to think that the reporting of the deaths of people in the public eye is disgusting

[beautyisthefaceisee]

MN HQ, feel free to move this elsewhere if you think more appropriate.

Not long off the back of the Caroline Flack circus (And let's not get into that again, I am referring directly to their reporting in regards to a dead woman) we have this morning the news that sadly Jake McLean, who isn't actually a celebrity in himself, but the ex boyfriend of two, has died following a car crash. HIs girlfriend, Yasmin Oukhello who appears in TOWIE, is in intensive care.

The articles this morning talk at great length about Jake's 3 years in prison 10 years ago, his ex girlfriend Lauren Goodger using her interviews from 2013, Yasmin's ex boyfriend and his love life.

Why? Just why? Jake has a family. He presumably has parents, or siblings, friends, people who love him. It is unlikely that Yasmin even knows he is dead yet.

Why does it become acceptable to report in this manner when it's someone (barely) in the public eye? Do we stand up at funerals and say "He was in prison and he went out with Sarah in 2012". No, of course we don't.

All the papers are doing are opening the floodgates for the standard comments of "who", "he's not a celebrity", "he's a criminal so good", "talentless Z lister", etc etc etc.

But he is ultimately a man who has died and his family and friends have to read this shit. I honestly think it's disgusting. Its all over the internet and in every shop I've been in this morning, so god knows how his poor mother feels.

Wonder how many of the articles OP read with bated breath before posting.

Oh you couldn't pay me the millions to be a journo! I'm currently on another thread talking about working in a school.

Thanks for clarifying what they thought I meant, though! That makes sense.

I watched Caroline Flack's documentary last night and her wee mother's face is still with me (regardless of her actions, don't want to get into that, but it wasn't her mother) so maybe it's made me super sensitive this morning.

I've no idea what this means.

“I studied Sociology and celebrity culture”

Could I gently ask - if this is the case, why the outrage and surprise on this reporting? Or is it more you’re interested in the continued reporting on people who place themselves by association in the public eye?

I’m presuming the course material you studied didn’t begin with lesson 1 “If you can’t say anything nice then don’t say anything at all” and ended with “be kind” …and there was more analysis than this?

I’m curious to get your take on this though please - You mentioned Mike earlier, and this poor deceased chap.. surely we only know of these people because their “real” lives were exposed, by association or by design, to the newspapers?

So what I’m asking is, do you accept that some people could cultivate a sense of notoriety-by-association that means they become “newsworthy” due to being know ?

If not, look up how Backgrid and Splash and other photo news agencies work. While folk cry outrage at “intrusion” and “people unable to live their lives in private”, you’d be surprised what actually takes place to get all those “overheard conversations with EXCLUSIVE photos” into the papers

No one is being spiteful and vicious. They're disagreeing with you in a robust fashion and giving a strong challenge. People are allowed different viewpoints. Hold on to your own beliefs if you feel strongly about them and do try not to drag out the ridiculous feminist lines and women having to support women etc. You just lose credibility. Your standpoint should stand on its own merits.

Why are you personally being so rude to me?

and no, that's not the point. I regularly get stupid ads (I bought a rainbow themed dress two years ago and I still get ads for dresses in that colour). Reading one celebrity story does not mean I follow it religiously. But I'm a 30 year old woman so statistically they are going to think I'm interested in that.

I don't have an issue with viewpoints. I have an issue with people talking amongst themselves about my motives and questioning my credibility. Thought that was banned on MN?

Essex is a small place and they all date each other.
😂

Well, it was a good 10 years ago, and I've changed career since, but I still like to keep on top of what my pupils are likely to be seeing (The Jesy Nelson documentary for example). Don't get me started on tiktok!

I'm not surprised, or outraged.

I'm interested in the way we treat people in the public eye as opposed to anyone else.

Gareth Edwards - the press went to his family home to tell them they had HIV before he could. Stephanie Davis - she begged them not to run a false story as it would affect her baby but they laughed and did it anyway. Jacqueline Jossa has spoken out numerous times about the constant photos of her weight and nobody is interested. None of these people deserve it because they have a profession in the public eye, none of them. Even though Caroline is a contentious one, was it still necessary for her poor mother to see her blood splashed over the paper daily? (and yes, it wans't his, it was hers). And if you want to say otherwise - did that poor soul Milly's mother deserve to have her phone hacked? Because the murder was in the public eye? Do people deserve to have pictures of their crashed cars?

As I've admitted, it's pressed my buttons more today because I watched the documentary last night.

I understand they are exposed - you can tell an exposed story from a non exposed. Whatever "source" they asked this morning literally said they didn't know if Yasmin and him were still together. Great source.

I think it's worse now than ever before, and Idon't understand why anyone is defending it.

