The trashiest slideshow I've ever seen

While once again looking at my favorite news Web site, www.chicagotribune.com, I noticed that there was a story about Heather Locklear being arrested. Since this was such a light headline compared to the other ones about police officers clinging to life after being shot and other such gruesome events, I decided to click on the link underneath Heather's headline that said "Photos."

What this link took me to might just be the trashiest, yet most fascinating, photo slideshow of my life. With just a click of my mouse I was able to look at 93, yes that's right 93, mugshots of rich and famous people.

Much to my cagrine, I looked at all of them.

I couldn't help it.

I'd like to think that I have a fairly high standard when it comes to journalism. Typically I shun magazines about celebrities, thinking that stories about whether Jennifer Aniston has emotionally healed from her latest breakup, people who are skinny, people who are fat, women who are pregnant, etc. do not constitute actually forms of journalism. I suppose there's some credit to quoting anonymous sources close to celebrities about how they're recovering from their latest DUI, I'd like to think that the majority of journalism actually educates the public in order to uphold a democratic society.

Even if you're an entertainment, food or sports writing perhaps upholding a democratic society isn't necessarily your goal, nor should it be, but at least there are standards that this trashy slideshow doesn't come anywhere near meeting.

This is garbage, which makes me ponder two different things:

1) Why would an online editor allow this to be posted
2) Why was I so fascinated with it?

To answer the first question, I'd like to think that there's some logic to posting this slideshow other than getting hits from amused audience members such as myself. So what would the reasons be?

Honestly, I can't think of any. At The Daily Illini we run mug shots when reporting on a specific story, but I can't see how this is remotely credible. How exactly does this tell the story any better than just posting Heather Locklear's photo? I suppose only the editors at The Chicago Tribune know.

As for my second question, there was something fascinating about looking at celebrities in their weakened state. I suppose that somebody in the psychology department could do a study on this. After all, we're inundated with photos and videos of celebrities, who showcase an impractical body image, on a more than regular basis. Perhaps I liked seeing them when they looked ... well, normal?

Then again, there was always the thrill of seeing who would come up next. While there were a few repeat offenders, such as Lindsay Lohan, the majority of people provided me with a fresh form of amusement. It was like a guessing game. I would see the picture and then have to identify who the celebrity was without looking at the caption.

At the very least I was amused, although I definitely wouldn't say I was anymore informed about the world.

But before you judge me, try looking at it for yourself:
Mugshots of the rich and infamous