Latest Dish!

A hollywood princess face-off – popbytes

Britney’s Favorite Things - Dlisted

Do You Think Jen and John Are Done For Good? – PopSugar

How the tabloids covered the Kate Hudson Lance Armstrong breakup – Celebitchy

Transgender Contestant to Compete on Top Model – Us Magazine

Jamie Lynn’s Fiance And Baby-Daddy Cheated, His Ex Tells Magazine – The Huffington Post

It’s Complicated, But Hopefully It’s Over! – lilSugar

Filed under: Latest Dish

9 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Anonymous

    Tabloid should stop putting these little girls on their covers, it is a shame, the parents are famous, the child must be keep out of this.

    Reply
  2. Claudius

    Dreadful, isn’t it, Anonymous? the tabloids are just following the parents’ actions. Sell your kid or do an over the top photoshoot to introduce them and this is what they will get in return. While the likes of Jolie and Pitt can feel big that they sold Shiloh and their other kids for charity, they can also enjoy the idea that they’ve just turned her into tabloid fodder for the magazines. She is now a secure candidate for the covers for probably the rest of her life, at least, well into her 20s.

    Suri’s parents can also enjoy the fact that they introduced her via an elaborate VF photoshoot where you would think she was the second coming. She also has what Shiloh has to look forward to well into her twenties.

    Other candidates for this madness will include Knox and Viv Jolie Pitt, Max and Emme Antony, Max Bratman, Britney’s kids, Honor Cash, Levi McConnaughey, Harlow Madden, etc. They will be the ones on the tabloid covers when the magazines decide that they want to write some awful story about their parents. They are the next generation of tabloid stars.

    This has been going on in recent years and yet, not a peep from the parents about these covers despite always wanting privacy. I guess there is nothing you can do if you already pocket the cash or are happy that your kid is now a celebrity in his or her own right.

    Reply
  3. Nicole

    Oh please Claudius, like the tabs still wouldn’t have splashed Shiloh’s face all over the cover if they HADN’T done a shoot. The fact of the matter is, paparazzi shots get bought no matter what. Tabloids can then do what they want with them – including putting them on their covers. Considering the lengths paparazzi will go to to get shots of some of these kids, there really is very little the parents can do, beyond hiding for the rest of their lives.

    And guess what? None of the parents CAN sue because the pics were taken in a public place. What should they do, waste the money every time a pic of their kid is published somewhere just to have the courts tell them it’s protected by the first amendment?

    Reply
  4. Claudius

    Nicole, actually, the magazines wouldn’t have featured the kids if the parents hadn’t done a photoshoot or gotten paid for said photoshoot. You know any celeb parent who hasn’t sold his or her kid and have that kid on the cover of a tabloid on his or her own? Just one would do. Sure, the tabloids would have still featured celeb kids but NEVER as a feature or cover story. We are talking about 2 kids under the age of THREE being used to make money these days. A look at the coverage of celebrity procreation by tabloid magazines shows that until this trend of selling babies became the “to do” thing, magazines never put a child, by himself or herself, on the cover of their magazine. A feature with the parents? yes. A cover with mom and dad holding the baby? yes but never a child by himself or herself.

    Did I say they should sue? What is very telling is that not one of these parents have uttered a word about the continuous coverage of their kids and in turn a violation of their children’s privacy. These are the same celebs who are not too shy at making sure the media knows what is what.

    Like I said, the tabloids are following the parents’ leads, if you feel secure enough to be grinning inanely from the cover of PEOPLE or OK! after pocketing millions from the magazines because you had a kid the same way millions of women over the world have done and you just wanted to share then you should be able to swallow it when the tabloids want to use your kids to make money.

    Paparazzi take pictures, tabloids write stories and greedy parents who want attention and money and then sell their kids in order to get attention and money get results like this. They’ve basically turned their kids into the next generation of tablod stars that will be making money for the tabloids.

    It is not rocket science, just connect the dots. Even the man who runs BIG Pictures and has more paparazzi taking pictures all over the world said the same thing. If you pimp your kid to the magazines because you want attention then the tabloids will jump on it and use your kid to make money. It is that simple.

    The tabloids bear very little of the blame here, they are just doing what they are supposed to do. The parents on the other hand put their kids into this position.

    Reply
  5. anne

    Whoa! We can do academic papers here now??

