I see stories online or not about things that people go through all the time. I've questioned many times why this particular story or this person's story is more important to tell than someone else's story. One story comes to mind that I've questioned.
The Telegraph recently ran a story on their website about an Australian female who has been addicted to porn since she was eight. This story isn't special at all. Sure it is unfortunate that she is addicted. But everyday, people all over the world struggle with addiction to porn. Their stories are not told. Is her story somehow more newsworthy than another person's? If it is, she would have told it without the help of some publication. This person says she got addicted to porn because of something she saw in a movie. What she saw in a movie isn't related to porn. She is making excuses it seems like.
It is good she is getting help for her addiction. But I want to college with a guy who was addicted to porn. His story was never ran in any publication. Does that make his story and addiction any less valid? No.
What I find messed up about this story is that there is no mention of her parents. Where were they in all of this? Her parents not being mentioned seemingly cast them in a bad light.
This is just one example of a story that shouldn't be published over thousands of similar stories. Not saying her addiction is not valid. I am saying that her addiction shouldn't be told over others.
Other examples are alcoholics or drug addicts getting their story published. Thousands of stories about various things are never told in any publication. That doesn't make their stories any less valid or less important.
I'd honestly like to know why this story or that story gets chosen to be ran over others. It baffles me why media thinks this story or that story is more important to be ran versus others. It's shitty media works in this way.