
By Paul A. Greenberg
By now, unless you live in a cave, you have no doubt heard about film actor Alec Baldwin's telephonic meltdown with his pre-pubescent daughter. And by now you have likely also heard about actor David Hasselhoff's drunken stupor video, filmed by his daughter. And we're all privy to the news that Paris Hilton has been sentenced to 45 days in jail, and that her mother, Kathy Hilton, pronounced the judicial proceedings "pathetic."
Before you scroll up to make sure you are still reading the right blog, fear not: Liz Smith is not taking over Beyond Katrina. I bring up these headline grabbers merely to point to what our culture demands. We are a pop-culture culture. All strata of Americans have fallen under the spell of pop culture. But, as a journalist, I have to ask whether we are mising the forest for the trees. Are we so caught up in the lives of celebrities that we are neglecting the truly important stuff in our own lives?'
During the last couple of weeks, while Baldwin, Hasselhoff and Hilton (sounds like a law firm, doesn't it?) were hogging the headlines, here are some other things that happened in our world:
- "America's Mayor" and Republic presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said President Bush will historically be seen as a "great" president, as the one who aggressively confronted terrorism in the world. Giuliani then called for 35,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq, just days after his great president vetoed a bill passed by Congress calling for measured troop withdrawals to begin by a pre-determined date.
- Hillary Clinton spoke out vehemently against President Bush's "incompetence" in the days following Hurricane Katrina. She also committed herself to provide increased funding for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast if she is elected in 2008. By the end of the week, Clinton also announced she would join forces with West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D) in an attempt to rescind the war powers granted to the President by Congress in 2002. If successful, the move would make Congressional approval mandatory before the President can send more troops to Iraq.
- The Washington Post reported this week that about $854 million was offered by allied countries worldwide after Hurricane Katrina. To date, the Post reports, only $40 million in foreign aid has been funneled to the Gulf Coast. The story goes this way: Apparently the Bush administration was stymied on what to do when offered this aid, since the U.S. is not usually in a position to need or accept such assistance. (How, and from whom the $40 million was accepted is unclear, but what is eminently clear is that $800 million could have put the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast into fast forward mode).
So, how did Baldwin, Hasselhoff, et. al trump Giuliani, Clinton and further missteps in the ongoing Post-Katrina drama? Easily. Competition among media companies is so intense, that sound editorial judgment is often sacrificed for readership or ratings. How else could Paris Hilton merit a mention on the evening news, while aross the earth in an undisclosed location, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri released a new video in which he commented on the above-mentioned U.S. troop withdrawal controversy: "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe and unforgettable lesson," al Zawahiri offered.
Do not scurry over to YouTube.com hoping to see Zawahiri's rant. You could, however, find all of the following on YouTube right now:
- Britney Spears' infamous head-shaving evening
- Lindsay Lohan avoiding paparazzi after leaving rehab
- British actor Hugh Grant throwing baked beans at a photographer
I have a friend who compares American culture to a pendulum. He says at various times the pendulum swings all the way in one direction, lingers there for a while (sometimes for years), and then slowly corrects itself back to enter balance. In the 1960s, for example, the pendulum swung hard to one side and exhibited itself in counter-culture extremes and activistic acting out. By the mid-1970s that was all behind us, as the pendulum righted itself to center -- some might call that the emerging public apathy that lasted well into the 1980s. By the mid 1980s with the onset of the AIDS crisis and Reaganesque prosperity, the pendulum swung wildly back and forth, but by then pop culture was in full swing. Will we ever forget Crystal Carrington's shoulder pads on Dynasty, or J.R. Ewing's 10-gallon hats on Dallas?
Today, the pendulum is way off to one side -- media is now all pervasive, and the conventional wisdom seems to hold that Paris Hilton's jail sentence carries more weight and gets more ink than possible torture of prisoner's at a U.S. Naval base detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Amnesty International has now mounted a full campaign to close the facility. You haven't heard about it? I rest my case.
