"…24 hours after Paris Hilton was released from a California jail, Us Weekly, the magazine I edit, made headlines for its decision to ban Hilton coverage from its current issue. Instead, the magazine made room for 12 pages of Hollywood baby pictures. In some ways, the decision to ban Paris was a pragmatic one: Her release occurred too late during our Monday night close for us to offer much reporting on it, and we hadn't landed a post-prison interview. (When Hilton's attorney asked Us to offer a bid to interview the heiress, our request to make it a charitable donation to an organization such as MADD was rejected.) But I also sensed an ever-mounting public frustration—'Please let me off this ride!'—with the Paris story. It's a feeling shared unanimously by the Us staff, and it led me to believe that—at least for this week and maybe for longer—the absence of Paris Hilton is, perhaps, the best way to reflect readers' interests.
"What I was unprepared for, however, was the apparent banning of Bush coverage from CNN. That day, as the Senate judiciary committee issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council in its investigation of the wiretapping scandal, the cable news network that bills itself as 'the most trusted name in news' chose instead to devote two prime-time hours to the woman widely credited for inspiring Britney Spears to not wear underpants."
:insane: the way the so called news works today.