Lewis Hamilton lost his dog. Roscoe wasn’t just a pet, he was family to him, same as my two were to me. Having had to say goodbye to two of our own dogs in recent years, I know there are few things in life that cut as deep.
That part I get, and I feel for him.
What I don’t get is why it became a headline.
Every news outlet plastered the story everywhere, complete with AI-generated images of Lewis with his dog, as if they were present in his grief. To me, that feels cheap.
Why does the death of a celebrity’s pet warrant blanket coverage, while ordinary people’s losses barely make a ripple?
It’s not about Lewis Hamilton. He’s grieving and doesn’t need people like me questioning his personal life. This is about the media machine that latches onto anything remotely clickable.
And it’s not just sympathy posts anymore. You click a headline and find the article is behind a paywall, or you’re forced to accept hundreds of tracking cookies just to read a few lines.
Either you hand over money, or you hand over your data. No thanks.
The “Daily Express” recently ran with “Sharia Law horror as woman publicly whipped in front of cheering mob”. That headline alone is deliberately written to provoke outrage, shock, and morbid curiosity. But could most people read it? No. Not without agreeing to hundreds of cookies or paying to get past the wall. It’s the same formula every time: bandwagon, clickbait, then block you from actually seeing the thing they hooked you with.
So yes, losing a dog is heartbreaking. Don’t we know it… But do we really need every outlet milking it for clicks?
And do we need news reduced to sensationalist bait that you can’t even read without trading privacy for access?
The way I see it, grief and suffering shouldn’t be content.