Friday, April 10, 2009

Gordon in the morning: Insulting your intelligence, even on the holidays

To be fair, it does feel credible to suggest that Madonna's response to any problem would be to buy houses until the problem goes away, but it's shameful that The Sun is running a story about her "plans" for a Malawi house without even the slightest suggestion that they're doing their bit as part of a propaganda war:

[T]he chart-topper has instructed her architects to draw up plans for a home in the African country, as she believes adopted son DAVID BANDA would benefit from a connection to his birthplace.

Do you think, Madonna?

Talking of irony, does Gordon really think the best way to illustrate a piece about Geri Halliwell's stalker and how they hang about outside her house all day, invading her privacy and straining to just get a glimpse of her, is by running a long-lens paparazzi snap of Halliwell?


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Serious question here. Could anyone tell me what exactly the legal difference between a stalker and a member of the paparazzi following someone about is? I mean obviously there's little to no difference between them in reality other than, in some cases, a camera (presumably some stalkers carry them about too) but is there actually some legal precedent?

simon h b said...

The only real difference seems to be that a paparazzo is a professional stalker.

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.