Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
Blog Archive
20 comments:
All summer long we were bombarded with pictures, articles and videos that followed the insanity of the young female celebrities in the media today. There was Paris Hilton’s jail stint, Nicole Richie’s DWI, Britney Spears’ bad parenting and countless mini bouts of hysteria and, to round out the list, Lindsay Lohan’s coked up antics. The coverage wasn’t just day-to-day, but hour-to-hour, and the audience couldn’t seem to get enough. I don’t think that this is the most note-worthy or groundbreaking news of the summer by any means, seeing as few people actually consider this news (and who didn’t see it coming with Lohan?) but I definitely feel it was the biggest media event due to the scope of its coverage and the amount of people who, perhaps unwillingly, were updated daily on these girls’ unfortunate lives.
I also think the biggest media event this summer was the coverage of young Hollywood women. There were many other big stories this summer like Michael Vick and the bridge collapse, but the antics of the young women were much more covered in the news. I work with two other women my age and every other day they would come into work with another magazine with Paris Hilton, Spears, Lohan or Nicole Richie on the cover. It is all they could talk about. It is so hard to escape these young women their latest activities are always on television, in print and on the radio. One of the radio stations my mom listens to allows you to text in to get the latest gossip on them. So not only is it everywhere, but it is constantly updated.
What I am discovering as I read your comments is a sense of contradiction. On the one hand, people are saying that the "bad girl" coverage of Britt, Lindsay, Paris et al. isn't news. But, on the other, you're also saying that it was covered non-stop. So which is it? Isn't it news if it's covered relentlessly and extensively -- big news? Are you allowing your assumptions about media function to blur your perceptions? Applying to the coverage criteria that no longer seem to carry much weight?
I would agree that the most covered stories on the web, TV, and radio have certainly been the various illegal activities of the young girls of Hollywood. These media-seeking celebs got all the press coverage they could want, but unfortunately for them none of them have come out of it in a positive light. When we talked the other day about the NY Times being a hard hitting news medium, I would add CNN as a channel I would tune into for “serious” news, because they, for me, have credibility, but that was shattered when they broke into their regular news coverage to show Miss Hilton live being released after her jail sentence! Her whole jail saga was covered exhaustively from trial to post-prison sentence. Its ridiculous to find stories about this girl in mediums like that, if I want to know about that stuff, I’ll check out the tabloids, E! or PerezHilton.com (which Mr. Good you should check out. He is a blogger with millions of site views a day and covers the dirt on Hollywood; I think it’s a good example on citizen journalism as some of his content is generated from site visitors)
As much as I don’t want to agree, or admit, the coverage of the “scandalous” antics of Hollywood’s princesses was not only the hottest coverage, but the most enduring this summer. I usually do a good job of avoiding Ms. Pars, but I simply couldn’t seem to censor her from my life this summer, despite how hard I tried. She was the number one story even when terrorists attempted to bomb London and Glasgow. Harry Potter, Spider Man, Russian militarism, the bridge collapse, they got covered heavy, but only for a week or two. Hilton, Lohan, Spears, they are never-ending, if one stops, the other quickly falls in place, it’s almost like that’s what they are paid to do. It’s not news to me, its gossip, but I don’t decide what’s on the news, and apparently its news to enough people to have better coverage and more reporters on it than Iraq.
Although I would like to say that the biggest media event of the summer was a serious, "hard news" type of story, the truth is that it probably was Paris Hilton (but also other celebrities such as Lohan, Spears, Ritchie etc.). I can't say that I followed it or really watched any coverage regularly, but I did have to actively avoid it quite often. I imagine almost everyone became familiar with this story because they were either upset that their idol was in jail (who idolizes Paris Hilton, i don't know but I'm sure there are people...), or they were glad that she was finally being punished for running around the world as a spoiled heiress, allowed to do whatever she wants. I'd say this was the biggest event mainly because of the ridiculous amount of coverage it got. Not only were the gossip and tabloid magazines and publications covering it, but major networks (like someone said before cnn) were covering it as well. I thought that the double release of a Harry Potter movie and book was another major event, but maybe it was just several of my friends are obsessed.
During the months of June and July, I can't even remember how many publications featured Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan's jail and drug related antics as the cover story. Obviously our culture has had fascinations with over-the-top celebrities like these two for quite sometime now. I think the media runs stories like this over and over for both the obvious entertainment value that a lot of people can’t get enough of, and also to provide a distraction to the public that isn’t earth shattering news. “News” about Paris and Lindsay could be looked at as an outlet of escape from reality and as a way to block out the more important things that are going on in the world. Although this could be a comfort and a guilty pleasure to some in the short run, in the long run, news like this (which seems to be taking over more traditional and reliable news outlets), is overriding way more important information that is essential for people to know in order to function socially / politically and intelligently in everyday situations.
