By Gabriel Princewill-
British broadcaster, Channel 5 are in limbo over their offer to Stormy Daniels,of£750,000 to appear on Celebrity Big Brother in 2018.
The broadcaster has been probed a number of times by The Eye Of Media.com, after our Thinktank team collectively took issue with their decision to offer the porn woman the crazy sum of money before the Christmas period. The broadcaster was asked to justify the basis of the large sum offer, and the basis on which Daniels is perceived to be a celebrity. Unable to justify the indefensible move, the broadcaster said: With regards to all Celebrity Big Brother press requests we never discuss fees, rumours or speculation.
The notion of celebrities has for years been used in a loose sense to be synonymous with fame, but the concept is invariably accompanied with positive connotations. Synonyms attached to celebrity include distinctness, greatness, leading light, celubante, prominence, eminence, reputation, and acclaim. Daniels-real name-Stephanie Clifford- has not attained or exhibited any of the attributes that fall any of the aforementioned categories. Attributing to her the status of celebrity is avowedly flawed, and inadvertently ascribes to her a clout of stardom not supported by the underpinning concept of true celebrity status.
Promoting her course in the same breath as that of celebrities, not only devalues the concept of celebrity status, it patently serves to endorse her trade of pornography in society. Such an act contributes to the degradation of society in an indefensible manner that should be tolerated by civil and responsible members of society. Daniels came to light, when she revealed her alleged escapade with President Of the United States, president Trump, accepting a £130,000 hush money pay out, which she flouted. In breaching the agreement, she affirmed her unethical tendencies, albeit, leading to the identification and necessary incrimination of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Ever since her bombshell revelation, Daniels has been paraded as a star on various publications, desperate to fill in gaps for news stories, that are not necessarily in legitimate public interest. News about legal cases involving her and the president will always have a public interest, but her touring of Universities and porn lounges to discuss porn or Trump, is distasteful garbage. Notably, most writers who appear to fanning her corrupt course are female journalists, keen to support their fellow woman and have a dig at Trump. It is the prerogative of the press to scrutinise or criticise president Trump on issues deemed legitimate, since nobody is immune from press scrutiny. This would extend to any cogent matters of public interest surrounding any legal engagements or battles with Trump, or anybody for that matter, now she has come to public light.
Promoting other endeavours of her on the backdrop of her alleged sexual liaison with president Trump irrefutably amounts to irresponsible journalism by outlets either trying to ingratiate themselves with the porn actress, her affiliates, or who are simply feeding the public with junk material. Never should it be countenanced when a man, woman , or organisation is promoted on shallow and reprehensible grounds, just to spite another individual.
This publication has liaised with a few freelancers and publications to expand our research on the true context in which stars and celebrities should be used, including bright minds at theatlantic.com. A comprehensive dossier is to be formulated and sent to the British press and ofcom for record purposes of the true context in which celebrity and stars should be used.
Channel 5 has so far been unable to justify its grounds for the offer to stormy Daniels, making it pretty obvious that the decision was vain. The broadcaster is privately owned and can conveniently hide behind this in refusing to account for its actions, but one certainty is that it needs top review its policies and the way it spends its money.