The problem has always been that for every 10 percent of Britney that’s a musician, there’s 90 percent that’s a public figure. THE public figure. The most scandalous, the most talked-about woman in America and maybe the world. It seems all but impossible that a cute, loveable little girl from a tiny town in Louisiana could generate so many headlines, so much newsprint, so much shock and horror, and so much pure hatred. If you set out to be the most infamous person in the world without resorting to crime, how would you go about it? I doubt if even Britney knows. It seems that even if she just stood still in the middle of an empty football field, something shocking would happen to her.

Or, at least, something shocking would be reported in the media. It’s by no means clear how much of the reams of reportage on Ms Spears is actually true or even contains a germ of truth. We hardly ever hear two sides to the stories about her. She almost never denies any of the rumors, no matter how damaging, cruel and plain unbelievable. Is that because they’re mostly true? That hardly seems credible, since so many of them contradict each other or are contradicted by events soon after. She allows speculation to flourish by failing to provide any rational explanations for the things she does. Why did she shave her head? Why did she bail out on interviews? What really happened in rehab, both in Promises and in Antigua? Why did she decide to divorce Kevin? Why has she cut herself off from her family? The media have provided us with a range of suggestions, but we’re still waiting to hear from Britney.

It really doesn’t help that, while she’s one of the most visible stars on the planet, she’s also one of the most uncommunicative. Where many stars use MySpace to communicate directly with fans, or have frequently-updated personal messages and items of news about their plans on their websites, Britney prefers to say nothing about her music or about any other aspect of her professional life, and to talk in riddles about everything else. The net result is that, instead of everyone being in a position to say “So THAT’s what really happened”, they’re left scratching their heads and saying “She’s crazy”.

Then there’s the additional damage done by her failure to protect her physical image. The messy, unkempt appearance she has displayed so often since hooking up with the decidedly low-rent Federline has affected people’s assumptions about every other aspect of her life. She looks a mess, therefore everything she does and everything she touches must be dirty. Contrast her image with that of some of her peers. Stars like Beyonce or Christina Aguilera or Jennifer Lopez wouldn’t walk from their houses to their cars without full attention from their stylists and hair technicians. The result is that people assume that’s how they look in reality, and if they were ever caught having a bad-hair day people would regard it as an unaccountable abberation, unlikely to recur. But Britney is all too often seen looking like a charity shopper who spent the night in dumpster, with the result that people think that is what SHE really looks like - and if she looks good in a photoshoot it must be because it’s airbrushed or photoshopped.

Does she not care what people are saying about her? Is that why she sacked her PR rep? Does she think her fans will be able to tell the truth from the lies? Or does she enjoy the notoriety? Clearly she used to have an instinct to defend herself. A couple of years ago, she attempted to sue US Weekly for publishing a story that claimed there was a sex tape in existence featuring her and Kevin. She claimed defamation of character, only for the judge to throw out her case on the barely credible grounds that, if you have as sexual an image as Britney, nothing anybody says about your sex life can defame you. And when you’re Miss Notorious, the same principle would presumably generalise to every other department of your life. That means suing for defamation is no longer an option for Britney.

It also means that writing defamatory falsehoods about her is now without risk. It’s easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. How courageous. How imaginative. How enterprising. I’m being ironic here. Yet people keep doing it with such relish. Isn’t Britney-baiting getting a little old? It amazes me that people like “Perez Hilton” seem to ignore completely the fact that she’s a human being. He made fun of her children, implying quite falsely that Jayden was in some way abnormal. Then he spent months demanding that her children be given to her dubiously-reputed ex-husband. As if he cared. He called for her new single to be boycotted. He hopes to ruin the success of her new album by leaking it on the internet. He turms the most harmless stories about her into scandals and tries to crucify her on almost a daily basis. Why? What did she do to deserve it?

It troubles me that we not only allow this loathsome, destructive freak to live amongst us but actively encourage him to behave as he does. The same observations apply to the heartless savages at TMZ. Are these the kinds of people who would really laugh at a “train wreck”? It’s a sad commentary on the callousness of the modern soul that it does not rebel against this pointless cynicism and cruelty and that some people actually think it’s funny.

