly brutal profile piece (can't find link) last Sunday, Liam Fay described Ryan Tubridy as a "facsimile" of the talkshow presenters he aspires to imitate. In doing so, Fay concluded, Tubridy was not the new Gay Byrne, but the new Marty Whelan.
Whether this is an accurate description or not, Tubridy is clearly a bright, witty man. He is also hard-working and capable. But he plays to the mob (which is grey-haired, as he sees it) in a cringing way. Part of this act is to be sceptical of technology. Handily, this suits his audience, the majority of which are most likely over 45.
Another part is to protest about celebrities' privacy, in particular his own. He often says that  he cannot understand why anyone would be interested in his private life. The fact that he spends half his shows asking people about their private lives is, presumably, beside the point.
But sometimes, this mask slips and the act falls flat on its face. For example, I will never forget the moment where, upon learning that Amy Huberman's ancestors were Jewish, his first question to her was: "have you been to Auschwitz?" Nor the time when he asked a group of former anorexics why they couldn't have "taken up a hobby" instead of anorexia.
Many on Twitter see this side to Ryan. And they talk about it. But they won't anymore. That's because Ryan has started to tweet himself.
Yes, having spent over a year rubbishing the forum, claiming it was purely for trivia-obsessed narcissists, he has jumped on the bandwagon.
And how Irish Twitter will love it.
Now, there'll be little criticism. Only fluttering eyelashes. And claps on the back.
Bloggers and Twitterati, for all their pretensions, are no different from the rest of the mob. Thrilled when a celebrity spits on them.

Comments

[Twenty Major]

The only engagement I will have with Tubridy is to call him a cunt. I'm not even sure I can be arsed to do that though.

[Gerard Cunningham]

But Twenty, you're a celebrity too. People want you to call them cunts.

[Darragh]

Twitter is full of dim people saying inane things. Think alot and write a little - not the other way around.

Good article as always Adrian.

[Twenty Major]

I'm not a celebrity. You have to be on TV to be a celeb.

[UnaMullally]

But that's just your opinion of those broadcasters, others might actually like their buzz. Not everyone thinks Hook and Tubridy are assholes.

[twitter.com/AllanCavanagh]

Adrian, if you're ever having a conversation with someone for the first time, is your opening gambit "ah, I was only saying the other day what a cunt you are..."?

[Eolaí]

You might be confusing swooning with good manners.

[Adrian]

Una,
You're right. It is just my opinion about those particular two.
Yes, others do, genuinely, like their buzz. Many don't, and it's them I'm thinking of.

Allan,
No, but if I go on about someone being a tosser I (genuinely) won't be pally and star-struck if they acknowledge me.

Eolai,
Perhaps I am. Though where were the manners when they were slagging off?

[Twenty Major]

Thrilled when a celebrity spits on them.

Dickie's on Twitter?!

[UnaMullally]

"You might be confusing swooning with good manners." - I kind of agree with this. I think the tone of this post is quite patronising. Plus, if one doesn't know someone and just knows 'of' them, generally one's preconceptions of what they're actually like are quite off. I think being confrontational from the get go simply because you don't like someone's radio show or TV show or public persona is kind of weird. How would you like it if people acted like an asshole towards you simply because they didn't dig your writing? And who is anyone to judge or care how someone interacts with someone else on Twitter? Is a polite approach such a crime?

[Geoff]

I think this piece is right on the money, people who would just have gone under the radar as rude, obnoxious, introverted, weird people who you wouldn't normally look twice at in real life, but once they have a mid day slot on rte 2fm people are more than happy to put aside any human value standards they have to communicate with, what we call in Ireland, a "celebrity".

[Adrian]

Una,

Good manners are always nice. Some people display them at all times. (I'm thinking of folk like @darragdoyle.)

But when you slag and ridicule on a regular basis, you hardly get kudos for good manners if you suddenly become deferential and sweet when Mr/Mrs Celeb comes into the room.

[Adrian]

Twenty,

No, but I was once in an overnight queue with his son for a Commodore Amiga.

