Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Publicity for Paris

Last evening, a news reporter refused to lead with the Paris Hilton story. Several times she refused, and several times her male co-anchor tried to bring the focus back to PH, but the female was adamant: she’s NOT news, and she’s NOT a “lead story.”

She actually tried to burn the news copy, but the lighter wouldn’t light. Then, she tore it up, but again was given the copy to read. She got up from the news desk and put it through the shredder, but received yet another copy of the “lead” story to read. She warned the co-anchor that she was about to lose it, but he did the male thing and smiled that patronizing smirk that so many men do when women have the gumption to stand up for what they believe, rather than bowing in obeisance to the men in the power positions. I was rooting for her to smack his smug face and challenge him to cowboy up and do the right thing along with her: refuse to be sucked into the maelstrom of publicity for Paris.

It was one of those “I’m madder than hell and not going to take it anymore” moments that will probably cost her more than a rebuke and, possibly, her job. However, all it takes to start the momentum is one person standing up and refusing to back down. PH is a non-story, and all of the commentators are grousing about having to replace news with a blow-by-blow description of PH’s life as a “celebutant.” If more of them would refuse to read the copy, refuse to go along with the crowd, perhaps this whole PH thing would come to an end.

However, it’s being shoved down our throats as if anyone cares, and the price tag for the gagging is a cool mil. “The public wants to know” is wearing thin as a reason for the absolute crap that is clogging the media these days. What public wants to know? And does this public really want to hear the same crap over and over, regardless of what station a viewer turns to? I doubt it.

There are so many times that I wish I could “instant vote,” like we do for Dancing with the Stars or other reality shows: let ME tell YOU what I’d like to watch, rather than YOU telling ME what I must watch! It’s too easy to say turn off the TV set or change the channel if you don’t like what’s on. The demographics show that the public media is geared toward a much younger, ultra-liberal demographic, with few, if any choices, targeted toward a more mature public audience. I have money; I spend money; I also like to watch TV while I’m doing my handcrafts. Why don’t I count in the decision-making process?

I applaud the courage it took to stand up for what is not just right, but what the news reporter believes. It is rare to see ethics so fiercely defended, especially in the media. I wish more media people had the same commitment to doing what’s right and refusing to back down because they are afraid of what it’ll cost them. Being a news reader pays a lot of cash, but doing the right thing is priceless.

1 comment:

John said...

According to a recent report, the median age of TV viewers is 37. You would think that more content would focus in and around this age group (which also has the largest disposable income) than to much younger age groups.

The same study also indicated that TV shows and TV viewers tend to be more conservative to moderate-- not ultra-liberal leaning as some shows (like any Fox newscast) try to make us all think.