INVASION OF CELEBRITIES’ PRIVACY:
SHOW BUSINESS OR CRIMINAL?
This is one of the most frequent topic discussed by evergrowing number of people. We can find many compromising or unflattering pictures of famous people and their latest scandals in the tabloid press every day, thanks to an aggressive breed of photographers known as the paparazzi. They usually follow, chase and provoke celebrities, even they spy them in their own homes only for one reason – to fulfill the desire to get the best photo. Then they sell it for an enormous sum of money. A lot of people like watching this sort of photos, however, there is a question: Is this really show business? Some readers of tabloid press think, yes. They say that celebrities are public property and then the invasion of privacy is to be expected. Defenders of this opinion are often teenagers. Wendy, a young girl, says: ‘I really like finding out about who’s going out with who, who’s getting married and this kind of thing. What’s wrong with that?’ The other asked woman thinks: ‘If you start saying what can newspapers print and what they can’t, then our whole democratic society will break down. I don’t want politicians deciding what can I watch and read.’ On the other hand, there’s a group, which doesn’t have the same opinion. These people don’t like spying celebrities and think that this kind of invasion of privacy is criminal. For example, Cindy Crawford has been filmed in her bathroom over a kilometer away with a huge telephoto lens. It must be terrible when you aren’t sure if you are watched while you’re having a bath. What’s more, famous people often have to put their lifes at risk. Tom Cruise has been pursued at high speed trought the tunnel in Paris where Princess Diana was killed. Or when Madonna was promoting the film Evita in Rome, she had to drive away at 130 kph with her baby in the car. The paparazzi didn’t even give her any time to strap the baby into the car. No wonder that this group of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document