Let us turn now to another divorced and now engaged celebrity, one Jennifer Aniston. Like Clooney, Aniston was married and then got divorced from a fellow actor who has since remarried another actor and gone on to have children with them. Like Clooney, she went on to have a series of relationships with stonkingly good-looking people. And also like Clooney, she is now engaged to a fellow glamorous human being who goes by the name of Justin Theroux. So presumably when her engagement was announced, the media should have been filled with headlines along the lines of "Sorry, boys, Jen's been snapped up!" and "Jen's engaged?! We're all heartbroken!"
But of course none of those headlines appeared because even though – going by the tabloids' rubric – Aniston is a less desperate case than Clooney, being both younger and divorced for a shorter period, she is a woman. Therefore her engagement to Theroux was reported in precisely the terms and tone I used in the first paragraph, and has continued to be so ever since, with tales of Aniston's fiance trying to "break it off" and "refusing to see her" and her "desperation for a baby" filling the covers of tabloids and women's magazines every day. And that's because, in the world of the media, women are tragic and desperate and sad, and men are caddish and free. Because the media, apparently, believes that people are like characters in a crap romcom you wouldn't watch on a 14-hour flight.She doesn't seem to see the absurdity of complaining how Amal Alamuddin, George Clooney's fiance, "is described in terms more appropriate to a wild animal hunter."
Are wild animal hunters tragic desperate and sad? I had no idea the profession was so angst ridden. Are zoo keepers also the new existentialists? Would Hamlet a be vet nowadays?
Aniston created her own image to feed her own publicity driven career. If Freeman is to dim to see this, she's probably the journalistic equivalent of a crap romcom you wouldn't watch on a 14-hour flight.