Fame vs. Privacy

It's not a new debate, how much privacy does a public figure deserve? Some people say, not much, they make their living (usually a pretty damn good one) at least in some part, because we (the public) are interested in them. Others say, they should be left alone, their work should speak for itself. I, personally, fall somewhere in the middle. If you're out promoting your work, you should be accessible (and PLEASANT). However, if you're trying to have dinner in a restaurant or otherwise just trying to live your life, you should be left alone. (Sidebar - I'm not talking about the stalkaratzi, I'm talking about normal people, the autograph hounds and the cell phone photog. Profesional photographers taking pictures at public events is one thing, camping out at people's homes, chasing them down the street or using super-telephoto lens to snap pictures of people in their own backyards should be against the law.)

However, I will admit that I am guilty of reading those vapid "entertainment" magazines (People, US, etc.) and discussing in great detail the latest celebrity gossip. It's not something I'm proud of, but I but can't seem to help myself. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit I followed the Anna Nicole story, almost bought a "Team Jen" t-shirt and most recently discussed the tragedy that befell the Travolta family with my girlfriends in minute detail. However, I heard something on the news today that stopped my in my tracks:

...."an EMT on the scene reported that Travolta held his son's hand the whole ride to the hospital."

Seriously, doesn't everybody, regardless of how they choose to make their living, their level of fame and even their not-quite-mainstream religious beliefs deserve a little privacy while attending to their dying child? Suddenly, I felt like I was intruding in a profoundly private moment, probably because I was.

My condolences to the family.