Diary Of The Fearless Truth Seekers: The Month In Tabloids – My Divorcey Worsy

The big Christmas celeb-story was the Katy Perry/Russell Brand divorce announcement.?For tabloids it had everything- she?s a lipstick lesbian and his addictive personality means that there has to be something either up his nose or on his dick at all times.

It?s been the latter for years now which has made him the thinking woman’s sexual predator of choice and a tabloid favourite.

What the tabloids don?t like is not having the sleazy details.

So January had a running commentary of updates and scoops based on almost no information whatsoever.

On the 2nd January, the Daily Mail reported that:

?The comedian is in line for the huge lump sum in a 50/50 split of the couple’s earnings even after just 14 months of marriage.?

Had he expressed the slightest interest in doing this? No, and since he has a perfectly successful career speaking eloquently about grand themes and his ballbag, it is unlikely to happen either. ?So what is the story actually telling us? Well the original article, before editing, actually read

?Wen a man and a ladie dont luv each other anymor they have a divorse and sumtimes wun ov them wants half of the things the other one hav. I no sum peepel calld katy and russel and they am getting divorsd.?

On Wednesday The Mirror showed a picture of Russell Brand taking off his wedding ring in a promotional video. You may think it was simply part of a joke about meeting college girls on a forthcoming tour (principally because it was). Think again, you sweet naifs. It could actually mean one of two things because it has caused speculation that

?it either caused the split or they had already parted before it was made?.

They couldn?t even be bothered to decide which story to go with! Maybe one day all newspapers will do this and read like 1980s Fighting Fantasy game books.

?If you think the reason for the recession is the financial policies of the previous Labour government please turn to page 4. If you feel that it is the inevitable result of a profit-driven capitalist system please turn to page 7.?

They could then appeal to everyone?s prejudice and ideology simultaneously and consequently sell more copies!

The Sun inserted their own motive into Perry?s actions when reporting on the 11th January that Katy Perry wasn?t going to attend the People?s Choice show

?as she gets over her split from hubby Russell Brand, where she is nominated for two awards?

(which made it even more impressive when they reported the next day that she had won five).

More award ceremony attendance news could be found on the Daily Mail?s website on the 16th when they reported that Russell Brand had arrived in LA for the Golden Globes and had eaten a meal. Or as they phrased it

?Russell Brand dined alone late last night in Los Angeles while trying to gather his thoughts ahead of a meeting with his estranged wife.?

Presumably they had despatched Benedict Cumberbatch?s Sherlock Holmes to cover the storythrough observation and deduction

?You are eating alone, so are currently single. You have a tan line where you recently removed a wedding ring, probably for a recent promotional video for a forthcoming tour, so the split is permanent. There are remnants of blue hair dye on your trousers so I deduce you were married to pop star fembot Katy Perry who recently cancelled her appearance at the People?s Choice Awards. You have stopped talking about your winkie for ten minutes so must be gathering your thoughts before some kind of stressful meeting, probably with the estranged Katy Perry?.

If using wiki is research for the 21st century, then looking at Twitter is what passes for investigative journalism. So on 21st January with the info-well run truly dry the Mail reported that Perry had ?unfollowed? Brand which is surely the most desperate excuse for a story yet.

They also explained how Perry felt about the break-up by using quotes by ?sources?. Unfortunately the only quote they could attribute to Perry herself was a tweet where she stated that no-one speaks for her. By that she did of course mean no-one aside from journalists and anonymous-definitely-not-made-up journalistic sources.