I rarely stop in at Huffington Post, partly because I have trouble taking its proprietor seriously. Let's see ... Arianna was a conservative who supported a very right-wing hubby's run for Congress in the 1990s and pleased other conservatives with a website demanding Clinton's resignation for the Lewinsky affair, and now she's a darling of U.S. liberals? She lacks credibility in my eyes, and probably always will.
But today I did check out the site, for the first time in many months, and found a link to an interesting piece in The Daily Beast about how celebrity news can hurt. Not because it wounds the feelings or invades the privacy of millionaire celebs who sought the spotlight in the first place, but because it distracts from literally life-and-death matters.
The shocking death of Michael Jackson has so dominated news broadcasts that it has nearly pushed the events in Iran out of people's consciousness, say observers on the political spectrum's right and left sides.
"I think we can agree that the Iranian regime benefits from the media rush to memorialize, explore and reflect upon Michael Jackson and his legacy," says a progressive commentator. Among the effects of the Jacko fixation: The mullahs who run Iran get "more room to violently suppress its opposition during a critical phase.”
Interesting post, but who's to blame? The news media for paying so much attention to Jackson's passing, or the public for being so easily distracted?
Bonus item: Sanford Should Apologize to Bill Clinton.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The over coverage of Michael's Jackson's death really bothered me. On the other hand, it reminded me of how the corporate media substitutes celebrity gossip and celebrity worship for serous, critical news like the Iranian protests anyway. I should have known better. In the future, I'll be listening more to BBC tv and radio.
I was struck by how national and international news media went to people who had only rather tangential relationships with Jackson - as a backup dancer on a single tour, or as one of his multitude of domestic staff over the years, for example. I expect that sort of thing from local media (if there's any local connection to a story getting much national attention, a local paper will run with it), but for some reason I always hope the big players will be a little more choosy.
Both good comments here. I can't think of anything to add except that the Iranians are borrowing the same enhanced interrogation methods from Busheney that Busheney borrowed from the Communists: designed to elicit torrents of false confessions. Plenty of hurt going on in modern Persia.
I agree about Huffington. Don't like or trust her bullshit.
As for Jackson. I just don't care. I've been disconnected from the internet (except for logging on a couple times a week for a few minutes) and news media for a couple months now. I have missed absolutely nothing, but have read an enormous amount of books. Wow, there is some great stuff out there to read. I'd almost forgotten.
1. SagaciousHillbilly! Good to see you drop in. I'll bet your break from the Net has been good for you. Books are so much more "user friendly" than computers. For starters there's the tactile experience of turning pages, and the fact it's so much easier to lie on a couch and read a book than lie on a couch and read from a computer screen. And it doesn't hurt the eyes.
2. Yeah, Vigilante, there's so much to be sad about in Iran. The mullahs are harsh dictators.
Post a Comment