What bothers us more than instances when tabloids “should know better” are times when they clearly do know better — and willfully ignore their better judgment. Famous magazine’s treatment of what it calls “a real-life Twilight urban legend” could serve as a model example of sensationalism toppling sense.
Rumors (supposedly) returned last week claiming that “Robert Pattinson has a secret girlfriend” named Elaina Arora, with whom “he has a child!”
That’s a pretty wild claim.
To “investigate” it, as Famous volunteers to do, there better be some new information, access to credible sources, or something to separate the “investigators” from the unaccountable rumor mongers who stir up this drivel in the first place.
But that’s not really what Famous is interested in doing.
Instead, the tabloid pretends that these “shocking allegations” have lit the Internet on fire… and does everything it can to fan the flames without giving any answers.
Citing an anonymous Perez Hilton tipster who’d seen Pattinson with a “mystery brunette” in London last year, Famous highlights several other descriptions of Elaina Arora — always from “fans,” and without a shred of actual documentation.
Crazy pregnancy rumors followed, with a fan claiming to see “an ultrasound” inside Arora’s purse. The “couple” supposedly engaged in “lovers’ tiffs” on Twitter — via anonymous, since-closed accounts, of course.
What’s maddening is that Famous acknowledges how weak all of this is. The mag recognizes the “massive doubts” about the validity of Arora rumors since she and Pattinson have never been photographed together. Famous also questions the authenticity of the Twitter accounts and notes inconsistencies in the alleged arrival date for the “secret” baby.
“‘Until solid proof comes to light, this rumour remains nothing more than hearsay,’ one blogger sagely notes,” concludes Famous. “We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.”
Wrong.
The magazine could — and should — have ignored the rumors it deems so dubious.
Instead, it devotes a giant headline and two pages to the idea that Pattinson might have a “secret son,” dredging up absurd low-grade speculation to help fuel a firestorm of its own creation.
Pattinson is not involved with a woman named Elaina Arora, and he does not have a baby.
No comments:
Post a Comment