As long as they are seen in public, even if it's because of paparazzi or computer leaks, the private side becomes integrated into the public facade.
From that, you can argue it's their responsibility to "keep on playing the role" unless they're absolutely sure it won't become public knowledge.
In a sense, it's just like their makeup and wardrobe. They can be dressed however they like, but once seen, it will affect others' perceptions of them.
Now, let's turn the tables and focus on the audience.
If you conduct a survey about public opinion on paparazzi, it will be predominantly negative.
But if you ask around as to who would refuse to view private photos taken by paparazzi or leaked by computer repairmen, I'll be shocked if many go along.
In other words, most people know paparazzi intrude on others' privacy, which is morally reprehensible, but they would gladly enjoy the fruits of this labor. Few realize that it's public interest that sustains the livelihoods of paparazzi, and, therefore, few would come away from a viewing session with a guilty conscience.
Now, with a print media outlet, it's more clear-cut: You buy a copy and you support what its photographers do, including sneaking around stars' hangouts and filming them in awkward moments.
But once the platform moves online, it becomes a whole new ballgame. There's a sense of altruism: One forwards these kinds of images to a network of friends as if they were self-generated jokes. Few are troubled by ethical or legal implications.
【Naked truths】相关文章:
★ 初中英语学习方法
★ 小学英语教学随笔--Module 9 Happy Birthday
最新
2020-09-15
2020-08-28
2020-08-21
2020-08-19
2020-08-14
2020-08-12