I don't go into politics, purely because they pick your life to shreds- sadly that's how it is these days

You know what I mean. They do!

Programmes like Ex on the Beach wouldn't get off the ground if they didnt.

They all know each other from the same scene. Hardly the crime of the century - him dating a TOWIE girl doesn't indicate wanting fame, does it?

I don't use Facebook, don't read tabloid press (or in fact any press on the whole), so I don't see this. If a relative of mine died I wouldn't be subjected to all the reporting because I don't read it.
If we all stopped reading this inane tattle, they wouldn't publish it.

True

But there's a poster on here, the case was quite public, and she's the mother of the murdered daughter.

She said on a thread yesterday (the one about the crass condolences) that when she looked on her social media, because it was headline news at the time she had to read awful comments about her daughter and it made things 100 times worse. We've all seen what idiots write on social media - trolling doesn't always have a reason.

The fact someone's in the public eye as a job doesn't make them any less or more devastated than that woman (who is another reason I always think of the ones left behind).

I'd never heard of either of them either. And I have looked at online news today and seen nothing about this.

I do see now that it has been mentioned on BBC news, but I only saw it because I looked for it; and the BBC say nothing about him having been in prison. Very little about him at all, actually.

Might I venture to suggest that you're perhaps not looking at the best quality news outlets, and that those you do - i.e. tabloids - are never respectful to anyone. Neither in life nor in death.

Are you under the bizarre impression that you should get automatic respect for all opinions you come forth with? Why?

I have no idea what you want from this thread. Vaguely famous person dies, tabloids wank on about their life. So what? It was ever so. Who cares?

I'm interested in the way we treat people in the public eye as opposed to anyone else.
It's not "we" though - it's only the tabloid press and people who keep it afloat by buying/clicking - and that's not all of us.
Are you arguing for some kind of regulation of the press? Because that's a very dangerous route for the few times when they actually uncover some wrongdoing.

Journalists behave the way they do because it sells papers/gets them clicks, and therefore makes them money and enhances their careers. If nobody read them, they'd have to change how they operate or they'd go bankrupt and people would lose their jobs.

I don't agree with the way papers like the Mail, the Sun and the Express are run, so I don't read them. But you're choosing to engage with these papers - you're clicking on links to them and then sharing those links elsewhere - then complaining about how disgusting the articles are.

Sharing around articles that you disagree with is only going to encourage more of those articles to be run in the future, because clicks/shares = money.

No.

As already explained, people can disagree with what they like. I just dn't think people need to be spiteful.

Btw, your post is disgusting, so I won't be engaging with you. Your username suits you.

Another one who hasn't heard of any of these people, except Caroline Flack.

All the papers are doing are opening the floodgates for the standard comments of "who", "he's not a celebrity", "he's a criminal so good", "talentless Z lister", etc etc etc

Honestly? It really seems like this thread is pretty much doing a similar thing about someone who died just this morning?

its on all the tabloids.
daily mail
the sun
the mirror
social media
tiktok

the fact that you dont use those sources doesnt make it not so.

I'm so bored of the people trying to blame me, that i'm not even going there again.

Thanks for telling me he died this morning, though. I had no idea.

Fair point. As I said above, I hadn't actually thought that that's what theyre banking on.

I was actually on the Mail site, not a regular choice for me, but ended up reading an article about Elliot Page and then noticed the sidebar was full of people I hadn't heard of. I've had the radio on all day. I've been in the supermarket where papers are sold. This is the first time I've heard of this person, never mind the incident that you're posting about. It doesn't come up on my social media because I don't seem to follow people into this kind of thing.

I understand the kind of thing you're talking about completely, but you're also weirdly invested in it and amplifying the coverage. Now I'm curious as to why this person I've never heard of was in prison, so there you go.

She said on a thread yesterday (the one about the crass condolences) that when she looked on her social media, because it was headline news at the time she had to read awful comments about her daughter and it made things 100 times worse. We've all seen what idiots write on social media - trolling doesn't always have a reason.

(Some) People write despicable things on social media - another reason I largely don't bother with it.
Some people aren't very nice - I am not sure what the answer to that is (I suspect there probably isn't one) but I try to ignore it.

she had to read awful comments about her daughter

No - she chose to go and read them.

OP I am a journalist. Not on a tabloid. The reason this story is being covered so forensically is because people are reading it. All newspapers have real time analytics that show then how many people are reading a story, how long they read it for, where they clicked on it from, where they go next.. More clicks means more advertising means more income for the papers.

If lots of people are reading a story they will throw resources at it. If they’re not, they won’t.

The very best way you can stop this kind of reporting is to not read it. There are many other options - the Guardian, the Beeb, i , The Times etc who are not covering this story. Choose one of them.