Media Pressure 2/8/07

[Minis On The Edge]

Do you think that media pressure towards a famous person can be so strong that it can cause a celeb to do something drastic ( sue, mental breakdowns, suicide, retaliation)? Do you feel the media should be fined heavy penalties and given stricter rules regarding how they invade on the privacy of famous people?

[chesterfieldzoo]

Absolutely. They were directly responsible for Princess Diana and I believe Anna Nicole Smith. I have seen court tv shows where stars are smacking the paparazzi. They really get obnoxious (the photographers). But remember, they are only taking the pictures because there are buyers for them. Star magazine and National Enquirer are 2 of them. They pay more money for the most unflattering or private pictures. I think it is stalking and those laws should apply. These guys wait in alleys and use long range lenses.

[Kalygirl]

You know, it's one thing to try and capture pictures of stars at big red carpet events and stuff, but entirely another when it becomes a safety issue or a humiliation issue. I agree that paparazzi have caused a LOT of accidents by stalking celebrities, and I think it is ridiculous of all these magazines to take the worst pictures of celebrities and use them to make up horrible stories. I don't care how famous you are, you still have the right to a private life, and I feel that paparazzi need to respect that. I especially hate it when tabloids try to exploit celebrities' children as well, that should be an automatic jail sentence.

[Peggi]

Not only for the famous but the poor family's that have a mike stuck in their face and ask how are you feeling right after a tragic event. I want to smack them.

[Hallowell]

Celebrity or not, everyone deserves privacy and peace of mind. When they are not working, they should be left alone, we do not own them.

[KathieB]

Sorry, I disagree with those who would restrict the media in any way. I think that putting rules on the media over and above laws already on the books would be a serious erosion of the First Amendment. As distasteful as their actions may be, so long as they are within the limits of the laws that apply to everyone, they have a right to pursue their occupation.

As for asking stupid questions, that everyone has a right to prove himself or herself an oblivious and ignorant knucklehead. And some of them do it over and over again. You have to wonder what grade they got in their Interviewing Techniques 101 class.

[lumberjacksgurl]

Bottom line is that celebrities are citizens like you and I.

If we went through what some of these celebrities do, there would be charges, indictments etc against the people who were harrasing and stalking us! Would you stand for the vicimization of your daughter? Then why is it ok to victimize another person? The case of Anna Nicole Smith is truly sad and she is a victim. MOre so her daughter will live the legacy of a victim. She was in no condition over the past months to endure the spectacle that was created. NO matter her celebrity and the image created...she was a citizen, a human being.

Somewhere there has to be some morality and compassion....it goes beyond laws and ammendments as you have in the States, it should be a matter of human decency.

[Lisa_F]

I had to vote yes - there should be rules. Maybe not laws that infringe upon someone's right to free speech - because that could be carried over into so many other areas where it shouldn't be. If the right to free speech is protected for one segment of the population then it should be protected for all segments.

But there should be rules - ethical, moral, and just plain ole' common decency should be written into the code those journalists have to abide by - not just when dealing with famous individuals but when dealing with anyone.

But remember, they are only taking the pictures because there are buyers for them.

You hit it right on the head there! If there weren't any buyers for the pictures then there would be no market for them. And there wouldn't be a market for them if people didn't buy the magazines, etc. that so tastelessly display peoples private lives without their consent.

[Minis On The Edge]

I was sad to hear about Anna Nicole Smith and felt months ago, if the media did not let up, this could end in a tragedy. I was also upset about how they are hounding Angelina jolie when they found out her mother had died. I think it's a true lack of human compassion. It's sad to see the moral decay in some humans.

The media is so powerful too! They can make or break a person. Look at how they made Brittany Spears the most famous girl in the USA and put her on a pedestal and then a few years later they pulled her down for doing the same thing she was doing before (Though I must say if she lived here, she would wear more clothes because it's too cold in Wisconsin ).

I beleive in freedom of speech but I think human compassion is also important. I feel they should leave regular Jane or Joes alone too. Do you remember the little girl that fell in the well in her yard and after many days the were able to recover her (I can't think of her name right now)? There was so much media attention on those rescuers that a lot of there lives ended tragically just because it was too much for them to bear. I think it's really sad.

I think the media also make it harder to try cases in court because they put so much information out to the public that people already have formed opinions before the person is even tried in court. It seems like there should be classes like Kathie Brought out "Interviewing Techniques 101" and there should be a code of ethics they should ave to live by. I guess this is why we build dollhouses. We can make our own little world the way we wish to see it .

[KathieB]

Tracy, I think you identified the dilemma ... we don't want to impinge on Freedom of Speech, yet it is difficult to sit by and watch the abuse meted out in the name of that freedom.

Why we are drawn to the stories generated by such invasive actions? Because they report it, must we listen to it? Because they print it, must we read it? Because they show it, must we look at it?

So long as the majority of the people read and listen and look at the tintillating tidbits of someone's private life, the media will continue to fall all over themselves in their efforts to increase their ratings with ever more salacious stories.

Have you noticed how little NEWS there is on TV news programs? Most of them have slid down the slippery slope and become little more than electronic magazines, designed more to entertain than inform.

It's a sad situation, no matter how you look at it.

[Esther]

I think part of the reason these pictures and stories are so popular is that people are bored with their own lives and want to hear exciting things about celebrities (or, conversly, about how boring and mundane their lives off stage may be).

I think some of the stalking laws could be applied to the media.

[havanaholly]

As a former bookseller I have very strong views on the subject of censorship in ANY form. I also firmly believe the "media" are just that, out to "entertain" and the paparazzi, etc, is part of the price of "celebrity". It says something about our society that this "media" is what people support and seem to crave, judging the sale of tabloid papers & the popularity of shows like "Entertainment Tonight", etc.

I think it's a shame people have no respect for the privacy of others, but if there's a market for this sort of stuff I doubt it'll stop; certainly my personal refusal to buy this stuff or watch these shows hasn't made a particle of difference.

[chesterfieldzoo]

While I do subscribe to people magazine (I feel they get their stuff fairly) I don't buy the gossip rags. I don't believe in censorship, but I don't think that has anything to do with invasion of privacy and stalking. I know I would be disconcerted to have someone jump out of an alley and start snapping pictures of me. I have a daughter in TV who is afraid to pursue her career further because of the paparazzi.