The point is how benign this is. Adding the phrasing "happy crack" does nothing for the article outside of attempting to put an emphasis on how
I'm honestly a little bit surprise that the media hasn't learned a thing from the Caroline Flack suicie that was directly contributed to the relentless media character assasination (I'm not a medical doctor so I won't pretend to know what else she was struggling with).
In Norway we have a strict set of ethics rules for the press that protects against sensationalistic publication and witchunting that all publications, radio and TV have to adhere by.
Here's a link to that that will translate to English with google for anyone curious:
https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsom-plakaten/
For example one section:
4.7. Be careful with the use of name and picture and other clear identifying marks on persons mentioned in connection with reprehensible or criminal offenses. Take special care when discussing cases at an early stage of investigation, in cases involving young offenders, and where identifying coverage can lead to an unreasonable burden on third parties. Identification must be based on a justified need for information. It may, for example, be justified to identify by imminent danger of abuse against defenseless persons, by serious and repeated criminal acts, when the identity or role of the person in question has clear relevance to the circumstances mentioned, or where identification prevents innocents from being exposed to unjustified suspicion.
4.14. Those who are exposed to strong accusations shall, as far as possible, have access to adress the factual accusations. Debate, criticism and news dissemination must not be hindered by the parties' unwillingness to express themselves or participate in the debate.
We generally don't name and shame in the Norwegian media unless it has a specific reason that contributes to public safety. But if someone does something stupid the media will cover with, for example: "Norwegian football star accused of embezzling funds" which happened last year. The man was not idenitified before he himself came out in public to admit his wrongdoing.
The whole naming and shaming and repeating articles in the UK, and honestly worldwide press for coverage and incidents that generally do not concern the broad public, is abhorrent and nothing more than voyeuristic fetishism that offers nothing but satisfy the publics need to KNOW what other people are doing.
Essentially, Mason Greenwood huffing laughing gas is not my business, not your business, and certainly not the publics business. Because it makes it's round on social media it
certainly does not make it the medias business to go on a free for all and help spread the news
nation wide.
Unfortunately the right to privacy only seem to extend as far as when it doesn't involve oneself.