Trivial Media Matters

Last night, an old and very dear college friend came into town, and I went to meet her at ESPN Zone. She didn't realize it was a tourist trap and quickly got tired of spending eight dollars per beer, so I escorted her to several bars, trying to find the one with just the right vibe. Quiet, cozy, and cheap. We find the place, and we've somehow managed to sneak a six pack inside the back room where we drape ourselves rather unceremoniously over the sofas. And instead of catching up with this friend, who I consider family, as she considers me, what did we wind up talking about? Phil Spector, Rihanna, and Letterman vs. Palin.

I try to make it a rule to ignore this kind of thing, but sensationalistic "news" is so pervasive. And it's not just the scandals...it's the who's seeing who, and who's wearing what and all that just seems so ubiquitous. I mean, c'mon, remember the spectacle of the O.J. Simpson trial, and how Kato Kaelin became a celebrity? (Maybe not given how our attention spans just keep shrinking). That was a sorry state of affairs.

The erosion of the barrier between entertainment news and journalism has cheapened the quality of the news we get. When Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court, whether or not you agreed with her politics, it was a historic moment. But with all due respect, how many different times must we hear that she broke her ankle?

When news coverage concerns celebrity, it generally reinforces celebrity mores as either the norm or an ideal to aspire to. I'm mostly talking about bad behavior and its apologists, many of whom are correspondents on shows like Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight. Coverage of Amy Winehouse at best does nothing to help her. But then again, interest dies when the addiction dies down, right? And those shows aren't journalistic endeavors by any stretch of the loose definition that defines local news and much of print and online media, though they have considerable impact.

The steadily devolving standard of news shifts focus away from things that are actually important and it somehow communicates that we want more, that we crave more of the crap. And watching isn't enough. Interaction, participation is essential. Everybody wants to be a part of the celebrity enterprise, or God forbid, a celebrity, fueled not only by the shows themselves, but by morning news shows interviewing the castoffs as if they were returning soldiers. The vast majority of these people who have poured so much of themselves into these absurd dreams (especially into the lower rent reality shows) that their perceptions, and often judgment, are distorted (recall the riots at the America's Next Top Model auditions in March, or the reactions of the contestants who don't make it pass the initial screening process of American Idol), should be pitied rather than placed on some pedestal, even for fifteeen minutes.

I don't know what the solution is to this problem, especially since I know a lot of people who don't view it as a problem, and quite a few who view it as insurmountable. I think though, if people began to realize that their own lives were just as important as Madonna's, and they started doing things to enrich themselves like reading a book, or running in the park, rather than living vicariously through others, then this culture of personality would wane a bit. Then perhaps news shows would begin to focus on, you know, things that actually impact our daily lives, rather than what the Jonas Brothers eat for lunch.

That's not the whole answer of course, I read regularly but I still know far more about Paris Hilton than I should. And I'm not too optimistic. I've seen the upcoming television schedules. "Celebrity Lookalike Dating?" Scary.

Sources

Attention span, Wikipedia

Jack Healy, Arrests After Melee at TV Casting Call, The New York Times