From: Winnipeg, MB
I'm not on Facebook or any social media, so I haven't seen any celebrities doing anything.
But you're right! In general, those kind of celebrities are tiresome, irksome, narcisistic folks, so +1!
A subgroup is the press (which are celebrities, but not fabulously wealthy ones). To the press its huge, disproportionate news if any of them are undergoing something painful or trying. And it is to that individual and his/her family cohorts, but not to the rest of us. Viewers care about radio personality-X, but the whole thing is disproportionate.
Journalism is doing a good job right now. There is a lot of great, very responsible reporting.
If you lump all of media and journalism into one big pile and say it sucks you're just not saying anything at all. Where do you get your information, anyway? I've seen a few of your posts using journalistic and media stories on another thread.
This argument is old and dangerous, and it's undermining the general populace's ability to have some trust in what they hear about what is going on in the world.
And there would be no 'entertainment media' or paparazzi if millions of fawning fans didn't think it was their right to know every detail of a celeb's life. We should start a campaign to make that sort of invasion of privacy as socially unacceptable as smoking - i.e. those who want to can do it, but don't bring it in front of the rest of us who find it unappealing. If I check out a news feed I want news that is relevant to what may impact me.
BTW, that goes for sports celebs too - show us their performance but spare us the details of how they felt about it.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth