Kurt Andersen says celebrities are dead and we’re slowly beginning to shun their dying personas. I think he’s wrong – and Paris Hilton is probably banking on it, Sidekick and all.
It’s true that we’ve been more saturated then ever. Between VH1’s Celebreality and Us Weekly and Defamer and Dancing With The Stars and the Oscars and…well, you get the point. But let’s not be naïve here. People are always going to care about other people’s lives – and don’t tell me that you, reader, aren’t a little media voyeur yourself – so declaring the celebrity “hobby” a fad on the way out is being a bit presumptuous. The famous have always been famous, and as we chew through each one, we find a fresh new victim to feed on – when Bennifer was gone, Spederline enticed us; Brangelina came along, and TomKat distracted us. Who knows who’s next – Gatalie?
I think we’re just seeing the American-as-apple pie celebrity obsession spreading across diversified media. Sure, EW’s not selling as many magazines anymore, but neither is the New York Times papers, or MTV viewers. What we’re seeing is the celebrity beat thinning out – so while a new gossip mag fails, blogs like Jossip thrive. It’s Darwin for the Page Six crowd.
After all, what’s Gawker Stalker for, anyway?
Jacqueline Colozzi @ Mon, 03/27/2006 - 2:46pm
The web makes it that much easier to stumble upon useless information such as celeb gossip. It's also free. I'm not interested in it enough to pay for it and I would never seek out a print publication to read gossip. But a couple clicks... to distract the mind after a 12 page analysis of New Narrative writing...
We as the receivers are a little bit lazier, as are our celebs. I guess it's a win-win situation?