Stalking Anderson Cooper Part 2

Another round of book signings, another round of stalkers sightings... GEESH!

We take this issue quite seriously, and I have to admit I am very impressed by all the comments of the previous posts and all the emails I have received this week. Stalking is simply HEINOUS, and there is a clear line between appreciation and entitlement.

I'm copying some comments from Betty B. ( BIG THANKS) that I think are very relevant to the topic. And please feel free to keep on with the discussion. It is serious and the debate brings light.

TALKING ABOUT LIGHT: We can't positively ID (nor are we interested in) people who appear at the book signings photos. Two readers are claiming: identity and mistaken identity regarding Madame X. Some have implied Madame X goes by the nick similar than mine, when someone by the name of (S) rudely claims to be Madame X (and by her attitude and the accounts I don't doubt it), I know people around these communities love to have multiple nicks, so as far as we are concern, we don't know who is who. Please try not to bring personal information around here. We don't promote Stalking Anderson nor Cyber Stalking. .Thank You!

And now Ms. Betty B Comment:

First of all, behavioral psychology tells you that you should not reward the conduct that you wish will become extinct. And he does reward it! How? Talking about his feelings about it on TV and dedicating whole segments to it. He is personalizing his experience and in a way he is directly talking to these people through his TV segments. IMHO this is a very stupid thing to do. They may be a lot of stalkers, but every time he talks about this, they may be thinking he is talking ABOUTT them and TO THEM ONLY(scary, I know) and not about the crazy crowd as a whole.

Second he should state only once and in a final statement what will happen if the stalking behaior persist - he has to be determined to stop it. No ambivalence, period.

Behavior never becomes extint when you exhibit so much ambivalence towards it. Its like the guy who calls you one day fails to call you for a week and then calls you back. Guess what? You will be waiting for the guy because you know he will likely call you back. Stalkers should not be welcomed at book signings. His PA, bodyguard, etc. should know who these people are and simply state they are not welcomed and make sure they arent. Most places reserve the right of admission so I dont think this wil be a legal issue at all.They should be permanently banned from having further contact. E-mails, letters personal contact, signings, etc. They should make sure these people are not able to send him stuff either. Im sure CNN can find a way of not recieving stuff from them, this will prevent them from creating fantasies regarding Anderson's possible reactions to their gifts etc...

Behavior fails to become extint when you respond in intervals. Anderson should decide how he wants to deal with this and stick to it. He should be determined and final when it comes to what consequences wil arise if the behavior persists. He should not reward the behavior talking about it and especially his feelings towards the situation. You know what, for stalkers a good or bad emotion or response from Anderson will do just the same. They wont feel sorry for him, or have a conscience.

Anderson has the right to privacy and his vital space and whoever disrupts that has the right to know that they will be dealt with.

Published 5/12/2007 1:21 AM

For more info go here

Stalking Anderson Cooper

This is not a new topic at FreakSpeakers. The first time we posted about this issue was back in October 6, 2006. We did an in depth article at our website. But to be completely honest with you, last night was the first time I ever felt sympathy towards Anderson Cooper. While addressing the VT Stalking issue with the District Attorney, he looked vulnerable, tense, and for my surprise he even talked about his own experience about stalking.

We only have glimpses of what really happens in his life or the seriousness of the crazies, we can lurk at online communities, have your skin crawl with some of the comments, but that might be the tip of the iceberg. We have been vocal against this behavior, we have been labeled as “anti anderfans” for our criticism, and we don’t care. We stand for it.

One of our initial points was against Nick Denton and his Gawker Media. We asked people then and again to take their content at face value, as gossip. Gossip sites are NOT news. Are NOT reliable sources. And to compare Denton, Emily Gould, Jerry Oxfield and the Village Voice’s Michael Musto to real journalists is an insult. Personally I would love to see Musto in Kabul, which is a far cry from the safety of the gay bars in Chelsea. But not even the Wikipedia editors understand the difference.

Even the Out Magazine Editor in Chief, Aaron Hicklin, admitted to an E! reporter Mark Malkin that the cover with models with Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper masks was for marketing and sales purposes:

“It's also a business decision to try to sell magazine. "We needed a good cover," Hicklin says. "What kind of covers are going to move" on the newsstands?

The truth is that Planet Out – Out Magazine’s parent company – has faced the plummeting of its subscription sales and circulation, and they needed to have a publicity wave to bring attention to their publication. Will it work? I think the reaction has been a big backfire.

I

Down on page 15 of their 2006 SEC filing, PlanetOut explains:

"We have a history of significant losses," they declare. "If we do not regain and sustain profitability," the filing continues, "our financial condition and stock price could suffer."

John Carney of Dealbreaker.com:

PlanetOut has a chart that's almost painful to look at. It's slid from highs a couple of years back around twelve bucks down to Vonage territory. The company has been chopped-down by Wall Street analysts, who have noted declining revenues from ads and travel biz. Mounting debt and insider sale last year probably don't help. It's not clear what the companies core business is. Is it a publishing company? A travel site? A web 2.0 portal? Investors don't like companies when they can't tell what it's supposed to be doing.

To make matters worse, at start of the year PlanetOut adopted a "Shareholder's Rights Plan" which is the phrase companies use to describe something better known as a poison pill. Basically, it's a device that prevents an outside shareholder from acquiring the company without the consent of the insiders. These things hold down stock prices because they make acquisitions less likely and discourage outsiders from acquiring substantial portions of the company. No one has ever successfully swallowed a poison pill.

Recently we had a golden opportunity of watching, ironically through CNN, the “editorial genius” behind Gawker: Emily Gould.

And how the idiocy increases? We don’t live under stones, we read about the Equinox Gym piece. What is a shame, particularly from the gay online sites, that that story had more legs than the Thomas Roberts story. And THAT is reprehensible for a “community” – mostly represented by gossip publications - that claims they want visibility, leaders, rights and equality.

I will concede that gossip is fun. But with Anderson Cooper the line have been crossed. Its no longer funny. The entire situation is directed to undermine him, and CNN promoting him as a celebrity instead of a journalist is a huge disservice.

Gossip Blogs: Freedom of Speech or Blunt Opportunism

"Bloggers and other amateur journalists have some of the same problems any amateurs do: They make up the rules as they go, and they run the risk of screwing up and hurting someone. But because blogging isn't their day job, they have little risk — they aren't going to be fired."

- Andrew Kantor USATODAY.com.

Nick Denton and his Gossip Empire

He is no Rupert Murdoch, but the once journalist is clear upon the role of his blogs:

" a blog is much better at tearing things down - people, careers, brands - than in building them up" - Nick Denton

And that is the focus of his main property: Gawker. With tales out of a cheap soap opera, many post are created based on personal grudges, of no public interest. One of its features, the Gawker Stalker map, have earned the criticism of publicists and celebrities with the valid claim that it jeopardizes their security. But surpisingly Denton goes to great extents to protect his physical location.

His former editor in chief, Jerry Oxfeld, apologized to a series of public figures - including Anderson Cooper - of the editorial lines "he was forced to follow" against them. Truth, you won't find it there. Write whatever you want. Accuracy is not important in the blog business. The trashiest, the better. Personally I am guilty of "planting" a couple of sightings for the Stalker Map in order to evaluate their fact checking techniques, and my team just laughs when they post them... particularly because we don't live in the USA!

But what happens with the reader? they swear over the "facts" that are presented in these blogs. "If it is printed and over the internet it has to be true!"... "Towleroad and DataLounge, are always right!" Why this individuals can't see this gossip blogs at their face value? AS GOSSIP BLOGS! Are these the same people who are still searching for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Undoubtly.

Appreciation vs Obsession

Experts believe television is a significant factor in the increasing number of attacks on people in the public eye. The box in the corner brings brings famous faces into the homes of the lonely and disturbed.

The object of the obsession may unwittingly reinforce the fantasies of the delusional fan by showing them kindness in stopping to talk to them, or personally answering fan mail.

According to one theory, the "nicer" and more approachable a celebrity appears, the greater is the likelihood that they will face this kind of attention.

Sometimes, the stalker will inflict violence on others in an attempt to impress the person they admire. John Hinckley tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan because of his obsession with actress Jodie Foster. Tennis star Monica Seles was stabbed by a fan of Steffi Graf.

But what is stalking?

Stalking is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target.—from Wikipedia

This harrassment can include

• contacting targeted person repeatedly
• unwanted attention
• watching targeted person over a period of time
• contacting family members, friends, co-workers in hopes of meeting targeted person
• cyberstalking

There are different types of stalking, most affecting women, but this article will be discussing celebrity stalking.

Who stalks celebrities? And why?

“Stalking” celebrities has become a pastime for many people. Consider the popularity of websites such as Gawker, which incorporated a separate section to their site entitled “Gawker Stalker,” where readers could send in celebrity sighting reports. What kind of behavior does a site like this promote? Is this harmless fun? Anyone can send in a tip, and anyone has access to this information.

Most people know where to draw the line, but what about those who don’t? Does a site like Gawker promote celebrity stalking by allowing anyone to post and receive messages regarding a celebrity’s whereabouts? Does this type of site put celebrities in harm’s way?

Consider the case of Rebecca Schaeffer. Schaeffer was enjoying her work on the popular TV show My Sister Sam when, at the age of 21, she was gunned down at her home in California in 1989. Her murderer? An obsessed fan, Robert Bardo, who had been trying to initiate a relationship with Schaeffer for some time. Bardo had even accessed the Warner Bros. studio where the TV show was taped in order to meet Schaeffer, but was turned away by a security guard. Bardo was carrying a large teddy bear for Schaeffer—and a knife.

"It's like having a relationship with Jesus Christ," Bardo would later say. "People don't know him, but they want a personal relationship. I identified my happiness with public figures. That was Rebecca Schaeffer."

Is this the reason why people stalk celebrities?

Most celebrity stalkers are psychotics, say experts. Many spend years chasing the object of their desire, hoping for contact with the celebrity because they can’t form emotional attachments to people in their own lives. Some believe the celebrity would love them, if only they had the opportunity to form a relationship. And there begins the trouble.