[UnaMullally]

I guess it's about your attitude towards people who work in broadcasting and how you define 'celebrity'. I guess if you view a radio presenter as just someone who works in radio rather than someone you have bundles of preconceptions about because of what trashy newspapers or idle gossip says about them then you will interact with them differently.

For me, a celebrity is someone who is actually famous internationally, rather than someone who works for Newstalk.

I think if a household name joins Twitter, people might be more inclined to follow them because generally people are more interested about what 'well known' people are up to than what Joe Punter is up to. My problem is with the 'swooning' thing, which is incorrect, as I think people are just being polite. I also have a real pet hate of people projecting generally incorrect preconceptions about someone, or just presuming someone is an asshole just because they're 'well known'.

Am I alone in thinking this? I just find that attitude kind of weird.

[Adrian]

Una,

Well, I huge respect for most people who work in broadcasting. (Regularly tweet about them.) So perhaps some of the preconceptions may be yours?

I disagree that a celebrity must be international. George Hook and Ryan T are generally acknowledge to be celebrities.

[Adrian]

I'd also say that I don't really read trashy mags/papers. So not really sure about the preconceptions you think I've swallowed.

[UnaMullally]

@Adrian, oh right, so your referring to individual cases of people previously saying they think so and so is an asshole and then being nice to so and so on Twitter? I didn't know that's what you were talking about.

My general rule of thumb is to never over-bitch about someone. I don't think it's healthy or normal to be nasty to people you don't know, especially in public or on a public forum. Say you dislike their work maybe, if you do, or an element of the public persona, but I don't understand venomous attacks on people one doesn't even know.

You call George Hook "ego-centric" - do you know him personally? Do you know him enough to know this is true? Your beef with Tubridy seems to rest largely on a Liam Fay article, which is a bit of a random vehicle for hating something. Do you know Tubridy personally? I don't get it. How would you feel if someone was writing about you in the same way on some other blog? I hope you never get to experience that kind of childish slagging because it's not very pleasant.

[Eolaí]

Ah, so when you conclude with "Bloggers and Twitterati, for all their pretensions, are no different from the rest of the mob. Thrilled when a celebrity spits on them." you actually mean a handful of unnamed bloggers and twitterati, and are excluding yourself and presumably everyone who's commented here and on twitter?

[Sylvia]

My thinking is similar to Una's - Ireland is too small to have any real 'celebrities'. Colin Farrell and Bono might qualify, but I wouldn't consider TV/radio presenters to be 'famous'. Besides, Ireland is such a village that there's probably only about 2 or 3 degrees of separation between any one of us and any 'celeb' you could care to name.

As an aside: re Tubridy's question to the anorexics, it reminds me of the time Pat Kenny asked Lavinia Kerwick "will you eat for me?". In a similar vein, Marion Finucane once asked a teenager who'd lost her legs through meningitis "do you miss your legs?"

[twitter.com/AllanCavanagh]

"Bloggers and Twitterati, for all their pretensions, are no different from the rest of the mob."

There's no entry test or admission fee. This sentence could also read "Mobs and mobs are no different from the rest of the mob".

"No, but if I go on about someone being a tosser I (genuinely) won't be pally and star-struck if they acknowledge me"
I know you've got jelly fingers replying to me Adrian. It's ok.

Levar Burton once RT'd something I said about Star Trek on Twitter. I can unashamedly admit I had a geekgasm about that. Makes me laugh at the people you're calling celebrities. They're presenters of varying quality, but I can't imagine there's many posters of them adorning walls.
I think you may have seen specific examples of this slagging/fawning dichotomy, but I think your sweeping observations about Twitter users are unrepresentative.

[Finianmurphy]

When it comes to twitter, I follow two types of people. Those who talk about music and those who talk about media and marketing. I don't care who's a 'celebrity' and this term is extremly subjective. I'll follow and interact with anyone I find interesting and have something decent to talk about. People working within the media, particularly broadcasting, often have access to people, stories or content which stimulates conversations more so then the average man on the street.

That said, I know people who follow scientists, eco-warriors, rugby players or sarcastic feckers who make people think or discuss topics.
'Celebs' (based on your definition) who are now coming onto twitter shouldn't be judged for 'jumping on the bandwagon.' This is just a new channel for the guys who we pay to talk about current affairs, politics or pop culture. Would we ridicule them as much if they started writing in a Sunday paper every week?

