UK gossip site Holy Moly's decision to self censor in the light of increasingly invasive paparazzi photos is to be welcomed. An interesting case study will be to see if in year or so their site viewings or advertising revenues will drop. Methinks not.
As has been said before, by Phil on The State or even myself it's up to the media to draw the line at the depths sunk for a story. People are only compelled by Amy Winehouse or Britney's latest breakdowns because it is what is fed to the general public through papers and television. This is not to patronise the public but it really is a case of the media declaring a story is a story 'because we say so' rather than it being in the public interest. There would be little public outcry if the media didn't cover these events, the interest would shift to whatever (in an ideal world more significant and worthy) story that is presented.
Sadly I think Holy Moly's stand will be an isolated incident, as many editors and producers reach for Webster to understand the basic concept of integrity.