Okay, so obviously you've found the blog. Now you need to look in the upper right hand corner of the screen. You see the link that says "New Post"? Click on it. Viola! You can now post your answer to this week's blogging question!

If you don't see the "New Post" link, you're not set up to post. Go back to the Week 1 folder and watch the blogging tutorial to find out how to become authorized to post.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Week 10

Yes, I believe celebrities should have protection from the paparazzi. I think media coverage of celebrities is getting out of hand. The public wants to know what stars are wearing, eating or shopping so we can become just like our idols, but come on people think for yourselves. The media takes this information a little too far in my opinion. It seems they choose one celebrity to report on and keep the public informed of every move this person makes until someone more notable creates a bigger mess. The Tiger Woods story got blown so out of proportion that I got tired of listening to the news. This was a marriage with children involved. Was it the public’s business to know what was happening in their marriage? I don’t think so. How will his children feel when they grow up and should happen to read the stories?

Then you have some of the people the media choose to report on that could not really be considered celebrities in the public eye until they (the media) start feeding us information. They make the stories interesting enough to catch the readers’ attention and all of a sudden we have another rejected reality show star made popular by the media. These people go into the business knowing their privacy will not be guaranteed, but it should be their choice as to what is offered for public knowledge. They need to draw a line and make sure that line is not crossed.

Stars might be in the public eye, but I don’t believe their lives should be an open book. Their job is to perform for our entertainment, but they should be entitled to the same respect for privacy just like any other human being. Their personal lives should be off limits. I can’t imagine being a celebrity and having to be “on stage” all the time.

I found a law that was passed in California by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2005 that put more restrictions on the paparazzi especially when it comes to vehicles. Under the new laws, the paparazzi can be held liable for up to three times the amount of the damages caused by violation. The law can only protect celebrities to some extent, but there isn’t a lot that can be done with the stress of having a camera in your face all the time. The public has become obsessed with the private lives of these celebrities. www.pointparkglobe.com


  1. Good research on the California law, I appreciate you posting this information. Even with these restrictions the paparazzi still seem to cross the line. Good job!

  2. Monica - I found it interesting that the law was passed by man that is a celebrity several times over. Arnold Schwarzenegger gained celebrity status from bodybuilding, acting, being a businessman, and lastly a governor. He also happens to be a member of the most newsworthy Kennedy family. If anyone can understand why a law is needed to reel in the paparazzi, I would have to say it is him.

  3. Janet,

    I completely agree with you on this one. The Kennedy family has been in the public eye since before I was born, but as long as there are Kennedy's there will be headlines. I just wish other states would rally for a "Paparazzi" law. Good job on your post.