If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
In the public interest...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
... is a oft trotted out excuse for what basically amounts to press intrusion into people's lives.
I've been reading this blog for quite a while now. It's entertaining, funny and, as the title suggests, primary based around a single topic - a young lady's sex life.
The blog has been running since 2004 and has become hugely "successful" with hits numbering millions. The blogger has managed to maintain her anonymity all the while - her argument is that it isn't just for her benefit - although she works in the film industry and clearly such a explicit tale could undermine her position - but also for that of her lovers who may not want their daliances publicised.
This year she was approached by a publisher and recieved a "six figure sum" to write a book based on her blog. Those of you in London may well have seen the adverts on the tube over the past couple of weeks.
However, the story doesn't end there because on Sunday she was "outed" in this article in a "leading" sunday broadsheet. The irony being that this is the same paper which had previously serialised her book.
Then on Monday this article appeared in our favourite hate filled bile-fest.
Anyone who reads the Granuiad may well have seen the interview with her which was printed today in response to these previous missives.
So, having read all of that, can anyone tell me how naming this lady was in any way "in the public interest" or do you think, as I do, that this is just another example of intrusion by the gutter end of our wonderful press?
I've been reading this blog for quite a while now. It's entertaining, funny and, as the title suggests, primary based around a single topic - a young lady's sex life.
The blog has been running since 2004 and has become hugely "successful" with hits numbering millions. The blogger has managed to maintain her anonymity all the while - her argument is that it isn't just for her benefit - although she works in the film industry and clearly such a explicit tale could undermine her position - but also for that of her lovers who may not want their daliances publicised.
This year she was approached by a publisher and recieved a "six figure sum" to write a book based on her blog. Those of you in London may well have seen the adverts on the tube over the past couple of weeks.
However, the story doesn't end there because on Sunday she was "outed" in this article in a "leading" sunday broadsheet. The irony being that this is the same paper which had previously serialised her book.
Then on Monday this article appeared in our favourite hate filled bile-fest.
Anyone who reads the Granuiad may well have seen the interview with her which was printed today in response to these previous missives.
So, having read all of that, can anyone tell me how naming this lady was in any way "in the public interest" or do you think, as I do, that this is just another example of intrusion by the gutter end of our wonderful press?
0
Comments
So hands up - whos suprised that of all the papers it was the Daily WankfestMail that spilt the beans.
No-one? Suprise suprise...
Although they did manage to make the link with Harry Potter films sound seedy...
It seems that you are mixing two issues.
Each publication (of the "Press") have their own agenda which is solely "in their interest". Read,say, a dozen accounts of any story and there`s a good probability the story will be presented a dozen ways.(The presentation is the key).
I don`t believe that "Abby" wasn`t savvy enough to be aware of that. She took that risk.
The second issue,much more interesting to me, is why she was willing to reveal all (so to speak) to the world in general, but the people she appeared to regard as the closest to her were to be kept in the dark.
Mok, you say you have read this blog for some time. Has she ever given any psychological insights into why this was the case ?
I expect its all just a nice stunt to sell more books. But then I am a cynic in these things.
She's right about the portrayal of a woman who likes sex though. It's odd how the media on one hand demands that women have sex whenever, but only on the man's terms, and only if she doesn't enjoy it too much. Nice to see nothing has changed.
What a plank.