Clicks over compassion
My online feed last Saturday was filled with various media coverage on the video that Kate Middleton released, announcing that she is currently undergoing preventative chemotherapy treatment for cancer. Writers from diverse media platforms weighed in, calling for the public to respect the Princess of Wales’ privacy. Ironically, these appeals came from the very same media outlets that had, up until a few days ago, been adding fuel to the public frenzy, by publishing stories that helped amplify various speculations about Middleton’s disappearance.
Not only did Middleton feel compelled to share her diagnosis, but she also felt obliged to explain her long absence in more detail. She shared that it had taken some time to talk to her children about her condition “in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be OK.” She also mentioned that Prince William was dutifully by her side. These details were thoughtfully included not as mere updates but as deliberate efforts to put to rest the conspiracy theories that had taken the internet by storm, including unfounded rumors of divorce and infidelity.
It is easy to dismiss what happened as part of the trade-off for being royal. Since the British public helps fund the royal family through their taxes, there is an expectation that the royals should regularly provide updates about their lives. It is worth noting, however, that an official statement was already released in January, announcing that the princess would be absent from public duties until Easter due to a major surgery. Yes, it was slightly vague, but seems typical and acceptable when discussing sensitive health issues. Why was this not enough?
Tabloids and the paparazzi have always made their profit from juicy personal tidbits, unflattering photos, and damaging information that make celebrity coverage more interesting. In recent years, however, we see that landscape shift a little with public and legal scrutiny increasingly challenging these practices due to their harmful consequences. High-profile cases, such as the tragic pursuit of Princess Diana by paparazzi and the media’s ruthless coverage of the struggles faced by young stars like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears, have sparked debates about the ethics of such coverage. In fact, Atlantic writer Helen Lewis observed how Britain’s tabloid papers “have shown remarkable restraint” in their coverage of the baseless theories surrounding the princess’ health.
What the whole Middleton saga has uncomfortably made apparent is how social media has transformed the general public into a legion of tabloid contributors: Too eager and willing to comment, share, and speculate, often without regard for the humanity of those at the center of the stories. The tabloids no longer have to put too much effort to dig up intimate details or come up with creative storylines, amateur internet sleuths can do the work for them.
In the Philippines, we often see this whenever a famous love team breaks up. All of a sudden, netizens are quick to list the possible reasons: infidelity, money issues, and a person’s sexuality. Everyone suddenly has a “friend who is the cousin of the brother of the celebrity stylist,” making their theories sound more plausible. The same thing happens whenever a media personality passes away. In that brief period when the family has not yet given the cause of death, speculations tend to lean toward the more controversial reasons like overdose or suicide. And while it is easy to label our curiosity as “concern,” the truth is that very few will pause from participating in the discourse to reflect on how these comments and conjectures are potentially creating even more distress for the individuals involved.
In past articles, I have written about the problem with social media algorithms and how the tendency to prioritize sensationalized news has made it too easy for gossip and disinformation to spread rapidly. However, we also need to acknowledge how the current online landscape is merely a reflection of its current users: people who have developed an undue sense of entitlement to know every single detail about other people’s lives. We live at a time where we not only commoditize our personal milestones, but it has also become commonplace and acceptable to use someone’s personal life as fodder for entertainment and online traction.
After the video was released, the narrative around Middleton’s condition immediately changed: there were numerous sincere messages of regret, support, and good wishes—as if people were suddenly remembering that a real human being was at the heart of this story. While Middleton and her family will be left alone for now, it is not clear whether lessons have really been learned from this incident or that this pattern of “concoct stories now, apologize later” will just keep repeating. What is clear is that the rest of us can simply move on to the next trending topic. But the people behind the headlines, now forced to navigate the real-world consequences of our voracious appetite for information, are not as lucky.
