The admitted moral transgressions of arguably the world’s most famous athlete, Tiger Woods, have been the top news story for more than a week now after a minor car crash outside of his mansion in Jupiter Island, Fla., on Nov. 27.
The crash fanned allegations made two days earlier in the National Enquirer that Woods was having an affair with cocktail waitress Rachel Uchitel. Since then, two more women have come forward alleging they also were mistresses of Woods.
Take this commentary in an online article entitled “Tiger and his pussycats” from the Enquirer on whether his wife, Elin Nordegren, will decide to split: “In fact, all nups may be off as more and more alleged lovers begin peering out of the greens like so many ‘Caddyshack’ gophers. … It’s only a matter of time before the first alleged love child reports begin circulating.”
Journalism at its finest, surely.
But let’s not blame the Enquirer for its reporting — somebody obviously likes it. After all, the supermarket tabloid circulated 1,033,271 papers in 2007, according to the Magazine Publishers of America. People magazine, America’s most popular celebrity magazine, circulated 3,676,499 that same year. They are making bank, which leads to ridiculous bidding wars over trivial celebrity artifacts.
People magazine paid a reported $4.1 million in 2006 for the rights to the first baby photos of Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, the daughter of actress Angelina Jolie and actor Brad Pitt. But, it paid off. According to Variety, over 26.5 million browsers checked out People’s Web site the day the photos were posted — a single-day Web traffic record. The magazine was also right on top of Pitt and Jolie’s 2008 spawning of twins, which nabbed the couple a cool $14 million, a fee split evenly between People and Britain’s Hello! magazine, according to NBC.
People hasn’t just doled out money for A-listers, either. They paid a reported sum of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for pictures of ABC’s “Desperate Housewives” actress Marcia Cross’ wedding, according to Variety.
How can these companies afford to pay these outrageous sums of money for “scoops” that serve as mere items of public curiosity? The answer is simple: us. Blogger Perez Hilton and Gawker.com mercilessly ridicule celebrities. TMZ, a celebrity gossip Web site, stalks everyone they can. TV stations like E! Entertainment Television and MTV base their existence off the mundane lives of many celebrities.
Do celebrities’ triumphs intrigue us? More importantly, do we take pleasure in their downfalls? Does it secretly make us happy that these people with money, talent and fame have personal problems too?
In many cases, yes, yes and yes.
Tiger Woods has money, talent and fame, and he had a squeaky-clean image before this incident. Did the media cover it more because he was previously untarnished? Of course.
British paparazzo Jason Fraser reportedly made more than $1.5 million for pictures of Diana, princess of Wales, kissing companion Dodi Fayed. The princess had long been the most photographed woman in the world, from her marriage to and divorce from Prince Charles to her humanitarian work and personal life.
On Aug. 31, 1997, Princess Diana was on the run with Fayed, riding in a Mercedes-Benz through Paris. Their driver was instructed to avoid paparazzi trailing behind. The driver, traveling at speeds of more than 60 mph, lost control and smashed into an underpass. All three were killed — because of pictures.
Yes, public figures do consent themselves to some public ridicule by nature of their business. But these intrusions have simply gone too far.
Our purveyance of celebrity news can only be blamed on one party — the overzealous, perversely curious consumer. The media has supplied it in an enormous quality and we have bought right in. The end result is that people like Woods and his wife must mend problems with constant criticism and speculation dogging them, just like Princess Diana.
Michael Shepherd is a sophomore journalism student.












