Celebrities: Interest or obsession?

You know, she's still Jenny from the block. She used to have a little, but now she has a lot -- like millions of dollars, Ben Affleck, and this year, Jennifer Lopez has reached the coveted status of pop culture darling. \nWith that title, she has become prime target for public scrutiny and worship in a nation obsessed with celebrities. Yeah, that's right: Obsessed. A country that produces Us Weekly has to be. Have you ever read Us Weekly? It is the saddest excuse for any attempt at journalistic integrity, and perhaps that's just why people read it. Thumbing through an issue, you might possibly discover what stars of the moment are or aren't eating, the exact components of their trash or maybe even what they bought from Saks Fifth Avenue or Fred Segal last week. \nHow do I know this? I, too, sadly am a participant in this national pastime. I read People, watch E!, and know a plethora of useless superstar trivia. \nBut doesn't it seem hard to avoid sometimes? ABC's "Primetime Live," a generally respected nighttime news program aired the much promoted Diane Sawyer interview with Miss J. Lo herself. The interview is just one of several "big'' name interviews the program has lined up. \nTowards the end of the interview, ABC aired a preview for another much hyped "exclusive:" Whitney Houston, and the truth behind all the tabloid headlines. This past Thursday, "Primetime" reporter Jay Schadler talked with who else? Eminem's mom.\nWhy the focus on celebrities, as opposed to more news-orientated topics? Well, it sells. The Jennifer Lopez interview landed the struggling ABC network a good 10.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. \nCelebrity worship is not a new concept but our definition of celebrity is. Before television and the mass media, there was the classic movie star. Before that, it was the hero. \nThere is the argument of a decline in 20th and 21st century morals with this celebrity versus hero idolatry. Paul Hollander, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, recently wrote to the National Review Online on this question. He was commenting on an article in The New Yorker about Puff Daddy, or P. Diddy. Well, you know, Sean Combs. Hollander says, "The elevation of Puff Daddy to celebrity status illustrates a phenomenon that will one day be of interest to social historians seeking to understand the sources and manifestations of American cultural decline in the late 20th and early 21st century. It may be argued that the rise and veneration of celebrities has been a characteristic expression of this decline."\nOuch. He goes on to quote a famed social historian, Daniel Boorstin, who spoke to the issue of celebrity and hero nearly 50 years ago; a hero earns his "idol-" like status and is "distinguished by his achievement'' while a celebrity's is merely created by the media and that anyone can become a celebrity if "he can get into the news and stay there."\nBut don't some stars merit their fame from their talent? Sean Combs might not be Abraham Lincoln or Ghandi, but he is a self-made man. It takes something more than the media to become a business, fashion, and hip-hop mogul. Doesn't it? Maybe I am being too naive. \nWell, he did date Jennifer Lopez ...\nBeing entertained and interested by personal details of the rich and famous always has and will be something we find amusing. But, there is a fine line. Lately, it seems evident we have become a little too obsessed and need to focus on our own lives.\nOkay, enough. I have to go watch E!'s "Revealed with Jules Asner'' now.