Celebrity Ethics Dilemmas

OK, here's the skinny, media outlets: "it's not really a big deal." Apparently it's a big controversy that The Sneaky Chef and Deceptively Delicious are really similar, supposedly to a plagiaristic extent. Furthermore, the author of The Sneaky Chef likes to tell people that her book was passed over by HarperCollins because she wasn't as marketable as Jessica Seinfeld. And we're supposed to be all up in arms, and think that that's not right because Jessica Seinfeld shouldn't get referential treatment for being a (sort of) celebrity. But that's just it, she should get referential treatment because she's a celebrity.

Seinfeld will sell more books than someone no one has ever heard of, it's just that simple. If the publisher is going to take all the risk in publishing a book, then doesn't it make sense that they hedge their bets with a more likely winner? It's like saying the police force should accept candidates who can't do a push-up, or can't run a mile. That's just foolish because no one wins in that situation except that out-of-shape person who always wanted to be a cop. The streets aren't safer, it's a waste of tax-payer money, and it makes all the other cops' jobs more difficult because they have to cover 'fatty cop's" a$$ all the time. Which brings me back to the point of hedging your bets. If a book can sell a few thousand (or in this case, hundred thousand) more copies, that improves the bottom-line and demands less from the other season's titles. It's just smart business to go with the celebrity over the "nobody," and anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about.

About the plagiarism, if someone says a universal truth, like "the sky is blue" do they own that truth? Can no one else say that fact now because someone claimed it as their own original idea? Fact: Kids hate vegetables, Fact 2: Parents lie to their children to get them to do things that are good for them, Fact 3: Parents have been covering cauliflower in cheese since long before The Sneaky Chef or Jessica Seinfeld came along. These authors just consolidated the ideas in books and claimed them as their own. I have a manuscript in my office right now (seriously, I'm looking at it right now as I type this) titled __________ , about getting children to eat "real" food that's good for them, as opposed to processed foods that are bad for them. Oh no! Someone better call Jessica Seinfeld, someone wants to feed kids food that doesn't make them fat--and without her express permission no less!

All meandering aside, there you have it, why it was a completely reasonable decision for HarperCollins to publish Jessica Seinfeld's book over The Sneaky Chef book, fiscally it just made a hell of a lot more sense. Now, moving on to Katie Holmes in the New York Marathon...

The good people at US Weekly are now snooping around to see if Katie Holmes' entry into the New York Marathon was the result of "string-pulling" at the Marathon committee. They want to know if Holmes was able to enter the race without having to either: 1) qualify by running in other marathons around the country, or 2) waiting for her number in the marathon lottery. They're (US Weekly) is saying the NYC Marathon is keeping records from them, and covering up how Holmes' got into the race, and that in a very Watergate-y sort of way, they're being dodged every time they get on the trail of what really happened.

First, get a F-ing life, US Weekly. All your writers went to Yale to write about Tom Cruise's wife?

Second, I hope she was let into the race "unfairly." If it wasn't for Katie Holmes I probably wouldn't have even remembered that the New York Marathon was happening. Honestly, the chairperson of the NYC Marathon committee could come out tomorrow and say that Holmes just showed up on race-day and that they just gave her a number and said "good luck," and I wouldn't care. You have to use what you have to get what you need. Celebrity is a fully renewable resource that's value lies in scarcity. If someone gave you a 15 lb. gold bar tomorrow, would you spend it? Hell yeah you would! If you were promoting the world's largest foot-race and someone gave you a bunch of free advertising would you use it? Hell yeah you would! Is it unfair to the other racers though?

Yes and no. It is because ONE of them didn't get to race because Katie Holmes got their spot. BUT, ultimately, the extra publicity, sponsorship, and new excitement over a race that celebrities occasionally run will improve the race conditions for all future racers. The event will run smoother because they have more money to hire more people and additionally (and this is important) they'll be able to handle more racers with the extra money and more streamlined org structure, which will allow more racers in future years! So that one man or woman who missed out this year essentially paved the way for 100-200 more next year.

That's my piece on the matter. I think celebrity gossip has gotten so boring lately that gossip mags and the media are trying to scrounge up "interesting" stories by neglecting critical details and logic, and reporting on incomplete stories that are skewed towards the negative. There are arguments for and against both of the things I just discussed, but really, it's a disservice to everyone not to take these arguments just that little bit farther, and try to understand where the people making these "scandalous" decisions are coming from.