|We Bite Back
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||chunky_dip79 [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:29 am ]|
|Post subject:||keira knightley|
The actress Keira Knightley accepted £3000 ($8211) libel damages yesterday over a newspaper story that suggested she was losing too much weight and could be anorexic.
Maybe this is why she doesn't get mentioned v/much.
|Author:||TwistedBarbie [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:14 am ]|
It would be nice if she donated that money to ED treatment ....
|Author:||chunky_dip79 [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:04 am ]|
hell yes it'd make her look friendly-er too !
pfft. wat can u do to people that have it all..
they want more.. and more..
$8000 is nothing to them anyway.
|Author:||Shana [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:16 am ]|
i hate anorexic celebrities.
especially the ones who pretend they aren't.
|Author:||Garnet [ Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:40 pm ]|
Maybe she isn't anorexic?
I don't know.
Its a lot of money -- Too much money.
But if she isn't anorexic, she deserves to stop false press.
And if she is anorexic, I just feel very sorry for her.
But yeah! It would be great if she donated that money to ed treatment. Very very good. Probably not going to happen, but would be good.
|Author:||chunky_dip79 [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:26 am ]|
Yeah. Like when Nicole Richie once said
"I'm not anorexic, I just don't eat because I'm stressed".
Erm.. stress being the reason, not eating by
choice for a period of time .. hmm.
nah not anorexic at all
|Author:||jennadoll [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:22 am ]|
keira may be anorexic BUT i think we also need to be careful about labelling or judging people who are thin. if we all think back to when we were first confronted (and for most of us it was confrontation of some sort) imagine if that confrontation had been splashed across some grubby tabloid or magazine.
ana's need senstivity and whether she's ana or not, NO-ONE deserves to be treated in such a way. you cannot be helped until you are ready and IF she's ana she'll seek help when she's ready. perhaps we should be looking at the real culprits who make ana so fashionable, and instead of going after impressionable young women like keira, look at the designers who perpetuate this illness.......
i can think of a female designer of the letters (starting with Z) who is far more culpable........
|Author:||chunky_dip79 [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:28 am ]|
NOT what I was trying to bring across.
I know the whole ana sensitivity thing & by
all means I think it is WRONG to spread things
about eating disorders at all in the publics eyes.
Why should any diease as a matter of fact be
spoken/laughed/captioned about unless it's a
sincere sympathy story. Money that's why....
Here's a quote from Keira herself:
“‘Weight is a big issue in Hollywood because I’m twice the size - height and everything else - of most of the girls who are going in to see the director for a part. When you realise that I am, at my size, one of the largest actresses there, you start to think, ‘I don’t think it’d be healthy for me to stay here much longer.’”
I think that's quite a clue, but it's irrelevant to no disorder/disorder.
What I'm trying to say, is the story itself.
The lady who wrote the article lost her daughter
(Sophie Mazurek) to anorexia so she knows all
the sensitive stuff too, I could only imagine.
The article, had a photo of Keira next to Sophie
as an example of "hollywood' standards.
Whether Keira is anorexic or not, I can see how
she was offended but there was much better
ways to go about it. Would you not call her thin??
Would you say she had curves!?
Whether she has an eating disorder or not,
whether she 'misleads the media' to it and says
things like 'i have a freakishly fast metabolism',
true, false, myth whatever that's not the point.
the point of the article was to say there's girls
like Keira, (naturally thin, whatever)
as role models for teenage girls.
They have no curves (whether on purpose or not).
To me she clearly has some form of harsh diet,
whether she's anorexic/bulimic, whatever.
Even with an ex. fast metabolism, u can get
plumper by eating more ..
I'm just saying I partly agree with the thin talk,
and think that she is an example of thin hollywood
I think she should've given that money away
to some sort of charity, an ED one or not myself .
|Author:||piglet [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:37 am ]|
She has given the money plus the same amount again from her own monies to the eating disorder charity b-eat (uk)
Keira Knightley donates damages from Daily Mail libel case to national charity
24th May 2007
Leading Hollywood actress Keira Knightley has chosen national eating disorders charity beat as the beneficiary of her libel damages against the Daily Mail.
The Pirates of the Caribbean star said that she will match the figure received - £3,000 – making a total of £6,000.
Susan Ringwood, Chief Executive Officer of beat said: “We are delighted that Miss Knightley has chosen beat to benefit although regret the fact that unhelpful stories appear in the press."
“Some sections of the media persist in publishing speculative stories which only serve to add distress and pressure to people across the world suffering from these dreadful illnesses. This is a positive way to raise awareness in such a public fashion. The donation will enable us to offer more support to the many thousands of people who contact us for help.”
|Author:||TwistedBarbie [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:10 am ]|
She's got my respect then. Thanks for the info Piglet!
|Author:||jennadoll [ Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:09 pm ]|
i totally understand your reasoning but i'm intrigued by the notion that thin actresses HAVE to be careful. of what? what now being thin naturally is bad?
like i say, i'm not looking for an argument, i just found that curious....
personally, and i know this is my "not yet recovered head" speaking i would have thought fat people had to responsible for their actions too???
|Author:||divinity [ Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:03 pm ]|
I remember when this article was printed -- you have to bear in mind that it was from a UK tabloid newspaper who are very well known for scrutinising women's bodies to the point that it becomes hateful. I wrote to the paper in semi-defence of Keira, but moreso to point out that celebrities are NOT responsible for anorexia. To suggest such a thing just leads people to ignore the real complexity of the issue. As a result the "journalist" (I use the term loosely) who wrote the original piece about Sophie got in touch with me to do an article basically saying just that. It never surfaced because of the court action, but what I learned is that Mrs Ponomarenko-Jones (Sophie's mother), who was still clearly in agony over the loss of her daughter, had been quite cynically exploited by the press in order to get a quick celebrity story.
The original article did not make very nice reading (link: http://www.keiraknightley.com/keira_art ... lythin.php) and you can bet that the words have been twisted for emphasis. A much better take on this tragedy would have been to use it to highlight the failings of current forms of anorexia treatment. Mrs Ponomarenko-Jones was understandably looking for someone to blame - it must be so hard to accept such a loss that made such little sense to you. But I really do believe that this newspaper heartlessly exploited her grief, so I support what Keira did all the way.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC - 4 hours|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group