I hate them. I have to see them when I am at work. Stars at the beach, their flabbly bodies shown off for the world to see. This one is having an affair with a married man, this one is getting married for the 40th time. And, J-lo is dating yet another man. I don't care! I don't want to hear about it. I have no interest. We should respect the privacy of famous people. Yes they make movies and star on shows and make movies, but does this mean I have to know every little detail? Sure, if they want to talk about themselves, where they come from, that sort of thing, that is not so bad, but most the paparazzi actively pry into their lives? Can't movie stars take their kids to the park without getting photographed? Sure, actors are special and hard working, but having no private life is a poor way to repay them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The less meaning people have in their lives (religion, family, work) - the more likely they are to turn to the entertainment world to cling. Take a look at children for proof - they are more shallow than adults, and therefore more likely to know EVERY fact about their favorite member in a band. This stimulates the tabloid business. Heh, maybe we can combat it by instilling values in some people!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I know, I am one to talk, I get my little crushes every now and again, but that's just all it is, a tiny harmless crush. i do not wish to know every detail. These people are not my friends confiding secrets in me, they are people that I admire and as I admire them, I should respect their privacy, right? Right. Plus it doesn't help that most famous people are REALLY BORING. I do not CARE what they ate for breakfast or how many cars they have, if they have interesting political views, true spirituality or love thier wives then that is rather cool, but other than that, WHO CARES?!?!
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Actually, J-Lo isn't just dating yet another man, she's married yet another man...
More fodder for talk show monologues.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: We should respect the privacy of famous people.
This will only happen when the public stops caring about famous people.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But, but, but, how would we know about Bat Boy without 'em?!?!
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
most reporters are quite annoying in their quest for a story...tabloid reporters are just the worst of the lot.
Reporting is no longer simply about the truth...it is about entertainment
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In my experience, though, newspaper reporters are better than TV reporters. They don't have to struggle for ratings as much. People either buy the newspaper or they don't. The only news article that has the potential to drive up sales is the banner one, and only if something really momentous happens, so there's no real need for a reporter writing a story that is going to be buried in section F to be sensationalistic. Also, a newspaper reporter has considerably more space than a TV reporter in which to tell the whole story.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Yes, but I would not consider a tabloid to be a newspaper.
As far as bat boy is concerned, I think that the information about who is having an alien baby or big foot's baby is much more interesting.
Donald E. Westlake has written a couple of books that really rip on tabloid journalism at its finest. I would recommend them, but I am to lazy to go into my library and get the titles (it is Sunday morning).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I was not equating tabloids to newspapers . . . I was replying to Lupus's comment about reporters in general.
[ June 13, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
The latest issue of Weekly World News headlines:
Shocking CIA leak reveals, DICK CHENEY IS A ROBOT (just like Stepford Wives )
When he goes to the hospital it's to get his circuits rewired.
Also, Freaks, Geeks and Weirdos ALL NEW! Freakiest ever souvenir photo album inside
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
The Weekly World News did not have a cover story about a baby? No big foot baby? No half alien baby? No bat boy? No 350 pound baby? What is this world coming too!
P.S. I thought Cheney was a puppeteer, not a robot.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Actually, the freak headline had a smaller pic of a baby with tattoos all over its face. So yes, the freakish baby thread is still alive and well.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Actually, J-Lo isn't just dating yet another man, she's married yet another man
For her, that's not quite as serious as dating.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: We should respect the privacy of famous people
Wouldn't they stop being famous if no one cared about them?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I care about them. I just don't want to hear about their sex lives when I'm too busy trying to get one of my own.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
The tabloids aren't the sad part. The tabloid readers are. That's what you should complain about.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay. That I can understand. I never read tabloids, or famous-people magazines, come to that, except to make fun of them (They're good that way), but I admit I do tend to get swept up in the whole "famous" thing.
I like to imagine and wonder, but you're right, I don't want to know about the fake details of their lives. Also, I feel bad for them. How would you like people making up stuff about you and recording for every action?
Hm.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I read an article years back about a man who previously worked at the Enquirer. There was no problem getting stories. All he had to do was write a small story for the back pages about a werewold terrorizing local children or something, and within a week he'd have hundreds of letters and phone calls from people who knew all about it. Then he'd interview them over the phone and write the front page story for the next edition. Never left the office, never had to research anything.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)