By: N. Long
Two weeks ago, our class asked, "What is journalism?" Unfortunately, we ran out of time before even getting a chance to address the massive issue. Within 2 hours of Britney Spears shaving her head, cnn.com, fox.com, and msnbc.com all had pictures with a brief article on the front page of their respective websites. On March 4th, 2007, Jonathan Curiel wrote and Op Ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about the use of sex and celebrity to sell mainstream news media. According to Curiel, the Sun, a London newspaper, attracts 9 million visitors a month to their website, making it the most popular newspaper website in England. By comparison, only a few American newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, are able to attract an equal number of visitors to their websites. Like the New York Times, the Sun covers war, politics, and crime. But unlike the Times, the Sun relegates these types of stories to page two. Page one features Britney Spears' shaved head next to a picture of a half-naked model. It should come as no surprise that the Sun is a successful newspaper, for as we all know, sex sells. However, just because stories about sex and celebrities sell, is reporting on such stories considered journalism?
Anyone who has taken Dr. Ibrahim's Broadcast Journalism course, or any basic journalism course for that matter, knows that reporters are supposed to follow a certain code of journalistic ethics. However, that code, which is voluntary, only suggests how a reporter should go about researching and reporting a story. It does not suggest what kind of story a reporter should research or report. Theoretically, media outlets should report on events relevant to the lives of their audience. Doing so would allow them to make informed decisions on a daily basis. But while people are concerned about traffic and weather, they seem to be titillated by sex and celebrity scandal.
In a democracy, majority rules. The majority of news audiences have voted by buying newspapers and visiting news websites that feature celebrity gossip and scantily-clad women. On the other hand, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. In a republic, elected officials represent the best interest of the people. While no one elected them, media owners, editors, and reporters determine the output of their newspapers, television programs, and websites. One can argue that it is their job to determine what news is relevant to the day-to-day lives of Americans. However, a news outlet can only operate so long as it has an audience, and if an audience wants sex and scandal, media outlets must report sex and scandal or risk being voted out.
Free access to news and information is inherently intertwined with a democratic system of government. But aside from being a democratic society, the United States is also a heavily capitalistic one. And in a capitalistic society, money rules all. People want sex and scandal, and people will pay to read about sex and scandal. Therefore, journalist report on sex and celebrity scandal. It may not be Pulitzer winning material, but a story is a story, and as long as journalistic principals are upheld when researching and reporting on Britney's new hairdo, it is still journalism.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/showbiz/music/02/17/britney.bald.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17197876
http://http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD5701.DTL
7 comments:
You say that the readers are titilated by reading about sex. Is there a possibility that the readers are just plain interested in the stories of people's "private" lives?
Or is it that all stories titilate the readers. You give examples of sites that viewers go to in the US which are unlike The Sun but you seem to assume the viewers are not titilated by this information i.e. war, violence, capitalism etc. Are we to assume that the public read this info. strictly to be informed and then if so what is "being informed?"
In the final analysis - Is there really a huge difference between "serious" journalism and "titilating" journalism? Is all journalism titilating? After all are we just simply curious about what is going on in the world? Do we enjoy reading stories about others (not ourselves)? Are we a public of titilating individuals?
In some ways couldn't you argue that the attention paid to celebrities is warranted. That we elevate certain people to a symbolic "everyman" status. That is to say to make sense of our own attempts to muddle through life we create these role-models to show us how people handle their lives. The fact that we become so obsessed with celebrities personal failures may say more about our own need to address issues like this than about journalistic standards.
Or maybe we're all just a shallow bunch of half-evolved apes.
Matthew - you're going back to the irish being depicted as monkeys - and on St. Paddy's day - how timely.
You make an interesting point about our need to have role models. In fact it might tie in with the idea that we see ourselves in the media but don't identify ourselves.
Like when "Playboy of the Western World" was premiered in Ireland and there was mayhem - in hindset the irish were looking at themselves but didn't want to identify themselves as what they saw.
Tommy, obviously it's the British oppressors who are mere half-evolved apes. The Irish are the finest forms of humanity to grace this earth.
Celebrities often act as an interesting double service. While Britney's couch flashing creates a public awareness of the extreme limits of public sluttiness, but her earlier embrace of sluttiness acted as a justifier for other women to enact a more open sexuality.
What we have to notice is that this 'celebrity' phenomenon is very recent one and, in old days, there were more coverage about politicians and entrepreneurs. I must say that this is very significant in history. Does it say something about a society we now live in? What I saying is there is more chance for you to be a media celebrity through YouTube and American Idol, but not much to be successful politically, or financially.
I have to disagree with No Media on this one. While I'm undecided on whether or not there is more of an emphasis on celebrity today than in the past (how long has ET held down their 7/7:30 time slot?) I do think that today's media enviornment allows people to have financial success. How much money has Paris Hilton made being famous for being famous? How about William Hung?
As far as political success... I think that is a good question. You have to be on top of your game for a long period of time with the lengthy campaigns of today, but as On the Media of a few weeks ago said, long campaigns aren't necessarily such a new thing. Maybe you need to be more careful as no stone remains unturned today.
I'd also argue that currently being a celebrity is a form of entrepreneurship. By gaining a flash in the pan, William Hung style celebrity a smart person can rapidly capitalize a volatile market and create financial independence for themselves, much as previous robber barons did in their own fields.
Post a Comment