This thread put me in mind of historical royalty and the various lacks of freedom some of them acknowledged because of their responsibilities to “their people.” Whom they could marry, if they could marry, what church they belonged to, if they could leave a church. Bigtime sacrifices for their standing.
I’m also in thought of when clergy, educators, and other types of social leaders were held to high standards in the hopes that “good” people would make “good” decisions.
Perhaps with time the concept of responsibility to others will be an archaeic concept altogether.
Why shouldn’t they have control over what they want the public to see and not see about themselves? What’s wrong with saying, “Hey everybody, I’m in a new movie, check it out.” And, “The divorce that I’m going through is private and personal and I hope you respect that.” ?
Why does the fact that these people go out into the spotlight give tabloids the right to go through celebrities garbage or bribe people for dirt, or in any other way find out things about the celebrity that the celebrity doesn’t want people to know. Unless it’s somehow connected to something harmful, I.E. a celebrity endorses a product they know is dangerous, or profits in a way that exploits or hurts people, what business is it of ours who they sleep with, who they have affairs with, whether or not they sunbathe nude, any secret weddings they may have. Whatever. If it doesn’t hurt anyone, then what gives us the right to know about it?
Plenty of people are celebrities and private. Celebrities have PR agents, who can get your name in the press or keep your name out of the press. You can also avoid doing things that would be all over the country club if you weren’t a celebrity, and all over the world if you are.
Tom Hanks is a celebrity. Tom Hanks has plenty of money. When he got divorced, after a long marriage, it got maybe half an inch on page 15. You don’t have to turn on the publicity spigot, but once you do, you can’t turn it off when you feel like it.