How curious that when prompted to consider the summer’s biggest media-related news, most persons’ minds seem to have leaped directly to news regarding Hollywood celebrities, rather than more (how shall I say this…) consequential media figures – or rather, media entities. I am referring now to the acquisition of Dow Jones, and consequentially the Wall Street Journal, by the implacable Aussie media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Are we now entering a world in which our news is as synthetic, adulterated, and homogenized as our clothing, our food, and our kitchen-ware? Isn’t it alarming enough that, upon opening our local hometown dailies, we discover that the bulk of the content is merely regurgitated from the AP or Reuters newswire, without so much as a verifiable byline to support it? Not to say that these sources are not trustworthy or even necessary – but if they were in any way assailable, would we stop to question them? Or do we hold news to be news, regardless of who reports it, or to whom – on the corporate level – that reporter reports? How could Murdoch’s commercial interests possibly fail to interpose themselves upon the operations of a news-source like the Wall Street Journal, the primary focus of which is, after all, to report upon matters of economic consequence? It is said that people are canceling their subscriptions already.
I guess no one has heard Chauncey Bailey? Will someone please Google him before class?
First of all I believe that there are great differences between the Dutch (European) media and the American media. In the Netherlands, more and more programs and newspapers spend time and space on the stories of troubled celebrities, but I wouldn’t call it the biggest media-related news. The media considered the most serious stick to the ‘hard news’.
The biggest news from our small country was that media-tycoon John de Mol (who launched a tv-channel in 2005) had to sell his channel. John de Mol bought all the popular television stars and programs from other stations, but couldn’t make the channel into a succes. Of course, all the other media reported about his faillure continuous.
I would have to agree with saying that the coverage of young Hollywood women such as Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie,Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears dominated the media this summer. Everywhere you looked there were pictures of their most recent activities. There were articles all over magazines and in newspapers, not to mention every news channel kept you up to date with the Paris Hilton trial. The more people wanted it, the more the media covered it.
Fortunately for me this summer, I was cut off from almost all media reach. I worked in the south of France at a resort where the only television available to me was in the lobby of the hotel, and which was often turned off or switched to French cartoons (trust me- AWFUL stuff). I had almost no contact with the internet other than about once every three weeks for half an hour or so. I found that, though my French co-workers had more access to media (television and internet in their homes) they did not seem to use it or place nearly as much importance on it as we do here in the US, where media is increasingly pervasive in our culture. The only media events I was aware of were the Tour de France, as most people discuss it from time to time and media coverage of it is constant, and when Sarkozy visited President Bush in August. I was aware of this visit because it caused not only headlines on every single paper I saw when I went to the store, but it seemed to be a murmur among the French; they are not too enthusiastic about their president getting closer to ours, and their unrest about the visit was something you could hear in conversations daily. Especially being Americans in France, our friends would make negative or sarcastic remarks about our presidents being in cahoots. It often sparked political discussions among us, and generally caused displeasure for the French; some were already disappointed with the choice of Sarkozy for president , but none agree with Bush on any level, making this media event the most important of the summer for the French and for me as well.
When I think of "big news," I think of news that sudden, immediate, and featured everywhere. Like most other people's comments, I too think that the big news was the lives of famous Hollywood girls. Its broadcast everywhere...when you sign online, aol.com has a news feature, yahoo.com has a news feature, etc. Then only after some searching on the website, I can find more significant news.
This question makes me question how people receive their news. For me, I went this summer and so far this current school year without a tv. I don't have a subscription to a newspaper, and my source for news is online. I do not use yahoo.com or aol.com for my news, but sometimes, I glance at what is featured.
Since online is my way of learning about the news, I feel that to find important news takes some digging into.
If we are in an age of progression and interaction where a news room is now an "information center," why is the most important news feature about how drunk a Hollywood starlet was the night before?
