I don't have much time these days to post, so this will be short & sweet. I just read that Maria Shriver will not be returning to NBC News. She said that the way the media handled the reporting of the accidental drug-overdose death of Anna Nicole Smith finalized her decision, and that "the TV news business has changed and so have I". Why the shout out? I admire her for not setting aside her personal ethics/morals/beliefs to return to a business that exploits the pain and suffering of individuals and their friends & families just to get ratings. Yes, I acknowledge the "freedom of speech" issue; but does that mean the media has the right to expose the foibles and secrets of people to others that really have no need to know the information? What good does it do the general American public to know this stuff? In this case the media is just bottle-feeding the public's voyeuristic nature! Where does it stop? The American public, over the past several decades, has become so desensitized to seeing violence and hearing about "shocking" details that the media, in an attempt to maintain ratings, has become more risque in its subject material--they need to jump over the shock value threshold that we are accustomed to. Thus the publishing of such things as the infamous Brittney Spears beaver shots--what the hell! And yes, I realize that public figures, especially Hollywood stars, put themselves in the spotlight by the very nature of their craft; but does that give the media the right to hound celebrities and other public figures? The circumstances surrounding the death of Princess Diana should answer this question, by God! I could go on on on about this subject because it really pisses me off, but I'm out of time and I have to go! Thank you, Maria, for being true to yourself.
