Comments on: Supermarket tabloid gets hoodwinked by imposter!!! http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/26/supermarket-tabloid-gets-hoodwinked-by-imposter/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: TrueCentrist http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/26/supermarket-tabloid-gets-hoodwinked-by-imposter/#comment-16558 Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:02:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=2532#comment-16558 This story is an interesting pendant to People Magazine’s announcement this week that it will no longer print paparazzi images of the children of celebrities, supposedly to prevent harassment and protect the children’s privacy.

The announcement did, however, reference some celebrities’ penchant for ‘exploiting their children one day and screaming about invasion of privacy the next.’

It’s a well-known trope that if you have a custody battle or Oscar campaign going on, parading out the clean, smiling, well-dressed kiddies in places the paparazzi are known to hang out is a great way to achieve favorable press coverage.

]]>
By: D.Rickard http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/26/supermarket-tabloid-gets-hoodwinked-by-imposter/#comment-16557 Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:59:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=2532#comment-16557 “As I’ve written before, my objections to paying sources are more practical than ethical. (By the way, I’ve never paid.)”
Not paying for sources is like not paying for sex… cash may not have been exchanged, but you paid in some way to get what you wanted.

]]>