To be honest, I am torn between the two because of the obvious reasons of it being wrong however we all want to know more about celebrities and what they get up to,we can do this in magazines and using the internet but sometimes it is not enough.
When the news came out about phone hacking, celebrities that people look up to were exposed for example, Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs was set out to be a loving, caring family man playing extremely well for Manchester United in the past 21 years despite keeping an astonishing secret, he was cheating on his wife for 8 years with his brothers wife(Natasha Giggs). The phone hacking scheme here highlighted details of the affair that Natasha & Ryan were ashamed of. In this case I think that it was good that their phones were hacked because if that didn't happen then would Ryan or Natasha have confessed about the affair?
On the other hand I think that phone hacking is an invasion of ones personal privacy and goes against what people can and cant do. For a celebrity, of course they will be in the limelight and talked about but now it's like they can't have a general conversation with someone without that being recorded and used in an article for the paper. Although sometimes invading someone's privacy will reveal information that could help other people find out what happened to them for instance a death but people's emotions are played with and that is a dangerous thing.
Superinjuctions I myself is not familiar with the terms of a superinjuction but I think it is rather selfish for a celebrity to cast one on someone else just so people won't be aware of the antics they have been up too. Also it leaves the person on the receiving end very fragile because they are the one that will have to deal with the aftermath, the verbal abuse of the public and answer difficult questions.
Personally I think people should THINK before they ACT. It is easier said than done but it is better than doing something that they will live to regret later on in life.
On the other hand I think that phone hacking is an invasion of ones personal privacy and goes against what people can and cant do. For a celebrity, of course they will be in the limelight and talked about but now it's like they can't have a general conversation with someone without that being recorded and used in an article for the paper. Although sometimes invading someone's privacy will reveal information that could help other people find out what happened to them for instance a death but people's emotions are played with and that is a dangerous thing.
Superinjuctions I myself is not familiar with the terms of a superinjuction but I think it is rather selfish for a celebrity to cast one on someone else just so people won't be aware of the antics they have been up too. Also it leaves the person on the receiving end very fragile because they are the one that will have to deal with the aftermath, the verbal abuse of the public and answer difficult questions.
Personally I think people should THINK before they ACT. It is easier said than done but it is better than doing something that they will live to regret later on in life.
A well written article, well done! Keep up the good work - have google +1 it!
ReplyDeleteCan't make my mind up on the recent phone hacking events. I think that celebrities often court this type of thing to move their career forwards then complain when it bites them.
For me it just exposes the fact that the image given of celebrities in the media is a total fabrication!
Thank you Dave. I have taken your feedback on board & hope it shows in the next interview I have lined up. Don't want to say who it is with but I'm sure people have been familiar with this person. Thank you once again. x
ReplyDelete