Stalking a child

There’s something particularly creepy about the news media’s obsession with Suri Cruise. And by news media, I mean mainly News Ltd.

The latest is this story in The Daily Telegraph: Suri Cruise has a shoe collection worth $150,000 plus (search engine optimisation has certainly ruined the art of headline writing, hasn’t it?).

Yep, a story about a five-year-old’s shoes.

Imagine having to deal with this every time you leave your house:

And this:

Katie Holmes

The shit that Katie Holmes and her daughter have to deal with every day (image from denimology.com)

And for what? So we can have a photo of them leaving the house. Perhaps they close the front door in a way that’s newsworthy?

But where does it stop? When Suri’s body starts to develop, we’ll have magazine covers with her growing breasts helpfully circled so we can all see. Because that’s not creepy at all.

According to celebritynetworth (the shit you find on the internet, hey?), Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise have an estimated net worth US$275 million. I have no idea if this is accurate, but I’m not interested in wandering around the internet looking for a celebrity’s income. It actually sounds a little low when you consider that Cruise was paid US$70 million for War of the Worlds and another US$70 million for Mission Impossible. Either way, it’s not at all surprising that they can buy their daughter whatever she wants. But does it really warrant a story on all of News Ltd’s Australian websites, asking us to judge a child as though she was an adult spending her own money?

That a five-year-old’s outfits are being documented by the, ahem, “news” media is just weird. It’s also creepy that journalists are writing stories about what a child is wearing. It reminds me of those websites that were counting down the days until Hayden Panettiere and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were legally able to have sex. As though ANYONE connected to those sites would be in with a chance. There’s probably already a Suri Cruise one. Some people are so fucked up.

18 responses to “Stalking a child

  1. Rhiannon Saxon

    Yeah, yuk. Yes it’s conspicuous consumption, etc etc, but there are many examples of this and a five-year old who is not famous for ANYTHING except being the daughter of a famous person really should left alone.

    • I’d really like a news organisation to very loudly say “we will not run stories on the children of famous people because we think it’s wrong”, and when people search their site for these stories, that is what comes up.

      • Wouldn’t that be lovely? I would love to see a news organisation like that.

        I really don’t understand the interest in Suri Cruise. She’s FIVE. Media grooming for the next Paris Hilton? On the upside, perhaps Suri-Saturation will mean that by the time she’s 17 the world (and by world I mean media) won’t care about her sex tape….wishful thinking? Probably.

  2. “It reminds me of those websites that were counting down the days until Hayden Panettiere and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were legally able to have sex.”

    My first response is, seriously? That happened? But then I realise how depressingly believable it is.

    • And helpfully reported in the mainstream media as “news”. I feel that so much of what News Ltd and Fairfax do online is about telling people what to google in order to see famous (and usually underaged) breasts. Oh sorry, nude photo scandal.

  3. That you tube clip is so disturbing. And all this sick fuck paps yelling ‘baby’ and ‘daddy’ to make her look. Poor frightened little girl. I’m impressed at Katie Holmes restraint I’d want to punch them.

    • I saw a great photo last year of Katie Holmes and her daughter on the street, but the photo was of the horde of photographers who follow them everywhere. I couldn’t find it, but as I was looking I was struck by how many pap shots there are of her parents protecting her, hiding her face, or Suri glaring at the photographers and looking really unhappy. And for what? So they can get a photo of them getting into a car. It’s pathetic.

      • And then they run stories about how Suri never looks happy in the photos they publish, and what does this say about Tom and Katie as parents?

        Now I’m as prone to regarding Tom Cruise generally with as sardonic an eyebrow lift as any cynic could wish, but of course the poor child doesn’t look happy, she’s surrounded by a horde of creepy fucking paparazzi telephoto lenses all yelling at her, you bastards!

  4. It IS sad and pathetic and without condoning it for one second: if no one bought their photos they might stop taking them. The cult of the celebrity is something readers are just as guilty of fostering as the mags that publish them IMHO.

    • That’s true. But editors have the power to say “the small children of celebrities are off limits” and explain to their readers why they have made that decision.

      • You’re absolutely right, NWW. They do – but then are they sacrificing market share to those mags that aren’t so scupulous? There will always be this type of photo until it becomes illegal because (I think) there are people who are morbidly obsessed with other people’s live who they see as being more glamourous than their own… Sad I think…

  5. Indeed. In fact the princess of wales did a deal with the British paps to NOT photograph the boys until they were of age. On the whole it was respected.

  6. This is exactly why I don’t buy these magazines. It’s a pity more people don’t boycott them

    • Hi Nell, welcome to the News with Nipples. I think – I hope – that people just don’t think too much about how the magazine got the photos. Because surely they wouldn’t agree with stalking a baby…

  7. I wandered over from Hoyden about Town- and I have never seen these things. Because I would never buy anything- or watch anything- that stalked either people or children like this. How horrible. This, on your page, is the first I have ever seen. I’m glad to see that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes seem like a great and protective family and I hope that laws are changed to prevent this type of aggressive stalking. In fact, I thought they had been after Diana was chased to her death and I’m sorry to see that I am wrong.

    • Hello GinBerlin, welcome to the News with Nipples. There are no laws in the US that prevent this. There should be, because as Pink said (details over at Hoyden About Town) if any other grown man was obsessively taking photos of your child, you’d call the police. In the UK, there was an agreement between the media and the royal family to leave the kids alone, and also to leave Kate Middleton alone (before they were married). I really hope that the people who buy these magazines and click on these stories on websites simply haven’t thought about how the photos were taken. If they have and they’re ok with it, then they’re arseholes.

  8. Pingback: He’s, like, the BEST DAD EVAHHH | the news with nipples

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s