Luna Not Kopaja

Bullets were fired into the air. Ashtray drift. And now, a line of curses on Twitter.

Entertainment media relations with its single commodity-namely the entertainer, or more often called "artist"-is a colorful relationship. Sometimes they stick a hug sweet as sugar ants, but sometimes the two are fierce like a cat and dog.

And now, in a large bowl entertainment industry, we also have what is called: infotainment-present in the form of behavior to watch TV programs and produced with no great cost. Unlike the soap opera that requires dozens and dozens of players with a crew that is not a small honorarium, infotainment breezed lightly with one or two cameras, two-three crew, and a handful of microphones are pointed at the artists who do not get paid * to open a private space of their lives. Simbiosa? Certainly. Need each other? Not all the time. Mutually beneficial? Not necessarily.

Here are some general assumptions, which was so mapannya lodged in the minds of society, we seldom question or check the truth, among others:

1. "The media entertainment and artists need each other."

For me, that sentence sounded sweet and wise but also entrap and ensnare. Trap until the artist is forced to loosen and even break down outside his desire privacy line, and ensnare the public to continue to make natural infotainment intimidating actions on the grounds "that's the risk of a famous person."

Resound in my work for the wider community, I need the media as his amplifier, including the entertainment media (although there are also works that so great and in demand even before the media could touch it). But not all types of coverage to support my work or prestige. There's even a disturbing news of my life. Not "need each other" name if I refuse coverage and instead continue being followed, my house ditongkrongi and spied upon. Not "need each other" name if I played a sentence and turning to meet a certain subjective opinion through images and narratives that then divided into millions of viewers. In a situation like that, I balked at the generalization that the artist always need entertainment media.

Media and an artist worth mentioning only need each other if they are feeling there is a need, which means: situational. Not constant and changeable.

2. "The relationship between artist and infotainment is mutualism."

Say, or expect, that the relationship between artist and infotainment always bersimbiosa mutualism, in my opinion, is a blind statement. Simbiosa occurred in the field can vary:

• mutualism: When the artist allowed to volunteer for the infotainment entry into private space, from covering the business side, covering the child's birthday, even to assist bargaining position in the industry. Infotainment were sometimes deliberately engaged when the artist wanted to win a conflict. In this relationship, both parties are equally benefited.

• Komensalisme: With the permission or without permission, intentionally or not, infotainment, interviewing artists and by neutral-neutral diladeni only. For example, to give a light comment, or ask for clarification on trivial news (read: not a scandal). In my observation, this kind of relationship the most common; the artist can walk past and say "Ah. You know, infotainment, "and the reporter could be excused to go with a straight face without having to chase and grilling. In this type of relationship, the artist does not feel disadvantaged, but also do not feel disadvantaged.

• parasitism: When the artist does not give consent, willingness, or desire to serve infotainment, but kept pressed, forced, even intimidated. And then the news still served by taking the perspective of one party only. In packaging, few infotainment even to conduct an imaginary interview techniques, fraudulent votes, turn back the actual events, and other ways that have led to the defamation .** In this relation, it is clear that benefited only the infotainment, while the aggrieved artist, even cheated.

3. "If the news disgrace artist must avoid, if its good news infotainment dibaik-baikin."

Again, for me it is the opinion of lazy and not jelly. Not a few areas of the so-called "good" by many people, but for some particular artist is a private space that does not want to be divided into infotainment, such as births, weddings, etc.. And there are many conflicts / issues deliberately scandalous that it involves the infotainment at the invitation / consent / willingness artist. So, the facts on the ground once again do not support this general opinion. Each artist has a preference and outline their respective limits.

4. "A public figure must open itself to the public because he had become public property."

As a child, I never wanted to be a public figure. What I remember, I wanted to be a writer and professional musician. That's it. When I work, I am accountable in ways that simple: ensure that the work I loved the original and heartfelt.

But the work and the image went hand in hand when it was entered into the industry. There, the work becomes large, the image is enlarged, too, and I am an ordinary man sometimes drowned out by both. "Public figure" eventually become the side effects that accompany the artist's profession, though well-known works and in fact are two different things.

Unfortunately, the definition of "public figure" is always attached with the connotation of "public property". We very often slip by assuming they are identical, but in essence they are different. Theorem that is then used to prosecute the artist's infotainment open mouth. Very often they are the name of "community" by saying "The public has the right to know!"

