“Seems” acceptable – or “is” acceptable? You are hedging your bets by blurring the issue. (“Seems, Madam? – nay, it is. I know not ‘seems’” – Hamlet).

Paul Sholar’s comment is highly relevant.

Of course a lot of this depends on what jurisdiction a news organisation is operating in, plus the fact that even when strict privacy laws are in force, they do not necessarily apply in the same way to the “public figures” concerned by celebrity news as to other fields, such as business or general information.

It is also worth pointing out that there is a scandal under way right now in the UK over reporters (for Rupert Murdoch’s companies) paying undercover agents for confidential information on celebrities that is obtained illegally, notably via wiretapping.

Are you suggesting that what you call “Main Street Media”, which presumably includes Agence France-Presse, should begin resorting to such methods? Is that the way to get back on top of “Breaking News”?

If so, it should be noted that privacy laws in countries like France make such practices almost impossible, and I would argue that that is a very good thing. Do you recommend that those laws be relaxed, or even abolished?

In any case, how the hell are the much maligned “Main Street Media” supposed to “recapture breaking news” if “the crowd” is always there to snap it before them?

It seems like a tall order to me; even if you agree that it’s OK to pay doctors, police, judges and even private investigators for so-called scoops, you can’t pay half of the Chinese population, or anybody in the world who might just happen to own a camera-equipped mobile phone and be in the vicinity of the Next Big Event.

But perhaps the real problem is elsewhere. Such as who gets to define the news agenda? Who decides that the death of a has-been pop star with serious legal and medical-psychological problems should blot out almost all other news coverage in France and other countries for the best part of a week? What is “news” anyway?

Vaste question !