Displaying ordinary lives does not democratize celebrity access.

Evidence

However, just because there has been an increasing presence of ordinary lives on display does not mean that any ordinary person can be famous for merely publicizing their everyday lives. Fame only attaches to particular forms of everyday life that captivate an audience. Thus, despite the demotic turn, the traditional celebrity industry is not necessarily more democratic because not everyone has an equal opportunity to attain fame11. Ultimately, the television industry, like all media industries, relies on public interest and viewership for sustainability, and what attracts attention is entertainment value. In the demotic turn, seemingly authentic and dedicated representations of everyday life “as lived” are but a calculated production of entertainment in the guise of democratic access, and celebrity in the traditional media industries remains hierarchical, exclusive, and gatekept. — Crystal Abidin, Internet Celebrity, 69

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘demotic turn’ argument parallels critiques of participatory/social media democracy that the reader may know from broader media scholarship. — connects to: Ordinary people’s media visibility is not inherently democratic. — Brooke Erin Duffy, (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love:…, 801; Grassroots cultural activity cannot displace the mainstream celebrity system.

Broader Connections

• Ordinary people’s media visibility is not inherently democratic. #corroborates (0.95) — Brooke Erin Duffy, (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love, 801
• Grassroots cultural activity cannot displace the mainstream celebrity system. #corroborates (0.85)