I'll Tell You This For Free....

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com

A lot of things are stupid, but among the stupidest is affixing the word "star" when used to connote fame. Namely when used after the words, "porn" and "reality show". In every other field of work you're only bestowed with that moniker once you've proved to be a standout in your field. Sports have all-star games, actors become referred to as "movie stars" only after several hit movies, and musicians do not become "rock stars" just because they had two hit singles. If you're baseball career lasted only one game you were a "baseball player", not a "baseball star". But if you're an extra in one porn-movie, you're a "porn star".

I am not all that concerned with porn-related levels of fame, but the "Reality show star" label has got to go. Is anyone from a reality show really befitting of the word "Star"? And I am not talking about the game show type of reality show, like Survivor or American Idol. American Idol isn't a "reality show", it's a game-show. It's just like Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune, but has better PR, and takes way, way longer to decide on a winner. A true "reality show" is one that just films people living out their "reality", a la "The Osbournes", "The Anna Nicole Show", "Rob and Big", "The Real World", "The Hills" etc. Ozzy Obsourne is a rock star, not a reality show star. But what do you call people who were not famous before their reality show?

The Media needs to be more accurate with their nomenclature. "Reality show participant", "reality show veteran", "reality show alumnus", "reality show famewhore", anything but the current phrase. The word "star" makes it seem like getting into a drunken fight on two episodes of The Hills makes you the television equivalent of Babe Ruth or Cary Grant. It makes the participation sound distinguished or like something that one can aspire to, when the actual "reality" is that they're the lowest form of famous.