These “celebrity bloggers” would never be happier than if they could in some way contribute to Britney’s eventual suicide. It would be the summit of Mr Hilton’s career, and if it finally happens, perhaps this bitter old queen, jealous of someone younger, more famous and infinitely more beautiful than himself, would be content. It’s particularly sad that Harvey Levin of TMZ quite freely admits to being “played” by those who want to spread malicious stories for their own reasons, yet he doesn’t see any need to balance things out - nor does he appear to have any instinct for justice or fairness, never mind normal human compassion.

In Britney’s case, there seems to be “a scandal a week” arriving through malicious rumors, exaggerated stories and misleading picture captions carefully disseminated to the likes of US Weekly, Life and Style, TMZ, Hilton and various other none-too-scrupulous outlets. Who could be behind these smears? Well, the proprietors of the gossip sites have their suspicions. In a recent article featuring interviews compiled by MTV’s Jennifer Vineyard they commented on Kevin Federline’s ongoing “anti-Britney campaign” and the use of dirty tricks by his legal team. Yet, strangely, they still continue to allow themselves to be used as weapons in Federline’s personal vendetta.

It’s knowing how to create scandals and headlines out of nothing that has worked so well in the present situation. For example, in the week in which I’m writing, we’ve had a whole series of headlines generated by one story. Day One - Britney temporarily lost custody of her boys. Day Two - It was because she didn’t have a valid California driving license and missed a drug test. (How did Kevin now she’d missed her drug test? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?) Day Three - She has visitation rights. Day Four - The visits will be supervised and may be terminated if she endangers the kids (What? Where did that come from? Perhaps some of Fat Tony’s fantasies?) Day Five - PETA wants Federline to demand custody of her dogs.

The showboating about serving papers on all her friends and associates was nothing more than a headline grabber too. They never had any intention of cross-examining any of these people in court. The whole purpose of the exercise was to create a widespread impression that there was something so bad about Britney that even her friends couldn’t deny it, and as a secondary objective, to suggest that someone as bad as her couldn’t even depend on her friends for loyalty or support. And the media dutifully reported the whole charade without a hint of scepticism.

Every time we think things would quiet down because Britney hasn’t really done anything much, her opponents make use of two good old reliable smear tactics. One is the allegation of her bisexuality or lesbianism. Now, nothing would delight me more than to discover that Britney likes women, but I just don’t believe a word of it. If she has had scores of lesbian flings - or even nights of lesbian fun - where are all the women she’s allegedly been with, coming forward with their kiss-and-tells to claim their $20,000 from the Brit-hating News Of The World? So far, there haven’t been ANY.

The other classic smear that alternates with the lesbian one is a whisper in a receptive ear that a new sex tape featuring Britney and a stranger is in out there, waiting to be sold to the highest bidder, that it’s so shocking it would crash the internet if it fell into the wrong hands (damn, how many positions does she use?!) and that Britney is close to suicide because of it. Isn’t it funny that these tapes never actually appear? The closest we’ve had to the real deal has been the shamefaced admission by the Daily Sport that they’d seen pictures from an alleged sextape and it wasn’t Britney.

The great thing about putting out stories like this is that it’s almost impossible to refute them. If you’ve done a little philosophy you’ll know the problems with Universal Negative Statements. You can’t validate them if they depend on empirical truths. So if I say “There are no five-legged pink rabbits in Norway” you could say “You’re wrong, I was there and I saw one!” Thus, if you want to say “There’s a sextape of Britney Spears out there” and I say “Oh no there isn’t” you can always come back with “Well you may not have seen it, but a friend of a friend told me he has!”

I have a feeling that this is the kind of “evidence” Kevin’s legal team presented to the recent custody hearing. A variety of pals, hangers-on and disgruntled ex-employees made statements saying “We saw her taking drugs!” And of course Britney’s supporters can’t refute that by saying “Well we’ve never seen her do it”. It’s desperately difficult to defend yourself against hearsay evidence unless you’re in a position to convince a jury of your good character - and how would you do THAT if you’ve been the victim of a particularly nasty and all-pervasive smea campaign in almost all of the media? Jurors - and judges - don’t live under a stone.

