Play all audios:
“My future was swept from under my feet”. These were the unpublished words released by Caroline Flack’s family at the inquest into her death, which started this week. They pose questions
about what led to the Love Island presenter’s suicide.The story stopped all of us in our tracks. When I informed the radio presenter I was producing, live on air, it blindsided him. Four
years ago, in my final year at university, one of my best friends decided to take his life in the run-up to Christmas. Losing someone that close, that young, is devastating. His loss left
behind a wound that will never heal. That winded feeling many felt on Saturday evening is comparable with what we felt in 2016 after losing Charlie. He wasn’t a TV presenter, but Facebook
and Instagram feeds were instantly flooded by expressions of sympathy. Later at the funeral, many of his family members asked what could have driven him to that point, pleading for
information — I had to answer that I simply didn’t know. The need for answers almost seemed to outweigh the pain of the loss. Following Saturday’s news, an immediate Twitter autopsy began,
criticising the tabloid press for having hounded Caroline into an early grave before the ink was even dry on the front pages. The accusation, from traditional and social media commentators,
remains that reports of Caroline Flack’s social life and impending court case had overreached, and were tantamount to harassment. The Sun was criticised for deleting a story about a
Valentine’s Day card featuring a drawing of the presenter with a message saying “I’ll f**king lamp you.” The story was published the day before Flack’s death, but has since been removed from
the website. Comparisons were made between the mainstream media’s reporting on Meghan Markle following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to move to Canada — some prominent
commentators praising the couple for getting out while they could. The inquest sparked the same question this week; what drove her to that point? Was it trolling on social media, an
intrusive press, or an over-zealous Crown Prosecution Service? One question remains up for debate; should the press be regulated so as to protect the well-being of public figures? The press
is, of course, already regulated. Newspaper stories are scrutinised by IPSO and broadcasters are policed by Ofcom. But should the media be restricted from reporting on the private lives of
public figures? Despite being innocent until proven guilty in the UK, a trial by media is almost inevitable when it’s a famous name. However, court cases, although fraught with pitfalls for
journalists, often result in the most accurate coverage of all, as almost all the facts are being supplied directly by the police or the courts It is a slippery slope into an Orwellian
nightmare when we ban legitimate coverage of a public figure’s court case, where they are accused of domestic violence.The commercial press exists not only to educate and inform the
electorate they serve, but to make money. I produce digital news and radio content, and the same commercial model runs through almost all the sectors of the media like a stick of Brighton
rock. As an example; “Sun Online” generates more revenue than the printed newspaper by monetising web traffic and clicks. According to SimilarWeb.com, “Sun Online” received 115.07M hits in
the last six months. It is the 38th most visited website in the UK. This isn’t purely because of the teams of peerless search engine optimisation experts, but because the editorial team
knows what people want to read. And people want to read scurrilous gossip. An advert-based business model is by no means a bad thing. While people refuse to pay for online news and content,
the advertising model will continue as the only lifeline for news organisations.The laws of supply and demand apply just as much to journalism as they do to the rest of the market economy.
The stories we see on tabloid websites are the ones that their audiences love to see — a reflection of public interest. When big stories such as this break, print and broadcast outlets will
(depending on the sensitivity of the topic) find the contributors with the most outrageous opinions because they generate the most traffic. The silver bullet solution to tabloid gossip and
headline-driven news is simple; stop reading them. With no demand, there would be no supply. The choice is between editorial censorship, and boycotting a product most people secretly enjoy.
But most people, it seems, avoid that choice altogether.