It has nothing to do with Miramax Books publishing an advice book by one of "Page Six's" contributors, Paula Froelich, or that Richard Johnson's (the editor in charge of "Page Six" since 1995) girlfriend was employed by Revlon for a while. Even more surprising was that when Ron Perelman and Ellen Barkin were splitting, "Page Six" virtually ignored the event.
Columns of this type have little or no credibility to begin with; gossip is their stock in trade. They give innuendo and hearsay the same credence as properly sourced material. To actively solicit funds as a guarantee of positive coverage is akin to selling fire insurance with a Zippo in one hand and a tank of gasoline in the other. Neither practice is looked on in a positive light by the authorities.
What I find incredible is that after a year of cutting a person to shreds in public, the people at "Page Six" had the audacity to think that if they approached him like this, he wouldn't report them to the police and might actually go along with the scenario. It makes you wonder what planet they are really operating on.
Like the majority of the people they cover, the folk at "Page Six" seem to think the world revolves around them, but even for these people, this is an all time low.
When I read about things like this, it truly sets me wondering about the quality of anything I read, see, or hear anywhere now. I'm aware that neither New York City or Hollywood are indicators of mood as much as they'd like to believe they are, but to even think that sort of behaviour is acceptable for a newspaper is sickening.
We as consumers of the product of news have to start raising objections to the manner that it is both being gathered and presented if we want to see something close to what we used to have for news. Tell them we don't want our papers and television stations to be government mouthpieces, nor do we demand that they entertain us.
Unless the audience is willing to demand changes be made to what we see, hear and read, it will only continue to get worse.