Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

Essay 212 Topic 28 Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

It is a popular argument that Television, newspapers, magazines, and other media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people. Personally, I totally disagree with this statement. The medias just offer the good connection between mass and the famous people.

The main reason for my propensity is that the medias meet what the mass need. Since A famous people always have some good characteristics, his thought and behavior have great positive influences on the mass. People worshiping him intend to imitate him. .

They want to know how the famous people do when he encounter a difficulty in his life, and get his thought from his behavior. Then it is necessary for the medias to pay attention to the personal lives of famous people.

Another reason why I disagree with this statement is that the famous need the media to pay attention to them. A famous person always needs to attract the notice of the mass. For example, a famous person always tell some little stories about his life, his childhood. Obviously they are really some interesting things for him, But it is most important that they want people to know what kind of person he is.

Though medias build a bridge between famous people and the mass by paying attention to the personal lives of famous people, it is undeniable that they bring the negative influence. They make it hard for famous people to enjoy their private life, and bring them more pressure. Sometimes the stories told by the medias are even boring. But I think by using the correct methods these aspects can be improved.

From all we have discussed above, medias help the mass know more about famous people. So it is necessary that television, newspapers, magazines, and other media pay attention to the personal lives of famous people.

Essay 213 Topic 28 Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

Nowadays, there are many kinds of media, such as Television, newspapers, magazines.

All of them include various information. Among them the personal lives of famous people are almost the highlights. Do we need so much attention on those pubic figures

and celebrities? I do not think it should be so for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I do not believe their personal lives deserve so much of our attention. We have our lives which need us to be more devoted. Students should pay more attention on their study; adults should concentrated more on their work ;all the family members should care for each other. So I do not think knowing clearly the personal lives of the public figures may help us with our own lives in the aspects above mentioned.

Secondly, keeping eyes on public figures is also an interference to them. Living under the attention of the society members may cause many conveniences for the pubic figures. Because they cannot have their privacy which damage their lives and it is also unfair for them. They have no freedom to shopping, walking, meeting friends in public as what we usually do at leisure time and surely this circumscribes their private space.

Thirdly, the media are enthusiastic about the celebrities’ private lives and this can lead to a kind of social disease. All the media fall into a crazy status to get the information with all means they could conceive which in some situations, may cause tragedy and the princess of Diana is just the example.

Through above arguments, I think you may agree with the conclusion that the whole society, especially the various kinds of media should not pay much attention on the pubic figures. Because doing so is not only advantageous for the citizens, but also unfair for the celebrities.

Essay 214 Topic 28 Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

It is easy to recognize that among popular topics on televisions, in newspapers, magazines and other media is detailed information of famous people’s personal lives. In my opinion, the media nowadays are paying too much attention to such kinds of thing. There are numerous reasons for viewpoint and I would like to address hereinafter some main ones.

First of all, personal lives of famous people are becoming attractive and popular in the media such as television, newspaper and magazines. It is very commonplace when you turn on the television and catch the news updating you with detailed information of private lives of a famous pop star, an outstanding politician or a prestige king. For example, when there is a rumor that David Beckham may divorce from his wife, televisions and newspapers have provided series of prediction about their problems. Finally this couple had to announce officially that their marriage was still happy as ever.

Last but not the least, the media is now becoming commercialized. In order to attract a large number of viewers, it is ready to please their taste. Understanding clearly about the curiosity of the public towards the private matters of famous persons, they have produced programs which concentrate on such topic as the family relationships, personal behaviors of outstanding singers, actors, politicians, etc. For example, they tried to photographs

Michael Jackson when he was having a vacation with his girlfriend then publicize them on the newspaper.

From the discussion above, it is easy to recognize that the media is now paying too much attention to the personal lives of famous persons since their private matters attract public’s attention and the media now is becoming commercialized.

Essay 215 Topic 28 Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

The personal lives of famous people known also as celebrities, have always been the most alluring part for the media. Regular people are always eager to know some interesting information about their favorite celebrities, especially about their personal lives. The media is a very efficient resource of gathering the juiciest facts about personal lives of our beloved celebrities.

I totally agree that the media pays too much attention to the personal lives of famous people in order to get as much information as possible. I think, all people, including celebrities, have a right to live a normal life.

