REUTERS “The occasion gave free rein to the pseudonymous savagery which passes for informed commentary on the Web. Such cruelty contrasted with the tone of respectful shock used in blanket coverage of her death on cable television.”The coverage of Anna Nicole Smith‘s untimely death has some (e.g. Reuters‘ Eric Auchard) snorting. Hard-hearted old swine that I am, news of her continued or discontinued existence was not something that concerned me – and I’m sure were the tables reversed, she would have reciprocated.

However, in plus ça change vein, here’s the editor of the New York Gazette, James Parker, writing in 1752:

Being continually employed in serving all Parties, Printers naturally acquire a vast Unconcernedness as to right or wrong Opinions contain’d in what they print … If they sometimes print vicious or Silly Things, not worth reading, it may not be, because they approve of such Things themselves, but because people are so viciously and corruptly educated, that good things are not encouraged. Thus I have known a large Edition of the story of an old Woman drowned at Ratcliff Highway sell here to good profit, whilst a Piece recommending Piety and Religion never sold at all.

Anna Nicole Smith – in death, more covered than the war in Iraq. Although Think Progress has one highlight from CNN:

JACK CAFFERTY: Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead, Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER: Yes, We’re going to be updating our viewers shortly on –

CAFFERTY: Can’t wait for that.

BLITZER: — the mysterious circumstance surrounding that. Jack, thank you.