Most folks who read this blog were probably surprised by yesterday's image. Those who regularly visit, probably guessed there was some catch to the post. There is. Today's image should clear any confusion.
I recently wrote about how news' visual priorities have changed. In many cases, they have also become lighter and overly concerned with celebrities. Celebrities don't make readers want to cancel subscriptions. They are not a challenge to the status quo. So, I wanted to juxtapose some images and see if other PJs see this situation the same way I do.
In both images, the celebrities are using their name and fame for promotional purposes. Both celebrities mixed and mingled with local folks and spread goodwill. I have no issue with this. It was nice of them both to visit Beaumont. Both were extremely accommodating to the local media as well as kind and available to their fans.
The difference was the intent. One celebrity came to promote a product and hoped to increase sales. The image ran in the Business section. The other celebrity came to promote an issue and hoped to salvage young lives. The image ran on the Page 1 with a follow-up story about the golf tournament the second day.
I want to expand greatly upon the subject of doing good deeds with what we have and who is considered a celebrity, but it's not fair to these particular celebrities. So, I'll save it for another day.
For now, I'll wonder aloud. Wouldn't the planet be a better place if more celebrities tried to help the people who helped them?
No, I can't afford the furniture. No, I can't afford to adopt a child. However, when I want to see a video, guess whose movies I'll rent.
Enough for now,