Torchde Team | July 9, 2021
In 2008, after experiencing what the media labeled as “the infamous breakdown,” Britney Spears was placed under a temporary conservatorship with her father, James Spears, being in full control of her personal and business affairs. For the next 13 years, Spears remained under the conservatorship with limitations similar to a severe dementia patient, despite working – recording music, performing shows, and making public appearances. The media coverage of the conservatorship was the epitome of mental health shaming, with outlets like TMZ, New York Times, and US Weekly exaggerating Spears’ every move and symptoms. Was it necessary to place Britney Spears under a conservatorship and did the media coverage influence that decision?
The media exploits and exaggerates the mental health symptoms of celebrities today. In Britney Spears’ case, it was at its maximum, the paparazzi would manipulate Spears into highly emotional situations, and when she would lash out like other celebs have in the same circumstances, the media would portray her as erratic. “Spears suffered a mental breakdown in 2007, alarmingly played out before the paparazzi who captured her behaving erratically, at one point attacking a car with an umbrella and at another shaving her head.” wrote USA Today in a 2008 article. USA Today and other outlets reported this encounter without the backstory never including that the paparazzi were harassing and inciting Spears.
Music icon Claude Kelly, commented about his experience working with Britney Spears at the time, recalling that the pop icon was extremely professional. Kelly worked with Spears on her 2008 “Circus” album, released after the conservatorship arrangement took control of her career and personal life. Kelly said that “Spears was the consummate professional in the studio and was nothing like what the media was portraying.”
Britney Spears Normal Behavior Portrayed As ‘Erratic’
An article from ABC titled, ‘Britney Spears Flashes Privates, Gets Press.’ Was Britney Spears flashing paparazzi or were they taking photos at particular angles to get the shot? Photographs taken up the skirts of female public figures were worth thousands. In 2012, actress Anne Hathaway was on a press tour for Les Misérables, when a photographer took a photo of the view up her skirt as she got out of the car. “It kind of made me sad on two accounts. One was that I was very sad that when we live in an age where someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment, and rather than delete it and do the decent thing, sells it. And I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies the sexuality of unwilling participants.” Hathaway told Matt Lauer on the Today Show.
In the same pattern, a photographer takes a photo, then the media publishes it with a mean headline attached. What happened to Britney Spears, Anne Hathaway and numerous other female celebrities was a violation of privacy and in Spears’ case an attempt to make her seem wild.
The Media Apologizes Without Taking Responsibility
The release of ’Framing Britney Spears’ has forced many in the media to reflect on how they were complicit in tearing down Britney Spears. “Her story hit at a time when print magazines were hunting for the story of the week, and when you found a celebrity – I hate to say it – spiraling or acting abnormally, that was the story. And we knew it would sell magazines,” said Jen Peros, a former Us Weekly editor. “We’re sorry, Britney. ❤️” Glamour magazine announced on Instagram. “We are all to blame for what happened to Britney Spears – we may not have caused her downfall, but we funded it. The New York Times have positioned themselves as supporters of the #FreeBritney movement being the distributors of the ‘Framing Britney Spears’ documentary.
It would be better if the media stopped referring to 2007 and 2008 as ‘Britney Spears dark period’ or ‘downfall.’ The media is the only source to blame for this portrayal. At the time, Britney Spears may have needed more financial assistance and medical support but not to the extent of a strict conservatorship which is how the press made it appear.