A little privacy please!?
If you're pooped with post-Oscar talk, here's something nobody's talking about: Britney Spears. (That's sarcasm, y'all.)
This is my culture column that appears in The Kingston Whig-Standard every other Monday. It's also online under Opinion Columns.
Chat to you later, skaters.
This is my culture column that appears in The Kingston Whig-Standard every other Monday. It's also online under Opinion Columns.
Chat to you later, skaters.
4 Comments:
I disagree. Just because people are famous doesn't mean they forfeit their rights (like privacy). Yes, they make their living from the spotlight, and yes, Ryan Philippe talked about his daughter on Ellen, but that doesn't give the media the right to intrude when they explicitly ask for some peace and quiet. Opening up about their personal lives is their choice--not ours. And besides, why should we really care?
I disagree with the last poster. I agree with you Sarah.
Celebrities, and reader/viewers, should keep in mind that entertainment news coverage is driven by the celebrities and their personalities, not their product. Would People magazine sell millions of copies if its stories simply reviewed movies and CDs, with no coverage of the personal lives of the celebrities?
There are tens of millions of readers of that magazine and the dozens of other celebrity/tabloids, evidence that consumers want and will pay for that celebrity news.
And how about the fantastic success of the Idol TV franchises. Those shows are driven by the personalities of the contestants. Viewers, million of them, keep watching because they get attached to those personalities.
So to suggest that a celebrity can simply say to media: "Go away," the moment their career and life takes a nosedive is nonsense. It's akin to saying that political reporters can write all the stories they want about a political party when it wins seats and controls government, but if it wracked by scandal and losing at the polls, give them privacy.
And yes, while celebs don't control the public purse and levy taxes, they do derive astronomical incomes from the money spent by consumers watching movies, buying music and consuming all those other celebrity-related products. Consumers are entitled to hear the good and bad about the lives of the people who are at the centre the industry. Maybe it also helps consumers decide where to spend their money, when they learn that the celeb who looks great on celluloid with a good script, is really a boor, a crook, or a liar.
To Anonymous #1:
But this is the thing: The media doesn't follow the wishes of the people who are out there in the public eye. A person can't say: "Um, I think I shouldn't have gone out without panties on, showing off my crotch for all the paparazzi and the world to see , so you can't report it. Cause I said so."
That's not their decision.
If the media - tv, newspapers, magazines, bloggers - obeyed the wishes of politicians, celebrities, athletes, and other people with power, there'd be nothing but good news stories. So and so donated money to Africa. Angelina loves her new movie. Ashlee Simpson visits sick kids in hospital. But what about the fact Ashlee Simpson has preached for years about how she's an individual and doesn't follow the rules of Hollywood - and then she went out and got a nosejob?
But, of course, she didn't want to talk about it.
Shouldn't the media point out the hypocrisy of it all - even though she doesn't want to talk about it?
As for why should we care: Well, that's a much deeper issue. Why do we spend so much time on celebrity, entertainment, movies, music and other similar pursuits? Why do people give up four hours of their lives to watch the Oscars when we all knew Helen Mirren was going to win, Forest, too?
Think of the millions of things millions of people could have been doing during those hours. We, as a people, probably could have solved the mystery of how on earth Jessica Simpson snagged John Mayer.
I suspect we care about celebrities because they have the lives we think we would want - until they get under the microscope and we see that ugh, their lives are hard, too.
Do you care? If so, why. (Please use a No. 2 pencil.)
Hey.
I don't agree or disagree. And, no, I'm not a "fence-sitter"...
I think, it's a bit of both things. The media exploits celebrities, there is not doubt about that. If I ran around town pantiless and drunk, I can't even come up with the name of one person who would consider that "news"... but, on the other hand, I'm not famous and I haven't set up the idea that my crotch is more interesting than other, less-famous crotches.
The media frenzy over celebrities has gotten to be ridiculous. The Rat Packs antics were as ridiculous (and probably more notorious) than those of the Lohans and Hiltons... but, the difference back then was that fame did not mean complete loss of privacy. Times have changed. Yes, they have. I don't argue that.
Is it good (or "right") that we consider Ms. Spears's escapades newsworthy? Is it right that while she stumbles and falls (and, in essence, reveals the fact that she is - gasp! - human) we sit back and see it as entertainment?
There are no true and definite answers here. Questions of morality are always interpretive; based on what ideals one holds and the experiences one has had to base their ideals on.
All I know is the following two things:
1) If I was famous, I'd put on some underwear.
2) If I didn't wear underwear, I would hope that the world had better things to think about than why I don't.
Catch 22, I guess.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home