It's a perfectly natural human reaction to notice a pretty face, and to point a camera at it if you've got one. IOW, Paris Hilton's face interests the public.
But that hardly qualifies photographs of her face to be a matter which affects the public interest. The point, surely, is that no matter how "objectively journalists follow the rules which tell them that pictures of Paris Hilton interest the public, those pictures will shed no light on what government policies may be wise - may be in the public interest.
The so-called "objectivity" with which journalists attract public attention is irrelevant to any question touching the First Amendment rights of the people - or any other matter of public policy.
Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115
The Hill ^ | June 28, 2007 | Alexander Bolton
To ask the question, "Are 'the media' objective?" is to raise - and answer - a different and more revealing question - "Are 'the media' independent?"; For if the first question must necessarily have a single answer, the answer to the second question must be, "No." The journalism outlets compete with each other only in the sense that the Yankees and the Red Sox compete with each other: both cooperate in promoting the idea that major league baseball generally, and their rivalry in particular, are significant. Big journalism promotes journalism first and its individual members second.According to Daniel Boorstin, newspapers were founded in America for the purpose of promoting the locales they served. Little, nascent metropolises like Podunk, Peoria - or Chicago or Cleveland - each had their local newspaper promoting their own locale as the next big thing. So the perspective of journalism is its obsession with the very local, both in space and in time. And that corresponds to an obsession with itself. Journalism's pretension to objectivity is nothing more than an expression of its subjective nature.
Upsetting the Elite (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com | July 3, 2007 | Thomas Sowell