It's like this:

1. The Gossip Media makes its money from advertising. The way they get the big accounts is by having a large readership/viewership (with the right demographics, of course).

2. If the negative news about a celebrity helps circulation/raitings, then that's what gets published or aired.

Which means that the negative news about celebrities that gets exploited by the media is more of a reflection of how debased our society has become than as a cautionary tale.

Then we can talk about Angelina and Brad. They are in the tabloids all the time. Angelina has not been to rehab, though she did a myriad of wacky things in her 20's. Kissed her brother, married Billy Bob, wore blood.

Angelina is the template of having it all. She has a sucessful career, she is constantly preened over as being very beautiful, she is with one of the most handsome successful working actors of our time and she has a brood of children. She can fly a plane, is part of the global charitable community and the worst thing the tabloids can scream is she too skinny or she and Brad are breaking up!

I think women are focused on a lot in the tabloids because those women sell things. They sell the dresses, the handbags, the hairstyles. Like Kate Bosworth's shoes, see page 23! What's the hot new accessory this season check out these 4 famous ladies, see they all use it too! How does Jessica Alba keep her skin clear?

People are interested in people who seem interesting, whether that interest is in why being beautiful and sucessful you stil get smashed on drugs or screw up your custody or lead the fairy tale life most women only dream of.

Britney was interesting when she was the template of the vigin/whore complex. Then she started to crash and burn, married a loser gold digger with a baby mamma and two kids and she seemed totally fruit loops. Lindsay Lohan was nothing to the tabloids until she started sleeping around and doing drugs. Now it's all about her lesbian romance. Heather Mills is only interesting because people are fascinated with any woman who can marry one of the most famous and wealthiest musicians of our time.

Plus we can't forget that the tabloids did not cause Britney, Lindsay, Paris, Nicole's drug, alcohol and bad driving problems. Out the hundreds of working successful actresses the tabloids basically focus on 4 or 5 of them. Yeah, it's really because deep down women know they can't have it all, oh yeah except when they are focusing on all those engagements, weddings and pregnancies.

DaMann - I suppose the 'debased' state of society has arisen ex nihilo out of their own collective free will? That's the problem with these debates that tend to one-sidedly place the blame either on 'society' as if it were just a mass of individuals making free choices in a vacuum, or on 'cultural influences' as if they are some external impersonal force that has its own life. To negotiate and see the relationship between the two, you really have to turn to Adorno, Jameson, Foucault, etc. So I'd be interested in reading the proceedings of this symposium, but from the summary, I'm afraid that it's unfortunately going to be just more of the 'society hates women' feminist analysis, which of course brings us back to the initial problem.

"But what if, as Negra suggests, the warning isn't as much against drugs and promiscuity as it is against ambition and success?"

Yeah, but the market that is avidly following these stories is like 95% female. It makes you sad, but one of the foundations of sexism is the enthusiastic female participation in and support for exactly that, warning and punishing other women for ambition and success (and promiscuity).

There seems to be a bottomless female appetite for this kind of "news," just look at the proliferation of celebrity "news" tv shows.

Lohan is the biggest slut in California. Winehouse will die (I know, shocking) this year and Spears will be married one more time and pop out another redneck cashier in training.

So is it a warning for men when someone writes an article about Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix or Kurt Cobain and their spirals into destruction?

Owen Wilson's suicide attempt, Robert Downey's drug issues or the various Rob Lowe fiascos? I think it depends on who is making the most easily accessible spectacle of themselves at any given time. Lately we have a crop of females, but there are always male Royals on the list.

I don't know what the hell it is, but the public loves to watch somebody crash and burn. Maybe it distracts the masses from their own misery, maybe it's societal schadenfreude. Whatever the case is, they wouldn't sell it if we didn't buy it.

Because of the timely warning Britney gave me against ambition and success.

Seriously, We've always been interested in character flaws and the eddect it has on life. That's what Jane Austen wrote about. And it's so much more interesting when they fall from a greater height.

People have brought up that when a male celebrity self-destructs, there isn't the same hand-wringing and media coverage as when Britney or Lindsay or Amy does it. I think I know why.

The paparazzi weren't invited. None of the men mentioned bought the paparazzi coffee or treated them as part of the entourage. The paparazzi are like vampires. You have to invite them in.

Maybe the consumers of this nonsense are predominantly female, but even if you try to avoid it, it's impossible. I know more about Paris and Nicole than I ever wanted to, just because I have a TV and a computer. I didn't ask for this, it was thrust upon me. I've learned to tune it out.

"Yeah, but the market that is avidly following these stories is like 95% female. It makes you sad, but one of the foundations of sexism is the enthusiastic female participation in and support for exactly that, warning and punishing other women for ambition and success (and promiscuity)."