by Mark Rhoads
Today both the New York Times and LA Times are running in depth articles about why Sarah Palin "really" resigned from the office of governor of a small state. I cannot figure out this very eccentric fascination with the Palin resignation story which, while interestng or curious to observers of politics,it is hardly the kind of hard news story that deserves all the saturation coverage and punditry it has generated-at least not in relation to other hard news such as the Sotomayor nomination hearings. At first, I thought is was the media obession with political power and celebrity at work in combination. But even that does not explain this pathology of demonization of a person who last year was relatively obscure political figure before she was asked by Sen. John McCain to be his running
mate. I don't like to indulge in arm-chair psychology but I do have to wonder about the alarming low estate of American TV and print journalism compared to former days of better standards and professionalism. For some reason Palin, beyond being a poltical figure, is now someone whose name alone helps sell papers or boost circulation and TVratings. As long as she does, even mainstream media outlets will not let her alone. The latter-day immaturity of senior news assignment editors and columnists merely reflects the growing immaturity of their readers and viewers. Little else could explain how the death of singer Michael Jackson became a bigger story than the death of a head of state. The news maxim "if it bleeds it leads" is not new but it is now applied more indiscriminately than in earlier years. Unfortunately one thing they cannot teach at journalism school is maturity and a sense of proportion or historical perspective. A long as celebrities of any kind help feed the celebrity obsession, this kind of fake journalism will continue to focus on "stories" that by the standards of other years would not have been newsworthy enough to warrant saturation coverage.
Comments