Despite recent poor performances in interviewing politicians, I have to defend Tubridy. While traditionally, The Late Late Show is aimed at 45+ there is more attention from a younger audience. It is also ill informed to say twitter is solely a way to get at a young audience. Of course social media is consumed more by younger adults, but we can't rule out its growth for 40+ year olds - growth in facebook is evidence of this.

[Steoreilly]

I think this post is well over due. One thing that I find worse than idiots like Ryan Tubridy on twitter are the ordinary twitter users who over the last few years have got a couple of thousand followers and now think they are powerful Irish Twitter Celebrities. Many of them turn up at the opening of an envelope in Dublin. I also find brands or people pimping something who are now on twitter licking up to these Irish Twitter Celebrities. There are a few people on twitter these days that are so up their own arse it's hilarious. Even more hilarious is all the PR and marketing agencies hopping on the twitter bandwagon. These people are supposed to be communication professionals and have only popped up on twitter very recently. There is one particular media agency who I will not name is now hosting Social Media Conferences and communications classes at extortionate rates. It's all a money racket. Subscribe to a few blogs, follow some interesting people on twitter, read a decent book and watch a few ted.com talks and don't waste your money.

Twitter for me is about sharing information and discovering new things. Anyway who wants to be the Irish Ashton Kutcher. Lot's of people might but I can't even name one of his films.

[Adrian Weckler]

Una,

That's a good rule of thumb. But criticising or bitching is part of discourse. I do it sometimes. There you have it.

Do I know Ryan? No. But I have listened and watched hundreds of shows built around his personality (as opposed to, for example, a current affairs format). But however I do or don't know him, give me credit for not basing a view on him after one bloody article...

As for George, I worked with him at close quarters for several months (only once a week, though). And I sometimes listen to him, too.

Do either of these things entitle me to comment adversely on either individual? That's up to you, I suppose; I'm pretty sure you've criticised a few people in your time.

Just as you're criticising here with a fairly lofty moral tone:

"I hope you never get to experience that kind of childish slagging because it's not very pleasant," you admonish, teacher-to-child.

[Adrian Weckler]

Sylvia,

You have a point about celebrities. But George Hook and Ryan T would generally be classified, among ordinary folk in Ireland, as celebrities.

[UnaMullally]

@steo who are these Irish Twitter Celebrities?! Am I on a different Twitter to anyone else.

Adrian, I don't really think I'm taking a lofty tone, I'm just being honest and giving my opinion, just as you have given yours. I think people enjoy interacting with others that they previously didn't have a forum for doing so. If this means talking to someone you've never met but seems nice, or chatting to friends, or retweeting a blog's article, or answering a question put by someone well known, or putting across your own opinion, it's all the same, well it is for me anyway.

I think your presumptions that people are going to lick ass is merely that, a presumption. Where's your evidence?

[UnaMullally]

typo there, buy 'anyone' I meant 'everyone' as in, I feel like I'm living on a different Twitter to the one being discussed here, full of powerful imaginary 'twitter slebs' and people kissing ass.

Don't get it!

Ok, work now.

[Adrian]

Una,

Not so much a presumption (something I think is likely to happen) as an observation (something that I see happening a lot; today, yesterday, last month, last year).

Look, this isn't rocket science: people love celebrities. I get it. It's undeniable. It's why The Sunday World or The Sunday Independent sells a multiple of what The Sunday Business Post sells. It's why a shop-opening will attract news photographers if Ronan Keating or Lady GaGa or whoever is there.

You put a nice, honourable flavour upon this basic fact; you say that people find other people 'interesting' and 'want to chat'.

But they're less interested in 'interesting' and more interested in 'famous'. ie they'll follow Ryan Tubridy or George Hook or Oprah Winfrey in their thousands (or millions), regardless of whether they post anything interesting, because those people are famous and celebrities.

And yes, they will lick ass.

Don't you think?