Unfortunately, celebrities are the victims of their own popularity. Once, they have been noticed by famous newspapers, magazines, and so on, celebrities would be in the center of the people’s attention. For example, gaining the popularity, a new TV-show, called “Celebrities Uncensored”, could show regular tv-watchers the most intriguing facts about personal lives of celebrities. Everyone could see his favorite celebrity in the most private moments and then running from numerous paparazzi. In my opinion, TV and radio medias could provide for once unknown persons an immediate fame, but after a certain amount of time, being already celebrities, it would become very annoying for them. Their personal lives could be destroyed by the constant appearance of paparazzi from nowhere.

Everyone has his own right for life privacy. Celebrities should also have this right. Even though some very wealthy celebrities try to “defend” themselves from annoying visiting of media agents by living a secret and very private life, the media would never leave them, because the more secret is the celebrities’ life, the more eager are people to know about it. But on the other hand, if celebrities were out of the media’s sights for a long time, regular people would probably forget about them.

Essay 216 Topic 28 Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities?

Some people think that television, newspapers, magazines, and other media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people such as public figures and celebrities. I share the common view with them. I can pick out examples that verify my idea here and there and I would explore a few of them in the following paragraphs.

First, I think most of us have read such news as one film star divorces with his wife, one singer has fall in love with another and so on from newspapers or magazines. Famous people have no secrets for them because I hear reporters track them day and night to seek news about them. Often, these kinds of news take up too much space in the magazines or in the newspapers. Sometimes, I could not bear it.

As the network connected to everywhere, the articles about personal lives of famous people are online too. They are always on top of one page to attract people’s attention. And we can find a link after one about the topic. The contents of them include such topics as one sports star is going to marry a rich merchant, a famous singer’s father is a thief and so on. This type of news is too personal and we could find a great variety of news about each of the famous public figures on the net. At the meantime, some real news is on the corner or in the margins and is paid less attention.

Television is also a main source of the news about famous figures’ personal lives. The compares always take great efforts to collect that news and tell all the audience what they have got. Thus, we could see nearly every aspects of a famous person from TV.

From above examples, we may reach the conclusion that television, newspapers, magazines, and other media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people.

Essay 217 Topic 28

Though we know about famous people’s lives through television, newspaper, magazines, and other media for our interests, what would the famous people feel about it? I believe that the media have a responsibility to present a balanced view of the world, as well as respect the lives of public figures. Therefore, I agree with that the media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people. For people who like to have a hand in the lives of public figures there are some forms of media devoted exclusively to this topic. They can satisfy their curiosity by buying fan magazines and watching TV shows devoted to entertainment news. However, the media should respect the privacy of every individual, including public figures; otherwise the individuals would be harmed by the media, for instance, John Lennon and Princess Diana, were hounded out of the country and met violent deaths abroad. Thus, they may have chosen to be in the public eye, but that does not give the public the right to know everything about them. Moreover, many stories about celebrities are untrue therefore those are unfair to the famous and mislead the public. Fame does not trump privacy completely. Yes, however, imply many in the media, who cite a public “right to know” or, less grandly, claim that, having invited publicity to achieve fame, the famous trade privacy for fame’s benefits. A more nuance discussion is surely required. A first step would be for the media to consider and articulate more precisely the justifications for intruding into the privacy of certain famous people at particular times for specified reasons. I think there are at least five types of fame, and in particular circumstances you may get varying responses to the question: “Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh the privacy interest of the people

