In the newest issue of Radar Magazine, the cover story features a beautiful Lindsay Lohan dolled up as a modern day femme-fatale…going to war with the paparazzi. The cover story, Hollywood vs. Paparazzi: It’s War! goes on to document Lindsay’s battle with a paparazzo she allegedly hit with a car, and the rise of new age of intense media coverage. According to the article, on any given day, “300 to 400 paps roam the streets of L.A. on behalf of 20 or so agencies. Together they generate more than 120,000 images per week, which are pumped directly to the computer screens of tabloid photo editors via password-protected websites.” Creepy.

The insane pressure that the media places on young girls seems to be getting to one UK pop sensation, Lily Allen. Notorious for her bashing of other celebrities, Lily appears to be unable to take criticism very well, especially when it concerns her appearance. She recently posted a very distressing blog on her Myspace entitled “fat, ugly, and shitter than windehouse.” The short blog said:

“that is all i am , im on my own in america again . I used to pride myself on being strong minded and not being some stupid girl obsessed with the way I look . I felt like it didnt matter if I was a bit chubby cause , im not a model , I’m a singer . Im afraid I am not strong and have fallen victim to the evil machine . I write to you in a sea of tears from my hotel bed in Seattle , I have spent the past hour researching gastric bypass surgery , and laser lipo suction.”

She posted another blog today, explaining her previous statement and blaming her morose attitudes on “reading cheryl tweedys comments branding [her] a “chick with a dick” and “seeing [her] picture in so many newspapers next to kate moss.’” She says being compared to Kate Moss made her feel “grotesque.” She goes on to bash Cheryl Tweedy as retaliation, calling her a “stupid bitch.” This whole episode really showcases how the media puts TREMENDOUS pressure on celebrities, especially young women, to look thin and fabulous. One article in USA today documented how very thin models can warp a girls’ body image. The article described the startling statistics of most runway models:

“Most runway models are 14 to 19, with an average age of 16 or 17, she says. Some are older. Many are 5-foot-10 or 5-foot-11. They average 120 to 124 pounds. They wear a size 2 or 4. “If we get a girl who is bigger than a 4, she is not going to fit the clothes,” Cutrone says. “Clothes look better on thin people. The fabric hangs better.” This is a statement coming from one of the fashion industry’s top publicists. No wonder girls feel so bad about their bodies!

This image of the super-waif is no longer restricted to just models; some of the most overexposed celebrities are extremely thin, like Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie. These are the images plastered on every cover of every magazine. Yet we almost never see the toll that it takes on such young girls, at least not until it is too late. While her blog is deeply disturbing, at least it can show adolescent girls out there that they are not the only ones dealing with issues of body image. And hopefully, Lily can learn to resolve some of her issues without resorting to name-calling.

According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, in 2004-2005 the number of girls 18 and younger who got breast implants nearly tripled, from 3,872 to 11,326. Cosmetic implants have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. And for the first time, breast augmentation beat our rhinoplasty and liposuction as the most popular cosmetic procedure in 2006. It is not only implants; all kinds of cosmetic procedures are on the rise across the country. It appears that the new media coverage on plastic surgery gave the field a makeover.

Peter Fodor, president of the American Society for Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery, was quoted as saying that “I believe at least some of this upward trend may be attributable to increased media coverage of plastic surgery.” The enormous popularity of reality TV shows such as “Extreme Makeover,” “The Swan” and “Dr. 90210” as well as an explosion of media coverage on celebrities getting plastic surgery has fueled the desire of women, especially adolescent girls, to change their bodies surgically. Today, instead of a new car or vacation, breast implants and nose jobs are bestowed by parents as graduation presents.

The upsurge in cosmetic surgery among young women reveals a harmful trend that permeates through all popular culture: the glorification of thin, large-breasted, perfect-faced women…a-la Lara Croft. For God’s sake, she is a cartoon character, and women are expected to look like her! Even though this is an extremely rare body type that cannot be achieved naturally, the media and entertainment industries bombards us with images of perfect women non-stop. Teenage girls are the most susceptible, and often fail to comprehend the implications of surgery, especially the dangers that cosmetic procedures may pose. Luckily, the popularity of plastic surgery shows has waned recently. But it looks like the coverage of “perfect” celebrities is here to stay, and the consequences on the psyche of adolescent girls is undeniable.

