One thing that never changes with journalism is that attention and excitement is greater with reporting that highlights the out of the ordinary, the shocking, the provocative, and the transgressive.
"Attention" applies both to readers/viewers, who love to observe human frailty and silliness and nobility and courage, among many characteristics, and to journalists themselves, who find it difficult to resist feeding audience interest and making a bigger "splash" than their rivals.
I don't blame readers or journalists. This is simple human behavior and has not changed in millennia. Technology has certainly changed, which mostly speeds things up.
The fascination with the Will Smith slap of Chris Rock produces reams of punditry and some of those experts find ways to label some states as "pro-Will" or "pro-Chris." Really? Aren't we divided enough? I have read thousands of words -- I couldn't resist -- on the incident and am amazed at how much can be read into a simple out-of-control moment.
Here's what I saw: two rich guys arguing and posing. To try to read too much into such a weird and ultimately irrelevant event is silly.
A better use of our time might be contemplate things that are not one-time unusual events, despite the combination of celebrity, violence (though not life-threatening), and gender roles, with a side helping of family history (Smith's father hit his mother when Will was 9 and at least some have claimed this was his moment to defend his mom, in some twisted way).
More important would be stories on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wacky wife, Ginni. She is clearly far down the conspiracy rathole, and he must know this. He may be there too, for all we know. He rarely speaks. They are self-described "best friends" and it's difficult to imagine them not discussing all those election fraud allegations and various attempts to overturn a legal election.
For some reason, most people are not calling loudly for Judge Thomas to retire. He clearly has to go. He has abused the public's trust in voting on Jan. 6-related cases and once a judge becomes suspect in one area, the judge loses credibility in all areas. "I only sinned this one time," is a weak defense.
There is a pattern of behavior in the story of the Thomas partnership, and patterns take lots of time to identify, develop, and analyze.
They don't make quite the splash as a televised slap but their effects are much larger.
The revelation that nearly eight hours of White House logs are missing from Jan. 6, is part of another pattern of law skirting or law breaking, or maybe just stupid behavior. Trump is a crook. My dad used to label pretty much anyone with power as "crooks," and he wasn't concerned with legal niceties. He was referring to bad behavior and a healthy skepticism (on his part, which I share) about the rich and powerful.
Russia invading Ukraine is a huge story, but it is part of a pattern that only occasionally garnered enough energy and outrage for many journalists to report on. Putin has been a KGB thug all along, but as long as we could ignore most of his transgressions, we had pop culture fights and invented conspiracies to keep us busy.
Journalism loves a scandal mostly because readers and viewers love a scandal. NOT being involved in a scandal helps us feel morally superior even as our daily lives may drag along, plagued by petty injustices and disappointments and nobody really caring about those who were NOT in the Oscars theater or in a rich and powerful family of politicians. "Hey! At least I didn't slap a guy on national TV," we might think. And we might think, "Man, I wish I could slap someone on national TV."
Either of those reactions are not going to improve anyone's life.
Rome had formal circuses to entertain and placate the rabble. Too often, modern media functions as a circus.
Still, there are opportunities to change some of that in our student media programs. The key is to teach students that there are viable options to constantly shouting and hyperventilating.
No comments:
Post a Comment