It’s strange that Kevin Federline has had to resort to using whatever means he can, fair or foul, to gain custody of the kids. Surely if there were well-attested adverse truths about Britney’s personality and behavior around the little boys, all Federline would have to do is present them to court. But apparently those well-attested truths aren’t available, for otherwise why expend so much energy on slinging dirt and trying to sully every aspect of her reputation? It makes me think that perhaps his motives aren’t as pure as he makes them out to be. It makes me think that he isn’t worried about the babies’ welfare at all and he only wants custody of them to hurt Britney. It sounds and feels more like pure revenge.

Yet it could possibly have happened that even this energetic hate campaign wouldn’t have worked without the sudden, unexpected, perfectly timed and highly-convenient appearance on the scene of Fat Tony Barretto. I happen to agree with Laura Wasser’s scarcely-reported and totally ignored opinion that he is “not a credible witness”. But what was so damaging about Fat Tony’s statements to the court and to the media was not what he said so much as how many allegations he compiled and when he made them. At the 59th minute of the 11th Hour - after waiting a full 6 months - he deluged the court and the media with so many accusations that there was no hope of Britney’s side producing a defense in time to counteract their effect. In a criminal court, the defense would have been able to demand a delay till they studied the new evidence, but that isn’t the case in custody proceedings.

The allegations ranged from the shocking, serious and sinister (that Britney had attempted suicide and almost died from a drugs overdose) to the absurd (that Britney farts a lot - is he suggesting that she planned to murder the kids by methane poisoning?). Many of them are demonstrably false (e.g. that she failed miserably at her written test to get a California driving license) while others are contradictory (e.g. that she loves to dance up against people - but hates to be touched; and that she deliberately shows her naked ass to people - but doesn’t allow them to look at it). Some are thrown in purely to try to alienate her fanbase (e.g. that she hates her fans). It was a load of contentious and largely farcical gossip, but it went uncontested at the custody hearing because there was simply no time to gather up witnesses for the defense.

Yet even THAT didn’t result immediately in custody being handed to Federline. This wonderful, saintly man and his lawyer had to run to Commissioner Scott Gordon like little sneaks running to a teacher to tell tales on Britney. “Please Sir, I saw Britney Spears driving her car and i don’t think she has a license!” “Please Sir, somebody told me that Britney Spears hasn’t taken her drug test!” Wonderful, wonderful. Saintly, saintly. Such creditable and honorable behavior. Yet nobody - NOBODY - seems to see anything wrong with it.

Similarly, nobody seems to see anything wrong in the way Scott Gordon has favored Federliine from the get-go. Even though K-Fed has a background of drug and alcohol use, even though he smokes around the kids, even though he has a reputation as a serial womaniser and cheat, and even though he was a petty criminal as a youngster, the judge didn’t question his suitability as a parent, never mind sole custodian of two young babies. He wasn’t required to submit to random drug tests or the monitoring of his parenting skills. Don’t you think that’s strange? How has he managed to remain Mr Clean? Wouldn’t it have been as easy as pie to do a Fat Tony demolition job on Federline’s reputation? It’s actually pretty obvious that gathering dirt to use in retaliation against Kevin isn’t and has never been Britney’s style, just as anyone with the sense to trust her big heart always knew it wasn’t. The story that she had hired detectives to get some dirt on Kevin was yet another smear planted by Kevin himself, or his friends.

So, even after all the shocking “revelations” we’ve encountered over the last few months - coinciding almost exactly with the custody case - do we really know any more about Britney than we did before, or is it true - as she said herself in one of her rambling blogs - that the life and events of the “public” Britney are completely and utterly different from the real thing? Even the things that seem fairly black-and-white can suddenly dissolve into shades of grey. For example, just about every media outlet has reported that Britney was dumped by her management and by her lawyers in her “week from hell”. But there were alternative reports that Britney was the one who fired her management company. And Laura Wasser actually went out of her way to point out that her company was NOT “dropping” Britney - merely making way for fresh blood. In other circles that would be regarded as a confession of failure by the lawyers, not by their client. But in every case where Britney is involved, alternative views that could be favorable to her - or even value-neutral - are invariably suppressed.

