Distinctions between the tablod media and the so-called "serious" media have been eroding for quite some time. People here may recall that it was the National Inquirer that first broke the Jennifer Flowers story back in the 1992 presidential campaign, only then to be followed up by such publications as the NY Times and Washington Post. I remember that a few years earlier, the NY Times carried excerpts from Kitty Kelley's bio of Nancy Reagan on its front page, which shows that the tabloidization of the quality press has been going on since at least the late 1980s.
Jim F.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 04:51:24 +1100 Catherine Driscoll
<catherine.driscoll at arts.usyd.edu.au> writes:
> Quoting Kelley <the-squeeze at pulpculture.org>:
>
> > When you say tabloid--what kinds of shows do you mean?
> Entertainment
> > Tonight? Springer?
>
> Oh no: Hard Copy is a classic example but there are more debatable
> examples. So
> there are tabloid elements of 60minutes (I'd say dominant ones), but
> it's still
> sold as current affairs, whereas hard copy never was -- nor is
> e-news, or
> entertainment tonight. The difference is they conced being about
> entertainment,
> whereas "tabloid" doesn't. It's been a while since I was in the
> States, so I'm
> less able to find great examples of the distinction from there.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT:
> http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/
>
>
________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com