It would allow for an entirely false image to be created  If celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections [i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics?  Equally, they expect coverage – and to be taken seriously – when announcing that the latest movie, or book or album is a masterpiece despite the panning it’s receiving from the critics.  It’s also questionable as to whether pop singer or movie star would count as quite the right career choice for someone looking for a quiet life [ii] .  It would be interesting to see how many would sign-up to Leveson’s proposed list if it was a blanket ban on publicity. No coverage of charity events that happened to get a celeb along, no interviews with actors on economics or pop musicians on ethics.  [i] The Independent. Matilda Battersby and Thomas Mendelsohn. A who’s who of celebrity political endorsements.” 4 May 2010.  [ii] The Guardian. Owen Bowcott. “Media interest in celebrities’ lives is legitimate, European court rules.” 7 February 2012.