Paparazzi and press intrude too much into celebrities lives
We live in an age addicted to information and celebrity culture. With the latest news that Fabio Capello is enraged by the publishing of holiday photos of him and his wife, this commonly asked question is being raised once again.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Everyone deserves a right to privacy
Public figures do not sign up for a total invasion of their privacy. Few of us lead lives that could not be manipulated into a newsworthy story on a slow news day. Just because these people contribute to the world in front of the public eye does not mean that they should be denied the right to privacy and respect.
Many celebrities publicly court publicity and media attention when it suits them and then complain when it doesn't. They earn a lot of money as a bi-product of this attention. They know what they are getting in to when they pursue lives and careers in the public eye.
Addiction to celebrity culture and information is unhealthy
The public's consumption of magazines and tabloids is unhealthy and not only has a damaging effect on the privacy and sanity of the celebrities but also on us. They should be allowed to live a certain part of their lives in privacy and seclusion from press intrusion just as we are allowed to.
... and therefore the public, not the paparazzi, should be blamed. The paparazzi would not be so intrusive if the public did not create demand for the personal details of celebrities. Therefore this point is not quite relevant to the debate - it could be true or false and not contribute either way to 'whether the paparazzi intrude too much'.
In the case of paparazzi lives are put at risk
Further to the invasion of privacy there is an unnecessary hounding of public figures. The paparazzi often endanger both their own and the celebrity they are following lives to get a photograph.
A celebrities job is to entertain, when did watching a real life marriage fall apart or a real life person in depression become entertaining?
Movies are made to entertain the masses. Fictional characters and senarios are created for the purpose of entertainment. These actors and actresses did not sign up to have thier real lives taped and watched every second. Watching a friend or yourself deal with a disfuntional marriage or depression is heartbreaking, now just imagine that plastered all over the tabloids for some poor shmucks paycheck. How would that make you feel? It is hard enough dealing with real life drama and these celebrities do not need to deal with it in front of a camera. As for being a "Public Figure", how about making "Public Figures" someone that has the power to change real issues in the world. And even "Public Figures" deserve the right to privacy.
Sometimes people need privacy especially celebrities because the paparazzis are everywhere and they get involved when they are not suppose to. Celebrities want to hide some secrets about themselves but paparazzis are always right behind them and that's when celebrities get paranoid. Everybody needs privacy and you have to respect that even if they are celebrities. If you really like them then you would respect what they say to do.
Public figures have a responsibility to be role models
Countries that hold it as a rule to protect their public figures from the brand of journalism that reveals their secrets, such as the revelation about Robin Cook's affair can open them up to being deceived on more serious matters. We need to know we can trust our public figures and they should feel a responsibility to uphold certain morals.
...just because someone has a lot of media attention does not mean that they want to be (or think they should be) role models for how other people live their lives.
Any person, no matter who, has the right to privacy. Also, you are differing from celebrities to public figures, while the argument is on the former. Celebrities job is to act, not be role models.
What do you think?