involved?” First, fame by election or appointment is acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office that trade privacy for power. In a democratic system, accountability justifies some privacy loss. Second, fame by achievement comes to film stars, musicians, TV presenters, sporting heroes and prominent businesspeople. Many invite publicity, earn money in exchange for privacy, and then use wealth to some extent to protect their privacy. A variant is the infamy acquired by wrongdoers because of the seriousness of their acts. They do not trade privacy; they forfeit it. Third, fame by chance happens to previously anonymous people randomly caught in tragedy, disaster or, less often, good fortune. Australian examples include Lindy Chamberlain, Stuart Diver and contestants chosen for Big Brother. Many victims of misfortune do not trade their privacy, but rather have it taken from them, at least initially. Journalists wielding cheque books may follow, and the trading begins. Fourth, fame by association is enjoyed /endured by those close to the famous, such as a politician’s spouse, a sports champion’s children or the parents of a criminal. It is reflected fame, but not always glory. Privacy may be traded, for example, by James Hewitt, former lover of Princess Diana, or it may be breached justifiably because of the kind of fame with which the person is associated, for example, disclosure of particular share dealings of the spouse of a political leader. Finally, royal fame is a category on its own. It is much more difficult to decide where to separate the public from the private in the lives of those who are born into, or marry into, the royal family. This is because the royals exist to be in the media. For all those in other categories of fame, what makes them famous is one aspect of their lives – they sing popular songs, they act in heavily promoted movies, they play tennis better than anyone else in the world, they run the government, their baby has disappeared, they won Tattslotto. For all these people we can fairly readily draw a “private zone” for, say, their sexual practices, parenting style or health problems. Consciously applying these categories of fame to particular circumstances is not the only path to greater precision by journalists in their balancing of privacy with disclosure. But the categories help to show that fame need not mean the same degree of privacy loss for all.

Essay 218 Topic 28

Though we know about famous people’s lives through television, newspaper, magazines, and other media for our interests, what would the famous people feel about it? I believe that the media have a responsibility to present a balanced view of the world, as well as respect the lives of public figures. Therefore, I agree with that the media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people. For people who like to have a hand in the lives of public figures there are some forms of media devoted exclusively to this topic. They can satisfy their curiosity by buying fan magazines and watching TV shows devoted to entertainment news. However, the media should respect the privacy of every individual, including public figures; otherwise the individuals would be harmed by the media, for instance, John Lennon and Princess Diana, were hounded out of the country and met violent deaths abroad. Thus, they may have chosen to be in the public eye, but that does not give the public the right to know everything about them. Moreover, many stories about celebrities are untrue therefore those are unfair to the famous and mislead the public. Fame does not trump privacy completely. Yes, however, imply many in the

media, who cite a public “right to know” or, less grandly, claim that, having invited publicity to achieve fame, the famous trade privacy for fame’s benefits. A more nuance discussion is surely required. A first step would be for the media to consider and articulate more precisely the justifications for intruding into the privacy of certain famous people at particular times for specified reasons. I think there are at least five types of fame, and in particular circumstances you may get varying responses to the question: “Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh the privacy interest of the people involved?” First, fame by election or appointment is acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office that trade privacy for power. In a democratic system, accountability justifies some privacy loss. Second, fame by achievement comes to film stars, musicians, TV presenters, sporting heroes and prominent businesspeople. Many invite publicity, earn money in exchange for privacy, and then use wealth to some extent to protect their privacy. A variant is the infamy acquired by wrongdoers because of the seriousness of their acts. They do not trade privacy; they forfeit it. Third, fame by chance happens to previously anonymous people randomly caught in tragedy, disaster or, less often, good fortune. Australian examples include Lindy Chamberlain, Stuart Diver and contestants chosen for Big Brother. Many victims of misfortune do not trade their privacy, but rather have it taken from them, at least initially. Journalists wielding cheque books may follow, and the trading begins. Fourth, fame by association is enjoyed /endured by those close to the famous, such as a politician’s spouse, a sports champion’s children or the parents of a criminal. It is reflected fame, but not always glory. Privacy may be traded, for example, by James Hewitt, former lover of Princess Diana, or it may be breached justifiably because of the kind of fame with which the person is associated, for example, disclosure of particular share dealings of the spouse of a political leader. Finally, royal fame is a category on its own. It is much more difficult to decide where to separate the public from the private in the lives of those who are born into, or marry into, the royal family. This is because the royals exist to be in the media. For all those in other categories of fame, what makes them famous is one aspect of their lives – they sing popular songs, they act in heavily promoted movies, they play tennis better than anyone else in the world, they run the government, their baby has disappeared, they won Tattslotto. For all these people we can fairly readily draw a “private zone” for, say, their sexual practices, parenting style or health problems. Consciously applying these categories of fame to particular circumstances is not the only path to greater precision by journalists in their balancing of privacy with disclosure. But the categories help to show that fame need not mean the same degree of privacy loss for all.