    Reply
  6. Peta

    It’s the tabloids. They’ve always blurred the line with what is and is not appropriate, which is why they will never get my money. Although, it must have been a very slow day at Star if having a toddler square-off is front page news. XD

    Reply
  7. belicoso

    It is socially irresponsible of both the tabloids to seek out this sort of thing as well as the exploiting parents to provide it. Matthew McConaughey and Larry Birkhead and the like are cashing in because they know they can which is a sad reality. Anyone with sense would know that this sort of thing is not good for their child, but I suppose the money is all they care about.

    Reply
  8. kiki

    Sorry Claudius, but what you say is wrong,
    first of all, these a great difference between make a shoot to show a new baby, which pics would have however been take by the paps, and put children on the covers without a reason.
    Halle Barry doesn’t sell her daughter’s pics, but the paps have try to take them.
    These days Nicole Kidman was followed by the paps, although she says that she doesn’t want to sell Sunday’s pics.
    Julia Roberts also didn’t sell her child’s pics, but the paps have take pics of them.
    Matilda’s parent didn’t sell pics of her, but since her father died the paps follow her and her mother everywhere.
    The paps don’t care about the fact that parents sell or not pics of their child.
    And there are many other parents who have sell pics of their child, but tabloid didn’t use them to do covers!
    Do you know why these little girls are on the covers? It is because people are always here to comment Shiloh this, Suri this, showing a big and insane interest for these little girls. It’s because of those people who don’t realize that they are only children, and don’t realize that the parents are the famous one and not the child.. I have read things like “see a pic of suri makes my day”, or “I cry when I see pics of Shiloh”!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!!!!
    I also heard that there are a suri cruise web site!!!!!!!!! A web site for a 2 years old baby, where her “FANS” can go to see her pics and comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that tom and Katie fault?
    Tabloids are there to make money for sure, but they response to this insane interest.

    Reply
  9. Claudius

    kiki, of course, paparazzi will follow celebs whether they sell pictures of their kids or not. They follow them before they get pregnant, during and after. My argument or debate is not about photoshoots to combat paparazzi interest, it is about the result of said photoshoot and the result of taking money from the magazines. Celebrity parents who do photoshoots either through selling the pictures or just because they want the attention that comes with showing off their babies in the case of someone like Cruise will have the same children used later on by tabloids for their stories.

    It is the job of the paparazzi to take pictures, it is the jobs of magazines to buy the pictures for their stories but the line that ensured the protection of children as they are growing up when it comes to tabloid media coverage has been blurred by the help of some celebrity parents who take money for the introduction of their babies. Stories that have to do with children unless it was something scandalous were usually found IN the pages of magazines accompanied by paparazzi pictures, not on the cover but these days since the parents are happy to be grinning inanely in a well controlled environment on the pages of these same magazines or more respectable sister magazines then why shouldn’t they be put on covers in other settings, for other stories?

    Magazines like OK!, Star, In Touch have turned Shiloh, Suri, Britney’s kids into money makers by writing stories on these babies and even use them on the cover as seen above, they are also put on the covers on their own when writing stories about their parents. The tabloid magazines are simply following the idea that these parents don’t care about the faces of their babies being on their covers. Maybe I have missed it but I asked before, can you give me the name of a baby who has a celebrity for a parent, whose parent didn’t sell pictures or do a photoshoot for free for attention and has appeared on a tabloid cover as a feature story? Just one would do.

    This is about why the tabloid media now choose to put children on their covers and how it is always the children of celebrity parents they paid money after the baby was born for some kind of introduction or a parent who did an elaborate photoshoot for free. This has to do with greedy parents not foreseeing the freedom that they have given the tabloid media when it comes to their children. Paparazzi have been taking pictures for decades, it is not a new thing. They’ve been hassling celebs for decades, tabloid media have been writing about celeb parents and their children for decades but ever since the “pay me for a picture of my baby” became the thing to do then the tabloid media now believes that they can use the children for whatever stories they want to tell. They are just following the parents’ examples.

    The same rules that apply to celebs doing everything for fame and attention now applies to these babies/kids. If your mother and father want to sell you in a well-lit, gorgeously choreographed setting with their own wonderful and sweet story about your birth and show off how it now is at home with your arrival then down the line, the tabloid magazines shouldn’t have a problem with selling their own stories by putting the same kids on the cover using paparazzi pictures that they bought.

    The tabloid media have simply established another market with the help of all those celebs who got paid money or were given magazine pages. The market is celebrity babies.

    This is the bottom line – the payment received is not just for that “introduction” issue, it is also for accepting and allowing the tabloid media to use the kid as a story when they feel like it in the future as we have in Star. These parents are simply being encouraged to turn their kids into commodities but they are so hungry for the PR, branding that they never bother to think about the consequences.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>