Naomi Campbell

[DavidS]

I welcome the decision of the House of Lords to allow the appeal of Naomi Campbell against an Appeal Court's decision to overturn a High Court award of damages to her for invasion of privacy by the Daily Mirror. Perhaps this will help convince the British tabloid press that their freedom to delve into peoples' private lives is not limitless. It may also convince the owners of the paper to look for another editor.

[Illinoisblue]

Given that the Mirror's Piers Morgan has, it seems, splashed totally fake photos of british troops 'torturing' Iraqi prisoners over his front pages he could well be out on his arse before too long anyway.

I haven't got a lot of time for multi-millionaire celebs who bleat about their privacy being invaded, but on this occasion wasn't it Mirror reporters pretending to be drug users to attend meetings of narcotics anonoymous to get a story on Campbell?

[DavidS]

I think so. It was certainly about her drug treatment therapy. I think she has done us all a favour by taking this as far as she has.

[jj]

All it will do is allow 'celebs' to sue the shit out of our press, while benefiting you and I not one whit. On the contrary, it might well have sinister implications.
The deal ought to be, if you play the publicity system for your own ends, be prepared for it to bite you in the arse. That's what being grown-up is all about. To court publicity and then to piss and moan when it doesn't all go your way is infantile and unrealistic. And in a way it's jus naturale.
The press attitude is usually that Joe Public gets a reasonably fair shake in the snooping stakes, while the gloves come off for self-publicists like Campbell.
Good thing too. Healthy, exposing their stupid pretensions and self-obsession, and their overweening arrogance. Don't they realise we're all pissing ourselves at their utterly vain, pointless little lives?
Of course, they don't- that's why they're 'stars', ho ho.............

[DavidS]

The matter was clearly a private one, therefore their Lordships were right. The Press have far too much power in my opinion. Back to 'D' notices I say!

[jj]

If we play the 'precedent' card in general terms rather then legal ones, the multitudinous rehab-'confessionals' of many celebs dispose of that argument- and I'm willing to bet she or her agents would have, at a time of their own choosing, subsequently sold the 'story' to those self-same tabloids. I'd extend this (up to a point) to encompass those desperate individuals who appear on 'Trisha'-style confessionals- those that don't merit psychiatric care, that is, which is most of them, of course...............
By contrast, the Gorden Kaye atrocity, for example, was totally unforgiveable more because he wasn't a publicity-seeker, just someone rather unwillingly thrust into the limelight. But had that instance involved a 'nobody' the lack of 'news value' would have worked with the press's reluctance to piss-off their core readership, to give that individual reasonable privacy.
Tighter self-regulation is the way forward, I'm convinced. There's too much of thin ends of wedges about these attempts to limit press freedom (or tastelessness, if you prefer).

I tend to agree that the press has too much power, but in the Murdoch-choosing-governemnts-and-manipulating-agendas sense rather than this footling side-issue.

[DavidS]

Very sensible views jj, most of which I agree with. It is just that I feel the press have powers they should not have. The problem is, and although he started it, Murdoch is no longer the worst offender, that too many papers are just propoganda sheets for their rich, eccentric owners.

[The Last Word]

But it's the celebrity scale, isn't it. Before this tawdry nonsense, Campbell was a supermodel of grade A status, pretty much at the top of her league. That is what she was (very) famous for. As such, I can't imagine that she would actually court publicity for her drugs problem in any way whatsoever. In her game and at that level - where image is crucial - it's the sort of thing that's really needed to be kept under wraps, something she obviously tried to do, and something the Mirror intruded upon seemingly unlawfully. From her perspective, she does have a point. A small one, but a point all the same.

What probably rankled Campbell is the way she was was treated in the same way as those 'celebs' who really will sell any story or pre-arrange any candid zoom-lens opportunities for maximum publicity - the ones desperate to claw up the ladder without any noteworthy talent or ability for the public to enjoy. And I've certainly got no problem with the press exposing them as they truly are, transparent as it often is.

[mart]

You make Campbell sound like she had achieved something by her intellect, skill or native wit. In fact she was nothing more than a coathanger for ephemeral expensive bits of cloth. Unfortunately, like so many so-called supermodels or celebs she believed the nonsense spouted about her.

Mart

[DavidS]

You make a good point Mart. Nevertheless she is a very attractive coathanger. I still think the Law Lords got it right.