[Darragh]

" I think people enjoy interacting with others that they previously didn't have a forum for doing so. If this means talking to someone you've never met but seems nice, or chatting to friends, or retweeting a blog's article, or answering a question put by someone well known, or putting across your own opinion, it's all the same, well it is for me anyway."

For me it's pretty much as Una says - it's a way of talking to people that ordinarily you'd never get the chance to - the "exciting" thing about it is that they're putting themselves out there as someone to talk to or interact with, because they're just people firstly who secondly do a job that puts themself into that "celebrity" category you're talking about.

I don't often see the swooning you're talking about, or if I do, I certainly don't see it as such, as commonly as your article portays. Yes, there are people who get excited because someone they like/admire/see on d'telly/read about/has influence or whatever communicates with them, but so what? Where's the harm in that? People get excited by different things. We're living in a celebrity culture - look at the popularity of HELLO, HEAT and all those magazines, of Exposé on TV3, look at the popularity of their websites, of Perez's blog and all of that. Why should people on blogs or twitter be any different? I remember the excitement of my sister when I handed the phone to Rick one day to say hello - she was talking about it for weeks. If that's her bag, then great.

I *do* have a real problem with people making more of their affiliations or their experiences online in order to benefit financially or professionally. I think there's a big difference between those who do this to look great in the eyes of others, and then those who share it because it's something they actually enjoy doing - and I think the vast majority of us are firmly in the latter category, despite what others may see it as. I think the former should be approached with a very dim view.

People have the same ability as everyone else online - don't talk to the people you don't want to. Not everyone follows George, Ryan, Sean, Rick, Dave or any of the other radio/TV personalities. Not everyone would know what to say to them or want to say anything to them!

Adrian, you're a journalist with a national newspaper - have you been able to use twitter to your advantage in writing/researching/finding out about a story? Have people helped you? Do you reckon that was because you were a journo and they wanted kudos, or just because they could?

Thanks for the comment on the good manners - I've never known any other way to irritate so many people as being polite :)

[Adrian Weckler]

Darragh,

Before I respond, two quick points:

1. You are genuinely a nicer bloke than I am. I don't say that in jest. I think any impartial observer would agree.
2. You should be a showbiz publicist.

You say that we live in a celebrity culture, anyway. Look at the popularity of Hello, you say. And OK! And Chat magazine. And Take A Break magazine. And The Daily Mail. And the Sunday Independent. And all those other worthwhile media organs that have made this world a better place.

(Too sarcastic? But you get my point anyway, right?)

Yes, we all love celebrities. If Jeff Bridges turned up at my door for dinner, I wouldn't shut up about it for weeks. Months. Years. But I love Jeff Bridges. By comparison, I didn't like Charlie Haughey. Had he turned up at my door, I might have talked about it, but I wouldn't have simpered or smiled through it all. Genuinely. And that's what I'm talking about here. I see a lot of Charlie Haugheys entering the fray and people -- normally critical -- just delighted to get the proverbial Twitter handshake in.

You say you don't see the swooning online or on Twitter. Fair enough. You may not following the same people I follow. Because I'm seeing it.

And you ask what the harm is, anyway, if they do. There's no imminent threat to anyone, if that's what you mean. No-one'll die. So true, there is no devastating 'harm'. But that's not what I'm arguing.

Incidentally, you're really being too kind to celebrities if you attribute modest, thoughtful motives to media and showbiz personalities coming onto Twitter.
In my experience, famous people in the media or in show business are generally different to those in other walks of life (business, science, the arts).

Showbiz/media celebrities usually adore attention, crave it. Business and other celebs don't: sometimes they regard it as useful, but they don't pursue it for its own sake, as media and entertainers do. Of all the famous business people in Ireland, how many are on Twitter? Can you even fill one hand with them?

Now compare that to the showbiz and media celebs. There are far more of these on Twitter. Is it because they're just interested in talking to new people?
After 13 years of reporting on both categories for newspapers and magazines, I don't think so. But that is only my view.

"People have the same ability as everyone else online - don't talk to the people you don't want to." Okay, but that's not the point of any of this at all.

Yes, I've found Twitter useful. But honestly, 95% of my Twitter engagement is personal, not professional. And the vast majority of that is with people who wouldn't know/give a crap about whether I'm a journalist or not.

