Of course The Enquirer has had several hair raising stories about Jim since his stroke - none of them factual in the slightest degree of course. All of the Enquirer stories were "exclusive" - a dead give away that they made it up themselves - and all contained quotes from an "insider." Unnamed naturally.
In one story the insider talked about how long Jim's rehab would be. No. Actually, he hardly had anything to rehab by the time he got out of the hospital. Too bad. Then there was the one where the insider talked about how Jim didn't go out much because he wasn't able to speak normally any more and it was embarrassing for him. Funny, if he can't speak well why are people hiring him to do voice work? Voice work, fer cryin' out loud! Sigh. Besides, if you saw him on PBS in Pioneers of Television - see featured videos at the top of this page - I think you'll agree that he sounded just like, well, James Garner. Strike Two.
In the story published on the April Fools the insider reported on how Jim had nearly died of some undefined respiratory problem recently. Insider was so concerned because Jim is so frail anyway, according to insider at least, and had been confined to a wheelchair since the stroke and is barely functional.
The Globe was even more ridiculous - if that's even possible - in their story about how pal Dinah Shore is calling her old friend on the phone daily as he lies on his death bed. It also says "some" people - insiders for sure - think Jim and Dinah were onetime lovers! Just when you think you've heard it all....
Okay, so these stories don't amount to a hill of beans, and Jim is all right. But, there is a serious side here - to me at least - and that is that this trash is published at all and people repeat and retweet it all over the Web. Others don't know where it came from and believe it even if they wouldn't if they had known the source. This is how rumors that never seem to die get started about people, and some of them are worse than sad - they're defamatory, scandalous and mainly fiction.
Why do people buy, read and repeat what they see in these rags? Surely they must know these tabloids are hardly reliable sources to go spread all over creation - don't they? If a person gets a kick out of reading this stuff, that's fine. But to go to the social networks and spread it all over without mentioning where they got it seems irresponsible - to say the least. Besides, why spread terrible rumors about anyone? Maybe I just don't get it, but I can't see the fun, and I can see the harm.
This kinda reminds me of the situation with the drug lords in Mexico and all the misery connected to them. We blame Mexico because the criminals are Mexican. But where is the market they they are committing atrocities in order to serve? The United States of course. So, if there were no market, the drug lords and all that goes with the drug trade would not exist. If there is a market - for anything - someone will see an opportunity to make money serving that market. And, of course, using these "products" is just as illegal as selling them. Seems like a question of who came first - the chicken or the egg? No market, no product.
As far as the tabloids, if no one bought them, they would go out of business. Even if no one spread their disinformation all over it would possibly discourage them from publishing such absolutely flaming lies.Why are people attracted to tragedy and scandal even when it's most likely a tissue of lies?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the world would be a generally better place if these rumor-mongering rags stayed at the bottom of the bird cage where they belong.
Image via Wikipedia