Celebrities Tell Magazines: "Stop Looking at My Baby Unless You Pay Me!"
I have been half-heartedly following this gravest of issues and my feelings on it are mixed. I am not a celebrity, so I have no idea what that life entails, but I am a parent and a sort of private person when I want to be. I really can't imagine how horrible it must be to have your children chased around by camera wielding stalkers. I have read accounts of these children being scared out of their minds as paparazzi jump out of their bushes to snap a shot; apparently Suri Cruise screamed at one to leave her and her family alone. It must be a terrible burden on your children, who did nothing to deserve the attention save being born into your overly-public, and overly-paid, I might add, life.
But the overly-paid part is where I stop and argue with myself. No, your status is not the fault of your children but they will benefit from it. They will have the best toys, go to the best schools, eat the most organic of foods, have the awesomest birthday parties with bouncy castles and Twinkies made of gold flakes, and ultimately they will grow up and probably try and do the same thing you do so that they can remain in the public eye because that's the life they know and the riches they've grown accustom to.
It's a very strange, gray area for these celebrities who just want their children to have a "normal" life, which they may not remember consists of things like poverty and shopping at Walmart.
But is it too late to change this societal behavior and where the hell did it come from? The first time I recall the populace going gaga over goo-goos was when Angelina and Brad sold pictures of their new baby to People magazine. I know there were instances before that, but this event in particular stands out to me as milestone. Having a baby in Hollywood is an excellent investment if you are famous; even B-listers know that. All of a sudden you are back in the public eye and just think of all the baby endorsements you can get paid to make! Tori Spelling has basically reinvented herself as a mom and has been paid handsomely for it.
Because this and the myriad other celebs selling exclusive shots of their tykes to magazines became so commonplace, we started to demand it. And like any other drug, we became dissatisfied with just newborn images; we wanted more. And then that old economics adage kicked in: supply and demand. We want baby pics, the magazines want to print them, the paparazzi want to take them and so on and so on.
So ultimately whose fault is this? Is it the photographers who do this bottom-feeding work to make a living? Is it the fault of the magazines, whose job is to sell more magazines? Is it our fault for wanting to see pictures of famous people's brats to live vicariously through them? Or is it the celebrities' faults for initiating and, let's be fair, perpetuating and cashing in on society's interest in their kids?
As I stated at the top, I do feel for these stars that genuinely don't want this for their children; I get it. But then I kind of want to know what the theme of their six-year old's birthday party was this year and which famous children they invited and which got snubbed. And I understand how magazines make their money and that paparazzi have families to feed as well.
It's a tough situation and probably the fault of everyone involved. I see no real resolution to the issue. But in the end, there's the potential for WWIII going on right now, so there's that too.