I understand that most of this site is about television shows, but there is a lot of "gossip" about celebrities also. Just saying.
There are a couple of layers of "stuff" going on here . . .
Like captain said, we DO come here to read about celebrities (we're posting in a celebrity news thread even as we type). But, as AJane pointed out, the FoRT picture is much bigger than just that. We come here for camaraderie, to discuss various reality AND non-reality TV shows that we like, and DON'T like. We share interests, views and opinions on a wide spectrum of topics. We have fun and learn and grow together. And, most importantly, I think, we are MORE than pretty civilized here.
As has been pointed out, God knows, you SURE can't say the same for quite a few other sites out there.
BUT . . .
Another layer of this situation is . . .
So . . . You DON'T want to know or hear anything about reality TV/famous persons/celebrities, etc.? Well, I say "Good Luck!" to you, because you can run, but you SURE can't hide.
Even if celebrity/tabloid TV news stories/reality TV shows aren't your thing, I don't give a happy hosanna who or where you are nowadays. What you choose to listen or not listen to, see or not see. The chances are MORE than pretty good that you most likely WILL see or hear something. Even if you don't want to. No one has to go LOOKING for ANYTHING celebrity/reality TV/famous-person related today. Cases in point: the Boo Boo clan, Kate and the missing bikini top (as examples).
It'll COME to YOU.
I think the only way you MIGHT dodge hearing/seeing ANY celebrity or famous-person stories, and so on, would be if you were a resident of a convent or monastery that doesn't have a TV or radio, or doesn't get a newspaper. POSSIBLY. Or if you lived on an island somewhere that doesn't have modern media conveniences. MAYBE.
And the paps,, smutmongers, etc., are NOT gonna be missing any meals, because whether or not INDIVIDUALS buy or buy into the results of what they're peddling, there are news and other organizations out there that will. And they'll KEEP putting the fruits of the paps' and transmongers' labors out there for everybody and his brother to run across, anyway.
I remember Daniel Radcliffe telling the story of how he foiled the paps. This was, I think, when he was doing Equus on Broadway. Every night when he left the theater, there would be paps waiting for him at the stage door. He would wear the exact same outfit every night so that any picture they took looked just the same and like it was from the same night.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect the paparazzi to just go away. I just think there needs to be some regulation of what they're allowed to do. Like I said above, I think children should be off limits unless the parents are okay with it. I also think anything on private property is out of bounds. Remember those pics that someone took of Madonna in a bathroom in her (?) house? The photographer got a huge telephoto lens and shot pics of her through an open window. I think that should be illegal.
Those photographers DO help celebrities' careers, so I'm sure the celebs don't want them to stop taking pictures altogether, but I also think they should be limited to when the celeb is in public AND when people are not being endangered. I also think they should be respectful. Take your pictures and then let them be. Yes, they're celebrities, but they're also people. I think they should be able to enjoy a day at the beach without being besieged by paps.
Love the Radcliffe story, too, Critical! I'll bet Daniel was cracking up all the way back to his hotel (or wherever)!
Yes, the paps are here to stay. And I agree that there should be some kind of regulation of what they can and cannot do. Pictures of people doing their business? People getting injured? Killed? Pic or no pic, that is not reasonable. And yes, I agree that children should be off limits.
Ran across a story not too long ago on the Net (of course) about how Halle Berry went absolutely, totally ballistic on a group of paps that'd staked her daughter's school out and were snapping away as she arrived to pick her up. She. Went. Nuts. (There was tape.) Frankly, she was so pissed I'm surprised she didn't wind up getting arrested.
And I do not blame her in the least.
And it's not just pictures that go overboard, it's print items, too.
Remember Carol Burnett's Enquirer lawsuit? Years ago? The gist of it was that they'd printed a story saying she'd been publicly drunk. BOTH of Carol's parents had been alcoholics and, as a result, SHE did not drink at ALL. So she sued for libel, proved her case, and WON. The Enquirer appealed and the award was reduced, but her point was made (she gave the money to a couple of colleges, I think). I remember her saying around the time (after being asked about it) that she understood that because of what she did, she was considered a public person, and with that would come stories about her, etc. However, when the story was SO personal, SO hurtful and above all, SO absolutely not true, she felt she had no other recourse BUT to sue and clear her name.
