Paris Hilton on What’s Important in Life

No, it’s not a joke. Paris Hilton actually spoke about morals and values, and what she holds near and dear. I would advise you to take it with a grain of salt, but my own suspicions of Hilton’s moral compass come through loud an clear.

In case you don’t remember why she was famous in the first place– it’s okay, a lot of people don’t– it was a sex tape released in 2003, entitled “1 Night in Paris,” with Rick Salomon. Shortly thereafter, she starred alongside Nicole Richie in “The Simple Life,” which chronicled their experiences as wealthy, spoiled socialites slumming it along the average, blue collar civilian. It was during the experience that Paris revealed she didn’t know what a soup kitchen was.

Since then… well, she hasn’t come a long way, it seems. After the premiere of “The Bling Ring,” starring Emma Watson, and telling the tale of thieving youngsters, Hilton spoke about the pitfalls of being so materialistic… none of which she seems to have been able to avoid herself.

“There’s much more to life than all of these possessions and everything. And if you want those things, you’re gonna have to work yourself, just like I did.”

Yes, she owns 44 stores across the country, but work? She is the heiress to the Hilton Hotels. Heard of them? To put a number to it, she is valued at $100 million net worth.

The irony is that while “The Bling Ring” centers around a group of teens that rob celebrity homes– which happened to Hilton a few years back (she kept the key under her doormat…)– and her immediate reaction was:

“I don’t know what I’d do if I saw them. I’m not a confrontational person. But I would literally be like, ‘You guys need serious help. And I want my stuff back.'”

To put it in perspective, Hilton drives a pink Bentley with a diamond-encrusted dashboard, and a $300,000 California Spyder Ferrari. She also owns a $12,000 yellow Chagoury Couture dress, and over 200 pairs of designer shoes.

51773803

Magazines Search for a New Type of Cover Girl

Unsurprisingly, A-list Hollywood actresses– you know the type: outrageous amounts of money, ridiculously high heels, and sculpted husbands– are not the most relatable to the everyday female. This may seem like obvious news but there are some resounding effects.

Jess Cagle, managing editor of Entertainment Weekly, puts it this way:

“…[M]ovie stars are less revered than they used to be, and also audiences have shifted their allegiance in large part to television.”

Due to this shift in “allegiance” so to speak, editors have adjusted their magazine covers to satisfy the readers. For example, Glamour’s covers were 50% populated with film stars, but when the magazine realized that their edition featuring Lauren Conrad– a reality TV star– was the best selling issue in 2012, they opted to make film stars the minority of cover girls.

Other leading ladies who have made sales mile markers are Beyonce and Lady Gaga, showing that musicians pack a lot of punch as well. The growth of social media has also aided in the relability of some stars, especially those who tweet, or are patrons of Instagram and Vine, for example. Other possible reasons for the attachment to reality stars is the ongoing, weekly relationship  developed through regular programming, versus the roughly two hour relationship created during movies. The personal investment is much more temporary with movies than with television.

Another speculation is that most movies (as of late), appeal to men, and women make up the majority of magazine buyers, so  a gap is created where women do not relate to male movie stars.

lauren-conrad-glamour-magazine-may-2010-01