I think that's probably the most intelligent and sound justification for an interest in celebrity gossip that I've ever heard in my life. It's certainly the only one I've heard that's made me pause and think.

Generally my attitude is that people have a natural right to privacy, and the personal lives of anyone, celebrity or otherwise, should be left to themselves. Gossip journalists do not get my respect, but the blame goes on those that put them in demand. I don't believe as some do, that the invasion of privacy is justified merely by virtue of the fact that it "comes with the territory" of celebrity-hood. Just because someone is famous doesn't give one free range to put one's nose in matters that should be kept private. Just as one would not wish the sordid details of one's own dirty laundry aired in front of an entire country (we all have things we want to keep private, and when such things become a matter of public knowledge, it can feel as though we have been raped somehow) so also should we not seek to delve into the privacy of others. That said...

...no one person, celebrity or otherwise, can expect to live in the world and not be observed. People observe others, infer things, conclude things, discern and often judge, sometimes rightly and indeed sometimes wrongly, but it is a fact of life in society, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Furthermore there is a lot more to gossip journalism than strictly those things which should be kept private out of respect. Marriages typically aren't kept secret. The people that know you generally know if you are married or not, and to whom. Celebrities are known, or at least thought to be known, by lots of people. I don't see the sense in taking an unhealthy interest in the marriage of people that don't even know you, but I can't say that there is anything inherently wrong with it. If someone has a public marriage, the public may know this information. If someone has a baby, well, the birth of a human being is a matter of public record, too. The public may know this. The fanaticism with which people crave information about a celebrity baby is a little ridiculous, to my mind, but not inherently wrong (although camping out on lawns in hopes of getting a glimpse of a celebrity baby is a disgusting display of rudeness and disrespect), but a casual interest is not even that. So someone wants to know about somebody or other's baby. So what?

If the immediately preceeding paragraph seems desultory and disorganized, it's because I was thinking the issue out as I wrote. The paragraph before it I had down before. Here's more that you've made me think about, Ellie. I don't think it had occurred to me the different ways celebrity gossip could be used. Inherent interest in the private lives of celebrities is something I look down on, whether or not that interest manifests itself in ways that are "wrong." (I tend to think people could be doing so much more useful and productive things with their lives, if not for society than for themselves.) But I never thought of observing celebrity news as a means to an end. Yes, taking in celebrity news is a very convenient way to observe the world, observe people, observe the news, and learn about all three. People are interesting, and I don't, nor ever did, think observing people around us was a bad thing. On the contrary, people who observe, learn about, and know people are among those I respect most. Certainly I strive to understand people whenever possible. On RinkWorks, I'm generally watching people like a hawk. I think I've learned more about people since opening up the forum and RinkChat that I have from any other single place, and that new understanding has only made me crave more. The study of people is interesting in itself, and understanding people can be put to many wonderful uses. I'm less of a news hound than you are, but I understand reasonably well why it fascinates you, and I think your study of that is at least as worthwhile and productive a pursuit.

I think I've learned enough about this subject from this thread, and mostly this post, that I should say that I might be wrong about just about everything I've said above. Like I said, I thought a lot of this out as I wrote it. Where once this issue seemed so clear-cut, now I realize it's a lot more complex. I obviously missed a whole crucial aspect or two to the whole issue, so for all I know I'm still missing more. Thank you, Ellie (and Jezzika and Brunnen-G) for shaking up my world a little bit and giving me such intelligent, well-reasoned, well-expressed perspectives to think about. Something that inspires me to rethink my view of the world is one of the greatest gifts you can give me.