New Year’s Resolution
I didn’t make any grand resolutions this year, because I think 2008 will be a year of great upheaval in my life, and I didn’t want to make it worse by posing some undue restrictions on my will.
But I did make a little one.
No matter how juicy the gossip column headlines on my AOL homepage look, I am not going to click on them. No TMZ, no Britney (or Jamie Lynne) Spears, no Paris Hilton. Nothing about Anna Nicole Smith’s baby or Lindsay Lohan’s latest drunk driving incident. I don’t care if Tom Cruise is gay, or how many kids Bradgelina has adopted.
I already refuse to read magazines like USWeekly and People. They and TMZ and the Enquirer and countless other gossip sources are hugely popular in the US and abroad, but I think that it is an industry based on the invasion of people’s privacy, something we as individuals abhor, and I think it destroys lives.
Would Britney and Lindsay and all the others who are self destructing for our viewing pleasure be doing so if they weren’t hounded, day and night, by photographers and reporters? If they could take the garbage out without a thousand flashbulbs and a news report about what they wore doing it?
Maybe. But I doubt it.
People have a right to live their lives without being hounded constantly. Being an actor or musician shouldn’t equate to a willful sacrifice of your private life any more than being gay should get you kicked out of the army. I think that if I were constantly surrounded by paparazzi, bothering my friends and family and eager to do everything they could to make me look like an awful person, I would probably self-destruct, too.
So I’m going to leave Britney alone. That industry that profits off destroying people’s lives can do it without me. I realize I’m a drop in the bucket, but maybe if enough people start taking a stand against it, the next pop princess can go the the bathroom without a photographer hiding in the toilet tank.
I would like to note, however, that I do not necessarily put politicians like Larry Craig in this category. If you make your money singing or playing pretend, it’s one thing. If you make your career off persecuting gay people (look at Craig’s record), or accusing others of corruption, then you had best take full responsibility for what you do in the dark.
John Edwards’ $400 haircut was okay, though. That was a campaign investment. Half his electability is in that hair. If I had hair like that, I would pamper it, too.
This is a noble thing you’re doing… but don’t kid yourself that the whole stalkerazzi industry can be summed up with a simple black and white argument about invasion of privacy. Lines of taste (and I’m pretty sure LAW) are crossed on a regular basis, but for every dead Princess in a limo, there’s a Chris Katan or Valerie Bertanelli practically begging for someone to dig through their garbage or a publicist whose sole job it is to alert TMZ, US, Star, etc. about their client’s agenda to fascilitate a photo op with celebrity X window shopping in Beverly Hills with their third world adoptee or tiny dog.
Oh, I certainly realize that the paparazzi culture has spawned droves of attention whores trying to work the system, which is fine, I guess, if that’s your thing, but I can still do without it. There’s plenty of real news in the world.
[…] Original post by Peephole in my Skull […]
I just think it is important to keep Chris Katan safe and healthy. He’s a little guy, so it’s dangerous for him out there.
You’ll notice an Anna Nicole Smith blog already spidered and linked to my post.
Ah, delicious irony.
edward’s hair is rad.