LATEST ENTRY

PRIVACY | Noah Brier

The Private Life of Celebrities

Famous people complain about the lack of privacy, but ultimately that's also what makes them famous.

October 15, 2006 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 5 COMMENTS

Maxim is not a magazine I frequently read, but I was given a copy recently and I opened it up today. Inside is an interview with Vannessa Minnillo who apparently is someone I'm supposed to know. What caught my attention in the interview was a question about privacy. Maxim asked Minnillo, "Do you miss your privacy?" To which she responded:

I don’t have a private life. People don’t realize how powerful the media is. It’s a beast. It’s there to build you up and take you down. It’s kind of bittersweet, you know. Like right now we’re doing an interview for a magazine that I love. You need to do press, but you don’t ask for it to take over your life. I understand that when I go to work, the paparazzi will be there. But I don’t understand why they need to be down my back when I go out of my apartment at midnight to get some ice cream. She went to Baskin Robbins and got two scoops of mint chocolate chip! Dunt dun duh!

That got me thinking, why not just hire your own press person and photographer to follow you around and document your entire life? You can then either post it all for free online for the newspapers and magazines to use or you might even be able to charge usage rights. By giving away all your privacy you get it back.

If all the information was out there for the public it would be hard for untrue stories to emerge. Anyone would be able to just log on and fact check. In theory, this would lead to fewer if any paparazzi following celebrities around because there would be no money to be made off the photos (remember, they're all available for public and media use online).

Now the side effect of this might be that celebrities would get less coverage, which they claim they want. Problem is, attention is central to a celebrity's success: The more of it they receive, the more of they are worth.

The flip side is that this information could be made available to the general public, allowing anyone to come along for the ride. Problem is, part of what makes celebrities such a hot topic is the exoticism. If everything was out there and easy to get to, it might make their life a lot less interesting. All of a sudden we'd realize that they have to go to the grocery store and wipe their kids ass instead of sitting around all day drinking Cristal.

So we're back to square one.

Thanks to Noah for some thoughts.


PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Max Kalehoff

Noah,
Lots of organizations do this, as well as individual celebrities. Perhaps the most notable is the President of the United States. He has a crew of photogarphers, videograhers and scribes following him around all the time. The problem is that all the stuff they give out is boring and self-serving, and nobody trusts it.
-Max

October 16, 2006

2Bill Rice

Another thought provoking post on identity Noah. I agree and subscribe to this theory of exposing more to "own" your identity and protect your privacy. A post by Robert Scoble got me thinking about how this concept can help protect your identity.

I believe the more people know you and can verify your identity the harder it is to steal. Here are my answers to "owning" my identity, Scoble style: About Bill Rice, the Bill Rice Squidoo Lens.

I think your Noahup concept falls in this category. Granted we aren't celebrities, but exposing yourself seems to make our identity and privacy more secure.

Sorry for the long comment. This probably should have been a post, not a comment, but I got on a roll.

October 16, 2006

3Paul Watson

Celebrities already do arrange shoots with paparazzi in the hope they will leave them alone the rest of the time. A good many "intrusions" you see by paparazzi are the star arranging it with a photographer for extra publicity. All news is good news etc.

I think the problem with your idea is twofold. Paparazzi compete intensely for shots and stories, they aren't going to sit around for some official photographer to provide them with shots. They also would not trust an "official" photographer to reveal all.

And the stories I have read where a star has invited a photographer to accompany them 24/7 have often ended in acrimony. I doubt many people can handle giving it all away for very long.

The only way is for consumers to stop buying paparazzi product.

October 16, 2006

4Josh

I dunno. You know the "Stars - They're Just Like Us!" section in Us? The section that, when you encounter it for the first time, forces you to look at the cover, like, four times, to make sure you're not reading some kind of parody publication? It would seem to indicate that celebrities' fame is actually not a direct function of how interesting their lives are. (I think it actually has to do with their eye rays or something.)

October 19, 2006

5V-+a%S(p#E*rsT=`hE..]gra_Te[

I loathe celebrities of all stripes. They are mostly stupid arrogant dorks. They bitch about the media, the photographers, the fans mobbing them, the reporters following them to the ice cream shoppe.

The whining crybabies forget how they pranced around in front of mirrors, dreaming of receiving attention, adulation, emulation from the whole world, Then, when it comes true, they complain and weep and moan.

I have no pity or sympathy.

Think also of how they often lead people astray, like Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson, down dubious paths into cults, drug abuse, materialism, consumerism, and whatnot.

October 24, 2006