AP says: we ignored Paris Hilton for a week

Great Debates
1

Here on CNN.com, the Associated Press admits that it tried a week-long experiment to ignore Paris Hilton — that is, it didn’t publish or distribute any news stories about the vapid, entitled perfume hawkstress.

What caught my eye about this story was this line:

Is there some value to the media deliberately ignoring or blacking out news stories in this fashion, or is this a dangerous concept of self-censorship that could lead to media manipulation of the public?

I know that the media self-censors all the time. There is, after all, a limited amount of space in a newspaper, or on a news website, or a limited broadcast time for video or radio news. Some news stories are not made widely known because they have little appeal, or are hard to encapsulate into the space or time allowed. Some news is more interesting in print than in video, and vice-versa. Some news is too complex for the intended viewer, or is the wrong venue — Entertainment Weekly, for instance, wouldn’t run many stories about the Mars rover.

Taking Paris Hilton off the news wire for a week is merely applying a more stringent standard of the word “news.” Hilton’s antics are often considered news because it’s her doing them; she is reported on in one news program because she’s famous from the other news programs. She is, in fact, famous for being famous.

I can live with the media blacking out people like Hilton, Oprah Winfrey, Howard Stern, Anna Nicole Smith, Jesse Jackson, et al, if they are not doing anything newsworthy.

Oprah donates money to a library? So do thousands of others. Howard Stern is interviewing Larry King? That’s meta-news, news about news. Jesse Jackson is outraged over something? Just tell me what is happening and leave Reverend Jackson out of it.

Would you be satisfied with media that deliberately blacked out a particular celebrity? Where does one draw the line between legitimate news and celebrity gossip? What, exactly, should the Associated Press be reporting? How much should ratings dictate the content of a news show?

Apologies if this thread has already been started somewhere; I didn’t see anything on GD, or under a search of “Hilton.”

2

I wonder what they would have done if Paris Hilton had made an important scientific discovery or assassinated a political leader during her blackout week.

3

I fail to see the problem with the AP (or other mainstream news media outlets) wasting less time on vapid celebrity if it means more time devoted to more substantive issues.

4

Define substantive.

5

The public actually chooses the news. The reporters tell us what we want to hear. Maybe not me (of course) or you, but the general populace wants this stuff. How do you explain the tabloids and “mainstream” magazines like People? I wouldn’t read one of these for free, let alone actually spend money on one.

100 truly is the average IQ of a society.

6

Who?

7

I’m sorry that it was only a week.

I had the interesting experience of being away in Mexico City during the week following Anna Nicole Smith’s death. My return to American news cultutre started immediately in the Dallas airport, where two teasers about two different shows were about Anna Nicole Smith, which segued right into news coverage about Anna Nicole Smith.

If they simply cannot find enough other news to put on with the void left by not talking about Paris Hilton, they ought to just turn into People Magazine TV. That way, they could dispense with the 30 minutes a day they spend actually educating people about things like who is the leader of North Korea and where North Korea is relative to South Korea.

I mean, don’t you just want to weep when you hear how newscasters spoke to their audiences in the 40s, 50s and even 60s, speaking as if they were literate and intelligent?

8

Interesting. It’s certainly true that 100 should be the average IQ of a population, even ours, but I think the average IQ of our society is substantially lower.

9

Like when Murrow interviewed Liberace?

10

Hilton is a celebrity only because the media tells us so. If they choose to not tell us so at every opportunity, I applaud their decision.

11

I don’t think that is really the question, silenus. What would Paris Hilton have to do in order to qualify as news-worthy?

If she took over management of the Hilton hotel company, that would be news for the business pages. If she introduced a line of perfumes that could be covered in a fashion magazine. If she were driving drunk and killed someone, that would certainly be local news.

It’s fun to bash Hilton as the generic shouldn’t-be-a-celeb, but where is the line?

12

Every news outlet makes an editorial decision as to what to cover, and in what way. That’s why you need to read a number of sources to get a balanced look at what’s happening. AP just decided that what she was doing normally was not worth reporting. If she had done something noteworthy, they would have reported it. Compare the front page of CNN to the front page of FOXNews. Some overlap, but there are stories that each cover that the other doesn’t. That is strictly an editorial (and in the end economic) decision.

13

Same things as the rest of us.

And if I did those things, they would also be news. It’s when she does something that wouldn’t be news if it were someone else, that we’re talking about.

14

Actions and events that have an impact on a nontrivial number of people, especially outside of a small circle of friends.

As an example, Paris Hilton dying is not, any way you slice it, going to directly impact 99.9% of the people of the United States and/or the world. The revelation that 88% of the National Guard is “not ready” will have a significant impact on a lot of people, especially if we get another Katrina-style event that requires the deployment of said Guardsmen.

15

Paris Hilton’s frequent appearance in the “news” is directly related to her ability to inspire non-trivial numbers of people (especially women) to pay attention. Newspapers, magazines and TV shows get their money from advertisers who pay close attention to how many are reading/watching.

In short, if something/someone comes along that can make them money, publishers/broadcasters are awfully likely to call that “news” and see that it’s well covered. It’s naive to think that decisions about what to cover are ever far away from this model.

16

Less celebrity news can only be a good thing, but a blackout of an individual is different from a normal editorial decision not the same as your run-of-the-mill editorial decisions. Although it’s hard to feel bad about that when the person is Paris Hilton. The move could create some conversation about how the media covers celebrities, but ultimately it’ll probably just be more attention for Paris Hilton.

17

I would greatly prefer news agencies to cover news, rather than promote celebrities.

One of the primary reasons I read CBC news on-line is that there is minimal celebrity coverage, and what little there is is easily skipped over, whereas on television, it cannot be skipped over. By comparison, FOX does not offer news – it offers entertainment in the guise of news.

18

Unfortunately, the people who disagree with you have been spending a great deal of money on advertisers’ products.

19

I don’t know how that went, but I bet he interviewed Liberace intelligently. :slight_smile:

20

This reminds me of the Mississippi River floods of 1993. For those of you who don’t remember, at one point the entire state of Iowa was technically under water.

For something like six weeks, the news media in the flood path were “all flood, all the time.” There was virtually no news. particularly on local TV or radio that wasn’t flood-related.

One of the TV stations went back and looked at what actually happened while they were occupied with flood stories. There was NO CHANGE in the number of homicides, carjackings, bank robberies, fatal car crashes and the rest of the assorted detritus that normally makes up the evening newscasts.

I have no doubt that despite the news blackout Paris Hilton continued her clubbing, text messaging and whatever else occuipies her time. But in the long run, it doesn’t make any difference.