Since I haven't yet got suggestions to choose from, this week's debate topic will be Blogger's Choice.
And the topic is:
Paparazzi: celebrity vs. privacy
Should being famous include sacrifice of privacy?
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
People who pursue celebrity do have some obligation to the fanbase they establish to give up some of their privacy. However, most celebritites want the photo-ops etc. to be restricted to themselves, maybe their love interests but definately NOT their children!. Everyone is wondering what is wrong with Suri Cruise!!! could be nothing at all but when she finally "appears" there will be a mad feeding frenzy!
Grannypj is right to a point. I wouldn't call it an obligation per se. But there should be some kind of expectation that people will be curious.
Curiosity is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get way way way out of hand. There is no reason celebrities shouldn't be able to go shopping like everyone else.
Choosing to use the talents God gave you should not entail giving up life as you know it. Nowhere in any contract did any celebrity agree to be hounded day and night, and photographed non-stop.
Celebrities are people too, or at least most of them are.
SOme celebs are camera hogs and love a good opportunity to get free publicity. They like to put on shows for the paparazi and the world. Maybe they give a little too much, or maybe it's society's fault for buying the stuff in the first place. Sensationalism outweighs privacy by far. These stupid celebrity reality shows are definitly exploiting it. They're trying to buy more fame, being famous for being famous, without having to actually work. I think theyre partly to blame for it.
4 comments:
People who pursue celebrity do have some obligation to the fanbase they establish to give up some of their privacy. However, most celebritites want the photo-ops etc. to be restricted to themselves, maybe their love interests but definately NOT their children!. Everyone is wondering what is wrong with Suri Cruise!!! could be nothing at all but when she finally "appears" there will be a mad feeding frenzy!
I say the answer is yes and no.
Grannypj is right to a point. I wouldn't call it an obligation per se. But there should be some kind of expectation that people will be curious.
Curiosity is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get way way way out of hand. There is no reason celebrities shouldn't be able to go shopping like everyone else.
Choosing to use the talents God gave you should not entail giving up life as you know it. Nowhere in any contract did any celebrity agree to be hounded day and night, and photographed non-stop.
Celebrities are people too, or at least most of them are.
Do you think any celebrities have exploited the paparrazzi/media coverage, thus making it worse for celebrities in general?
SOme celebs are camera hogs and love a good opportunity to get free publicity. They like to put on shows for the paparazi and the world. Maybe they give a little too much, or maybe it's society's fault for buying the stuff in the first place. Sensationalism outweighs privacy by far. These stupid celebrity reality shows are definitly exploiting it. They're trying to buy more fame, being famous for being famous, without having to actually work. I think theyre partly to blame for it.
Post a Comment