southernbohemian
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 540
When I read that article for the first time, almost two weeks ago, I could only laugh that someone who is an editor for a paper that writes about Kate just happened to show up for R & R at the very same place that Kate and her group were. Darn, what a coincidence!
That she is the editor for the paper that writes about her, but she came just to relax, and not write about her is laughable. If she was hoping to unplug for the first time in years, why go someplace where someone her paper writes about, is filming? Could it have been because she intended to 'gasp' write about her LOL? The paper she is an editor for has never made a secret of how they feel about Kate..surely she knew Kate would be filming there. And all she had to say about Kate, and still Kate posed with her, after she pretended she liked her. tsk tsk.
That article was just ridiculous. The author went there to spy on Kate - she tells us explicitly that she knew they were there before she arrived because her parents were e-mailing her their every move. Just be upfront about it - it would have made the entire article more credible. Yes, her parents probably "conveniently" live next door to the house they rented - but from her story it is obvious the writer did NOTHING but watch them the entire time - from trips to the beach to shucking corn on the front porch. You can't tell me that the beach is so small she couldn't have moved further down and got away from the circus if she wanted to.
I thought it was interesting about the pictures - mostly because she said she took some - but then didn't post them. How incriminating can they be? Surely if they showed what she claimed (Steve and Kate all over each other) she would have printed them with the story.
None of it sounded very unbiased, basically.