Forbes Magazine just published an article about the most overexposed celebrities. Not surprisingly, topping the list is Britney Spears, followed closely by Paris Hilton.

“According to studies by Encino California-based E-Poll Market Research, which provides appeal rankings for more than 3,000 celebrities, 72% of the U.S. population would use the term “overexposed” to describe Spears in 2007, as compared to only 54% five years earlier. To put that in perspective, most celebrities average between 3% and 7% during the peak of their careers. Worse: During that same period, her “talented” score, the presumed basis for her celebrity, fell from 35% to 25% on the E-Poll index.”

The article asks who is to blame for this overexposure: the stars themselves or the media?

Top Ten Most Overexposed Celebrities:

1. Britney Spears – 72 per cent
2. Paris Hilton – 68 per cent
3. Kevin Federline – 54 per cent
4. Tom Cruise – 53 per cent
5. Nicole Richie – 52 per cent
6. Lindsay Lohan – 48 per cent
7. Michael Jackson – 47 per cent
8. Donald Trump – 47 per cent
9. Dallas Cowboys football player Terrell ‘T.O.’ Owens – 45 per cent
10. The late Anna Nicole Smith’s former lover and lawyer Howard K Stern – 45 per cent

Advertisers have always known that a big name celebrity attached to their product sells. But is the same notion true in politics? Recently, Oprah Winfrey (arguably the biggest celebrity of them all) appeared on Larry King Live supporting Barack Obama in his presidential endeavors. This is the first time Oprah has endorsed any politician. King asked her why she chose to give him her public support, and she stated,

“Because I know him personally. I think that what he stands for, what he has proven that he can stand for, what he has shown was worth me going out on a limb for and I haven’t done it in the past because I haven’t felt that anybody — I didn’t know anybody well enough to be able to say, I believe in this person.” Here is a clip of the interview:

The New York Times wrote an article about how her endorsement, not to mention her brand, can significantly help his campaign. They write:
“It’s usually pretty easy to quantify what Oprah Winfrey’s stamp of approval can mean: her book club catapults titles to the top of best-seller lists, and her nods at other products send consumers racing to buy them.”

So, what exactly is the value of Oprah’s endorsement? And why do millions of Americans value her opinion so much? There is little doubt in my mind that Oprah knows how much her brand name is worth. She told King that she made no financial contribution to his campaign, but that “my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.”

She’s not kidding! There was an article in Business Week that spoke about the “Oprah Effect,” and how her endorsement on a book can instantly catapult it onto any best-seller list,

“Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the Oprah phenomenon is how outsized her power is compared with that of other market movers. Some observers suggest that Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show could be No. 2. Other proven arm-twisters include Fox News’s Sean Hannity, National Public Radio’s Terry Gross, radio personality Don Imus, and CBS’ 60 Minutes. But no one comes close to Oprah’s clout: Publishers estimate that her power to sell a book is anywhere from 20 to 100 times that of any other media personality.”

Her influence goes way beyond books. Time named Oprah one of the 100 people who most influenced the 20th century, as well as one of the 100 most influential people of 2004, 2005, 2006, and again in 2007. At the end of the 20th century Life listed Winfrey as both the most influential woman and the most influential black person of her generation, and in a cover story profile the magazine called her “America’s most powerful woman“. In an interview on Larry King Live, Senator Barack Obama said she “may be the most influential woman in the country”. In 2003 she was named the greatest pop culture icon of all time by VH1. In 2005 Forbes named her the world’s most powerful celebrity. Vanity Fair wrote:

“Oprah Winfrey arguably has more influence on the culture than any university president, politician, or religious leader, except perhaps the Pope.”

And she does seem to have an influence on politics, at least that is the opinion that Bill O’ Reilly has. He continually bashes her for having more “secular-progressives” and “liberals” than “conservatives” and “traditionalists” on her television show.

