1 of 7

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 7

to sell their news. Indeed, Belsey's argument that celebrities live on the press' could conceivably be countered by the idea that the press actually live on celebrity.

Barton does however define his own meaning of hypocritical' when he discusses celebrities who actively seek media exposure in order to advance their careers, revealing many aspects of their personal lives' in doing so. (Barton, 2006) What this implies is if celebrities go beyond their profession to seek further publicity by effectively exploiting their private lives, then they leave themselves open to further media scrutiny.

The Press Complaints Commission takes the view that persons who put matters involving their private life into the public domain may not be able to claim the protection of the code when articles are published without their consent.' (Sanders, 2004. pg. 87) This supports Belsey's claim that such celebrities cannot consistently claim the protection of privacy when they discover the negative side' of publicity.' (Belsey, 1994. pg. 85) Therefore, when the publicity suddenly becomes painful, as it might when it concerns death, disease, a drugs bust or a brush with the income tax authorities, claims to a right to private life shade quickly into hypocrisy.' (ibid. pg. 85) This is confirmed by Sanders self-immolation' theory, in that those who seek publicity invade' their own privacy.' (Sanders, 2004. pg. 86)

Footballer David Beckham's celebrity status is a case in point. He has continually flaunted his private life, which has been magnified because of his marriage to ex-Spice Girl Victoria Beckham. As former editor of the Daily Mail Piers Morgan says, they have sold every bit of their private lives.' (Morgan, 2005) The couple have sanctioned several fly-on-the-wall' documentaries investigating their home life, and it could be argued that these were used primarily to increase their celebrity value. When the Beckham's tried to claim an injunction against their children's nanny Abbie Gibson in 2005, preventing her from publishing details about their marriage, the judge refused. He stated, it was pointless to grant the injunction because so much information was in the public domain.' (Brown, 2005) Morgan clarifies, this is an example of people who want to sell their privacy to the highest bidder, who collude with paparazzi to play the media in order to gain millions of pounds, then try to use the law courts to gag the media when it suits them.' (Morgan, 2005)

The hypocrisy from the Beckham's

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• ...
• 7
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Our interest or theirs? Celebrity and the Press?
We want to hear your view. Write now!