You're Not the Boss of Me

The United States of America is a nation founded on the principal that we are all created equal. When the Pilgrims left England to settle in the new world, they acted out of indignation at being treated as inferiors by the king whom they saw as a man no different from any of them. Generations later, the patriots fought the same fight against a new king. Both groups refused to accept one man's judgment on how they should live their lives. Neither believed that a ruler could be superior to them merely because he was of royal birth. When the rest of the world automatically bowed down to the ruling class, those who founded this nation dared to question the authority. No one, they said, should rule simply because he is born into a certain family; out of this, America was conceived. The Founding Fathers wanted to live in a place where there was no "ruling class". In old Europe, kings and queens influenced popular opinion, created fashion trends, and captivated the attention of millions. In America today, the red carpet once walked by monarchy is now the property of movie stars and talk show hosts. Faces in the media have filled the void in our culture left by democracy. Those in search of an idol need look no further than the Hollywood Hills. Yet even as we are awed by them, we are deeply uncomfortable with their presence, realizing that as we are able to look up to them, they are able to look down on us. We want to believe that we are all equal, but are some more equal than others? As years pass, we become more and more obsessed with knocking idols off of their pedestals. I believe that this attitude is reflected very clearly in the slowly morphing behavior of the New York Times towards media moguls.

In the winter of 1985, Thomas Murphy took over leadership of the ABC network. In the spring of 1987, the New York Times ran an article on the front page of their business section, featuring a picture of Murphy over a large bold headline: "Not Ready for Prime-Time?" The subtitle states "Thomas Murphy of Capital Cities/ABC got more than be bargained for when he acquired the network." The story's focus does not stray. "But Murphy is also extremely frustrated," the writer, Geraldine Fabrikant, states early in the article. "The ABC network...is in disastrous shape. After generating profits of $100 million in 1985, ABC suffered a $70 million loss last year. Its prime-time ratings are the lowest since 1957." The caption beneath Murphy's picture features a quote from him, "I have been losing more than I have been winning. But, I am still swinging." While Fabrikant's attitude is not disrespectful, the tone of the article is undoubtedly negative. There is a good reason for this. Watching someone fail who is in charge of what we see on our televisions is compelling. It makes us feel more secure in our obscurity. It proves that we all make mistakes. Ultimately, it proves that we are all equal.

On September 29th of this year, the Times printed another media-centric article on the front page of its business section. Under a large color photo of talk show icon Jay Leno, the headline reads "Why Make Leno a Lame Duck? To Protect Late-Night Cash Cow". The writer, Bill Carter, opens thusly: "After NBC's surprise announcement Monday of the unusual deal that secured Conan O'Brien as the next host of the 'Tonight' show at the end of a five-year transition period, the question facing the network's executives yesterday was one the current host, Jay Leno, once memorably asked: 'What were you thinking?' Unlike Hugh Grant, the actor who answered that question on Mr. Leno's show in 1995 in his first television appearance after being arrested with a prostitute, NBC's executives, along with everyone else involved in the negotiations with the two stars, were maintaining an official silence yesterday." Later in the article it becomes clear that Carter actually agrees with the network's decision. "...protecting the late-night franchise is more important than ever. Indeed, at a time when most of the network television audience continues to erode, late-night programs remain not just stable, but actually capable of growth." The network executives have actually not made a mistake, Carter admits. Why his critical and mistrustful tone so early in the article, then? He has good reason. "Network Bigwigs Make Smart Decision for Late-Night T.V." isn't an eye-catching headline. Phrases like "Lame Duck" and "Cash Cow", however, imply some kind of underhanded dealing, and perhaps a bit of shortsightedness as well. When the story is a positive one about the authority figures, the Times feels it must still maintain the appearance of failure, particularly in the opening paragraphs.

Centuries have passed since the founding of our country, yet we still hold the same truths to be self-evident. We are all created equal. Our culture, however, having lost sight of what makes someone valuable, is made insecure by those who appear to be more successful than the average person. In our overzealous attempts to bring celebrities down to our level, we have trampled them beneath our feet. That is not equality. The New York Times article about late-night talk shows and the executives who control them is evidence of how we have gone too far. Have we reached the point where we will not read a story in the newspaper unless it portrays authority figures in a negative light? If not, will that day come? Perhaps we should watch the headlines to find out. It is time for the media, our new ruling class, to stop biting its own tail and start reminding us of what is truly important in life. We are equal. Let's start acting like it.

Sources:

The New York Times -
"Why Make Leno a Lame Duck? To Protect Late-Night Cash Cow" (September 29th 2004)
"Not Ready for Prime-Time?" (April 16th 1987)