Quote Originally Posted by Levian View Post
Eh, just seems wrong to me. We shouldn't mourn this guy because some other guys died more tragically? But doesn't that mean we shouldn't mourn those guys again because there's some other guys that died even more tragically than the other guys?
I don't mourn for anyone unless I have good reason to. People do die every day and I've accepted that. Sometimes they'll just happen to be famous but that won't make any difference to me - once you come down to it, I didn't know them on any personal level whatsoever. I'm not bothered if people are sad that they won't get to experience his acting in future films. I'm bothered that it's considered front page news. I'm also bothered that when Heath dies (I think about the Welsh version every time I say that name, which makes this thread very weird to me), it's such a big deal, but when other people die that are famous, it isn't as big a deal. If it's because he was so young and therefore it's shocking, then I suppose I can understand people talking about how shocking it is, but not how sad they are. Maybe some people just have a little too much empathy.
I'm willing to bet there's someone with an even more tragic story than those guys too.
For sure. I mean, there was a dude that died on the pitch in front of thousands of fans recently. Not the first time that's happened to a famous footballer, either. I find that to be shocking for sure. x_x ...didn't make the front page news though. Even in his home country - it was massively talked about at the time but it wasn't on the front page.
But yeah, some deaths are more important to some people, while other deaths are more important to other people, that's the way it goes.
This is very true.
As for what deaths are more important to the media is obviously decided by fame.
This is somewhat true as well. I would probably appreciate the whole tragedy of the event if I didn't feel it was just made front page news because they figured the masses would be suckered into reading the papers or watching the TV channel. But to me the only reason this is being done on such a large scale is because the media know they can profit from a celebrity death, especially a relatively young one. I'm the kind of person that thinks celebrities should be able to live their lives without constant photographs and all that. There is no way that it should be headlining. It should be a few pages back, to show respect by not making it a way to sell papers.

Cynical, aren't we? Same thing can be said about any dad really. A good dad today isn't necessarily a good dad in 5 years. It works both ways too, a bad dad can turn into a good one. It's unpredictable, so there's not really any point in speculating if someone would be a bad dad or not. It's just that when they die it's better to say they'd make a good one than a bad one, probably. The best thing for those who didn't know him personally would probably be to not mention it at all, but stuff happen.
Yeah, that's all true. But the main point is that I strongly agree that she will be fine, as growing up without a Dad is likely much easier than growing up with a Dad just to have him taken away from you at an age where you understand things much better, such as the ages around seven to ten. That's just my theory, but I'm fairly certain it's the right one.

Of course, it would be better still to grow up with a Dad who doesn't die, certainly. I would just be much, much more concerned with the friends and family that will understand the death rather than the young'n.

I do admit that I am being cynical but I just think it's preposterous that Heath Ledger's death is considered headline news when there is so much going on in the world.

Oh, and I wasn't aware he was Australian until I read Kishi's post.