What better way to “sell papers” than to cover, then tell others not to look at, what has been the number one most talked about and searched for thing in the industrialized World: Kate Middleton topless photos.
But that’s just what Suzi Parker did over at The Washington Post today.
Parker writes:
The controversial pictures, which have not been published in Britain because of privacy laws, are generating a tsunami of copy for the British newspapers. In turn, here we are in America, fascinated, too, by the wife of William, who seldom says a word publicly and always has rosy cheeks…Prior to the topless photographs, fashionistas cared — and still do, however shallow that is — about what designer was covering Kate’s royal breasts. Maybe we should stick to that.
Why? What burns me is this constant cry for psydo-intellectual news coverage of the kind where some editor is basically telling you or me what we should be interested in, when the Google Trends and Social Mention Trends (the two most accurate) are pointing to “Kate Middleton Topless Photos.” Any good media entrepreneur would make content to grab some of that traffic and desire to part with coin over a magazine.
Look, the magazine doesn’t have to have the photos in it, just a mention of the scandal itself.
Which brings me to this point: why have so few raised the issue of security? I feel like I’m the only person to really bring this out to attention: The Royal Family’s security people just plain screwed up. Royally.
People Want To Know About People
The bottom line media and social media lesson is this: people want to know about people. Period. If the story is about a person in the buff, or a sex tape, so much the better. Whining about it will not change how people are wired. Some will just be two-faced: talk bad about our desires, then demonstrate they’re human just like anyone else.
And they will click and buy anything about “Kate Middleton Topless Photos” or “Prince Harry Nude In Vegas.”
Count on it.
Bill Carroll