The Paris Hilton debate: Readers vs. The Rage

Ed Note: Yesterday, I posted below that Paris Hilton's movie bombed and hence, her overexposure had finally done her in. Many readers responded here by pummeling me for even posting about Hilton. A few even accused me of being on her publicity payroll.

Look, I'm disgusted by the popularity of Paris Hilton. When I see a picture of a young girl waiting in line to have her picture taken with a woman best known for a sex tape, I want to jump off a building. But I would also love to know what drives you to seek out these stories in the first place? The Times' coverage of Paris Hilton's arrest was our #1 story in 2007. The Britney Spears coverage and Heath Ledger stories are widely read too. Are we the media acting as the horse or the cart? And if we are the horse and the cart, aren't you all feeding us the hay?

This week, the billboard on the corner of Sunset and Highland boulevards is entirely devoted to Paris Hilton. You catch her coming and going.  One side endorses her new shoe line and calls her "the most talked about celebrity." Is that really a good thing? The flip side is an ad for "The Hottie & the Nottie," a movie that critics have collectively crushed like a clove of garlic.  The film made just $9,000 last night when it opened. Her weekly Fred Segal bill is probably twice that amount.

Is Paris Hilton officially passe? It would seem so and The Rage suspects that she did herself in with her own ubiquity. From pouting at Sundance premieres to pouting at Super Bowl parties, the heiress seems to be everywhere at once. Plus, she hawks handbags, hamburgers, perfume, Prosecco and now a line of footwear. Maybe Paris is getting tired of herself too? The woman known for changing outfits every hour wore the very same tacky pink headband to both her shoe launch and the People pre-Grammy party later that night.

Photos: WireImage

Comments

[John]

Paris has always been passe except to the media. No one ever understood your fascination with her.

[Hula Girl]

Seriously, Monica. How far does a journalists's career have to fall before being assigned or volunteering to "write" about this drivel. Is there nothing else worthwhile to report on in the world? Or are you on Ms. Hilton's publicity payroll?

[jim]

Why does the LA TImes still print stories about Paris? And here we have yet another story, this one telling us that Paris Hilton is "done." Apparently for the LA Times, there still some mileage left in the old girl. The rest of us don't care.

[jb]

Yet another sign that the LA Times has sunk to the level of People magazine. Paris is clearly not "done" if you're writing about her. Oh my gosh, she wore the same pink headband to two events in the same night! How dare she? Are you friggin' serious???

[Bill]

Methinks it's way past time for another bikini Burger King commercial to bring my interest back up.

[debrap53]

If Paris' brains were dynamite, she could not blow her nose. As several other readers said, who cares about this zero-talent dimwit?

[THE RAGE]

What I find fascinating is the fact that YOU people actually click on this story and then castrate me for writing about her. Clearly, you--my friends--are driving the cart and feeding this cult of celebrity worship. The Britney Spears articles were our top stories recently. What does that say about readers? Why do you even click if you don't want to read about her?

[prestogiacomo]

Paris either has the best pr people in the world, or she is a natural in being able to spin gold out of nothing.

[R Greene]

I realize newspaper reporters are desperate for a sign of their relevance, but this reporter should understand that "clicks" as a measure of readers' interest are meaningless except in the relationship between the paper and its advertisers. When did we as readers ever agree that a click means we're interested, much less that we approve? I often click a dumb headline simply to see how badly the Times has messed up again, exactly as I would have done in the pre-Internet age by scanning my eye down the page. If you calibrate the content of your coverage to clicks, you'll be finished even sooner.

[g. mulleer]

Well, unfortunately our intentions behind the clicks are not what's measured. A click means, for better or worse, interest. Just as a record number of clicks on a CNN story about Tom Cruise means (true or not) an tremendous interest in Cruise news and perhaps a desire for more. The relationship between papers (or any media) and adverting isn't anything new. The difference with the web is that on the surface, it seems easy to see what subjects the readers are most interested in. Our clicks DO have power. As much as I am sick of Spears, I have continued to read online about her downward spiral. So am I given the news because some higher-up actually thinks it's important, or am I given the news because I've been inadvertently asking for it, by click-click-clicking away? I understand the question but i'm not sure I want to know the answer.

[Hula Girl]

If we're the hay - your writings on Ms. Hilton, et al is the manure.

I didn't click on your story out of interest in Ms. Hilton, but out of curiosity as to why the L.A. Times has turned Hacks into Flacks.

Keep on shilling for Stars if you like, but even you must know it's not exactly Pulitzer material, or you wouldn't be so defensive about your work.

Oh, and please update us all on the color of her latest headband.

[Hula Girl]

P.S. You may in fact BE a good writer. And I might be interested in reading your work on a subject with some social value.

Please tell the Times that readers who buy advertising would increase if it were a serious publication.

Blame the Tribune for the decline in serious journalism. Chewing up three good editors in as many years demonstrates the Tribune's lack of respect for its' writers and readers.

[g. mulleer]

hula girl, i know you think you're smart and clever ("hacks into flacks" -- good one!) but i don't think you understand what shilling means. also, you're a moron.

[R Greene]

G. Mulleer doesn't understand the issue. A reporter who cites the paper's business model as a justification for his or her journalistic values is doomed to fail.

