ABC/CBSWhen it comes to the celebrity world, lately it seems more than ever that, among the many proverbial lines crisscrossing the landscape, a big fat line has been drawn between those who choose to share and those who do not.
And we don't mean privacy vs. publicity, because even the celebrities who are most active on social media or who are the kings and queens of TMI or, yes, have reality shows, still deserve to have privacy when they need it. That's just a fact—no matter who wants to quibble that, by virtue of being famous, a person has given up his or her right to be left the heck alone sometimes.
Rather, celebs are increasingly being asked to "open up," or "break their silence" or "fire back" in response to...well, it's hardly fair to the word controversy to call it controversy, but in response to a rumor, or questionable photos, or another celebrity's tweet, or just any drama in general.
Plenty do, because they might as well. But just as many don't, because...they might as well not. And why should they? More fuel may be what the people want, but the celebs don't owe the world a piece of their souls.
Or do they?
Before anyone gets too angry, the answer is no, of course they don't.
But as the lines continue to blur between what's real, what's for show and what's strictly business, it's easy to confuse a public figure's persona with the private person hunkered down inside with the blinds closed.
Artists such as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift have broken new ground in the world of being private in public, brilliantly melding personal trials and tribulations, image and business in a way that makes you feel like you know them—but you don't know them too much, or else you wouldn't be able to blithely worship them from afar. (Other than your family or best friends in the world, who would you go to the ends of the earth to stick up for the way that perfect strangers defend Beyoncé?)
While we don't know much about Meryl Streep other than the CV basics and that she's utterly delightful in interviews, that doesn't make us love her any less. But an entertainer's relationship with his or her fans reigns supreme nowadays, and it's becoming increasingly impossible for celebs to become truly beloved in this newfangled Twitteverse way without bringing more to the table than their craft.
And that's not for everybody, no matter how much a person appreciates his or her fans. There are still those who actually feel that acting or making music or writing books or walking runways is all they're required to offer in exchange for being allowed to continue to work. Anyone can write a treatise about his or her life on Facebook, but in real life don't you enjoy more the friends who don't do that?
However, if you've been on TV for years, playing yourself, you have a head start when it comes to getting to the point where you might actually feel comfortable sharing your life story. And, better yet, you have people who want to hear it.
It might sound quaint in this fickle time of Snapchat, Vine and Instagram—but it is still possible to develop a close relationship with your audience, especially a TV audience that sees you every day. (Just ask the YouTube stars!)
Which is why we understand why Kelly Ripa took a breather and then chose her home away from home—Live! With Kelly and Michael—to first air her grievances about being blindsided behind the scenes of the show she's co-hosted for 15 years. And the same goes for Sharon Osbourne, who took Monday off and then returned to The Talk on Tuesday ready to give Julie Chen, Sara Gilbert, Aisha Tyler, Sheryl Underwood and millions of other people an update on her marital troubles.
And of course Osbourne did it with Beyoncé-brand lemonade in hand, the refreshing summer beverage now the universal symbol for taking your power back.
Who runs the narrative (girls).
Not that being a morning TV host means you also signed a full-exposure contract, but having a successful talk show can require a certain amount of exposed humanity, and that includes leveling with your audience when need be.
There also really is no other way to seize back as much control as is humanly possible over a ravenous news cycle than to share. Stories certainly don't need input from the actual celebrities themselves to make headlines, and plenty was written about both Ripa and Osbourne before either ventured to share her side of the story.
And yet no one could have reasonably blamed either woman for not sharing either. They could have just as easily (personally at least, if not without causing much consternation for producers and networks) taken two weeks off from their shows and fans would have still been excited for their respective returns. But braving the fray and figuring, "If I can't talk to the people who've tuned in to watch me every day for years, who can I tell?" was the logical choice for them.
Meanwhile, the very mention of a celebrity fearlessly sharing always brings to mind Angelina Jolie and Catherine Zeta-Jones, huge stars who opted to share deeply personal stories about health issues via media outlets they trusted. Their decisions came presumably after they had asked themselves the question: Do I want to open this door at all? And only after much soul-searching did they feel that speaking out would help others more than it would hurt them.
But regardless of whether a star has a story to tell that could actually affect someone else's life or will serve purely to entertain the masses, it's still an entirely personal choice whether to air grievances or reveal what's going on behind closed doors to people who they do not know and will never meet. People whose opinions are lovely to hear when they're supportive and kind, but are to be shrugged off and ignored if negative and nasty.
Which brings us to the fact that celebrities are being asked to share in a time of instantaneous reactions, where all anyone needs is an internet connection to add their 2 cents to the conversation. If a celeb ventures to speak out, the intention may be to clear the air or put an end to a rumor, but that usually only results in the start of a new conversation. The window of uncertainty may close, but then the door opens and the critical comments start flooding in via social media.
And some celebs are more into that (or at least more prepared for it or reluctantly accepting of it) than others. They know that if they bother to tweet or post on Facebook, or even go old-school and release a statement via their publicists, people who have nothing to do with anything are going to have something to say about it.
So amid all that noise, the choice for a prominent figure to not contribute to the dialogue is a perfectly valid one as well, particularly when the big, burning question is about who's dating whom, or who's getting back together, or who's pregnant, or who's feuding. The party's going to rage around Selena Gomez (or Eva Mendes, Jennifer Lawrence or Jennifer Garner, et al.) whether they show up or not.
Not that Gomez doesn't use Instagram as the occasional forum, or that Garner didn't willingly go "there" with Vanity Fair. But there are usually too many stories swirling to address them all, and one of the few things a celeb can do to protect herself from all the virtual noise is either tune out entirely or pick her battles most carefully. Respond to what she wants, when she wants, if she wants...and ignore the rest. Because there will always be another headline to deal with tomorrow.
Though if they were morning show hosts, we certainly hope that they'd report for work ready to talk.