The nation often tunes in when the health of a world-famous figure skater like Roman Kostomarov becomes a topic of public discussion. Journalists and online commentators frequently dissect treatment details and intimate life aspects, turning private moments into public spectacle.
History repeats itself with celebrities such as Anastasia Zavorotnyuk or the late Zhanna Friske, among many others, who have found themselves at the center of health-focused conversations. The trend can be unsettling, as scrutiny feels invasive and relentless.
During a television moment on Scandal School, a veteran journalist argued to Tatyana Tolstaya and Avdotya Smirnova that tabloid coverage can feel like a normal byproduct of media culture. There is demand for sensational snippets, and a portion of the press responds in kind. The cycle seems self-perpetuating, and the real lives behind the headlines fade from view.
Chance, fate, or mere coincidence then brought the journalist into a dramatic real-life scenario. He faced a serious assault in a building courtyard, and the country afterward followed the details of his medical condition with a mix of curiosity and concern. It was a stark reminder that fiction and reality can mirror each other in unexpected ways (Source: Media Ethics Monitor).
One central issue emerges: the average person may not grasp that a hospitalized patient is a living person, not a distant image. For someone like Antonina Sergeyevna, Kostomarov or Zavorotnyuk is not a set of pixels but a fellow human being who shares in ordinary life, fears, and vulnerabilities.
In this imagined parallel universe where luxury and cinema glitter, the public discussion often detaches responsibility for any harm caused by commentary. A seriously ill star becomes a character rather than a person, and their reality is treated as easily rearranged for entertainment.
The writer of this column considers it fortunate to know both everyday people and truly famous individuals. The point is clear: fame does not grant immunity from harm or thick-skinned indifference toward others’ pain.
Many performers, whether actors or singers, often display heightened empathy. Even a quick post that crosses a line can wound someone who is already vulnerable. When harsh words appear in social spaces, the target may feel defenseless and exposed.
The public sphere is crowded, and no artist is safe from the flow of ideas and negativity. The impact of that stream can be destructive, affecting mood, health, and sense of security. It is not merely a matter of taste; it touches real lives.
Imagining personal life exposed in a tram stop or a public chat is a chilling thought. The mood shifts from curiosity to discomfort, and the experience can become permanently marred for the person involved.
From a journalist’s perspective, there is always a choice. One can choose humanity over the easy crave for sensationalism. Several local outlets have the means to earn income without compromising conscience or basic ethical standards. It is not a betrayal of journalism to refuse compromising paths; it is a commitment to responsible reporting.
Tabloid media thrives on what captures crowds, but when coverage fixates on rumors, conjecture, or sensationalized illness details, the result is not journalism. It becomes a distortion that can harm the patient and their relatives. That danger is a memory to keep in mind (Source: Media Ethics Monitor).
Readers are entitled to thoughtful reporting, not exploitative narratives. The hope remains that more voices will reflect on the consequences of prying into private lives, even if change feels slow. If even one person pauses before consuming or sharing invasive content, that moment of reflection holds value.
The writer’s stance is personal and may differ from editorial lines, yet the point endures: media choices have moral weight, and awareness matters in shaping a healthier public conversation.