Why Did Media Coverage of Britney Spears Get So Nasty?
In the late ’90s, Britney Spears skyrocketed to fame. But by the early 2000s, her very public mental health crisis turned her into a universal punchline. Why did the media treat her so harshly, and how has this changed over the years?
From Tabloid Fodder to Conservatorship Control
When Spears was placed under a conservatorship in 2008, it wasn’t just about tabloid headlines. Her father, Jamie Spears, took control of her personal and financial affairs, including her performance schedule and earnings. This raised critical issues about conservatorship abuse and the rights of those with mental health problems. However, back then, the only outlet reporting on this was the National Enquirer.
The Role of the Media
Joanna Arcieri, a PhD candidate at Columbia Journalism School, argues that the media collectively failed Spears. In her research, she found that Spears’ story was largely ignored or sensationalised. Coverage only began to change in 2018 when Spears legally challenged the conservatorship, backed by the fan-led #FreeBritney movement. Major outlets began reporting her story with empathy and as an example of conservatorship abuse.
The Nastiness of the 2000s
The early 2000s were arguably the worst time to be a celebrity. The rise of reality TV and a 24/7 digital media cycle created an insatiable demand for stories, often focusing on the most intimate and sometimes banal details of celebrities’ lives. Anthropologist Vanessa Díaz noted that this shift in media coverage also changed public discourse, making celebrities’ personal struggles a default conversation starter.
The Lack of Celebrity Voices
During Spears’ most difficult times, social media was in its infancy. Celebrities couldn’t easily share their side of the story, relying instead on publicists and PR teams that couldn’t keep up with the relentless news cycle. This left figures like Spears vulnerable to one-sided, often harsh, media narratives.
A Shift in Mental Health Coverage
Mental health is covered differently today. When Amanda Bynes faced similar challenges, the public conversation was more empathetic. There’s a broader understanding and respect for mental health issues, influenced by more public figures speaking openly about their struggles.
The Generational Shift in Journalism
Reporters who once covered Spears’ breakdowns now reflect on their role in that era’s toxic media environment. Many acknowledge the changes in how celebrities are covered today, influenced by a combination of legal changes, media budget cuts, and the rise of digital photography reducing the market for paparazzi photos.
Britney Spears Today
Today, Spears would likely have more control over her narrative through social media, similar to Taylor Swift’s strategic use of platforms to push back against negative coverage. The #FreeBritney movement itself gained momentum through fans’ observations of Spears’ Instagram posts.
Final Thoughts
Britney Spears’ story highlights the evolution of media coverage of celebrities and mental health. It’s a reflection of broader societal changes in empathy, mental health awareness, and the ethics of journalism. How we talk about celebrities at any moment in time says a lot about us as a society.
By examining the changes in media coverage of Britney Spears, we can see how far we’ve come—and how far we still have to go—in treating celebrities with the humanity they deserve.
Your article helped me a lot, is there any more related content? Thanks!