In the last few decades, there have been more and more cases of famous people being hounded by the press. Some people think that famous people in the media have no right to privacy. To what extent do you agree?
More famous
celebrities
have been annoyed by the press because many fans are curious about their idols' lifestyles and daily lives. However
, some emerging stars want to polish their appearance through a few photos of their daily life taken by paparazzi. I absolutely disagree with violating privacy
and believe it downgrades living standards
.
Initially
, renowned influencers, whose actions and behaviours have a large influence on their fans, are often scrutinised. While
it is important to hold celebrities
accountable for their public actions, it does not justify invading their private lives. For example
, publicizing a celebrity’s misbehaviour can lead to a community push towards better standards
. However
, some celebrities
actually seek this
attention to gain more public exposure and increase their fame, which can lead to lucrative advertising contracts and other career opportunities.
Nevertheless
, from a legal perspective, monitoring public figures without their consent is against the principles of a democratic legal system. Privacy
is a basic human right protected by legal frameworks, and its infringement can be considered a criminal act. Moreover
, constant media scrutiny can cause significant distress and degrade the quality of life for public figures. For instance
, many celebrities
report feeling uncomfortable and harassed by paparazzi. Intrusive media practices can disrupt important personal events such
as dating or special anniversaries, adding unnecessary stress to their lives.
To conclude
, while
there are arguments that media attention can raise moral standards
, increase public interest, and enhance career success for celebrities
, the invasion of privacy
is fundamentally wrong. The legal implications and the negative impact on living standards
outweigh the potential benefits, making it clear that famous people deserve their right to privacy
.Submitted by lenam2k1 on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
task achievement
The essay provides a strong response to the prompt, presenting a clear stance against the invasion of privacy for celebrities. This meets the requirement of a complete response, demonstrating an understanding of the subject matter.
task achievement
While the ideas are clear and well-expressed, the essay could benefit from a few more relevant specific examples to support the arguments. For instance, citing specific incidents or legal repercussions faced by the paparazzi could add depth to the discussion.
coherence cohesion
The essay has a logical structure with distinct paragraphs addressing different aspects of the topic. However, the second paragraph could be more tightly focused on the negative effects of media intrusion rather than partially acknowledging its benefits, as this can muddle the main argument.
coherence cohesion
The introduction is well-constructed, and the conclusion effectively summarizes the main points. Both contribute to the overall coherence of the essay.
coherence cohesion
The main points are generally well-supported, but elaborating on the negative impact of media scrutiny with more concrete examples and evidence would strengthen the arguments further.
task achievement
The essay presents clear and comprehensive ideas that are easy to follow, making the writer's stance evident to the reader.
coherence cohesion
Each paragraph transitions smoothly, contributing to a cohesive reading experience. The essay maintains a logical flow throughout.
coherence cohesion
The conclusion effectively summarizes the key arguments, underscoring the importance of privacy for celebrities and the negative impact of its violation.