Why do we all (well, except Bill O’ Reilly, but he doesn’t count) love Oprah? I think that it is because she is the epitome of the American dream. She was born in utter poverty and rose her way to the top, becoming the world’s first black Billionaire. I believe we all love celebrities, but the celebrities we admire the most are the ones that come from nothing, because it makes us all believe that one day we an achieve what she has.

I had to update once I heard this. Paris Hilton started a petition to keep herself out of jail. She put on her myspace blog:

My friend Joshua started this petition, please help and sihn it. i LOVE YOU ALL!!!!!

NLINE PETITION CREATED TO SUPPORT PARIS HILTON

To sign the FREE PARIS HILTON petition to
Governor Schwarzenegger that I have created…

please go here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PH21781

I urge all fans and supporters and all that are outraged by injustice to sign this petition.

When asked to comment, Arnold’s press secretary said he only responds to “extraordinary circumstances.” And unfortunately, this is not a joke… that is actually her spelling.

Some of the most recent shocking celebrity scandal news is that Paris Hilton has been ordered to serve 45 days in the Century Regional Detention Center for violating her probation. The judge said that she must serve the entire sentence, and she would not be allowed a work release, use of an alternative jail or electronic monitoring in lieu of prison.

Her defense attorney Howard Weitzman immediately said he would appeal. “I’m shocked, I’m surprised and really disheartened in the system that I’ve worked in for close to 40 years,” Weitzman said, adding that the sentence was “uncalled for, inappropriate and bordered on the ludicrous. I think she’s singled out because of who she is.”Her mother, Kathy Hilton was quoted as saying “This is pathetic and disgusting, a waste of taxpayer money with this nonsense. It’s a joke.”

This video from TMZ shows Paris’ response to the ruling. She told cameras outside of her house, “I told the truth yesterday. I feel that I was treated unfairly. It’s both cruel and unwarranted.”

Is the judge using Paris Hilton as an example because of her celebrity status, or would anyone have received the same ruling?

Explaining the ‘gossip is female’ myth

When I was researching gossip for my last bog, I couldn’t help but find one particularly striking piece of information. Surprisingly to most (including myself), men gossip as much as women. I feel like the “gossip is female” myth is ubiquitous in our society. “Gossip” brings to mind a bunch of giggly girls. One explanation may be the etymology of the word ‘gossip.’ The word originally meant a close female friend. Yet now, gossip is defined as “casual or unconstrained conversation about other people. Of course it would make sense that men talk about other people just a much as women do! But I cannot help but wonder why the myth has proved so resistant, in spite of undeniable evidence of its inaccuracy.

It appears today to many researchers that there is very little difference between the amounts of tie that men and women spend gossiping. In one study, both sexes devoted about 65% of conversation time to social topics such as personal relationships. As far as the content of the gossip, there is only one significant difference between male and female gossip: men have the very narcissistic tendency of spending much more time talking about themselves! Men spend two thirds of “gossip time” talking about their own relationships, while women only talk about themselves one third of the time.

So why does this myth prevail so much in our modern age? One answer may be that most people consider tabloids or “gossip rags” to be a women’s market. This is unequivocally false, with research showing just as many men are consumers of tabloids. Another reason for the prevalence of the myth is simply an error in semantics. Male participants in these gossip surveys originally said that they never gossiped, whereas most females readily confessed to gossiping. On further questioning, however, the difference was only what men and women defined what they were doing when exchanging social information. What women called “gossip”, men defined as “exchanging information”. When revealed the information, one participant retorted “We don’t like to call it gossip, because it sounds trivial – as though you have nothing better to do.” So maybe the only way to squash the gossip is female myth is inform males hat their “exchanging of information” is in no way different than what school age girls do on the playground.

Humans beings are captivated by what other people are up to. The sensation of the modern tabloids is more than enough evidence that we are gossip machines. But why should we find chitchat about the minute details of celebrities, royalty and politicians of such tremendous concern that it drives the news about the warm off the front pages of even the most dignified newspapers?