For me, that becomes public property is my work. Communities can buy my books, my CD album, invited me for discussions of books in my capacity as a writer, or invite me to sing in my capacity as a singer. But I have full rights over my personal life. My life does not belong to the public. It is fully my right to determine how many pieces of personal life that I want to and wherever I want to save.

Artists are human beings who work. Not a public phone.

5. "An artist should always speak kind and polite behavior."

This is perhaps the general assumption that most naive about the artist. First of all, not just the artist, a pedicab driver was required to speak a kind and polite behavior on the passengers. As already live in a society, good manners and polite launched our interactions with one another. But we are also human beings who have two sides. We also get angry and lose control. So what distinguishes Luna Maya with Mang Jeje-pedicab driver in Bandung my subscription?

A wise proverb says: "The higher the tree, the harder the wind blew." I agree. But it does not mean that someone who is considered a star-then in his dehumanization. Demanding a star for the always perfect, not only mean a denial of humanity, but also impossible to be fulfilled. So, if perfection is impossible, why some of us so hard to empathize?

A Luna Maya, who was asked by a good understanding, but instead kept pressed until the child's head hit the camera he was carrying, then detonated his emotions on Twitter, so irasionalkah his actions? Or is it humane? What about will we do if we are to be Luna? Fixed unctuous only because the status of artists, just because it is said he was "public property"? Once again, as I recall, Luna is a model and presenter. Not Kopaja. What right have we to claim to speak Luna behavior as we desire? We can save the photos, storing RBT Luna songs on our cell phones, but we can not control human beings as we operate the air conditioning and remote.

6. "Without the media, artists are not going to be a nobody."

This is perhaps the strongest magic that sets in among artists. We know, how much the media's role in the development of an artist's career-whether it's music career, soap operas, movies, models, etc.. But, let's see the real scale: Media is not just one. Media entertainment is one part, not the whole. Infotainment also only part of the entertainment media, not the whole.

Infotainment is powerful. Evidently there are people who transformed from a nobody and all of a sudden become top artists after exposed to all-out on infotainment. And there is also an artist whose life is stripped of all-out to have disappeared many years of stage entertainment.

But, do not we return logic. I do not see the logic of infotainment and artists such as chicken and eggs. Especially if infotainment known as the "parent" of the existence of an artist. Infotainment is a phenomenon that emerged in the 90's, while I grew up watching artists are able to exist based on talent and his work long before there is infotainment. And let us not forget, without artists, infotainment just an empty funnel without content. Funnel was allowed to loud. But if no one voiced, he was silent and empty.


Wake Of Illusion

Unfortunately, so far from the artist himself over many choose to remain silent or grumbling behind. Yet the most widely artislah harmed. Whether it was complacent, feeling it would be futile, or we are still haunted by images infotainment that feels so big and powerful to blind us to believe that the fall-wake we determined their careers. And just like all humans, no artist who wants to lose sustenance or punished on screen with negative news.

If there is a wise proverb which can be useful, so here it is: "Rezeki arranged by God. Not by infotainment. "

I did not ask anyone to hostile infotainment. Hostility is not my goal to write at length sebegini. But presumably the artists can see their relationships with the entertainment media proportionately.

Let us awake from the illusion that there's only one big hand that determines our die-life career. The success of an artist is determined by many factors, the frequency of appearance in the infotainment is only one factor, not everything.

Here are some simple things that if an artist can do to balance the news:

1. Express our side of the story. Writing on the blog / personal website, or doing interviews with print media that are friends to write the story. Do not be discouraged if we lose the number of readers a story with the millions of TV viewers. The existence of a direct source of the relevant story is much more meaningful than the silent altogether.

2. If possible, bring a tape recorder / camera when we cover infotainment. All artists have ever dealt with infotainment of course know how many events are discounted when the original appeared on TV screens, not to mention the knit narrative scene cuts to fit in the framework of a particular opinion. So Where recordings from our side that we publish? YouTube. Promotion? Believe me, with a tweet or two, We Can have Thousands of viewers before We Know it. Maybe even more if it got spread. If you do not want to be bothered until the show was not a problem, by bringing the rival recording alone is enough to change the psychological arena when we're covered. Note: Reza ever recorded behind the cameraman following him infotainment. And when he asked: "Why should Mas Reza disposable cameras all?" Reza said, "Yes, same like you, took my picture without permission." The result? In question was eventually sultry own and escape to the men's room. And yes. Reza followed uterus all the way there.

