I'm obviously not a fan of "celebrity journalism" -- gossip tabloids and such, but it does have its place, and at least shows the double-edged-sword side of fame and publicity. I don't read it, and it seems like the practitioners of that particular dark art should go out and find respectable work, such as giving handjobs for crack in a needle-strewn gutter. But it's easy to see how people can enjoy the temporary rush of reading tacky, scurrilous innuendo about the hapless souls who are at some indefinable -- even to themselves -- point on a predictable arc from discovery to love to loathing to (maybe) redemption.
But what really makes this Esquire profile of the Page Six tabloid is how eager these celebro-journos were to compromise themselves ethically, and then how many of them made the jump to other areas of manufacturing consent.
Toward the end of the article, it mentions how many of these turds would show up at Harvey Weinstein's big parties, with many popular stars in attendance, and omit details about Weinstein's frequent abusive outbursts, and accusations of physical and sexual assault, in order to ensure their invite to the next one. This appears to be the rule for these people, rather than the exception.
Earlier in the piece, it mentions how one of the tabloid writers, Tara Palmeri, eventually got on with ABC News, covering the White House. Now, this is not to single out Palmeri as a particularly noteworthy offender (especially since, frankly, she's fucking hot), but to suggest her as a rather mundane example of how "journalists" as a general class become accustomed to operating. They take the same shoddy ethical standards and style of coverage with them from entertainment to sports to news.
And that is the problem with the American corporate media ecosystem, right there in a nutshell. You cannot cover the people who run the damned country in the same way you do PR puff pieces on Matt Damon or LeBron James, and expect to maintain any sort of rigorous standard in the content you produce.
This is how the New York Times has been compromised so badly, and it seems that the Washington Post is sliding back under that low bar as well. Both papers (but especially the Times) tend to rely heavily on unnamed sources "speaking on background" regarding whatever bombshell-of-the-day they're peddling. As stupid and oafish as Trump may be, he at least understands, as Jimmy Breslin pointed out decades ago, that the media monkeys come cheap and easy -- all you have to do is return their phone calls.
So what do you think the likelihood is that Trump has people all through his inner circle who understand just how to use the credulous dupes at the Times to broadcast their messaging for free, in the guise of "reporting"? How much fact-checking do you think Maggie Haberman bothers with, to corroborate or refute whatever White House shithead "leaked" to her? The only thing this human centipede of an administration does competently is propaganda, and they know how to use the Times for their own means, just as Harvey Weinstein knew how to use Page Six for his.
But in the end, it's a free market, and companies don't sell what people won't buy. Jabbering assholes like Tweety Matthews are still on the air because someone's dumb enough to keep watching him, even though he has yet to have a fresh or interesting observation on any subject. Vulture capitalists are tearing through local and regional newspapers like a swarm of army ants because they can, and because no one will stop them.
This situation will never get better until enough people become more discerning consumers, and stop rewarding shoddy, cynical hacks like we have now.
But what really makes this Esquire profile of the Page Six tabloid is how eager these celebro-journos were to compromise themselves ethically, and then how many of them made the jump to other areas of manufacturing consent.
Toward the end of the article, it mentions how many of these turds would show up at Harvey Weinstein's big parties, with many popular stars in attendance, and omit details about Weinstein's frequent abusive outbursts, and accusations of physical and sexual assault, in order to ensure their invite to the next one. This appears to be the rule for these people, rather than the exception.
Earlier in the piece, it mentions how one of the tabloid writers, Tara Palmeri, eventually got on with ABC News, covering the White House. Now, this is not to single out Palmeri as a particularly noteworthy offender (especially since, frankly, she's fucking hot), but to suggest her as a rather mundane example of how "journalists" as a general class become accustomed to operating. They take the same shoddy ethical standards and style of coverage with them from entertainment to sports to news.
And that is the problem with the American corporate media ecosystem, right there in a nutshell. You cannot cover the people who run the damned country in the same way you do PR puff pieces on Matt Damon or LeBron James, and expect to maintain any sort of rigorous standard in the content you produce.
This is how the New York Times has been compromised so badly, and it seems that the Washington Post is sliding back under that low bar as well. Both papers (but especially the Times) tend to rely heavily on unnamed sources "speaking on background" regarding whatever bombshell-of-the-day they're peddling. As stupid and oafish as Trump may be, he at least understands, as Jimmy Breslin pointed out decades ago, that the media monkeys come cheap and easy -- all you have to do is return their phone calls.
So what do you think the likelihood is that Trump has people all through his inner circle who understand just how to use the credulous dupes at the Times to broadcast their messaging for free, in the guise of "reporting"? How much fact-checking do you think Maggie Haberman bothers with, to corroborate or refute whatever White House shithead "leaked" to her? The only thing this human centipede of an administration does competently is propaganda, and they know how to use the Times for their own means, just as Harvey Weinstein knew how to use Page Six for his.
But in the end, it's a free market, and companies don't sell what people won't buy. Jabbering assholes like Tweety Matthews are still on the air because someone's dumb enough to keep watching him, even though he has yet to have a fresh or interesting observation on any subject. Vulture capitalists are tearing through local and regional newspapers like a swarm of army ants because they can, and because no one will stop them.
This situation will never get better until enough people become more discerning consumers, and stop rewarding shoddy, cynical hacks like we have now.
No comments:
Post a Comment