Kevin T. - June 24, 2007-17:20:10
Well, my take on the day's question is that it would appear to me that in today's world of "celebs", most of them wouldn't have a career without there being "celebrity gossip".
As much as many within it claim to hate it, the entertainment industry (esp. in the past decade) seems to aggressively thrive on the gossip and the paparazzi.
I think its because fame in general is more easily accessible today - because any actual discernible talent isn't always required to gain the media's attention.
Show some boobs or some meat in your trousers, or throw up on Santa Monican Blvd and cameras will point themselves in your direction.
WHO KNEW?!
Standards as to what makes for celebrity are generally low.
A Paris Hilton is only a by-product of the "celebrity for celebrity's sake" machine which seems to drive much of the known entertainment culture today.
Famous people at one time were famous for doing something - like having talent! But that isn't always a requirement anymore.
So when there isn't too much (or any) talent involved and there are more tequila parties than there are projects, some celebs need the publicity. And esp. when they're without talent, they need to grab headlines (since their "work" will never do that for them) even if that requires them to be grist in the gossip mills.
I don't though think that the public has changed though. People have always loved to watch a train wreck (even when a train wreck was a chariot wreck). Human Nature is to be interested in other people or mesmerized by their beauty or bizarro behavior.
Its just that gossip is the lowliest articulation of that human need.
That's why I think the public in recent years rather loathes in a heated way those "celebs" they find to be of no-talent or to be pandering to the gossip & paparazzi mills.
Innately, I think that although people will gossip, they don't like that part of themselves which gossips (ironically). So when you have certain celebs pandering to that - the drive to gossip - in the end, that call is resented on a reactionary, fundamental level by the people.
People ask why the public lashes out at Paris Hilton. It isn't really, really, really about anything she's doing (there are after all, a lot of shallow jerks in the world). Instead its about how her celebrity is built upon pandering to the worst within the public - their fascination with gossip and inability to quit gossiping.
They're like JUNKIES I tell ya! :D
That's why I think its great when the likes of Ross, Rosie, Ant and Kathy Griffin (notice how they're almost getting to be a little bit of a "Rat Pack" for today - they should do a sit down show on HBO with one another SCREW THE VIEW! :D) take the time to explain the world from their point of view via blogs and shows.
It might not rid their lives of all the gossip about them. But it can make ridiculous gossip seem more ridiculous to the public - and more quickly. NIP the gossip machine in the balls, I mean bud, I say!
Personally, although I know there can be "riches" attached to it, I would hate to be famous in today's world.
I think I could have dealt with fame in the 1930s. But today? Everyone in every Wal-Mart on the planet knowing you - and thinking that they actually "know" you?
No thanks.
(and he screams and dashes into another room)
I think I'd go insane.
I would need a hobby if I were famous. :)
And when would I ever get a chance to people-watch? Life behind a pair of Versace sunglasses only goes so far!
And I tend to think that people gossip more about those they don't see as real people. Its "easier" to gossip about someone when you don't think of them as real flesh & blood.
That's when gossip is a sport.
And "celebrity gossip", if one notices, in recent years has nearly replaced most pro sports in the minds of the masses.
Subscribe to Ross's Blog
