Should we cover celebrity fire losses?


With the extensive amount of tragedy occurring worldwide, it’s hard not only to keep up, but also to decide which event to express concern for.

I’d like to hope individuals common lack of concern regarding natural disasters and their impact is due to attention placed in other instances warranting concern. However, the coverage of the current damage caused by fires in California tell otherwise.

Plastered across various news outlets whenever a natural disaster occurs is the fatalities, those missing, and homes damaged or lost. The coverage of the Woolsey fire is the same, however differs because of celebrities that have been directly impacted.

Nearly every news media outlet has allocated special articles or segments to discuss celebrities such as Miley Cyrus and Gerard Butler losing their homes, as if it is more tragic or newsworthy than those who aren’t celebrities.

This phenomenon is both good and bad.

I condone the idea of special treatment for celebrity when hundreds of others suffer as well, however I know that these types of articles draw more attention to the events and probably indirectly contribute to increased aid to other victims.

It’s a moral conundrum of whether news outlets should give celebrities individual coverage of their losses when they really are the ones who suffer the least from all those affected, or if the attention these pieces bring to the victims is all worth it in the end.