Ahh, the cult of celebrity. From those who, I'm going to guess, have not dealt with that segment of society before (which I would say is really two distinct but similar groups, famous and rich). I'm going to go out there and say that, by and large, until you've seen it, you simply cannot imagine it for yourself. There are books about it in lots of areas, written by sports stars or suddenly rich people as an expose type piece, and, honestly, from personal experience, those are still a bit "tame" from the reality of it.
The saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is very much on display when dealing with this group of society. No, it's not everyone, there are exceptions, but those exceptions are not at all the rule (which is what I think that most people believe). You look at the tabloid rags and you see "famous person X cheated on famous person Y" and get all up in arms without realizing that this could very well be AP number 50 for BOTH people. It's just such a different world, and I've only see the periphery of it, knowing some very wealthy and powerful (and some "local famous") people.
So, when I see things like "Oh my, he was such a good person", my eyebrows go way up. Measured by what standard? Given the topic of this board, I kind of think that "fidelity" is the standard that many of us are talking about, and, if that's in fact what you're saying, let me stop you right there; the answer is almost certainly "No". Just "no". Now, if it's other standards, yeah, some of these people do wonderful things, give back to communities, provide very nice lives for their children, inspire others (although, in the case of sports, I think that probably does more overall harm than good) and make big changes to our world thought their contributions. Or at least kill a lot of trees with rag journals writing about them.
But fidelity? Or even being an "all around nice guy". Those traits are very, very rarely on display when you get into this group of society. Great basketball player? No question about it. Great person? IDK, but, if I'm placing bets, I'd give you 1000-1 odds that the people saying "he was such an inspiration" are, in fact, much "better" people than those they are inspired by if "better" is being measured by their fidelity or care for other human beings.
That said, it's a tragedy, just like it is when anyone else dies at that age in an accident with his young family. I feel awful for those who loved him, and wish them all the best in their recovery. But it's no more a tragedy than a father driving down the 101 with his children in their 1995 Toyota Corolla who are rear ended by a tractor trailer and die. If anything, that's more of a tragedy, the wife and surviving children don't have millions to fall back on, and don't have the outpouring of public sympathy. Just another guy, killed driving home from the ice cream shop with his kids. And that's what bothers me so much about the "cult of celebrity" that we have now in this world, these people are in no way more deserving of our sympathy, in fact, in a lot of cases, they are FAR less deserving of it. And yet they get it, in face of all logic that says they don't need it anywhere near as much the family that was just torn apart by a tractor trailer on the 101, or a family torn apart by a gunshot fighting for this country, or a million other things that rip people from this world prematurely. They are all tragedies and all, if we're allocating where our sympathy should go, who needs our help, it makes a lot more sense to worry about the accident on the 101 vs a private helicopter crashing.