media & sensationalism - better or worse?

Princess Diana, after her divorce. (1997)

When I think of a celebrity, I tend to think of sensationalism and the emphasis the media has put on their presence and actions, even if it's something mundane and regular that many other people do, but in which case they go unnoticed.

Picutred: Princess Diana [Source]

Looking at cases such as Princess Diana and her scrutinised and well-publicised divorce, for example, with all eyes being on her, Camilla, and Charles, as it was revealed that Charles had cheated on Diana with Camilla.

Diana was under the microscope; anything the tabloids could find would get published, whether it was her struggles with mental health, her struggles with fitting within the royal family, or anything else the media could nitpick at.

But why am I looking into this specifically? What relevance does it have? To put it simply, this was a time before social media and online publications, which would be a good point of comparison to examine and draw a conclusion about whether the sensationalism and scrutiny the media puts celebrities through has gotten better or worse.

On August 31st, 1997, Diana passed away tragically in a car accident; however, her death did not mean the rumours, stories, and controversy about her died in the tabloids.

Her death only fuelled it further. Diana's death was grieved worldwide, and to this day, her state funeral is among one of the most watched televised events, reaching a shocking 2.5 billion people (out of the 5.9 billion people on the globe, nearly half the world population watching her state funeral, something not even Queen Elizabeth II's funeral in 2022 could achieve after decades of being the head of the British Monarchy) [Source].

In conclusion, the tabloids put Diana under a microscope, watching and capturing her every waking moment, disregarding the well-loved opinion the public had of her or the fact that she suffered mentally due to this and other circumstances, with paparazzi being like sharks after her to the last breath. It was an invasion of her privacy, her family's privacy, and overall an unethical approach, disregarding manners and ethics.

Amy Winehouse and her struggles with addiction. (2011)

Pictured: Amy Winehouse [Source]

Another example of a public figure being bullied by tabloids is Amy Winehouse. The London singer faced critique after critique from the tabloids, usually accompanied by unflattering pictures of her at her lowest points, struggling with mental health and addiction. This was only further fueled by the media turning on her right up to her death.

Amy Winehouse passed away in Camden, London, on July 23rd, 2011. The singer succumbed to alcohol poisoning in her flat. Despite the tragic circumstances, the paparazzi did not stop trying to capture every moment, with many tabloids even reporting pictures of Winehouse's body being loaded into the van that was to take her away. [Source]

So far, this is very similar to Diana’s case. However, the narrative shifts when the public gets involved. Winehouse’s death sparked an important and much-needed discussion about how the paparazzi have been masking bullying under the cloak of journalism. Due to mass outrage and public critique, Amy Winehouse’s post-mortem public image shifted dramatically — from being vilified and labeled an addict to suddenly being reported as a much-loved figure, with her highest highs in life highlighted immediately after her passing.

While the same has happened with Diana — rightfully so, highlighting her achievements and good moments — this took more time. Winehouse’s narrative, as reported to the public, changed from negative to positive almost overnight.

To me personally, this marks a very relevant point in the history of journalism, tabloids, and paparazzi, with the general public becoming more aware of the tactics tabloids have been using for decades and learning where to draw the line. In my opinion, before Winehouse’s death, that line was very faint and was only boldly drawn after her death, as the public was outraged and shifted much of the blame for her death onto the media.

Liam Payne, a death no one saw coming.

Pictured: Liam Payne (second from right) and fellow bandmates. [Source]

Liam Payne, best known for his involvement with the boyband One Direction (active 2010–2016), as well as a solo career afterwards—which resulted in less media presence than One Direction (something more common nowadays, with peace from the media tending to be less obsessive)—tragically passed away without warning on October 16th, 2024, shocking fans, band members, and others within the music world.

However, compared to Diana or Amy, Liam’s death was under far less scrutiny and critique. A trend seemed to be forming over time: his death was viewed as tragic and avoidable, and no unchecked rumours made it through to the tabloids (at least, not as many as in the other cases discussed).

While the initial response involved widespread reporting on his death, the coverage faded away more quickly and peacefully, allowing both family and fans time to grieve. In this case, privacy was respected and considered, with the mass media giving more regard to such matters—something that, just two decades ago, would have been ignored as long as there was a story to be written.

I have noticed a somewhat progressive trend over the decades in reporting, with tabloids and journalists becoming less and less invasive (in the majority of cases anyway, with exceptions, of course—nothing is 100%). I believe credit is due first and foremost to the general public, who have expressed outrage that directly resulted in tabloids dialing back when reporting on certain topics and people. Additionally, regulators have tightened their policies on journalism, helping to curb some of the more invasive practices. Overall, the state of journalism has improved, and despite the presence of social media and news traveling insanely fast compared to the ’90s and ’00s, while trends might suggest this should make things worse, in my opinion, it has gotten better.