let’s talk about media literacy
especially when it comes to tabloids. because when you’re following someone like L or H (or both), you start to notice patterns. and understanding how this media ecosystem works can help things feel a little less confusing.
first — not all tabloids work the same way.
some of the big names, like The Sun or TMZ, have full-time staff whose job is to track celebrities and write fast, dramatic stories. they might base these on actual tips, but a lot of the time, it’s just vibes. seriously. observation, fan chatter, speculation. other outlets — especially the ones you see quoted in smaller entertainment news sites — get their info from freelancers, social media, or other tabloids. that means they often republish things, change a few words, and present it like a brand-new story.
then there’s this classic move:
“a source close to the star says…”
this could mean literally anyone. most of the time it’s pr-approved. sometimes it’s a fan account. sometimes it’s just made up. the point is: it sounds official, but it isn’t always rooted in fact. this is a way for the tabloid to run a story without being legally obligated to prove the facts.
tabloids are built around narratives. they want drama. they want arcs. they want love stories, betrayals, redemptions. they want to sell an image — not report the truth.
and yes, publicists work with them. maybe to get their client more attention. maybe to push a certain storyline. maybe to quietly bury another one. and when that’s not happening, tabloids will just... fill in the blanks themselves.
when you see something that feels off, it’s probably because it is. or because it’s being presented with a very specific purpose.
ask yourself:
who benefits from this?
does this article use actual quotes, or just “a source”?
are different outlets posting the exact same thing?
does this line up with what you’ve seen, heard, or known about them for years?
not all journalists are tabloid writers. this seems obvious, but it’s a big one. there’s a difference between a gossip columnist and an investigative journalist. there are people in media who genuinely try to do good work, even inside flawed systems.
journalists are often not the final say. even when someone wants to tell a more nuanced story, they’re bound by editors, publishers, and what sells. sometimes they’re told what angle to take. sometimes they write one thing, and the outlet changes the headline to be more clickbait-y. so what looks like laziness or malice may actually be pressure from above.
access journalism is a thing. if a journalist wants to continue getting interviews or access to events, they have to play nice with publicists. this is how pr shapes narratives without technically writing the story themselves. calling out falsehoods or asking real questions too early can get someone blacklisted. that doesn’t mean the journalist believes the narrative — it means they’re stuck.
many are just doing their job with limited info. a writer covering 50 celebrity stories a week is not doing deep research. they don’t know the history like fans do. so while we might say, “how can they not see it?” — the truth is, they’re not looking that closely. they’re skimming pap photos and press releases and writing whatever fits the brand.
some journalists do see it — and leave breadcrumbs. you’ll notice little turns of phrase, sly nods, or “coincidental” timing. some writers do try to hint when something feels off, but they have to walk a fine line. if they’re too obvious, they risk their job. so sometimes it’s what they don’t say that’s telling.
harassment doesn’t help. when fans flood a journalist’s mentions or call them liars or worse, it reinforces the stereotype that we are delusional or dangerous. even if the article was careless or frustrating, the goal should be to advocate for truth, not attack individuals. pushback can be thoughtful. we can ask for better without burning bridges.
media literacy is a kindness to yourself. a way to protect your heart from being pulled in a dozen directions at once.
