It's hard being an ordinary person living a basic life, day-to-day, right? To us, everything is a task. Waking up, going to work, and getting home to live our family lives. But imagine having someone watching your every move while you are walking your dog, taking a daily run or doing the simplest thing. If you were being watched, getting pictures taken of yourself, and even reading about yourself in the papers on a daily basis, you would not appreciate it, I am sure. All of this, often without cause or concern, is what a celebrity or public figure goes through nearly every day. .
The media--more specifically, tabloids--ultimately lacks the incorporation of commonsensical guidelines in their ethics. Journalists know that they are in the information business, and want details, background, and facts. But these journalists, or rather, pseudo-journalists, and branches of the media produce stories that have no relevance to anything of journalistic importance. What determines the value of a story presented by the media? Is it the coverage on the local escaped convict that is designed to inform the local readers of a possible danger? Or is it more important to a journalist to report all of the juicy gossip on the hottest stars and politicians? Newsworthiness should not determined by the number of cameras pointed in the face of a public figure, with a concept with roots to unemotional, objective and reasoned journalism principles. Many stories one may read in the tabloids are simply the product of a nosy reporter. Direct from the August 21 issue of the National Enquirer website is this: "According to reports, the estate of late Bee Gee Maurice Gibb is to be left to his widow, Yvonne Gibb. The couple had been married for almost 30 years- (Gibb Estate). Is this knowledge really relevant to anything of importance to the public? To the Gibb family it is important, but for common, public knowledge, it is not a necessary piece of information to publish.