For 12 weeks in the summer I interned at Fox 5, the local news affiliate in New York. I acted as part of the team when big news stories broke such as the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the reaction to the Democratic National Convention, the massive search for a missing mother in Ohio, and the huge pipeline burst in midtown that possibly jeopardized the air quality of that part of the city. In my eyes these stories stick out as some of the top headlines of the summer, however, none of these stories will receive as much continued attention as the coverage of Hollywood’s most famous party girls. Even as I write this I can hear my TV in the background giving an update about Lindsay Lohan and her estranged father. While I don’t think that anyone has forgotten about the more serious issues in our country and in our homes, news about Lindsay, Britney, Paris and Nicole is the most easily accessible. Even the most serious hard news outlets are covering their wild lives and audiences are intrigued to watch some of the most famous people in the world finally paying for their irresponsible behaviors.
This summer’s biggest media-related news is the acquisition of Dow Jones & Co. by Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp. Mr. Murdoch, a billionaire media magnate, owns a good portion of what we read and view including Fox News, 20th Century Fox, The New York Post, various special-interest magazines, and HarperCollins Publishers. His reach spans five continents with newspapers and TV stations in many countries. The major criticism of Mr. Murdoch is that he uses his influence to push a financial and right-wing political agenda. Major concerns are raised when a man who owns so many media outlets uses his influence to choose editors who support his own thinking. Since the Wall Street Journal is published under Dow Jones, Mr. Murdoch now owns the paper as well. The concern in this case is less an issue of editorial decision-making interference by Mr. Murdoch, and more about the negative consequences of corporate control of the media.
If anyone doesn’t see this as a problem, go rent Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. Even if you don’t agree with everything in the film, it will help you see how potentially dangerous a rich media baron with an agenda can be.
Although the pipe burst in New York, or th bridge collapse in Minnesota may be seen as real news, it's the continuous foolish antics of todays stars that grab our attention the most. For weeks on end immense coverage was devoted to what was going to happen next with Paris Hilton. What Paris Hilton was going to spend her time in prison doing, or what she would be forced to eat became a diversion to other events on going on in the world. As sad as it might be, people in this country see stars as some immortal higher being, and when they slip up we are all in disbelief. From the moment they are incarcerated, we as a nation want to get inside their heads, and hopefully be able to see what they are going threw. Although the Paris Hilton story may not have the most news value, the mere fact that so many people look up to her celebrity stature, this story top media story of the summer.
Unfortunately when thinking about this question my mind distinctly remembers the summer chaos of our celebrity socialites. Britney's mothering troubles. Lindsay's drug and alcohol addictions. Paris' jail time. I tried to convice myself that i heard and saw more coverage on our presidential candidates, but that was just a lie. Every store I went in my attention went to the many magazines with strikng celebrity headlines and reveaing photographs. Everytime I turned on the t.v. their was a new public announcement regading one of these wealthy young womens' lives. I'm not ashamed to say that no matter where or when or how this information was fed to me, it did indeed catch my attention. I'm also not afraid to say that it entertained me much more than if I was to watch ABC news or read TIME magazine. I say this because after a hectic 40 hour work week mixed with the work overload from five classes each semester, I want to sit down at night and laugh at my t.v. or magazine, or atleast be amused. With the way the world is, it is very easy for people to cave to the every day stress and strain, each day people become/remain depressed. Therefore I personally do not want to in my scarce down time listen to or read about the major problems and tragedies we as a nation and as a world are forced to face. Because life alone can be a big enough challenge all by itself.
something to think about -- is the way to deal with the stress of modern life to seek more diversion from the media or to become empowered to better control those things in your life and the world that cause you stress? And how much do the media themselves induce stress? And why? What characteristics of the media would be responsible for that kind of traumatic effect?
Although the stories of the downfall of youthful female celebrities received a lot of attention from the media this summer, they are personal problems glorified due to social status. It is easy to see why so many Americans tune in to hear about the latest happenings in their lives since this type of news is a light and airy diversion to their busy day. These ladies' stories are info-tainment. The real news story this summer was the corruption in sports. Barry Bonds' breaking of Henry Aarons all time homerun record should have been a cause for celebration in the sports world but instead was a point of controversy due to his likely steroid usage. Michael Vick was another athlete who is continually making negative headlines, his alleged dog fighting activities were a shocking revelation. Now he is faced with prison time, having to pay back money from the contract he signed, and possible suspension from the NFL for more then two full seasons. There is also the case of the NBA official who was caught betting on games and possibly changing the outcome of games he was working. Sports is a multi-billion dollar industry that relies on the respect and admiration of the public audience, and that is in serious jeopardy now due to the actions of these three figures. Athletes are paid to not only perform on field but be positive role models off the field, performance enhancing drugs, dog fighting and executions, and fixing professional sporting events are the complete opposite of what is expected when an individual signs a contract.
Post a Comment