Quizzes & Puzzles5 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.
TheDevil - // Andy the position i'm taking is that no one is specifically to blame, but everyone had a part to play but no one is responsible except Caroline at the end of the day. //
I am taking precisely the same position - there are a number of factors that have combined with such tragic results, but the finger cannot reasonably be pointed at any one of them as the sole, or even major cause, I believe it is the combination that has led to the outcome.
// I feel like your position is that the photos of her not looking good were a major attribute to her suicide and so, the papers who published them should be accountable. am I correct in this or am I wrong? (Not trying to be awkward genuinely curious to your stance on this topic) //
No problem - I am happy to clarify my position about the Mail's feature today -
I am saying that it is utterly hypocritical of the Mail, in the first place to have Sara Vine write a moralistic finger-pointing tirade against social media, while simultaneously absolving her employers from similar responsibility for what has happened.
Yes social media has poked and judged and pronounced and been poisonous about Ms. Flack - but the irony is that their star columnist makes a very good living doing exactly the same in the paper. Her pathetic excuse that the print media are constrained by the PCC seeks to infer that she and her ilk are occupying a higher moral plane, whereas the reality is that they simply have to be more inventive in the ways they couch their own moralising and finger-pointing judgement of people in the public eye.
My point about the image that sat beside Ms. Vine's piece in the print edition was the horrible irony that on one side of the page, Ms. Vine is defending her own and other daily papers' moral superiority, and on the other side of the paper sits an image of Ms. Flack going about her private life, and being snapped by a paparazzo who then sold the image to an agency, where it was bought for publication by the Mail.
I am not inferring that the Mail has used this image before, or that its use elsewhere had a detrimental effect on Ms Flack's fragile mental health, we can't know that.
What is inescapable though is the irony of using a paparazzi image next to a piece of moralising cant fluff intended to defend the paper's supposed morality in terms of intruding into the private lives of celebrities. That just beggars belief.
I am taking precisely the same position - there are a number of factors that have combined with such tragic results, but the finger cannot reasonably be pointed at any one of them as the sole, or even major cause, I believe it is the combination that has led to the outcome.
// I feel like your position is that the photos of her not looking good were a major attribute to her suicide and so, the papers who published them should be accountable. am I correct in this or am I wrong? (Not trying to be awkward genuinely curious to your stance on this topic) //
No problem - I am happy to clarify my position about the Mail's feature today -
I am saying that it is utterly hypocritical of the Mail, in the first place to have Sara Vine write a moralistic finger-pointing tirade against social media, while simultaneously absolving her employers from similar responsibility for what has happened.
Yes social media has poked and judged and pronounced and been poisonous about Ms. Flack - but the irony is that their star columnist makes a very good living doing exactly the same in the paper. Her pathetic excuse that the print media are constrained by the PCC seeks to infer that she and her ilk are occupying a higher moral plane, whereas the reality is that they simply have to be more inventive in the ways they couch their own moralising and finger-pointing judgement of people in the public eye.
My point about the image that sat beside Ms. Vine's piece in the print edition was the horrible irony that on one side of the page, Ms. Vine is defending her own and other daily papers' moral superiority, and on the other side of the paper sits an image of Ms. Flack going about her private life, and being snapped by a paparazzo who then sold the image to an agency, where it was bought for publication by the Mail.
I am not inferring that the Mail has used this image before, or that its use elsewhere had a detrimental effect on Ms Flack's fragile mental health, we can't know that.
What is inescapable though is the irony of using a paparazzi image next to a piece of moralising cant fluff intended to defend the paper's supposed morality in terms of intruding into the private lives of celebrities. That just beggars belief.
"I am saying that it is utterly hypocritical of the Mail, in the first place to have Sara Vine write a moralistic finger-pointing tirade against social media, while simultaneously absolving her employers from similar responsibility for what has happened."
Oh absolutely it's heinous.
It's nice to know we're on the same page.
Oh absolutely it's heinous.
It's nice to know we're on the same page.
Indeed TheDevil.
I have been a regular Mail reader for many years, but since the appointment of the latest editor, its appetite for pointless gossip and nasty moralising and grandstanding is becoming increasingly difficult to live with, and we are considering a change of daily paper.
In the mean time, when the Mail prints its catchy strapline for its moraliser in chief Sara Vine - "Are you thinking what she's thinking?" I usually say out loud to my cereal bowl - "God, I hope not!!!"
I have been a regular Mail reader for many years, but since the appointment of the latest editor, its appetite for pointless gossip and nasty moralising and grandstanding is becoming increasingly difficult to live with, and we are considering a change of daily paper.
In the mean time, when the Mail prints its catchy strapline for its moraliser in chief Sara Vine - "Are you thinking what she's thinking?" I usually say out loud to my cereal bowl - "God, I hope not!!!"
TheDevil - // The reason was because her advisers told her not to. You know the end result? She killed herself.
Maybe if she posted this to express her side of the story she may not have. //
I think you are taking the distance between two separate circumstances, and joining them with a straight line.
I would suggest that this is far too simplistic an assessment of a set of disparate circumstances which combined in a complex and unforeseen mindset which led to Ms. Flack's death.
We cannot know what may or may not have happened had any of the circumstances in play been altered either slightly or significantly, but we can be sure that it nothing like as straightforward as assuming that had Ms. Flack published one set of thoughts, that she would still be alive now.
Maybe if she posted this to express her side of the story she may not have. //
I think you are taking the distance between two separate circumstances, and joining them with a straight line.
I would suggest that this is far too simplistic an assessment of a set of disparate circumstances which combined in a complex and unforeseen mindset which led to Ms. Flack's death.
We cannot know what may or may not have happened had any of the circumstances in play been altered either slightly or significantly, but we can be sure that it nothing like as straightforward as assuming that had Ms. Flack published one set of thoughts, that she would still be alive now.
Andy, fact is Caroline wanted to make a public statement and her advisers advised her not to.
She killed herself.
The two may not be related, but a worst case scenario of her releasing the statement would be that she took her own life afterwards.
That happened regardless.
So, maybe if she was able to get her side of things across, this may not have happened.
ALL speculation of course. But I mean, we know what happened when she didn't release the statement.
We'll never know if releasing the statement would have prevented this tragedy.
She killed herself.
The two may not be related, but a worst case scenario of her releasing the statement would be that she took her own life afterwards.
That happened regardless.
So, maybe if she was able to get her side of things across, this may not have happened.
ALL speculation of course. But I mean, we know what happened when she didn't release the statement.
We'll never know if releasing the statement would have prevented this tragedy.
TheDevil - // Andy, fact is Caroline wanted to make a public statement and her advisers advised her not to.
She killed herself.
The two may not be related, but a worst case scenario of her releasing the statement would be that she took her own life afterwards.
That happened regardless.
So, maybe if she was able to get her side of things across, this may not have happened.
ALL speculation of course. But I mean, we know what happened when she didn't release the statement.
We'll never know if releasing the statement would have prevented this tragedy. //
This post does nothing except to agree with all the point I made in my last post - making it, I would suggest, somewhat redundant.
You could simply have agreed with me - as you clearly do.
She killed herself.
The two may not be related, but a worst case scenario of her releasing the statement would be that she took her own life afterwards.
That happened regardless.
So, maybe if she was able to get her side of things across, this may not have happened.
ALL speculation of course. But I mean, we know what happened when she didn't release the statement.
We'll never know if releasing the statement would have prevented this tragedy. //
This post does nothing except to agree with all the point I made in my last post - making it, I would suggest, somewhat redundant.
You could simply have agreed with me - as you clearly do.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul48 mins ago
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.