Her friends keep saying she’s OK, she’s getting on with life, she’s a strong girl.... and I’d love to be able to believe that the secret smile we sometimes see on Britney’s face is evidence that she’s been involved in a massive piss-take at our expense for the last 4 years. Maybe she’s willing and even complicit in the daily public humiliations that keep her permanently in the spotlight? It would be such fun if she was really going back to her house every night and laughing fit to bust over yet another ludicrous Britney story that the entire world has swallowed lock, stock and barrel.

However, much as I’m regularly pilloried as someone who “makes excuses” for everything she does, or who always engages in “damage control” on her behalf, I don’t think all is well on Planet Britney. The alienation from her family is the thing that scares me the most. I don’t believe that Britney’s mom and dad are bad people, and I think they have shown frustration and bewilderment at their daughter’s behavior rather than a desire to undermine and betray her for the sake of their own secret agendas. If I was in as bad a place in my life as Britney seems to be right now, I know that my parents would be all over me with their worries and concerns and would probably resort to physically dragging me back home for my own protection.

There are recent signs of a reconciliation with her family, but for a long time they seemed to have cut Britney adrift, just as much as she had done to them. It can only mean that they felt they could no longer communicate with her, that they could no longer get close to her. And stubborn as she is, that would not have been the true nature of the sensitive, loving, family-oriented Britney we’ve always known. The girl to whom being firmly grounded in Kentwood always meant so much. The girl to whom separating professional from normal life meant everything because she could always go back home as plain ole Britney, downhome gal who still kept all her old friends. There HAD to be something wrong with her, mentally and spiritually.

Post-partum depression has been suggested, and it seems likely. It has never been denied. But Britney is also the world’s worst at dealing with break-ups and some people (such as celebrity biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli) have suggested that the break-up with Justin Timberlake damaged her permanently. One can only imagine, then, the searing effect it must have had on her mind and soul to split with Kevin Federline. This was the man who she thought was the final fulfilment of her dreams. The man whose name she wanted to take. The man she had such confidence in, she didn’t even want to sign a pre-nup. Things must have been really bad to persuade her to destroy her own dream and divorce him. In any event, it was foolish for people to assume that getting rid of Kevin would be a painless exercise for her.

It seems likely that she has become increasingly paranoid. And, as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean “they” aren’t out to get you. In Britney’s case they clearly are. Looking around her, she must have been wondering for years now “Who is betraying me? Who is talking to the media? Why are they telling such lies? How much money are they making out of me?” Her attempted solution to the problem has been to strip things down and get rid of anybody she can’t trust. That means she’s gotten rid of almost everybody. Yet still the stories narrated by “friends of the singer” keep appearing in the tabloids. It must be enough to drive her crazy. “Who can she trust?” is a terrible place to be. Her generosity and naivety, as well as her huge level of celebrity, have turned her into a cash cow for just about everybody who has ever come into contact with her.

Whatever the reasons, it does not appear that Britney is mentally well. The secret smile captured on occasion by the paparazzi - on the night when she shaved her head AND on the night of her infamous umbrella attack - is looking more and more like the expression of someone who is no longer connected with the reality of what’s going on around them. Maybe she did actually think her performance at the VMAs was “good”, as reported by one source. Maybe she does actually think “already has the boys back” as reported by somebody else. If so, she must be delusional to the point of hallucination. Anyone in that condition needs medical help a lot more than they need “tough love” or any amount of counselling.

All the people who once bossed her around, treated her like a performing monkey and made her run and run when all she wanted to do was hide are gone now. At last Britney is captain of her own ship. But it seems that she never took the navigation course for the murky, shark-infested waters she’s found herself in. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, she slew the albatross that was her hopeless marriage to Kevin Federline and now she’s drifting alone in the doldrums, going gradually insane and with her life and vitality gradually being squeezed out of her. It may be that her ship will make it to shore with another cargo of money for people to covet. But will she be in any fit state to enjoy it?

Comments (0)