Nobody owes anything to anyone, unless it is material goods. But those who recognize their good fortune and use it to benefit others are doubly enriched. Makes for healthy celebrities and healthy hoi polloi.
It’s a matter of balanced lifestyle. Guess some could call it noblesse oblige, if you want to go all caste system on it.
Many do prefer to view them as the elites and above service. But I do think that the many who work to make the world a little better place are held in pretty high esteem by the public.
I do think it’s a good thing if they do use their wealth to help others of course. I just think that the entertainment that they give us counts as “paying us back” for the money that we give them. Anything above and beyond that is the frosting on the cake.
You are right of course, but he’s never decided to be famous in the first place, he’s apparently been famous ever since he was a child, it’s all he knows.
Personally I think that people who are famous for being famous (Paris Hilton for example) pretty much deserve what they get. They feed off the fame and the only thing that gives them fame is scandal and gossip. On the other hand there are people who have no interest in fame at all but who happen to be famous because they’re really good at something, they don’t deserve to be in the spotlight for anything other than what they do (swimming, golf, driving, whatever.)
I put Tiger Woods somewhere in the middle, on the one hand he’s famous for being really good at golf so he shouldn’t get his private life dragged into the spotlight, on the other hand he uses that fame to make money out of endorsements so, as you say, he’s making a conscious decision to stay in the public eye.
He should have known that this kind of scrutiny was possible, but it is still distasteful.
No, it isn’t ethical and we have the cable networks to thank for that. There is nothing very ethical on TV for that matter. When you think of what was news 20 years ago and compare it to today it is almost absurd. The National Enquirer was the only rag that would print that stuff back then and it would never be on TV.
The only way it will change is if everyone says enough and stops watching it. A lot of us do like it and watch it and buy the magazines so they are giving us what we want. People love dirty laundry, always have. I personally could care less what the celebs are doing in their private lives but I am a minority.
Someone once said, “Intelligent people talk about ideas, average people talk about things and ignorant people talk about other people”. I think this pretty much sums it up.
I find it hard to imagine a celebrity making a billion dollars gives a hang what the great unwashed public thinks of them. They live in an insular, pampered little world of their own surrounded by yes-men, enablers, groupies, handlers, dope dealers, accountants, publicists, and hangers-on. Whether it’s ethical for the public to gape at and paw through their dirty laundry is a good question, but I think the bar has been lowered so far that they, and we, don’t really worry over the morality of it any more. As long as they’re getting publicity, as long as they’re making money, as long as their pictures are in magazines, I don’t think they care… As to whether the fans should enjoy the expose of their various scandals, no one says you have to read the tabloids or watch tabloid TV. I know a lot of sweet blue-haired old ladies who absolutely eat that stuff up and can discuss Kate Gosslin, Paris Hilton, Tiger Woods, until the cows come home - now why aren’t these ladies reading the bible or watching QVC?..I also know a LOT of younger people who don’t even watch TV or eat up popular culture and couldn’t tell you who Tiger Woods was if a million bucks was riding on it. … I don’t think Tiger Woods much cares what his public thinks, either, as long as his income isn’t affected to any great extent. He has a solid fan base of men secretly envious who will solidly support him, intoning “so he made a few mistakes, it’s all about the great game of golf, he’s a great great great sportsman” yadda yadda.
OK, fine. I think unless you can show tangible proof that a celebrity’s behavior causes things like joining gangs, or drug use, or what have you, then I don’t think they owe anybody anything.
Also, how is having no private life paying anybody back? If a gangster rapper was shown to increase gang membership, then I could see him (or her) doing anti gang messages, but I don’t see what good letting the world know who he/she is sleeping with, or other details of his/her personal life would do.
Celebrities MAKE MONEY off of being famous. If they are rewarded by big contract because they present a good clean wholesome image, than it follows if they are not living up to that image they should be held accountable.
Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, that’s a personal matter, but the fact Tiger is promoting himself as a clean cut, nice guy is not acceptable. If Tiger was promoting himself as a womanizing cheater than his indiscretion wouldn’t matter even if it did come to light.
I find it amazing how celebrities are quick to take all the good benefits that come with their fame but as soon as it’s not so flattering they cry “This personal and no one’s business.”
Being famous means loss of privacy. Not ALL privacy of course, but a celebrity doesn’t have the same standards of privacy as the average Joe does.
The OP says “I would be mortified if all my crap were on display for everyone”
Would you be mortified if a magazine paid you $25,000 to take pictures of your weddiing? Or gave you $50,000 for pictures of the child you adopted or after your kid was born?
Take the good with the bad, that is how it goes.
If Tiger Woods or anyone else doesn’t like it they are free to seek employment elesewhere or simply retire.
I haven’t followed the story all that closely although unless you’ve been living under a rock it is impossible to completely escape the headlines. Tiger has made the decision to accept larger and larger endorsements, to take part in various marketing campaigns, and to be the public face as it were of various products. I don’t follow golf at all, and would recognize Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh if they walked by me. I know what Tiger looks like because he was promoting various products in magazines and television. I think that celebrity is a like a fire. You have to keep feeding it fuel to maintain it, but that every so often, it can rage out of control.
I’m not making a value judgment on the paparazzi or Tiger, but he did choose this lifestyle.
Tiger is a bit of a special case because of the unique facts. Crashing his car under weird circumstances is obviously a public act. More important, though, was the extremity of his infidelity. If he had had one girlfriend on the side, there would have been some tut-tutting, but the story would have fallen off the public’s radar very quickly. Seventeen girlfriends, on the other hand, is so superhuman that I would submit that it would be newsworthy no matter who it was.
I don’t think all thee coverage this “scandal” is getting says anywhere near as much about Woods as it does the American media consumer base. Is it sad? Yes, I think so. Is it ethical for the media to capitalize on it? I don’t see why not.
As far as Woods himself goes, I don’t understand why this has generated that much interest. It’s as though people are actually surprised he likes to do 18 holes a day.
This. If Kid Rock or Snoop Dogg were accused of the same behavior, it wouldn’t be a network news lead.
Personally, I think it should never be a network news lead, but I think the same about any celebrity news, including the deaths of Michael Jackson and Princess Diana. Especially in this age of 24-hour celebrity news networks and dedicated network celebrity shows, I want real news on my news shows. I’m not going to get it, but it is what I want. (Same for sports, and I am a big sports fan).
“celebrities” derive their wealth from the fact that the people are interested in their lives. this includes the dirty sides of their lives.
they simultaneously want to bitch about the invasion of their privacy but lap it up when people shell out significant premiums to see these same people?
No, I don’t think it’s ethical. I think the media should respect my desire to stay celebrity news free and not have to wade through that useless garbage in order to find real news.
