It is gradually realized that there are no public figures in the society.
There are four requirements for a public figure: social visibility, social status, obtaining huge benefits from reputation and status, and being able to influence public interests for a long time.
The popularity, status and interests are self-evident. Long-term influence on the public interest obviously refers to a positive influence. If it is a negative impact, it may be difficult to “long”. In other words, a stable public figure should speak for the public interest under normal circumstances, whether active or passive.
From this point of view, is there any now?
Entertainment stars, every day is scolding each other, taking drugs, hidden marriage, pregnancy, surrogacy, cheating, domestic violence, Lao Lai, playing big names, property disputes, endorsements of various conspiracy products, please enter the urn, fans for a bit of trivial mass hysteria…
Well-known entrepreneurs, drawing cakes, exploding thunder, fighting for power between husband and wife, fighting each other, setting traps for users, attacking public governance for their own enterprises and models…
Writers, screenwriters, plagiarism, offensive, shameless, unrecognized, 6 or 10 years late apology…
Various internet celebrities and variety show celebrities, who have made their speeches, do not cooperate with security checks, have no lower limit to gain attention, and do all kinds of distasteful actions…
Amplify the concept of “persons” and personalize those institutions, platforms, and companies that have huge influence as “persons”, and their performance is the same.
Large companies, you have a monopoly, I have a monopoly. Originally, no one would say anything, but they still pretended to be strict. One party went to the court to sue, and the other party followed up with a counter-accusation.
There are others. Originally there were some titles, and the talent mission was to speak for the public interest, but those who broke into the public eye were often people who had put forward very “individual” ideas and were willing to publicly promote them. The most recent thing is to prevent the feminization of men. Earlier, there are bans on freezing eggs, parents must hold qualified certificates to work, children without nine years of compulsory education should not have children, and real estate is the market’s choice of 10 million square meters, which is reasonable… enumerate.
Why do they always emphasize “do not want to occupy”? It’s because I know in my heart that I don’t deserve to occupy it, because public resources are not prepared for personal gain.
Following this suggestion, I jokingly make a suggestion: The establishment of some social identities should first pass the IQ test.
Look, this is our “public figure”.
I have discovered a phenomenon, that is, once something outrageous, embarrassing, or anti-basic ethics happens to an entertainment star, someone or that person’s team or studio has to come out and clarify it. The first sentence is: I didn’t want to occupy public resources.
Please forgive me for being dull, not knowing why.
Public figures should naturally occupy public resources—especially public opinion resources. What is a public figure who does not occupy public opinion resources? The key depends on how you use it, whether it is for the public interest or for your own personal benefit. There is no problem for your own personal benefit. If it can be combined with the public interest, or although there is no subjective public interest will, it has an objective role in guiding the public interest, so the occupation will be all. It should be, and it’s all part of it.
Why do they always emphasize “do not want to occupy”? It is because they know in their hearts that they are not worthy of occupation, because public resources are not prepared for private gains, and they have nothing but private gains.
In most cases, the hottest-most public things are some of the most secretive private things, or some celebrities hiccup and fart, and some celebrity companies choke each other out for their own interests and make a mess.
The ones who are still holding the public front are the few conscientious media and the media people in them, but they are not public figures, because they have almost nothing except “influencing the public interest for a long time.” Holders are also becoming rare. The external environment that is too easy to make money sucks people away and engages in entrepreneurship that has no publicity or even aggravates the decline of publicity. Many former media people go to large companies to do media public relations, and their responsibilities range from talking constantly to not letting them talk.
The reason why the perseverers are becoming rare is that, in addition to the degradation of the network environment, there is also the reverse force formed by the perish—the ubiquitous malice attacking the perseverers. In the field of public opinion, it is easy to judge which are good media—the few who are constantly scolded on the Internet.