The Celebrity Craze!
In continuation of a class presentation my group conducted today, I'd like to talk about the celebrity craze and whether or not celebrities have a moral responsibility to their viewers?It is a topical and debatable topic, where both sides have strong and valid points.
However, through the process of preparing this presentation I realised that my opinion is that yes, celebrities do have a moral responsibility to their viewers. It has been established that their influences and popularity are so widespread that even their every action is noted by the public and media officers who make the news. The extent of this "craze" is that celebrities set the standards about what is and is not socially acceptable in society. Example: the recent events of Nicole Ritchie caught driving under the influence of drugs. The next day, this piece of news was coloured on all prominant celebrity magazines cover page: images of Nicole Ritchie with police and headlines reading, something like, "Nicole Ritchie caught speeding and found illegal drugs in her system" (something along those lines)
The point here is that, celebrities have the responsibility to take care of their actions because, I think that the public are easily influenced by celebrities. And its not just even the public who are influenced but also other stars and celebrities are influencedby other celebrities. Example: Paris Hilton and her dog, Tinkerbell. Paris carries her dog in her branded LV purse wherever she goes - shoppong, lunch, etc. Within the following weeks celebrity magazines were illustrating pictures of other stars who have decided to have a dog in their purse, such as Britney Spears. This goes to show that the influences of celebrities is vast.
I guess, one could argue that it is the celebrity, they have their own lives, they have the right to do whatever they want but celebrities are no longer a private enterprise. Once they have stepped into the media light, they have become public property as the public have the power to choose which celebrities can succeed in the entertainment industry. The public have this power by not consuming anymore magazines, they have lost their interest in celebrities.
This allows one to question: is that why celebrites are becoming more and more unusual and weird? Examples: Paris Hilton in the reality tv show "Simple Life". Is it valid to say that Paris Hilton has already shown it all to the public, that she thinks that she may aswell make money from showing off her stupidity as she knows that it is what the public wants and craves - to see the fallibility of celebrities. To see their weakness and mistakes because it gives them a sense of comfort and relief to know that even celebrites are not perfect.
So, I think that to accept celebrities as role models, in my opinion, is wrong. I think that their notorious and scandalous behaviour set negative images about social standards, about what is acceptable in society. I understand that magazines are just trying to make money from the celebrities weakness and downfall yet don't celebrities realise that they have a moral responsibility to their viewers?
-I think so. -
(I think this post has become a repeat of today's presentation?! hahaha..Oh, well..it was interesting and fun to do, so why not, eh?)
Labels: Britney Spears, Celebrities, LV, magazines, Nicole Ritchie, Paris Hilton, Simple Life, tinkerbell
posted by tephiee @ 6:41 PM
1 Comments:
I watched her first episode of "Simple Life" and realised that she was a bit "uneducated"- to say the least. She didn't even know how to receive cash from a cheque.
But hey I guess she is the heiress of Hilton Hotels, she won't be needing any education or degree since her life is set...
Post a Comment
<< Home