"Lindsay Lohan Attending AA," say the headlines in dozens of papers today, for example the Chicago Tribune. The story comes (of course) from Lohan's publicist, who knows that anything related to addiction guarantees headlines for his client. (Remember the adage: "There's no such thing as bad publicity.") And just to make sure that we know it's only a publicity stunt, the PR squirt adds that this doesn't mean Lohan is actually intending to give up drinking as soon as, say, next week. OK, but what about AA's role in all this? Didn't anybody clue in Lohan or her flack about Tradition whatever-it-is that requires "anonymity at the level of the press"? Maybe after AA has basked in the sunshine of these headlines for a week or so and the buzz begins to fade, AA World Services will issue a "tsk-tsk" admonition -- thus reviving the item for a few more days. As I've said here before, AA applies the anonymity rule only to its notorious losers like Mel Gibson.
Postscript Dec. 6: Right on schedule: just as the story about this bratty actress was beginning to bore readers to tears, the AA office in New York issues a pro forma admonition about anonymity ... and thereby gives the item new legs. Source.
Postscript Dec. 13: This story is being milked expertly, and the longer it lingers the more obvious it becomes that AA is very happy to have its name linked with Lohan's. Today's tidbit is that Lohan had been attending AA for a year before her announcement last week (e.g. source) , which suggests that the concept of "anonymity at the level of the press" would not be exactly news to her. She must have sought and got the green light from AA to go public, if in fact AA didn't encourage her to do so. In today's publicity-greedy AA, anonymity is only for losers like Mel Gibson.
Only about one out of a hundred newspapers and bloggers are noticing that Lohan's flashing her AA attendance, the way she used to flash her pantiless privates, is a bit out of sync with the anonymity concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment