Celebrities, media and privacy

Curiosity, mainly, with a little reassurance mixed in. On stage or on the pitch a star seems untouchable, so hearing a footballer admit he was homesick at the academy, or a singer describe being rejected at auditions, shrinks the distance. Viewers also hope to borrow a lesson, though I suspect most of us simply enjoy the feeling of being let in on something. Should they share their private lives? My position is that they owe the public their work and nothing beyond it. An actor is paid to act; her marriage and her children's school are not part of the contract. The complication is that many celebrities trade on their private lives when it suits them, posting wedding photos and baby announcements to sell products. In those cases I have less sympathy when the attention turns unwelcome, because you can't open the door for advertisers and expect it to stay shut for everyone else. Still, there should be firm limits, and relatives who never chose fame deserve to be left alone entirely. As for influence, I'd say it's greater than before but also more fragmented. A generation ago, a handful of film stars and singers reached everybody through television. Now a teenager might ignore them completely and follow a gamer or a study vlogger with a far smaller audience but a much closer bond. That closeness is powerful, since a recommendation feels like advice from a friend. It also means bad advice travels just as easily.