Along the way, media joined the march toward mediocrity and unwittingly fed the public's increasingly demanding appetite for all things celebrity. in 1974, People Magazine published its first issue, with Mia Farrow on the cover. I was in journalism school at the time, and I remember a true fascination with this new journalistic genre. Professors of a certain age ranted wildly against this threatening curve in the journalistic road, and warned us against it. I had to hide my People Magazine inside of my spiral notebook, just so my old profs wouldn't berate me for wanting to know more about Mia, et. al. These days we don't hid our People Mag, US Weekly, or In Touch. We count on TMZ.com for our daily fix of pop culture, and we do it all at the expense of being fully informed about the world around us.
Mainstream and traditional media have now cried a sort of editorial "uncle." Remember when you were a kid and your friends ganged up on you and made you cry uncle? Same thing. Newspapers have reduced editorial copy in favor of big, color pictures, while weekly news magazines more closely resemble their distant People and US Weekly cousins than ever. We are more intrigued by the high government official who resigned after being outed as a D.C. madam's client, than we are in the high government official who insists on sending our sons and daughters to die in a country that does not even want our help.
Experience teaches us that media goes with the flow. It does not mean that media caves to every pop culture pressure that lures it away from the essential business of reporting the news and contributing to the mix of ideas. But it does mean that media has not adhered to its basic tenets of objectivity and fair and balanced reporting as steadfastly as we might like. In the study of media ethics we would file this under the heading of a concept called "social utility." Social utility is the process of editorial decision making that distinguishes what is most necessary to report a story, from what is not. So, for example, did we really need to know that Rudy Giuliani is all but estranged from his children since divorcing their mother and remarrying? Or, would it perhaps be more in the public interest to report on Giuliani's increasingly hawkish views on the Iraq war? These are tough questions. Some might say we need to know about Giuliani's family relationships in order to understand his character. Others might say it is none of our business.
Social Utility is sometimes easier to navigate. Consider entertainer and budding political activist Rosie O'Donnell. O'Donnell is routinely in the headlines for her comments and views on the Iraq war, the Bush administration, and gay rights. you may not agree with some of her views, but one cannot deny her right to express herself. Further, maybe it does show good editorial judgment to report on her rants. It seems O'Donnell has managed to amp up the national conversation. You know -- the conversation about issues rather than fluff. And, once everyone gets past attacking the messenger, we do seem to be focusing more closely on the message. Further, is it not about time we started focusing on messages of substance, rather than messages from confused young celebs who almost never use their public platform to stir things up as O'Donnell has? Think about it.
Social utility does not always ensure a smart message. The Sunday edition of the New York Daily News settled on a full page photo of Paris Hilton, with the headline, "Payback is a..." Not that the News is anybody's idea of an arbiter of editorial literacy, but it is widely read--it claims to have the largest daily and Sunday circulation in New York City. That being said, I can't help wondering if the front page photo of Paris in her Sophia Loren sunglasses could have been better used deep inside the paper, and the front page given over to the growing anti-war movement in America, or say, George Bush's instant promise to rebuild Greensburg, KS, the town devastated by last week's tornado.
These are fast times in America. One day it's Anna Nicole Smith, the next it's Don Imus and suddenly it's Virginia Tech. Katrina? Ancient history, if we gauge newsworthiness by headlines. Still, history tends to repeat itself, so it is incumbent upon good journalists to see their stories through to the end, and to resist the editorial temptations of featuring Baldwin, Hasselhoff and Hilton. I would apeal to journalists to cater more to the public's collective intellect and to its need to be fully informed on matters that truly affect American lives. Baldwin's anger management problem is old news; Hasselhoff's alcoholism is a personal issue that might best be worked out below the radar; and Hilton? Hilton is like sorbet between courses -- cool, but vacuous and temporary.
Don't get me wrong. I like People Magazine, but I will not limit myself to it. I'm putting in my bid for substance. Somewhere out there, there just have to be some new age Cronkites and Murrows. I'm just sure of it.
Recent Comments