I listened, to a Sirius broadcast, "Talk Left", very briefly yesterday. I forgot whom; name was Alex, or something...
He made the argument that the Paris Hilton imprisonment (then release) was not news, that it was "entertainment". He also made the argument that sports was not entirely news, but in part entertainment. I suspect it had to do with the fact that CNN cut from G8, or something, to the Hilton thing.
I agree with him that it was absurd that Iraq, G8, Darfur etc in the same league, in in terms of newsworthiness, as Hilton's imprisonment. The AttentionWhore™ also mentioned something about the public being more interested in "AMerican Idol" than justice, or the travesty in Iraq. I disagree with him that Hilton's imprisonment was "entertainment"... Sadly, newspapers in most societies cover what they consider to be their most important constituency, or in the interest of their constituency based, in variably on proximity. It would be difficult to envisaged a WSJ in Poughkeepsie. So, the LA Times may be forgiven, for instance, for reporting on the screwings and the doings of the film industry and/or the individuals who represent it, or give it its hegemoneity, or whatever. Even more sadly is the belief/understanding that people are important/famous only because they are famous - and not for something they have achieved, or done. Mini-Celebs. This is clearly the case of Hilton; although proximal power and importance may be derived from her father ...
Anyway, the farce of her imprisonment may be entertaining to some of us, but it is not entertainment, it is news. Because I, to use a terrible example, found out about a year ago who Paris Hilton was, may be interested in her good/bad fortune, may want to know about it. She certainly isn't entertaining... now where was a going with this argument.
Anyway. These are some thoughts.
Ismail
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.