"Star" magazine; NIKKI'S SECRET MEETING WITH PETE. Firstly, as anyone over the mental age of 8 can tell you, it obviously wasn't a 'secret' meeting. The suggestion that it is though has a very interesting connotation. It implies that even though it was secret people should still be able to know about it. That's the way society is going. Surveilance cameras up all around the country, the ID card brigade knocking on your door. The very concept of a right to privacy is being attacked and erroded each day and from all corners. Immoral f#ckwits like the ones who live off this sort of dirge are part of that.
Secondly there are two stacks of this magazine. That either means it's a big seller and therefore people like this sort of cr#p more than the rest or it suggests that whoever stacks these shelves saw it and thought, "woo - with a scoop like that, this issue's gonna be huge!". It's not a good sign either way. Two people who (it is documented) both suffered from serious mental disorders went on television for a bit of fame and the next thing they know people are using their faces to make money with. Look at their expressions! Do they look happy? Do they look like they're "living the dream"? Looks to me like they're enduring a nightmare.
"They made the choice" people harp. Let me repeat, serious mental problems. That's a well documented fact. Do we not have a responsibility to others in our society?
Well, no it wouldn't seem so. Not if you apply the logic of the next magazine which is called "First". Initially it appears to be rather respectable, "a look at the news". Then we get to the next bit which is a story about the mag's "cover girl":
"Sir Bobs's fears PEACHES IS TOO YOUNG FOR THE FAME GAME".
Ok. So why print a picture of her on the cover of your magazine? Why facilitate her 'fame game'? Why print that story? In doing so the implication is either that they don't care that "Sir" Bob is worried about his kid. Perhaps she might die like her mother did*? 'Doesn't matter, we need a good cover girl story, print it anyway'. So again privacy is something which is wilfully ignored, as is the idea of our social responsibility. Even despite the implicit death threat. Not only that but in this instance we're talking about a kid. A child. They're fair game are they? Madness.
The other possiblity is that by running with this headline they're doubting "Sir" Bob's sincerity. That's fair enough but I'll bet they did their share of buying into this very same sincerity when they covered the sh#tfest that was Live 8.
Either way their use of the title "Sir" is in-f#cking-furiating. It manages to annoy both the people who respect that title and those who do not. Sir Bob? Sir Bob? Doesn't even need me to elaborate.
Next up it's OK Magazine who go with violent thug Cheryl Cole (nee Tweedy) as their cover girl.
- Violent thug Nick? That's not very nice.
- Sc#ew you internal monologue. Those are the facts. Wanna see another picture? Howabout the woman whom Cheryl subjected to a violent and frenzied attack after she dared to do her job, as a toliet assistant? Go here, look at it. It's a beauty. She can really beat the s#it out of people that girl. The Judge said that it was an "unpleasant piece of drunken violence" for which Tweedy had shown "no remorse whatsoever". Call me a boring old square but I'd have thought that incident alone would be enough to ruin her career. Not so, thanks to magazines like OK who go for the amusingly ironic** headline: "I DON'T LIKE VICTORIA'S WORLD". Brilliant. The world of drunken thuggery is much better I'm sure.
Notice the arrogance in the headline though. Victoria? Who is Victoria? They presume you know they're talking about; Victoria aka "Posh Spice". F#ck's sake. Posh Spice! Sums it up really.
The next few magazines are even better.
AS THE SKINNY ROW CONTINUES... STARS FATTEN UP.
It's difficult to make it out from the picture but their cover star is Mariah Carey with a bit of a belly on her. There's a little arrow pointing you towards it. Humiliating for her I'm sure. Amusing for the reader as they cackle at her bad picture, laughing at someone else's misfortune. Fuelling women's fears about their own shortcomings. Brilliant.
Then we get to the pictures detailing Madonna's attempts to get a kid out of a country, contrary to its law. A woman who famously made her name by posing in a porn book which was considered too explicit for most UK bookshops. Why she doesn't want to adopt someone from this country isn't clear. Maximum publicity perhaps? Well NOW magazine gives her some more space as well. Inbetween these two we've got stories about celebrities who've had to cancel their marriages.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case. Nuke the whole f#cking lot.
*Her mother Paula Yates ruthlessly persued fame all her life, launching her career by posing naked in a porn mag in 1978. She ended it at the age of 40 with a massive heroin overdose which according to the coroner's report was both "foolish and incautious". Three years before she'd had to accept psychiatric help following the unfortunate demise of Michael Hutchence who she'd been sleeping with after she left "Sir" Bob when his fame was on the wane.
**I suspect the irony is unintentional. It'd be nice if it wasn't.