Babies

Celebrities, Please Stop Debuting Your Children on Magazine Covers

Pin it

drew barrymore baby frankie people cover

Drew Barrymore had her baby daughter Frankie almost a month ago, so by Hollywood societal etiquette ingrained in her by the rest of her famous family, she had to present her baby to the rest of the world via a People magazine cover. Because for some reason, celebrities think that kids still need to be presented to society and that we are all living an Edith Wharton novel.

I get it. Babies are cute. Celebrities are beautiful. Who wouldn’t want to purchase a magazine with a beautiful and a cute person on the cover? Me. I wouldn’t, because other than being birthed by Drew Barrymore, Baby Frankie hasn’t achieved anything yet to warrant that magazine cover, so unless Drew birthed this baby and it started to do thermodynamic equations right out the gate, the baby cover story is probably boring too.

Am I supposed to be excited about this? She can just put a notice out in the paper or even Tweet it so the world knows. She’d still get the attention she’d need — though probably not the bank she’s making off of showing us her baby’s face. I don’t want to hurt feelings, but Baby Frankie isn’t special. I can easily confuse her with any other newborn, because she’s still a newborn! Plus newborns are boring. They don’t do much, and to prove my point, Baby Frankie’s falling asleep on the cover already, because that’s as adventurous as babies get. Drew did all the work anyway, and even that isn’t special because four babies are born every second. Four babies were born as you finished that sentence.

babycover

Let’s get it straight: I get that you’re happy about your new baby and want to share it with everyone you love, but I’m pretty sure ‘everyone you love’ isn’t even a fraction of the 3 million subscribers of People. Maybe celebrities are just that damn happy and want to share it or maybe they want something to scrapbook for later, but it’s just weird. If the parents are that happy, they should just crowd their Facebook newsfeed with photos and Vines and stop getting in the way of my other celebrity headlines, like Zac Efron’s beach body, which I as a reader would find useful. I’m not buying a magazine because of some celebrity baby.

Now, I admire that there are celebrities demanding paparazzi or celebrity websites to stop publishing photos of their children, but stunts like these “baby debut” covers just undercut a lot of that effort. Sure, these are photos with the parents’ permission, but for the right price, it looks like celebrity moms are willing to share photos of the infant with a scoop on how they shed their baby weight. (Hint: have the baby. That takes out a lot of the weight.)

Drew’s not the only one either. Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez, and Nicole Richie all have done People magazine covers, making bank off their pregnancy and using their babies as props to their glammed up faces. And while Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie took advantage of the births of their biological children to raise money for charity, they still technically exploited their children in the process of goodwill. Those babies made no money, nor did they get any of the good feelings for being so selfless. They’re just babies.

brad pitt angelina jolie baby

It just seems like a lot of celebrities are pretending to want real things like family and privacy but with the benefit of making cash off their newborn’s face. It doesn’t work both ways, even if you are famous.