Magazine Research - Do music magazines hold a responsibility to create positive profiles of the artists they choose to write about?

Magazines rely on the models that feature on their covers to appeal to their desired niche audience - as well of course as to sell the product. By using a large A4 photograph of a particular celebrity the producers and editors of the magazine are aiming to use these models as a selling point, as the hope is that the photo will catch the eyes of the required audience.

It is arguable that the magazine industry has a responsibility to give their audiences a positive impression of the celebrities that they feature in their magazines. This is especially important when it comes to the music industry as for the artists, interviews create a base for their reputation. For this reason it is believed that the writers have an obligation to uphold the current high status that the artists already withhold, if something and was to be written about the artist then they could hold the interviewer to blame for the bad publicity that they will receive post interview. For example when singer Rihanna got back her abusive ex Chris Brown, she relied on having positively publicity to support her decision and inform the public that she made the right decision to do so.
Another reason for which the magazines have a responsibility to create a positive profile of the artists they feature, is because if they are constantly writing negatively about those they interview, it reflects the company in a negative light. People may not want to buy a magazine if there is consistently articles being written in a negative way, for a 'light read' it may become too intense and they may stop buying it.
By writing about potential touchy subjects which are deemed either illegal or morally incorrect, they are given some readers the impression that they are supporting these acts and giving them the publicity that they do not deserve. For example, by mentioning somebody's past and including a criminal offence are the magazines supporting it or stating a fact?

In argument to my previous paragraph, other readers and those working in the industry do not believe that they withhold a responsibility to write positive press and that the truth is more important.
A majority of writers and editors believe that they have an obligation to print the truth about the interviewee and for that reason they print various stories surrounding all aspects (both good and bad) or a artists career and life.
Journalists do not hold themselves liable to what they print, if an interviewee states something whilst being asked questions, writers think that they have a right to then print that in their magazines. It is therefore the fault of the interviewee for mentioning something they did not want printed publicly.
The ultimate aim of the articles being written is to sell and to entertain the reader. It is proven that interviews withholding personal and negative information are found more interesting to read as opposed to constant positive stories which can be named as boring to the reader.

My personal opinion on the matter is that if the person is willing to state it in an interview then it should be able to be reported in the magazine. It is then up to the magazine whether they should choose to print it, it is up to the editors whether they take it upon themselves to include 'socially touchy subjects'.