Imogen, who is really only famous for being famous like so many other celebrities these days, has in fact been in the paper almost every day this week with some pointless non-development in her pregnancy.
But I have already given this woman, who is most famous for having an affair with Premiership footballer Ryan Giggs, a hard time in a previous article and finally had to settle for this being what she does - selling every single aspect of her personal life to the papers.
So what I actually want to focus on today is the journalists who are happy to report this tripe. (I am able to complain about this as a former journalist myself). And I want to say that if they really do insist on following in microscopic detail the ins and outs of every single minor celeb's pregnancy, they at least need to get their facts correct. Or even better, get a reporter on the case who has actually got some experience with pregnancies and babies – or does such a thing not exist at the Daily Mail – or any other red top paper for that matter, because they are all equally as bad when it comes to celeb babies.
But back to the Imogen case for example. There have been two ludicrous stories in the paper this week which show a complete lack of misunderstanding about expecting a child. First they decided to show snaps of Imogen walking down the road with a miserable look on her face, whether set up or not I'm not sure. And the headline was carrying her baby bump was taking its toll.
Hang on a minute, the woman is somewhere between three and four months pregnant. If that bump's taking its toll now she's got no hope for the next few months. She's seen nothing yet.
But the clueless reporter decided to elaborate even further, talking for paragraphs about how pregnancy can be a tough time for women, carrying that bump around blah, blah, blah. Yes – but not at three months. Is that what the reporter had read in a copy of Marie Claire magazine during her lunch break. Clueless.
And then there was a complete misunderstanding in another story over a comment Imogen had posted on Twitter. Again there was no real story here except to recount the details of how she had met her boyfriend and father of her child only ten months ago but how blissfully happy they were. And then this 'tweet' was used to elaborate on the situation. The drivel from Imogen ran that she was lying in bed with her boyfriend watching TV and there was nothing on. At the end she added 'feeling butterflies'.
The reporter used the butterflies statement as a reference to how Imogen feels about her partner. Hmm. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, I'm pretty sure that comment is not about her boyfriend but a reference to Imogen feeling the first movements of her baby inside her. She's around that stage in her pregnancy when she would be starting to feel the first movements, even as a first-time mother. But that's the problem with putting a naive reporter on a story, or non-story, like this.
So I would say to all you newspapers who insist on giving us this drivel day in day out, at least make it accurate drivel – or am I asking too much?