Months ago, the celebrity-gossip rumor mill went into overdrive when reports surfaced that Graydon Carter’s Vanity Fair was planning a forthright piece on Gwyneth Paltrow (by ‘forthright,’ I mean something other than the standard ‘Why is ___ so wonderful?’ type of Hollywood profiles we routinely see in magazines, which gloss over any healthy criticism or questions in the most cursory of fashion, it at all). Ms. Paltrow predictably had a fit, reportedly even telling her friends and associates to blacklist and boycott the magazine.
The piece — its original form — was apparently axed and what readers got instead was a very toned down article.
Of course. Paltrow is part of Hollywood’s liberal elite, politically-correct favorites. Even the idea that Vanity Fair — or any establishment magazine — dared considered a balanced profile was surprising to begin with.
Some will retort that Vanity Fair — and other magazines — are not in the business of heavy criticism (or even open criticism) much less of someone’s personal life (rumors surfaced that the originally planned article would touch upon the possibility that Paltrow had an extra-marital affair with a hotel owner).
Alright. Fair enough.
And yet… lo and behold… in the very same issue… we have…
an article devoted entirely to disregarding the privacy of another individual, about his personal life, and yes, concerning extra-marital affairs.
That person is Rupert Murdoch.
I will not link to the Vanity Fair piece here, nor include any of the excerpts detailing the ins-and-outs of Murdoch’s marriage to Wendi Deng. Only bottom-feeders would read — and enjoy — such writings.
But let’s think about this: Gwyneth Paltrow (liberal darling and Hollywood ‘royalty’) is spared publication of details regarding her personal life or marriage. While Rupert Murdoch — a man, who, unlike Paltrow, does not make a living off of his ‘persona’ or off of publicity (and thus should not be the subject of such articles about his home life) — has the most private, hurtful details (assuming they are even true) about his marriage published in a widely read, international magazine. Imagine, for a second, if that were you.
So my question is: Just how does Graydon Carter justify this? No criticism can be made of ‘Gwynnie’ but criticism of Murdoch, the man (unfairly) reviled by the Left? That’s just dandy.
And by ‘dandy’, I mean shameful.