Comments on: Sunday Rose Wants Her Privacy

By: FK

FK — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:40:51 +0000

Adore you Trent, but I also have more sympathy for actors and musicians who are hounded by paparazzi! People like Paris Hilton or other “reality” stars who are in it clearly for attention are one thing. But many actors and musicians simply want to have the opportunity to work and work on interesting projects. To have that opportunity, they must prove that they will sell tickets/albums/etc. To sell those tickets they have to make themselves known to the public and become a “name”. It is a job requirement, and, I don’t think they should be punished just because they have a passion to act or make music and want to make a career of it. Again, Paris, LC, etc. are a totally different story.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:59:11 +0000

I’m curious as to how “everyone” knew the Urban family were even in Australia. If celebs really want to remain low-key, they can do it: they don’t have their PR people call ahead to “notify” anyone that they are on their way, they don’t travel with an obvious entourage (not that I’m saying the Urbans did), they don’t wear “inconspicuous” outfits that only draw attention (a la Michael Jackson). There are celebs that come and go all that time w/out anyone knowing. I think alot of times the celebs WANT the attention. I have no sympathy.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:44:00 +0000

Nicole can never just relax when she’s back in Australia because the media invasion is so bad. If there is anywhere she should be able to unwind, it should be when she is home. I firmly believe if a celeb does not want their child photographed (that is their right as parents) – there should be an agreement with the press. Just because some celebs pimp out their children does not give the media the right to stalk babies. I don’t want to see pictures of peoples kids because they did not choose their parents job.

By: It's Trent, Bitch!

It's Trent, Bitch! — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:55:56 +0000

For the record, I never said that it was an entitlement … only that celebs cannot court the public’s adoration when they are up-and-coming and then expect to turn off that adoration once they reach superstar status. It doesn’t work that way, that is my point.

By: Yoka

Yoka — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:38:17 +0000

I kind of disagree with Trent on this issue.
Sydney and Madsme say exactly how I feel about it.
Being a celebrity does NOT entitle paparazzi to follow your every move. Imagine that happening to you… it must be very scary to live such a life.

By: Madsme

Madsme — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:48:17 +0000

Lets also remember that celebrity culture has only really developed to its current state in the last few years. Celebrities have always existed and always attracted great public attention, but the invasion of their privacy to the extent it is now has only really blossomed in the last few years with the proliferation of blogs and internet-fueled technology. Point being, when many of the older stars got into the industry, they may have chosen this lifestyle not realizing how much more invasive it would be in a few years down the road. And it’s not exactly something you can opt-out of like a normal job – if you try to opt out of celebrity you end up attracting even more attention (like Britney).

By: shannon

shannon — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:06:26 +0000

The problem with opting out of releasing a photo of their child to the press or selling the rights to the first photos is that the paparazzi will hound them for pictures of her. And we see that happening already. Releasing a photo to the press or inviting the paparazzi to a certain place at a certain time to get the photos renders those first photos worthless because the market becomes saturated. Selling the rights to the first photos allows a celebrity to control how the child is photographed and where, and the celebrity pockets the money. Some liken it to prostitution, but shouldn’t the parents be the ones who get that money and not some stranger with a camera?

I’m not gonna doubt that Keith and Nicole are great parents and only want what’s best for their daughter. But do they really think that asking the paparazzi and press to back off will really keep them from trying to get that coveted photo?

By: Sydney

Sydney — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:39:10 +0000

Living a lavish lifestyle as a result of one’s celebrity is not a normal life, that much we agree on. But that is the choice of the parents and the consequences of *their* careers; a newborn, an infant or a child should receive a certain amount of hands-off treatment and be given the chance to be children outside the limelight. They did not choose their parents, why should they have to pay the “price” for the celebrity of their parents? There is nothing “due’ to fans of their parents. Nicole and Keith have given the interviews, have released personal information about their child and have done many things that normal parents do not do. The parents are paying, the child should not have to.

And that’s besides the point for me anyways. I watch movies and listen to music. If there are interviews and other promotional activities going on, I consider it a bonus and watch with casual interest. Paying 0.99$ for a song on iTunes or 3.99$ to rent a DVD does not entitle me to know the artist’s every movement, every hour of every day and what goes on their their homes, bedrooms or their hearts.

By: rutsa

rutsa — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:48:24 +0000

They should just release a picture, without chargine anyone for it. Release it to everyone and be done with it (like the Cox-Arquettes did). Otherwise the price going to the pap who gets the first shot will continue to rise, furthering the frenzy to get the shot!