3. Firmly say 'no' and give the limit from the beginning. Not infrequently, the artist was invited to an event or contracted by the party which was officially invited infotainment. We can require from the beginning of the organizers that the interview was limited to materials that support the event and not stray into personal matters, and for that we can ask the committee to participate menggawangi course of the interview. Firmly say 'no' or silent when questions began to deviate. And Pls Things start to get out of hand, just do what every Miss Universe is known at best: smile and wave.


Suffering In Opium

Outside of it all, most people also have problems adiksinya own. Infotainment has been spoiling our human tendency to feel satisfaction at the sight of someone else who is not better, even more suffering, than we are. Schadenfreude. Especially if those people are a people that we think is super, who had everything. We all save a tendency that, consciously or unconsciously, as we have the potential to kill and destroy. But we have a choice to not do it, do not maintain it.

We can become more introspective and spectators literacy. Infotainment spectacle should be directed to entertain and inform. When was the scene of Judgement, it means that something is wrong. There are off the mark.

As a spectator who chose not like, I suggest to speak with a constructive, whether through social networking on the internet or whatever appropriate our capacity. By voicing the attitude, hopefully the infotainment, or TV producers willing to introspection and make the program more quality content and balanced.

A simpler way? Turn off the TV. Or change the channel.


Unnecessary empathize Police

It takes one to know one. Until we experience what it feels besieged dicecar and cameras, we can not fully understand what makes Parto fired a gun into the air, what makes Sarah Azhari threw an ashtray, and what makes Luna Maya swore in his Twitter. On the other hand, until we know what it feels sweaty and bothered to chase sekalimat-two sentences in order to pursue payment news, we can not fully understand why they, the infotainment reporters who initially can be very sweet and polite, knew it could change like thugs do not know the rules.

I do not think that was written in his Twitter Luna is sweet and commendable. He was swearing and cursing. But by knowing the underlying cause of action Luna, everything is very simple. We're human. We cry. We laughed. We're angry. We make mistakes. Something that can be solved with one meeting at a coffee shop. Without the need to complain to the police. Without the need UU ITE. So, why kill a mosquito with an atomic bomb?


Avoiding the Boomerang With a Conscience

Luna complained to the police, and on the other hand does NOT provide balanced news about WHY Luna to swearing on Twitter, and instead APOLOGIZE because almost make a child's injury, in my opinion is a strategic step that is not even dangerous. Infotainment clearly not bercitra innocent figure who invites sympathy. Currently, infotainment being tested. Artists, too, were tested. And community highlights. Defense against Luna continues to flow.

Ironically, the camera continues to spin. The longer and excited this problem, re-infotainment benefited. Sensation is money. So, if the financial benefits already in the bag, do not deserve the honor also bagged? If only party willing to swallow his saliva infotainment and then disarm the labels "the press", "artist", etc., back into the individual, back into a normal human being, he can actually get respect. But his chosen path now it has the potential to backfire. Press entertainment was great. But the community is much greater.

This case not only provoke a reaction from people who had been uncomfortable and even sick of the infotainment show quality, but also invite potential 'people's court' based public conscience, as was the case vs. RS Pritchard. Omni. But if the ultimate goal of the shadow PWI infotainment party turned out just the sensation (read: ratings)? So let the intelligence and conscience of the people who ultimately judge for yourself.

My voice may not have meaning. After the case was passed, it may still not change anything in practice infotainment, on public fondness the artist's personal life, as well as on the attitude of many artists who still tend to be permissive and play it safe when dealing with the power of the camera infotainment. I appreciate the choice of every person. Bersimbiosa mutualism with infotainment is not a thing wrong. Working for the infotainment industry was not the wrong thing-either as crew or presenters. Being an artist who chose to cover themselves from infotainment was not anything wrong. It does not matter right or wrong, but a preference. And when we respect their choice, limit individual privacy, there would no longer need a bullet fired into the air or verbal abuse in cyberspace.

Law, and legal practices in the field, not always based on conscience, but the game shrewdness in the box system. So not impossible the infotainment / PWI will be the winner in the path of the law. Honestly, I do not really consider it important. Conscience can not be fooled. And, once disturbed conscience, the people-you and me-will never forget.


* There are times when artists get paid. The news that funny light suddenly bring toothpaste packaging, febrifuge, supplements, etc., is it? News so called "insertion". And the artists who participated received remuneration from a manufacturer that works with infotainment.

** All the examples of methods to reverse these facts I've never experienced directly. Details can be read here and on the sono.