For the sake of improving the public discourse and to at least slow the cultural entropy, we continued not to mention Paris Hilton in the newspaper.
I am not saying she and her ilk are not topics to be discussed. I, like most people, scan the tabloid headlines at the checkout counter (“Look, Nostradamus says the world is about to end, again” “Do you really think the Olsens have a third twin?”). I also may go a half step further if I’m in a waiting room with a copy of People magazine and I lack other reading material.
Nevertheless, some things don’t belong in a newspaper, especially one that is of a smaller size. If you’ve got 30 plus pages to fill in the A run, like a lot of metros, I can understand spending a bit more time on some of the lighter stuff. When there are days when we don’t even have space for a world page, and in same instances a national page, I’m not inclined to fill what little space I have on celebrity sentencing/meltdowns/rehab/firing the combination parent and agent/ in trouble with the law again stories.
A couple months ago, before the most recent chapters, the Associated Press tried an “experiment” where they wouldn’t cover Ms. Hilton. While there was no flat out ban against mentioning her, reporters were encouraged not to mention her and give her coverage unless it was truly merited.
This attempt barely lasted a week, and probably attracted more attention to Ms. Hilton than what she would have normally earned on what was a quiet week (no arrests, no embarrassing videos leaked). For that brief period, she made headlines in other outlets for not making AP headlines.
Of course when the blackout ended, the AP looked more foolish than ever. An editor admitted the unofficial boycott had set them up to look hypocritical at the end; though to me I find it more ironic to be report about why we weren’t reporting earlier. Obviously, this was not journalism at its best.
There is a media business model that states because the people want something, we should give it to them.
I also remember a teaching assistant nicknaming this the “drug dealer” rationale, as in, “If they weren’t buying it, I wouldn’t sell it.”
I understand the argument, but it breaks down pretty quickly in most applications. Can you imagine a car dealership selling doughnuts on the side because people seem to like doughnuts? How about the local cable company offering dog grooming? Maybe having your clothes dry cleaned at the dentist while getting your teeth cleaned (a double sheen, double clean special; not valid on Fridays)?
While there are a few business that attempt to have their fingers in as many pies as possible, like Wal-Mart or Google, most understand that they are better off catering to a niche market. By doing what they do best, and hopefully better than others, that’s where they can make a difference.
We’re leaving the Paris stuff for others to cover. Community newspapers aren’t looked to as a source of celebrity gossip, and we don’t care to change that.
Of course when (--fill--in--name--of—a--celebrity--on—the--verge--of--another--breakdown--) goes over the edge again, we’ll talk.
“There's a riot going on...”
