I'm struggling to see the 'public interest' here...

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail at the best of times, but this story in today's paper seems breathtakingly intrusive, even for a British tabloid newspaper.

Apparently, the paramedic who treated Jett Travolta has given an interview with revelations like "The film star broke down after his desperate battle to save his son's life failed" and in the ambulance, Jett's mother "was tenderly rubbing Jett's hand, and saying, 'Come on baby, come on Jett'. She was in tears throughout and the couple was praying."

On what level is "What John and Kelly said and did when their son died" news? Does anyone feel better for knowing what some stranger went through on what must be the worst day of their lives? Was anything they said or did any different to the sorts of things any parent would say in that situation?

It all seems a bit too much, and almost made me wish they'd written another of their ridiculous hateful rants about "sachs-gate".

Comments

[Chris Norton]

I totally agree Sally - this is extremely bad taste and we don't need journalism like it.

[Amy Johnston]

I totally agree Sally. I've read similar sensationalist stories online blaming Travolta's scientology beliefs for his son's death. It's not newsworthy, it's simply cashing in on someone's heartbreak.

[Carole Scott]

I agree very passionately. I do the PR for two air ambulances and any information giving the personal details of a patient or family can only be revealed to the press once the family has decided it wants to. Otherwise the charity would be breaking patient confidentiality guidelines.

Quite apart from the ethics, it's just voyeurism of a type we don't need to see. Totally unacceptable.

[rob]

It's quite sick - as is most of the Daily Hate's reporting.

What you need is a newspaper to insist its readers complain about the paper - ah, that'll mean the Daily Mail then - Bum.

[Sally Whittle]

I'm reassured that it's not just me that felt it was unacceptably intrusive, at least.

Perhaps Jonathon Ross could start a Twitter campaign...

[Craig McGill]

Do we know that the Travolta's didn't give consent for the person to speak?

It's not my sort of thing - and was a source of frustration to me when I was a journalist and news desker - but let's remember that deaths and celebrities - and the fact that people still slow down to look at car crashes - are strong areas of interest for many readers.

I've heard more people speak about this story over the last few days than Gaza - which annoys the hell out of me, but that's the culture that we are (and perhaps always were, I don't know).

And surely, it's "were praying" and not "was praying".

[Sally Whittle]

Craig

My guess - given the brevity of the personal statement on Travolta's website and the quite extraordinary level of detail provided by the paramedic - is there's been no consent or communication with regards to public statements. But no, we can't know for certain.

I freely admit my view is coloured by personal experience. I have had the misfortune of being with someone while their child died, and I think it's one of the most terrible things I've ever had to watch - and to see that sort of experience splashed over a newspaper for the world to gawp over just struck me as being in tremendously poor taste.

Let's not forget this was the death of a child of 16. And to report the parents' words and actions in the moments of that child's death less than 48 hours later is, in my view, unacceptably intrusive.

But then, the reporting on Gaza makes me cry, too, so perhaps I'm just getting soft in my old age.

[Sally Whittle]

Oh and "the couple" is a collective noun and therefore takes the singular "was praying", I think.