Has the media paid too much attention to celebritie5

Has the media paid too much attention to celebrities? Though we know about famous people`s lives through television, newspaper, magazines, and other media for our interests, what would the famous people feel about it? I believe that the media have a responsibility to present a balanced view of the world, as well as respect the lives of public figures Therefore, I agree with that the media pay too much attention to the personal lives of famous people For people who like to have a hand in the lives of public figures there are some forms of media devoted exclusively to this topic They can satisfy their curiosity by buying fan magazines and watching TV shows devoted to entertainment news However, the media should respect the privacy of every individual, including public figures; otherwise the individuals would be harmed by the media, for instance, John Lennon and Princess Diana, were hounded out of the country and met violent deaths abroad Thus, they may have chosen to be in the public eye, but that does not give the public the right to know everything about them Moreover, many stories about celebrities are untrue therefore those are unfair to the famous and mislead the public Fame does not trump privacy completely Yes, however, imply many in the media, who cite a public "right to know" or, less grandly, claim that, having invited publicity to achieve fame, the famous trade privacy for fame`s benefits A more nuance discussion is surely required A first step would be for the media to consider and articulate more precisely the justifications for intruding into the privacy of certain famous people at particular times for specified reasons I think there are at least five types of fame, and in particular circumstances you may get varying responses to the question: "Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh the privacy interest of the people involved?" First, fame by election or appointment is acquired by politicians, judges and others in public office that trade privacy for power In a democratic system, accountability justifies some privacy loss Second, fame by achievement comes to film stars, musicians, TV presenters, sporting heroes and prominent businesspeople Many invite publicity, earn money in exchange for privacy, and then use wealth to some extent to protect their privacy A variant is the infamy acquired by wrongdoers because of the seriousness of their acts They not trade privacy; they forfeit it Third, fame by chance happens to previously anonymous people randomly caught in tragedy, disaster or, less often, good fortune Australian examples include Lindy Chamberlain, Stuart Diver and contestants chosen for Big Brother Many victims of misfortune not trade their privacy, but rather have it taken from them, at least initially Journalists wielding cheque books may follow, and the trading begins Fourth, fame by association is enjoyed /endured by those close to the famous, such as a politician`s spouse, a sports champion`s children or the parents of a criminal It is reflected fame, but not always glory Privacy may be traded, for example, by James Hewitt, former lover of Princess Diana, or it may be breached justifiably because of the kind of fame with which the person is associated, for example, disclosure of particular share dealings of the spouse of a political leader Finally, royal fame is a category on its own It is much more difficult to decide where to separate the public from the private in the lives of those who are born into, or marry into, the royal family This is because the royals exist to be in the media For all those in other categories of fame, what makes them famous is one aspect of their lives - they sing popular songs, they act in heavily promoted movies, they play tennis better than anyone else in the world, they run the government, their baby has disappeared, they won Tattslotto For all these people we can fairly readily draw a "private zone" for, say, their sexual practices, parenting style or health problems Consciously applying these categories of fame to particular circumstances is not the only path to greater precision by journalists in their balancing of privacy with disclosure But the categories help to show that fame need not mean the same degree of privacy loss for all