I am in two minds about the controversy surrounding the super injunctions granted to celebrities and politicians to protect their privacy. I am not interested in any form of tittle tattle about celebrities, whether it is good news or bad. What is the difference between "A Star" having a baby, having an affair or taking drugs and "A Nobody" doing the same things? The difference between these actions, whether it is a well known person or an anonymous person, is none. Surely, you should only be interested if it is a member of your family or a close friend who wishes to share the good things of life with you and perhaps be advised when things go wrong. The names of the people and their celebrity status does not really add any extra meaning to good or bad activities.
The press, however, do have a point as many people trade off their celebrity status for profit: and, if they do so, should they not accept any bad publicity which comes with this trade? If the press are gagged from publishing bad news, why don't they not do us all a favour and voluntarily not publish the good news that celebrities seek. We can then concentrate upon the really important issues of life - our friends, our family and neighbours amongst others.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment which insults someone, uses offensive language or which incites violence or hatred will be deleted.