Chapter 70 Candid shot by one person, peeking at all?

The "gossip" culture in Hong Kong, to be honest, has never had anything to do with me in the past.I have never looked at those messy things.Leaving aside, let’s just say that in August 2006, Chinese websites in Hong Kong and the Mainland reported a “candid camera incident” one after another: “Twins held the ‘Twins Around the World Genting Concert’ in Malaysia last week, artist Gillian (Gillian Chung) ) in the backstage of the concert, the process of changing clothes and removing the bra was secretly photographed by shameless people. These photos soon appeared on the cover of the Hong Kong "Eight Convenience" magazine. When Gillian learned that she couldn't stop crying, she called herself ' It's so miserable', and I'm more worried that the magazine will put more photos involving her privacy on the Internet."

This matter quickly became "news" in Hong Kong, and the whole society was discussing it and circulating it everywhere in the past few days. Hong Kong TVB Entertainment News "in view of the recent incident of secretly photographing artists has aroused great repercussions in the entertainment industry", it also launched a denunciation conference on the theme of "Privacy and Dignity" on August 28. About 100 people Well-known big names in Hong Kong's entertainment industry, including Jackie Chan, Andy Lau, Jacky Cheung, etc., all attended the meeting and severely condemned "Shameless and indecent" behavior of "One Ben Convenience".Hong Kong's "Kwai Tsing People's Livelihood Power" and 18 representatives of women's groups also took to the streets and burned a photocopy of the magazine, pointing out: "The magazine's behavior of publishing indecent photos for profit is heinous and seriously insults women's dignity." , urging the government to strengthen law enforcement, "order relevant magazines to suspend publication, classify Yiben Convenience as an obscene publication and impose a fine of 1 million", "relevant responsible persons should be sentenced to three years in prison"...

The reason why I have no interest in this "secret filming incident" is firstly that such incidents used to happen in Hong Kong from time to time, and then they were hyped abnormally. Second, "gossip" is just the behavior of "paparazzi", polluting Eyeballs, vulgar taste, whoever takes it seriously, doesn't he exalt those dirty and filthy things more?However, after the false alarm of "Beauty Saves Heroes", Hong Kong's "gossip" culture suddenly flooded in front of my eyes like rivers, lakes and seas. I can no longer ignore its existence and a highly civilized society in Hong Kong. "Gossip" How can culture have such a big market?

Back to "Gillian was secretly filmed", Jackie Chan severely criticized at the symposium organized by Hong Kong TVB Entertainment News: "The bad atmosphere in the media will shame Hong Kong people. I hope everyone will stop buying this magazine, so that children will not be affected." On the one hand, this incident has aroused widespread public indignation in Hong Kong; on the other hand, many media, like the "scandal" I mentioned earlier, avoided the serious and ignored the trivial, and conducted a series of investigative interviews closely around the "secret filming details". reports.The "details" that people are most interested in include, of course, where did "Gillian" change clothes at that time?Was the door of the backstage dressing room closed or wide open?How could a dirty reporter take those private photos?It is said that the lens of the camera is hidden in a wall cabinet, so who, when, where, how, etc.?

Many celebrities in Hong Kong have stood up to condemn and boycott the "candid filming" behavior. I understand this attitude very well, but how many people in Hong Kong society have thought about why "gossip culture" is so enthusiastically sought after in Hong Kong?If no one pays attention to the privacy of the stars (the stars here include entertainment stars, business stars, political stars, etc.), the "garbage" that Hong Kong newspapers and magazines have deliberately "obtained" will be gone once they are published. People buy, no one sees? The "paparazzi" won't hide themselves, fly over the walls, and do "Spider Heroes" one by one?

Alas! After the "sneak shooting incident" happened, I noticed that some people in Hong Kong pointed out that what the "Gillian incident" revealed was actually a very low-level "Hong Kong culture": no matter what class Hong Kong people live in, their values ​​are still quite "grassroots". . Perhaps, I am too naive, so naive as to wonder how the business of "paparazzi" can be so good in Hong Kong as a modern society. Perhaps, in a modern society, the state of civilization is as beautiful as the colorful clouds in the sky, but the general human desire to "voyeurize" not only does not forget certain "instincts" because they have already lived at a relatively elegant level, but also has them at any time. Maybe tear a cloud or two out of the sky and use it for yourself: wipe your hands, your mouth, your nose, your ass.

If we make a small investigation, the "paparazzi culture" was not originally created in Hong Kong. It has already had markets in Britain, the United States, and Japan.Are those countries rich or not?Civilized or not?Wasn't Princess Diana still "chased" to death by the "paparazzi"?How many British tabloids have relied on "The Legend of Concubine Diana" as their main source of survival throughout their lives?It’s just that British tabloids did not ban serious newspapers because of “pink news”; serious newspapers did not transform into serving “grassroots” one after another because they were “envious” of tabloid profits.

The real problem, what I want to say, may be fatal-there are no "big newspapers" in Hong Kong, neither the "big newspapers" with huge circulation nor the "small newspapers" with small circulation will avoid marketization, or simply put it bluntly, use Vulgar virtues and tactics to attract readers and increase profits. On September 23rd, several days had passed since I almost got involved in my friend's "scandal" sewage, but I went out for an interview in the morning, and while sitting on the bus, I saw that day's newspapers and articles "discussing" this matter , I couldn’t help asking a gentleman sitting next to me who was reading a newspaper, I said: “Are you also interested in this kind of article in the newspaper?” But Hong Kong newspapers are like this." I asked again: "Then why do you still read it since you are already bored?" The "gentleman" said: "Hong Kong people live too tensely, read this, it's all gossip anyway Lah, people can relax without worrying about their brains, which is also a kind of..." I didn't catch the word he used later, and I thought it was "stimulation" at first, but the "gentleman" repeated it, corrected me, and said it was not "Stimulus" is "avoidance".

"avoid"?Other people's affairs have nothing to do with you, why should you "avoid" yourself?Where does this answer follow? If the people who run the newspaper sometimes have to make themselves very vulgar because of the "market"; and the people who read the newspaper are also vulgar, who is forcing whom?