Yes, there should be regulation of what these people can and cannot do. Even though I'll be the FIRST one to say that, for some of these folks, because of a system they were born or married into, or a profession they chose to enter, they're sitting ducks for this type of lunacy.
But, I'm also realistic on the other side of the coin, too.
I don't care WHO you are, or how much money your image or a story about you can bring. Nobody deserves to be photographed in their most private moments, lied about in print, or chased to their death.
Was watching GMA this morning, and there was the Kate story within the first half hour. Nothing pleased me more than being able to fast-forward through it to the story about the panda born at the National Zoo in D.C.
I, honestly, don't know how people stand that stuff, day after day after day.
I am just fine seeing headlines when I am at the grocery checkout counter every month and a half.
Well, to a certain extent there are some laws - like invasion of privacy. Yes, they are public people, but in private they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Madonna in her bathroom is a perfect example; Jenn A in her own backyard that had something like 20 foot walls around it was another). I would think in a remote private villa in France this is true too, but then again, the photog swears he was standing on a public road. The hard part of all of this is that there are not criminal laws about this - so you are left to shelling out the money and filing a lawsuit.
I agree with what Rattus said about the public reading the stuff. I also unfortunately agree that it will never change. On kids - I agree they should absolutely be off limits. Yes, it is what they were born into, but they didn't choose it. I actually thought what Brad and Angie did with Shiloh was brilliant - they sold the pictures (because they knew everyone was going to be going crazy and they would be harassed until someone got a picture of her) and then they donated all the money to charity.
Here's my thing - I care about some of the celebrities, so I do like to hear about some things. Like this Amanda Bynes thing - I think there is something really wrong with her and I just pray somehow she gets the help she needs before she does something that can't be undone. But I don't care if Reese Witherspoon or Tom Cruise take their kids to Disneyworld (or that Beiber is driving down the 405, like Critical said). Those are the pictures I wish the paps would stop taking. But unfortunately, there are a bunch of teeny boppers out there who want to know what the Beibs had for breakfast today - so there is a market for it. Until that changes, nothing else will.
I think part of the reason that the paparazzi will not go away is that the public wants to read / see the stuff. But I think another big reason it will not go away is that the celebrities use it to their own advantage in a lot of cases. I remember years ago in the hey-day of Britney Spears with Kevin Federline reading that every morning, either Britney, Kevin, or a rep for them would go to the end of their driveway where paparazzi would gather, and would announce to them what Britney and Kevin were doing for the day. They'd specify what Starbucks they were going to for coffee, etc so the paparazzi could be there ahead of time to get pictures. At the same time they were doing this for the paps, they were complaining in interviews about how their privacy was invaded, they could not go anywhere, etc. A lot of the paparazzi are lazy. They don't put a lot of effort into hunting celebrities down - they rely on the celebs to either go to specific restaurants and shopping areas where they always gather, or they have publicists who let it be known where they can be found. Even with a couple like Brand and Angelina who claim that they protect their kids privacy, I wonder how they are found for pictures so often, but kids like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner's kids can go through life photographed relatively infrequently. I do agree that the kid's lives should be left private, but I think that in a lot of cases, it is their parents who pimp them out - not the paparazzi forcing it on them.
Hmmm . . . interesting! I wouldn't be surprised on some of them. I actually see pictures of Ben and Jen's girls pretty often (never their son, though). Suri Cruise is another one we seem to get a picture of daily. Here's what I wonder (trying to give the benefit of the doubt, which may be stupid), is it the parents' pimping the kids out, or is it the parents understanding the reality of this world and trying to pre-empt the situation, so they can control it a bit and try to keep their kids safe? I mean honestly, aside from staying inside all day, isn't there always a possibility they will be photographed? I know my kids are stir-crazy if they are couped up inside for even one day!