Why now?

Channel 4's new documentaries about deceased celebrities Paula Yates and George Michael are largely about their involvement with the media and about the culture of media in general. These are topics as current now as they were in 2000 when Paula died from a drug overdose aged 41, and in 2016, when George had a fatal heart attack aged 53.

The heavy media coverage at the time, and these latest biopics, have portrayed them as deeply troubled people, despite their fame and worldly success, and both were subject to predatory, salacious and inhumane treatment from the press.

We write here from the stance that it is neither ethical nor accurate to make claims about the individual psychologies of these celebrities, given the lack of substantiated and impartial information, informed consent, or access to the rich detail and full range of their lived experiences. 

Psychologists working with the media are especially aware of the 'drivers' behind documentaries, such as finite resources, access challenges and the pressing demands for high audience viewing figures and ratings. Thinking about the cultural context and forces within which celebrities have lived their lives sits well with the professional practice framework and code of ethics and conduct that underpins our psychological practice as practitioners, researchers or academics.

In this edition of The Psychologist, our article about media production and psychology relates the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct to professional psychologists' practice in this field. Therefore, in a similar vein, we ask:

• Is the portrayal of the individual done with respect? 
• Is the individual's privacy invaded?
• Is a balanced view evident?
• Is the documentary caring and compassionate?
• Would the individuals involved have approved of the documentaries? 

When these questions are asked about the two documentaries, there is a clear winner.

Paula had a strong and continuous narrative structure, that tracked in chronological order her media career progression and downfall, interwoven with a series of personal events such as her divorce from Bob Geldof and her relationship with the rock star Michael Hutchence.

Outed, the George Michael biopic, on the other hand, jumped backwards and forwards in time, for no obvious reason other than to air the views of various journalists and others who had been invested in making a profit from his career. 

Paula was relatively balanced, in that it gave some attention to her positive qualities such as intelligence, media skill, verbal talents and commitment to her children, as well as the more stereotypical emphasis on appearance, sexual attractiveness and capacity for innuendo and flirtation.  

The portrayal of George Michael, was, by comparison, much less balanced, being almost entirely focused on his sexuality, covert homosexuality and related offences. It took a scattergram approach, which included, inexplicably, a heavy emphasis on AIDS.

To different degrees, each documentary showed a lack of respect, caring and compassion for the individuals upon which they focused, and by default, offered little by way of positive and humane values or behavioural models to the viewing public.

In the sense that both documentaries' primary storylines were about the perils of fame and the harmful effects of media attention, it could just about be argued that claims are justified for their having educational and interesting historical content for viewers of a certain age, who haven't already consumed the media coverage that makes up most of the documentaries' content.

As for their entertainment value… that, as ever, depends upon personal taste and appetite for the commodification of fellow human beings, whatever their public profile. 

Reviewed by Kairen Cullen and John Oates