[Hula Girl]

Ohhh. G.mulleer.
Name calling? Stuff of play yard bullies with limited vocabulary.

Here's a new word for you...

Shill: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Shilling. To Shill

Now, go buy yourself a good dictionary - you may run into Ms. Hilton at your local Borders.

[g. mulleer]

i guess i find this whole thread depressing, but not because of the subject, but because of people like hula girl. this is a blog about image/style. the original post was about this weekend's big failure of paris hilton and since i think hilton is a joke, i was happy to read that no one turned out for her and i guess i don't see what the big deal was reading about that here. it wasn't a commercial for her new fragrance or anything. i guess some good that can come of this, though... this might drive hula girl to go read more hard-hitting news blogs and comment there instead.

[Enlightenment]

Complain all you want, but the only people who hate Paris or not interested in Paris are:
- Gay men.
- Ugly or fat women.
- Married men around their wives...but when with the guys they all say they want to be with Paris. Yeah...all you married guys wouldn't kick Paris out of bed...you are lieing if you say otherwise.

To Paris:
- You still are smoking hot!
- Please grow your hair long again. I think long hair looks more sexy on you.
- Most guys would love to have you as their girlfriend or wife, including myself.
- Ignore the fools that talk cr*p about you!!!

[Krazy P]

Paris Hilton represents the "Lover" archetype. That is her brand. In the same way that Harley Davidson is the "Outlaw", Paris Hilton is the "Lover" She appeals to young women who seek this archetype to fulfill personal needs - a desire to belong and feel valued.

[Krazy P]

Paris Hilton represents the "Lover" archetype. That is her brand. In the same way that Harley Davidson is the "Outlaw", Paris Hilton is the "Lover" She appeals to young women who seek this archetype to fulfill personal needs - a desire to belong and feel valued.

[Marty Shankins]

As usual, the media never tires of squeezing every last drop of gossip regarding our favorite celebrity and publciity basker, the highly regarded Paris Hilton. Just a wiggle of her sweet self causes the press to come running and bombard us with the latest, whether it be the garment brand of what covered the wiggle or what future wiggles we can expect. Always the future, is dangled before us as we eagerly and breathlessy await the next attention stunt by Paris which, needless to say, will be scooped up by a celebrity addicted media.

[Christine]

Think about it? Why is it that LA Times keeps tagging you to write about Paris Hilton? Maybe the newspaper heads are trying to tell you something about how they view you as a "writer" and "journalist"? Is this how you want your career to turn out?

If you tell me you choose to write about Paris Hilton, then you just don't have a clue about being a serious ournalist, if this is your career goal. Having this type of "work" in your portfolio will only harm your career.

If you are aspiring to be an entertainment writer, then keep doing what you are doing. This is the type of stuff the entertainment media earn their bread and butter off of.

[JD Brewer]

Hey leave off the writer. It is what it is. Women have done much worse things to make a buck and she is right---YOU people clicked onto the story in the first place. Get over yourselves. Paris is the poster child for useless people. She knows it. I know it. You know it. Wheres the beef?

[THE RAGE]

Thanks for input. Just to clarify, I was not feeling defensive when I posted the addendum -- I think it's a topic worth discussing, debating, and -- according to scrappy hula girl and g.mulleer -- some verbal KOs.
And for the record, my comment about her headband was supposed to be funny, not a fashion criticism.

[Paul]

It's amazing how many people took the time to post about how they don't care and aren't interested in Hilton. Talk about hypocrisy. You're here posting, aren't you?

Hilton stories are routinely the most heavily viewed on the LA Times website. That's why you see more stories about her: They're feeding people what they want.

[Hula Girl]

Hey Rage,

You're alright. In a town of massive egos and stratospheric insecurity, you handled this controversy with aplomb.

I can see you are a survivor. Good luck with your writing.

[tom]

Before I moved to LA I used to question the value placed on actors, singers, and entertainers in general. I used to think that a physicist, a doctor, a teacher or guy that works at a homeless shelter was of more value and importance than say Julia Roberts or Dave Grohl. Making a big deal out of the death of Heath Ledger would have made as much since to me making a big deal out of the hundreds of 20 something year olds that OD every year.

But now after living here for a few years, I now realize that entertainers and celebrities are the most important people in the world. How else can you explain their wealth and the adoration poured upon them?

We need to continue to celebrate them and learn about them because without them we are nothing.

[emily]

We're in the proverbial catch-22 aren't we? Media gauges the public's habits of viewing, clicking, buying and paying, and sees that we want to leer at Paris/Nicole/Britney/Lindsay/Name the Useless Starlet. Public realizes that this sucking sound we hear is our intelligence going down the toilet, and we pretend that the blame can be placed solely on the media. I think both sides have to declare that we're finished -- the public needs to stop watching the shows, visiting the web sites and buying the magazines and products, and the media needs to stop pandering and start ignoring people who add nothing to the collective good. Now, who will step up and go first?

[Big Fella]

We will always have a Paris Hilton, a Paris Hilton is a necessary tool of capitalist marketeers to keep us either occupied with mindless entertainment or shopping and not thinking about war or anything else serious that impacts human life.

http://indefatigable-indolence.org/blog1/2007/03/13/is-paris-burning-who-cares/