Thursday, 23 October 2008

Bloody Celebs!

Jade wrote something in her poverty post last week that really caught my attention. How comes bloody celebs and their antics get more press coverage than the starving people of Haiti, for example?

What is it with them that makes it so worthwhile for newspapers to write stories about who they’ve been seen with, where they’ve been seen, what they were wearing and all the other crap that’s associated with them? Why would we care more about what they’re doing than the terrible plights of the people who are living in the real world - the world that affects a HUGE percentage of the population and not just the favoured few?

Who’s behind all this? Is it the big cats who are pushing to get their products noticed? If a celebs wearing a new Gucci dress, it’s in the magazines and the day time telly shows are ‘teaching’ us how we too can look like Ms Alltits at just a fraction of the price. If a celeb hits the headlines then it’s highly likely they’ll sell more records, or more people will go see their films. If another’s seen coming out of a fashionable London nightclub with her skirt up her backside and lipstick smudged, are more of us likely to want to frequent said nightclub too?

Celebs are used to sell everything from crisps to sofas these days but why? Would anybody really prefer a sofa that’s been endorsed by a celebrity than one they’ve chosen because it actually suits their taste and comfort requirements? And do kids really prefer crisps that famous footballers eat (or do they?) over other brands? Why? Why? Why?

What on earth has happened to make us have such hero worship for a few people who just happen to be good at the jobs they do? Why would we have more interest in them than world events?

Ok, so maybe it’s a bit of escapism but how far do we need to escape? As it is now, it seems we’ve closed our eyes to a lot of the problems that our fellow human beings are suffering in this world so isn’t it time we accept reality and start doing something about that instead?

Sharon J


Stumble Upon Toolbar


Richard said...

I think you already know my views on "celebrities". At least Gary Lineker still holds the England goal scoring record and fronts a tv institution. What did Jade Goody ever do that was noteworthy?

Sharon J said...

I agree regarding Gary Lineker and as such he is no doubt influential but why then, when he's already clearly earned himself a decent wad of money from his football career, not use his influence to offer his 'advertising services' free of charge to the likes of Shelter, the NSPCC, SOS Children's Villages and the likes? Surely that would be more worthwhile than Walker's Crisps? My guess is that just like most other celebs, he's only really interested in money!

Richard said...

We may have picked the wrong example. His first son George had leukaemia if memory serves (probably before you came back) and I'm pretty certain he does a lot for cancer charities, this one in particular.

Sharon J said...

Then it's a pity the media doesn't give that more coverage instead of reporting who's rolled out of a nightclub p**sed as a fart and other 'really important news'!!

Teena said...

Absolutely! Feed the kids, clothe the poor, not like Brittney or Paris need anymore money!

Sharon Rose said...

A fabulous post which I do agree with, but I have heard a lot of celebrities who do charity work and it is not reported in the media, such as Simon Cowell and Victoria and David Beckham. I 100% agree that media coverage should focus more on reality and poverty than the latest jollys of the celebs, though.

Sharon J said...

@ Teena. I'm absolutely sick of reading about celebs - I'd much rather be reading about what's being done to help those in this world who aren't anywhere near as lucky as the likes of you and me, let alone Britney & Paris!

@ Sharon Rose. Y'see, there's a typical example, I had no idea that Simon Cowell does charity work. Why on earth don't they focus more on these things? Is it really because the public in general prefer to read about their 'mistakes' so that they can be laughed at rather than the good things they do? I suppose the former makes 'us' (the general public) feel better about ourselves and the latter gives us guilt for not doing our bit.