[Darragh]

Cheers for the elaboration Adrian - as I said on twitter last night, it's appreciated, and give me plenty to think about.

You're right about the "attention" thing - most of us on twitter could be opened to the same accusation, and in many cases it's true. I know I quite like knowing that someone's found out about something via me, for example. I don't know many business people on twitter, you're right - but you can bet they're aware of it.

I think the "deference" aspect of this is the most dangerous - and one of the most disheartening and off-putting. Keyboard warriors and people who are just either jealous, bitchy or feel morally superior because they can laugh at people, post general pointed comments or be plain rude are rampant, and it's neither good manners, nice or fair - especially considering the same people don't have the nerve to say it directly to the person(s) they're talking about. And what happens? It's almost accepted. It's rarely challenged, it's rarely pointed out that person a, b or c is being a dick and that really they're just bullying in a different way. People *do* smile and simper through it all - you're dead right there.

(I say that about twitter, but it's nothing new. It's been happening to the site I work on for years, and all over the internet. I just find it most amusing in Ireland).

Similarly with the bullshit artists, the snake oil cowboys, the opportunists and the celebrities acting the same - there's no challenge because people seem afraid to rock the boat - you never know when you might need to do business with someone. Without intending to be in any way obsequious (tho it'll look that way), it's people like Una Mullally who helped form my understanding of how to be online - and in turn she's referenced Jim Carroll from the Irish Times for at least telling it like it is, despite the pressures or existing culture in that industry. I'm a big fan of constructive challenges - here's what's wrong, here's how I think you should fix it. Much more useful.

I think that element of the challenge is important, where it's play the ball and not the player, and if that's the thrust of your post, then great. I think that's valuable and it's important and it's useful. It's also unnecessary to resort to anonymous twitter accounts, to the pointed comments or to the bullshit - if you've got a problem with someone or what they do, either say it to them directly or say nothing. Quite often I do the latter, because it's just not worth wasting the energy. I've often been told I'd be more "respected" or "trusted" if I was more negative occasionally - but why bother? What use is that going to do anyone? What use would it do me?

(Look at this - making it all about me, me, me. Typical! ;-))

There's an awful lot of good people out there who just get on with things and don't bother with the crap. They're the people I enjoy interacting most with on twitter - whatever their job may be. I think people need to be applauded for the good stuff - and told they're wankers when they are being so - and why. Then they can deal with it as they want to.

(In other news, any chance of highlighting those >> bits on the end of your comments? I missed it yesterday, didn't see page two when I commented)

[Emmet Ryan]

@Sylvia
Have to agree on the views regarding most presenters. Last night at the DMAs I was briefly chatting to some lad and asked him his name when one of the PRs was mortified because "That's Ray Foley!". Now I can tell you straight up I haven't a clue who Ray Foley is and I'm pretty certain he was in no way bothered by that in the slightest.

@Una and @Adrian
I think Adrian's been excessively generalising in his comments but certainly there are people in life who will act like that. I find they are a minority and I say in life because they're not just on Twitter. I think there's a difference between calling someone a bollix behind their back and being polite them, which is fine in my book and hell who doesn't do that?, and calling them a bollix behind their back and then fawning their arse off to them, which I find to be rather bollixy behaviour. That's my take anyway.

[alan]

I have to say I think this piece is right on the money, especially as regards the hook monster. For some odd reason the hook monster is very fond of his own horribly annoying voice. Just today he tweeted that he hasnt had a bowel movement in 4days! Who gives a **** Seriously, a prime example of someone taking the words 'whats happening' way too seriously.

[Nike Shox Navina]

In this brother hu.they space, my blessing is a fragrant forget-me-not, collect the sincere heart, Depicted in every detail, every move, each of you, send to the deepest wish, wish you and I together: cherish our friendship, cherish our fate.

[Air Jordan Flight 9]

Great distinctions. It is so important that we identify who is around and keep them separate in our dealings. and ou know, instead of telling people to implement comment moderation, you could just stop leaving stupid looney-bin spam comments everywhere.

[coach outlet stores]

Good at planning, good at time management.*