ChatterBank4 mins ago
Caroline Flack - Were The Press Really To Blame?
134 Answers
Masses of people on social media blaming the tabloid press for the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack, but can anyone explain in what way(s) the press were to blame - examples of articles would be helpful. I didn’t know the lady but she seemed to enjoy the spotlight as much as most celebrities....until the incident with her boyfriend. Is the suggestion that the press shouldn’t have reported on that and her consequent court appearance? Isn’t it their job to report on such incidents? I can’t help feeling that If they stopped such reporting, they’d stop selling papers....which may well be what the tabloid haters want.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thesshhh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Its interesting that the finger is partly pointed at social media and the CPS, but little said of a big percentage of day time telly who thrive on such headlines, such as the Jeremy Vine show who start the ball rolling, or keep it rolling, such shows would be dead in the water without the gossip. My be time to chop a few more of these intrusive shows.
This is why the CPS were correct in their decision. In his initial interview he stated that Flack 'tried to kill me'. Later on social media he denied she'd even assaulted him. This is quite common in domestic violence issues, usually a woman trying to withdraw a complaint after a few days or when emotions have calmed down. We may never know why he changed his mind but he made a Statement which claimed Flack assaulted him, and he can't deny he acquired a substantial head injury from some one or some thing. The CPS can't risk the fact he may have been 'got at' by the defence or even persuaded by Flack to drop the charges, especially as it was not the first incident of domestic violence by Flack.
Ellipsis, it all seems to be a bit up in the air at the moment.
Lewis Burton initially contacted police about assault, causing Caroline to lose her job at ITV and for an investigation to go underway.
He then changed his story later on.
It all seems a bit odd, especially as the initial allegation was so long ago now and papers are reporting on different aspects of the story at different times.
One paper needs to get a time line sorted but I guess they're trying to leave the story as much as possible with all the media gettign the pointed finger.
Lewis Burton initially contacted police about assault, causing Caroline to lose her job at ITV and for an investigation to go underway.
He then changed his story later on.
It all seems a bit odd, especially as the initial allegation was so long ago now and papers are reporting on different aspects of the story at different times.
One paper needs to get a time line sorted but I guess they're trying to leave the story as much as possible with all the media gettign the pointed finger.
"Celebrities" are quite happy to pose for photographs and have photographers clamouring to take pictures - when it suits them. They need the publicity for career purposes and this lady seems to have been no difference in that respect. The recent publicity has been about something which she would not have chosen to be reported. It was, allegedly, a violent act. If the act had been committed by the man concerned, just imagine how he would have been vilified. She may well have been the sweet, saintly person that her showbiz friends are mourning but she could well have been facing a murder charge.
Andrew Brady was the other boyfriend who had a "toxic relationship" with her and signed a non-disclosure agreement.
https:/
https:/
emmie - an awful waste whichever way you look at it.
https:/
Your link encapsulates the utter hypocrisy of the press in its contribution to this poor woman's tragic death.
In it's print edition, their high priestess of moralising cant Sarah Vine tries to simultaneously point the finger of blame (entirely fairly) at the poisonous morons who populate social media with their vile vitriol against complete strangers.
Ms Vine simultaneously excuses her own rag and its types, because they are prevented from the worst excesses of hatred and bile by the restrictions of the Press Complaints Commision, which en effect, simply causes their writers to be somewhat more creative and inventive with their moralising and finger pointing.
But the galaxy-sized irony of this, is that while the Mail Online spends its time getting gentlemen of a certain age hot under collar with its 1972-level nonsense of 'hot bodies' and 'side boobs', both it, and the print edition posted an image of Ms Flack - in the print edition's, case it was printed nice and large right by Ms. Vine's tirade of finger-pointing 'not-us-gov!' piffle.
Was the picture of Ms. Flack at work, glammed up, talking to a camera on television? Not, it was a picture of her walking near her home, clearly 'off duty' - wearing a track suit, no make-up, hair scraped up, and sun glasses, the epitome of a famous person trying to do something normal, and not be recognised and bothered by the press doing it.
So what happens? A paparazzo takes her picture. Why? because a newspaper, in this case the moralising Mail, will pay him a fee for its use in their pages - because its readers, for some baffling reason, like to look at pictures of famous people being 'normal' like them.
The Mail actively encourages the level of rapacious and unending interference in the lives of famous people to feed its own readers' appetites, and increase its circulation, by paying a pap yet again for an image he should not have been taking, and using it to illustrate the intrusion of the press, while its head columnist tuts and hand-wrings over the evils of intrusion by strangers.
I hope, but seriously doubt, that the unbelievable absence of self-awareness that clearly infects the Mail's editorial when they see this juxtaposition of invaded privacy and finger-pointing superiority about privacy invasion, will give them cause to think that maybe they play a significant part in the invasion of privacy and pointless nasty gossiping and giggling that eventually led to the death of a seriously ill and suffering woman who could not live with the prospect of any more of their behaviour.
Shame on them all.
https:/
Your link encapsulates the utter hypocrisy of the press in its contribution to this poor woman's tragic death.
In it's print edition, their high priestess of moralising cant Sarah Vine tries to simultaneously point the finger of blame (entirely fairly) at the poisonous morons who populate social media with their vile vitriol against complete strangers.
Ms Vine simultaneously excuses her own rag and its types, because they are prevented from the worst excesses of hatred and bile by the restrictions of the Press Complaints Commision, which en effect, simply causes their writers to be somewhat more creative and inventive with their moralising and finger pointing.
But the galaxy-sized irony of this, is that while the Mail Online spends its time getting gentlemen of a certain age hot under collar with its 1972-level nonsense of 'hot bodies' and 'side boobs', both it, and the print edition posted an image of Ms Flack - in the print edition's, case it was printed nice and large right by Ms. Vine's tirade of finger-pointing 'not-us-gov!' piffle.
Was the picture of Ms. Flack at work, glammed up, talking to a camera on television? Not, it was a picture of her walking near her home, clearly 'off duty' - wearing a track suit, no make-up, hair scraped up, and sun glasses, the epitome of a famous person trying to do something normal, and not be recognised and bothered by the press doing it.
So what happens? A paparazzo takes her picture. Why? because a newspaper, in this case the moralising Mail, will pay him a fee for its use in their pages - because its readers, for some baffling reason, like to look at pictures of famous people being 'normal' like them.
The Mail actively encourages the level of rapacious and unending interference in the lives of famous people to feed its own readers' appetites, and increase its circulation, by paying a pap yet again for an image he should not have been taking, and using it to illustrate the intrusion of the press, while its head columnist tuts and hand-wrings over the evils of intrusion by strangers.
I hope, but seriously doubt, that the unbelievable absence of self-awareness that clearly infects the Mail's editorial when they see this juxtaposition of invaded privacy and finger-pointing superiority about privacy invasion, will give them cause to think that maybe they play a significant part in the invasion of privacy and pointless nasty gossiping and giggling that eventually led to the death of a seriously ill and suffering woman who could not live with the prospect of any more of their behaviour.
Shame on them all.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.