Could Facebook and Twitter Become Paparazzi Platforms?

Whether you follow celebrity gossip or not, you might already know that Oscar-winning actress Sandra Bullock's hubby Jesse James reputedly cheated on her, and that her public Facebook profile just got updated to "single". Is this something she should have done? Should stars reveal less or more about themselves in social media? Could social media become a source of details for paparazzi? Bullock, who just won the Best Actress Oscar for her role in the movie The Blind Side, has apparently recently moved out of couple's Orange County home. She's just one of the many celebrities that uses social media, a broad venue where celeb gossip-hungry consumers can learn maybe more than they want to about our stars. While numerous gossip blogs are reporting that the actress' Facebook profile had the relationship status updated to "Single," is this something that we couldn't have figured out otherwise, considering the now highly-publicized situation, her cancel of European appearances, and the fact that her IMDB profile says that she's separated? Add to this the fact that she didn't thank him in her acceptance speech for her first Oscar. But the question is, how much should stars reveal or not reveal on social media? Bullock's actor/ producer/ bad boy husband Jesse James is probably best known for the Monster Garage and Jesse James is a Dead Man TV series -- and reputedly his past "interesting" tastes in women. Prior to the Oscars, James apparently spent considerable time on Twitter, tweeting about Hollywood and the Oscar season and even venturing forth to suggest that his wife would win the Best Actress award. While he was doing all that, he was supposedly having an ongoing affair with tattoo ink model Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, according to the latter's recent public tell-all. McGee claims that she thought the couple had already been separated. Maybe that's true, or maybe she just thought it was true. James had an obligation to his marriage and to Bullock to let McGee know, though whether he did or not doesn't matter because it's all out in the open now. Does this all matter to you? Do you care? Do you want to know more or less of stars' lives via social media? Should stars protect themselves from a new breed of paparazzi, who might attempt hacking access to the Facebook accounts of friends of celebs, just to gain tidbits of info? Do you think that could happen? Aside from our want of entertainment and lust for gossip, how much should celebs really reveal? For example, Courtney Love has been scrapping with other celebs via Twitter and Facebook, which can only harm her career further. Lindsay Lohan is airing her beefs on Twitter about being snubbed for lack of a private party invite. Ozzie Guillen and his son Oney open their collective mouth on Twitter and suffer the consequences. Alyssa Milano, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and many other celebs tweet regularly, and often about very common, non-star-like, day-to-day things, but also about issues important to them. Facebook-using stars are probably a bit more protected from prying eyes -- read paparazzi -- unless they know nothing about important privacy settings, or have a public profile like Bullock. Maybe Bullock should follow Social Times Editor Nick O'Neill's guide to Facebook breakups, while deciding whether or not to divorce Jesse James. While she's deciding, she might want to talk to actress Jenny McCarthy about contributing a chapter or three to the latter's upcoming book on why men cheat, which you can apparently contribute to via McCarthy's Twitter account. Image credit: The Blind Side official movie site.

Social Pro Daily

Could Facebook and Twitter Become Paparazzi Platforms?

Raj Dash

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Raj Dash