NewsandStar
16:52 - 5 October 2005
Does anyone else get tired of having so-called “celebrities” filling our TV screens, magazines and newspapers?
What, for example, is the point of Jade Goody? (ex-Big Brother contestant). She almost inarticulate and appears to have no talent whatsoever.
And then there is Lizzie Bardsley (of Wife Swap “fame”). She can’t be quite so dim if she manages to rake in £37,000 per year in benefits for simply producing children and thousands more for giving media interviews.
These “celebrities” seem to come in three categories. Firstly the terminally dim and secondly those who THINK they are famous but don’t actually do anything worthwhile. Names that spring to mind here are Jordan, Victoria Beckham, Rebecca Loos, Paul Burrell, “the coughing Major” (or is he now ex-Major?) and Abby Titmus. And, from the world of politics, Christine and Neil Hamilton.
People in this category tend to hit the headlines briefly for all the wrong reasons, sometimes harmful to others, and then go on to trade on their notoriety.
The third group are those born into money but who apparently have no talent.
Tara Palmer Tomkinson, for example, Lady Isabella Hervey and Paris Hilton.
Wearing skimpy outfits and expensive shoes and staggering about in trendy nightclubs seems to equate with fame for them.
Surely a celebrity should be someone who actually achieves something in one field or another – sport, science, politics, the arts, medicine – and who preferably works at something which will benefit mankind – or at least entertain us?
I would like to see the word celebrity revert to its correct usage instead of being applied to all these dim-witted, talentless and sometimes quite nasty individuals who, incredibly, make a fortune out of it.
As it is we are setting these people up as role models, paying them extortionate amounts of money for doing precious little and sending a terribly wrong message to young people.
I’m not a cricket fan, but give me the English cricket team any day.