“The experts say only a small proportion of stalkers are dangerous--just 2 percent. But think about it:

If you're a celebrity who gets a million letters a year--and many do--and just 5 percent of those are from potential stalkers, you're talking 1,000 who may be homicidal.”—E! Online

"Kenneth, what is the frequency?"

In October 1986, as Rather was walking along Park Avenue in Manhattan to his apartment, he was attacked and punched from behind by a man who demanded to know, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?," while a second assailant also chased and beat him. As the assailant pummeled and kicked Rather, he kept repeating the question over and over again. In describing the incident, Rather said, "I got mugged. Who understands these things? I didn't and I don't now. I didn't make a lot of it at the time and I don't now. I wish I knew who did it and why, but I have no idea."

In 1997, a TV critic writing in the New York Daily News claimed to have solved the mystery, and published a photo of the alleged assailant, William Tager. Rather confirmed the story: "There's no doubt in my mind that this is the person." Tager is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence for killing NBC stagehand Campbell Montgomery outside The Today Show studio in 1994.

News broadcasters are increasingly becoming victims of stalking. Because of the nature of their job, they are more accessible to the public than movie stars and rock musicians, who are inevitably surrounded by tight security.

A recent survey showed that threats to US radio and television stations by individuals with severe mental illnesses were "relatively common".

At a recent conference, US broadcasters were given the following advice on dealing with stalkers.

• DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE SENDERS OF THREATENING LETTERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO APPROACH YOU THAN THOSE PROFESSING LOVE. TAKE BOTH EQUALLY SERIOUSLY.
• DO NOT RETURN GIFTS AND LETTERS; SAVE THEM FOR THE POLICE.
• DO NOT EAT ANY FOOD SENT BY A STRANGER.
• DO NOT REVEAL PERSONAL DETAILS ABOUT BROADCASTERS ON THE AIR.
• USE BULLET-PROOF GLASS TO PROTECT ON-AIR STAFF WHO ARE VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATION

digital illustration by Christiane
Article with the collaborative effort of Courtney
Portions of this post were previously published at the FreakSpeaker website

Raping Anderson Cooper, again and again

I am sick of all the speculation over the private life of Anderson Cooper. Maybe those obsessed with it are more "sick" than me. Other than mine, I don't really care much about who sleeps with whom. That kind of American Obssesion only help to distract public focus of the things that really matter. Just check today's most popular news... Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton eating together wins over a landslide to the North Korea story.

Today I was censored, again, by a blog administrator. Me and my big mouth! In no way I'm re-printing the original post of that site because its content goes against the editorial lines of THIS blog, but the money quote was:

"Today is a free comment day. Only one rule, it's gotta be about Andy and only Andy or at least closely related to Andy, 'cause all I want today is Andy, Andy and more Andy. (P.S. I've been listening to Ta-Dah while writing this post.... She's my man, And we got all the balls we need....)"

Talking about Hezbollah and media manipulations...

My deleted answer:

"Do you have any proof, other than rumors, speculation, and unreliable sources or a direct answer from him that can prove your statement?I think the speculation is completely rude and out of order. It is nobody business. It is not news or for public consumption. Unless he is a pedophile or a rapist. His sexual orientation, whatever it is, is for his own pleasure and with whom he wish to share it. Two's company three is a crowd. And the last time I checked, the privacy of a bedroom was still protected constitutionally. It is very sad that after all the kudos he received for the Congo coverage, particularly for the stories of the rapes, he has to tolerate the RAPE OF HIS PRIVACY. Again and again. What does people gain with this? How this affect the world? Are people sleeping better and more safetly after Thomas Roberts announced he was gay? The world is still the same. And we are not making it better violating Constitutional or Human Rights."

At our website: www.freakspeaker.com we did an indepth analyis over censorship and blogs. When The Search For Entertainment Crashes Against Constitutional Rights, in where we explore different angles of the blog business, In Gossip Blogs: Freedom of Speech or Blunt Opportunism, we profile Nick Denton and his blogosphere empire, the product of Appreciation vs Obsession, Stalking and the Dan Rather case, where his assaultant was convicted for murdering a NBC stagehand in 1994.

Being a blogger or a webmaster doesn't give you a free pass for publishing everything. It is ruled by the same responsibilities that other media outlets have.

In order to help the blog community we have two important resources at our website ( www.freakspeaker.com) the
Legal Guidelines For Bloggers And Webmasters, the BBC's guide, How to Avoid Libel and Defamation and SHOULD I BELIEVE IT?: A GUIDE TO CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BLOGS, IMAGES AND NEWS.

Some quick FACTS:

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections and responsibilities as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

What are private facts?
Private facts are personal details about someone that have not been disclosed to the public. A person's sexual orientation, a sex-change operation, and a private romantic encounter could all be private facts. Once PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BY THAT PERSON, however, they move into the public domain.

What is defamation?
Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.

What is "Libel Per Se"?

• Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
• Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
• Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

What is a "false light" claim?

Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

We would really like to know your opinion about this. Do you really think it is cool to invade Anderson Cooper's private life, if it is fair game... or are me on the right track.

Freak Back!