Fri Dec 15, 2017 London
X

The Steeple Times is an online magazine with a following of upto 880,000 unique views per day on our best day yet.

  • We have 91,000 daily subscribers by email.

  • We typically average around 320,000 unique views per day.

  • We currently have 65 contributing authors who range from students to the actor, writer and producer Steven Berkoff and the champion jockey Frankie Dettori.

Combining a mix of society's last word and both wit and wisdom, The Steeple Times covers food, drink and fine dining as well as luxury, travel, the arts, individuals of influence and current affairs in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere. We are best described as being akin to "a cross between The Huffington Post and Private Eye".

 

The magazine's following is affluent, engaged and international. With 41% of readers coming from the UK and 38% from America, The Steeple Times also has strong presence within Canadian, Italian, German and Australian territories.

 

EDITORIAL

Editorial comment from Matthew SteeplesOur editor tells it like it is and he rarely minces his words

Public vs. Private

Matthew Steeples suggests respected actor George Clooney and publicity desperado Karen Danczuk provide contrasting examples about the ethics of paparazzi intrusion and media manipulation

 

Paparazzi intrusion and media manipulation are interlinked hot potatoes that look unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Two very different examples emerged in recent days of very different behavior by so-called ‘personalities’ – yet each gives indication that something is not quite right with the situation as it stands.

 

Whilst ‘ordinary individuals’ – and such should include, for example, successful business people who do not choose to put themselves on any kind of public pedestal – unquestionably deserve privacy from press intrusion unless they do something criminal or opt to share details of something considered newsworthy, the issue of where is the line of public and private was importantly raised by George Clooney late last week. The actor promised to “prosecute to the full extent of the law” a magazine named Voici after they scaled the fence of his Lake Como home to take unauthorised pictures of his young twin babies, Ella and Alexander, and he is right to do so.

 

Whilst undoubtedly a public figure himself (and one whose fortune stems from such), Mr Clooney has a point. His offspring, through no fault of their own, have only become part of a media circus because of their parentage and the dangers that could result from their images being featured in the press are great. Stronger restrictions against unauthorised photography are indeed required internationally – especially in the domain of minors – and California, for example, was right to issue laws in 2013 that protected children from paparazzi cameras.

 

Elsewhere and though such publications as the Mail Online may thrive due to their enthusiasm for incognito shots, on Sunday that paper illustrated another type of shoddy journalism. In publishing a ‘story’ – if it could even be called such – about the tawdry ex-wife of the disgraced Labour MP Simon Danczuk, 34-year old Karen Danczuk, cavorting on a Spanish beach with her 26-year old “Spanish toyboy lover” as he proposed to her, that paper opted to mislead its readers.

 

Featuring images taken by an agency named Flynet Pictures, it is plain that Ms Danczuk – listed as a “current client” by Louise Clifford, the daughter of the jailed nonce and convicted sex offender Max Clifford, on the website of her Borne Media PR agency – staged the images contained in that article and that the Mail Online’s Stephanie Linning was, at the very least, complicit of playing along with what is nothing other than a moment of media manipulation. The public, however, did not fall for this and of the 320 comments on the article most were in the negative. One, which received 1,184 likes, remarked: “So it was a big surprise for her then with a camera on standby? Fixed photo opportunities!”

 

Shame on the Mail Online for falling for the desperado Karen Danczuk and her representatives and shame on Voici also for invading the Clooney children’s privacy. Such activities must cease and the sooner, the better.

 

Update: 8:30am, Monday 31st July 2017 – Karen Danczuk has now blocked @SteepleTimes on Twitter. Something about ‘heat’ and ‘kitchens’ comes to mind.

 

Public vs. Private – George Clooney and Karen Danczuk – Matthew Steeples suggests actor George Clooney and desperado Karen Danczuk provide contrasting examples about ethics of media manipulation
Paedophile Max Clifford pictured with his daughter Louise Clifford prior to being jailed for 8 years in 2014 for abusing victims as young as 14 years old; Louise Clifford is now the PR of amongst others such greats as Karen Danczuk, Chloe Sims and Lauren Goodger and shockingly purchased her father’s “goodwill” in November 2015

Comments

6 comments on “Public vs. Private”

  1. Karen Danczuk is a disgrace and Louise Clifford is nothing but revolting. She supported her sex offender papa during his trial and I think those that hired him that then hired her subsequently are morally bankrupt. You lay down with dogs and you wake up with fleas.

  2. George Clooney makes any woman swoon but plainly Karen Danczuk makes a dodgy looking Spanish waiter boy do the same.

  3. The Daily Mail invades the privacy of so many people and this time it got stung itself by a paedophile’s daughter! Serves the f***ers right!

  4. She blocks anyone on Twitter who doesn’t agree with her. She called me a woman hater once, forgetting that she once sent a tweet taking the piss out of the size of a woman’s breasts.
    Oh Karen.

  5. She is a nasty piece of work who easily lies to suit her agenda. She blocks anyone who doesn’t agree with her ideas, thoughts and is incapable of debate without resorting to insults. She’s also a master at putting people down rather nastily on Twitter.

    Plenty of stories to tell about that nobody ! #bathroomgate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • ob_flush(); ?>