Invasion of privacy and libel

The article I found was on USA Today about Ashley Olsen, who is suing the Enquirer for libel and false light of invasion of privacy. Olsen was photographed on Feb. 21, in witch her eyes looked half shut, and a misleading headline. Although the Enquirer doesn't say she was doing drugs it implied that she was, and also went on to talk about Olsens boyfriend's and accusation of him selling and doing drugs.
I think that Olsen had a right to file the law suit, because of how the article was done. Especially if the picture taken looked like she was on drugs, and because she appeals to a younger audiance, it paints her in a bad light as a role model. On top of that the tabloids talks about Olsen's boyfriend's suposed drug use, and as a person reading you would assume the article is about her doing drugs, especially if pictures implied that she was doing drugs.

Artificial Eye Slide Show

I thought that this slide show was really informative, but very boring. There was no music or any ambient sound, it was mostly the narrator who was talking except for maybe a few seconds of a client who talked about his story and why he needed the artificial eye. The pictures were really good, it went with what he was talking about. Although this was a boring slide show, I think that it is what it is, because it's for information purpose.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/video/play.asp?file=(