That question seems incredibly hard to answer and, interestingly enough, never enters the minds of most people. And yet we humans spend most of our time gossiping! Perhaps the most remarkable discovery of latest studies on conversations is that about two thirds of our conversation time is dedicated completely to social topics. This finding has been repeated without fail across a wide range of settings, ages and social backgrounds. The !Kung-San tribe of the Kalahari desert of Africa spend just as much time gossiping than any American, even though they live in small groups rarely reaching over 30 individuals. One stunning report showed that even in universities and the headquarters of multinational companies, no subject other than gossip occupies more than 10 per cent of total conversation time.

There is, however, something quite unusual about much of our modern society’s gossip. That is, in every society besides our own modern world of lightening-quick communications, people ordinarily gossip about real people known to oneself. Yet in our society, people very often gossip about the innermost details of the lives of celebrities, who are perfect strangers. There are even people who manufacture our knowledge on these people for a living.

Even more peculiar is that we often gossip about entirely imaginary people, and dedicate ourselves to the fictionalized accounts of these fabricated television characters, eagerly exchanging our knowledge about them with other real people. But why would we do such crazy things? It seems like a complete waste of time to spend most of our lives in a perpetual state of gossip, especially when it is about fake people or people we have no chance of meeting.

It appears that the reason we all love to gossip is that it serves a social function. Evolutionary biologists believe that gossip defines the social group: If no one tells you the gossip, you are an outsider. Therefore, gossip is a means of social control. Yet we wouldn’t just want to waste time gossiping about anyone, since it would be highly inefficient to know everything about everyone we know. So then it makes sense that humans are adapted to gossip about those who would be high-ranking, because their decisions would have bearing on our reproductive fitness. From a viewpoint of our ancestors living in an era where groups never were more than a couple dozen, it would serve us well to know everything about those high-ranking individuals who would be likely to affect our relative inclusive fitness.

But this does not explain why modern humans waste so much time on the inefficient task of gossiping about celebrities we will never meet, or characters that we know are completely fictitious. A possible answer proposed by evolutionary psychologist Jerome Barkow is that our modern mass media triggers our ancient psychological mechanisms that have evolved for the acquisition of social information (gossip).

Today’s media presents these strangers on the television screens in our homes, or in larger-than-life versions magnified on a movie screen. We see and hear these people everywhere, so wouldn’t it make sense that through some biological adaptation, we would perceive them as an important part of our social network? Because celebrities did not exist in our ancestral environments, there was no selection pressure in favor of differentiating between real members of our community and the images and voices the entertainment industry bombards us with today.

We know their names. We know what they are wearing. Photographs of them can easily fetch insane amounts of money. Who are these fresh-faced newest stars of Hollywood? Celebrity babies. These tikes cause a feeding frenzy for the media. The first photos of Pax Thien Jolie, Angelia’s newest adoptee, were scattered all over the tabloids and the internet within minutes. Suri Cruise and Shiloh Noelle Pitt made headlines before they were even born. Ivillage, one of the most popular online entertainment magazines, has a page called Celebrity Kids Corner: See Hollywood’s Newest Stars, with links like Celeb Kids Trivia, Jolie-Pitt Photo Book, and Celebrity Baby-Tracker. There is also a website that tells you exactly how to dress your child like a celebrity kid!

So why are we so obsessed? One reason may be because these kids already are living in that lap of luxury. With birthday parties that can cost millions of dollars (think MTV’s Sweet Sixteen, but MUCH more extravagant) and personal stylists, many of these kids seem to have what we image as the “perfect life.”

But life as a celebrity child isn’t all about playtime and pampers. Growing up in the spotlight means maintaining an A-list image just like mommy and daddy. This insane amount of pressure to be perfect often leads to psychological problems for kids who grow up in the spotlight. Many child stars go through several lows and heights with drugs, depressions and isolation during and after their active career. Are the children of celebrities destined to the same fate? And if their parents do not want them exposed to the glaring cameras, what are their options? Surely not all celebrities will be so extreme as to cover their children’s faces in the hopes of discouraging the paparazzi like Michael Jackson and his infamous masked children. It seems to me that however unhealthy America’s obsession with celebrity is, our new obsession with their children is very unsettling and just plain wrong.