is all 'news' in the public interest?
January 9, 2007 12:48pm CST
i heard on the news today that the biggest newspaper publisher in the uk will not be publishing any pictures produced by the paparazzi, of prince william's girlfriend. i think this is a good call, one that has probably only come about because the lawywers of kate middleton are preparing a case to protect her privacy but this is still good. personally, i don't really care if kate has left her house to go to work at 8.30 am, or anything about any celebrity of that kind of 'breaking news'. you can't really call that quality news. alot of paparazzi would argue that they should be allowed to stick their cameras in the faces of these people as these people have chosen to be in the sorts of professions that make them celebrities. that may be true in most cases but a little bit of common sense would tell you that pushing your camera in someones face, asking them personal questions and generally being a knob is not going to make someone very happy. it's obvious that some of them want a reaction of course, a good picture of one of them thumping the 'innocent' cameraman, would make great news.
9 Jan 07
Definitely not, as a response to your headline. What angers me, is I'll go to check my email, and peruse the news headlines on the web page first, then later I'll turn on the news, and it'll be about non-news, like a poodle receiving hair-straighteners for its 5th birthday. It used to be 1 feel-good, or 'public interset' story per broadcast, but now it's a story from the US, a story from the UK, a desperate appeal by the presenters (I don't think they're really news 'anchors' any more) for the public to send their stories and photos, and then mindless drivel about soap stars opening a supermarket (& that's the national news), some panic story, and the weather. I'm with Bjork, on the camera action front!