I can understand people's fascination with the lives of the famous. In unguarded moments, I sometimes feel the voyeuristic impulse to look at photos of the glitterati. I expect that these reactions are pretty wide-spread, and that there isn't anything particularly wrong with them--at least as long to they mostly kept in check. But they often aren't kept in check. That in and of itself, isn't particularly surprising. What I do find disappointing and even somewhat unexpected is the way that the mainstream media have decided that pandering to our rubber-necking instincts is acceptable journalistic behavior. For example, one might hope that CNN would be committed to bringing us serious news stories. But their website frequently has "top stories" about the reported pregnancy of a starlett or the couch-jumping confessions of a former ersatz top gun. Fox and MSNBC are no better on this score.
What I would dearly love to see is a network that would decide that the private lives of the famous are, well, private (and mostly uninteresting--at least to our higher natures) and which would steadfastly ignore the gossip and celebrity worship that infects the other news networks. I'd pay extra, I think, for the uncompromised integrity.
Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My approach is to not watch TV at all, but to get information from the Internet, magazines, radio, and newspapers.
Yet, I still have to see these celebrities at the check out stand at the supermarket, sadly. They have no virtue, only fame and glamour. It is pathetic.
Doug,
Sorry to be late responding: it didn't occur to me that anyone would read my new, poor-excuse-for-a, blog.
Part of the problem for me is that the celebrity "news" stuff is often found not only on the main homepage of web news sources like CNN.com and MSNBC.com, but that those stories are often on the main "breaking news" section of those sites. In fact, it was primarily the websites I had in mind when I wrote that post.
Post a Comment