Thursday, August 04, 2005
Okay, so if this weren’t a slow news day, this posting tidbit wouldn’t be worth posting. But, here goes.
On imdb.com, in the FILM ARTICLES section, Michael Jackson has reportedly agreed to sell his side of the story (you know, the one about the trial) for a whopping $2 million to the American arm of that Brit wag mag, OK!. (That’s my nickname for celebrity tabloids, wag mag.) The thing that got me was a source close to this development, who allegedly said “the questions are very softball . . .”
Now, I’m not suggesting one way or the other whether the source is telling the truth or not, but what is so interesting about an interview with a superstar, answering softball questions? Just why would Joe Consumer want to read that? I’m perplexed.
If said interview were available on the ‘Net for free, it might be worth a read-through. Other than that, if I had to buy a copy of OK! and sift through all of the preceding fluff just to get to the in--no, actually I would totally ignore its existence if I had to pay to peep it. What makes an interview with a celebrity interesting is the polar opposite of what OK! is apparently offering us.
On imdb.com, in the FILM ARTICLES section, Michael Jackson has reportedly agreed to sell his side of the story (you know, the one about the trial) for a whopping $2 million to the American arm of that Brit wag mag, OK!. (That’s my nickname for celebrity tabloids, wag mag.) The thing that got me was a source close to this development, who allegedly said “the questions are very softball . . .”
Now, I’m not suggesting one way or the other whether the source is telling the truth or not, but what is so interesting about an interview with a superstar, answering softball questions? Just why would Joe Consumer want to read that? I’m perplexed.
If said interview were available on the ‘Net for free, it might be worth a read-through. Other than that, if I had to buy a copy of OK! and sift through all of the preceding fluff just to get to the in--no, actually I would totally ignore its existence if I had to pay to peep it. What makes an interview with a celebrity interesting is the polar opposite of what OK! is apparently offering us.
# posted by E.A. @ 11:29 PM 
