Patricia Nell Warren

No to Newsroom Nitpicking

Filed By Patricia Nell Warren | March 25, 2009 6:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: Mainstream media

The other day, the fashion police's scream about Michelle Obama's turquoise boots was heard around the world. This on the heels of their shriek that her sleeveless dresses are "inappropriate" in the White House. When I think of all the urgent news bulletins that had to make room for sartorial slips by the First Lady, it makes me want to weep. Fashionista nitpicking has its place in American life, for sure. But not at the top of the news.

Back in the day when newspapers mattered, there were protocols about the relative importance of any given piece of news. The book format of a newspaper dictated where you put what.

The front page, and the first few pages generally, was reserved for important stuff, like war news, strikes, Presidential speeches, summit meetings, major political scandal, death of an important figure, etc. etc. There were sections for local news, editorials, sports, fashion and society, entertainment, real estate, classifieds....and of course the comics. They all had their assigned higher or lesser priorities in an orderly news world. Maybe, just maybe, the World Series or an nasty Hollywood divorce might get on page one, but never above the fold!

Even in the Sixties, when the media first started going gaga over First Lady fashion (i.e. Jackie Kennedy's Paris gowns), most editors had sense enough to put red-carpet stories in the society and fashion sections towards the back of the paper, where they belonged.

Today, with the media so diverse and so consumed with competition over ratings and viewer attention, and with tabloid fever overflowing into the traditionally non-tabloid media, and paparazzi swarming Washington D.C. for the first time, it is clear that these useful old protocols have dissolved -- along with the priorities that they helped to establish.

Also in the category of nitpicking is the way that even the important stories are nitpicked to death. Yesterday's press conference by the President, for example. First came the endless pre-event predicting and second-guessing. This is now being followed by the endless post-event regurgitating, re-analyzing and micro-viewing through ever more magnified political microscopes. That's the way the whole Presidential election was covered, to the point where many people got sick of hearing about it. Now it's the MO for covering Obama's first Hundred Days. It's the Nancy Grace approach -- the way she fills a whole hour of coverage by rehashing the tiniest details of a single crime. While all the networks have their different viewpoints, they all use that same MO now. MSNBC may focus on commentary, rather than pure news, but even they often have a tendency to bore endlessly into a limited number of stories.

There are only 24 hours of air time in a day. When the media fill a certain number of those hours with needless nitpicking on important stories, or with nitpicking on silly stories that aren't very important at all, they have to leave out stories that Americans should be hearing about.

Like more coverage on the possible collapse of the Mexican government because of drug terrorism -- a problem that is sure to irrupt across our southern borders and put a whole new meaning on the definition of a "terrorist." Or the developments in Darfur around prosecution of war crimes there, that are sure to impact on Obama's need to deal with war crimes committed by individuals in the Bush administration. Or the Americans whose homes aren't going to be saved by the Obama administration because their mortgage is above an arbitrary $800,000 limit set by the government. In my humble opinion, the squawk about Michelle's boots pales by comparison with this company.

Right now, for example, I wish we were hearing about the March 24 White House meeting between Obama's faith-based office and the religious-right organizations that have an agenda of outlawing abortion in the U.S. It's clear that the bible beaters are going to squeeze the President every way they can. If they can squeeze him on abortion, it creates a toehold to squeeze him on other issues. That's important stuff. The religious-right web pages have reported on the meeting, of course, and so has Right Wing Watch. One would think that Fox News would list this meeting story for sure. Or CNN or MSNBC. They didn't, although Rachel Maddow did mention it a few days ago. But generally the top news-story website rosters yesterday did have lots of room for the Octo-mom's latest antics, and whether klutzy Steve Wozniak would get voted off "Dancing With the Stars," and David Letterman's sneak marriage in Montana, plus a few other things that belong in the back end of the newspaper.

To put it another way -- putting tabloid news side by side with the bailout and budget news, and the Iraq war news, trivializes the serious stories in a way that could be dangerous for the country. No wonder a lot of Americans act as if they're living in a bubble.

To sum up: what the First Lady does with education, or even a model vegetable garden in back of the White House, is top news. What color her boots are, and whether the vogue vampires like her sleeveless dresses, is not top news.

I know we can't turn back to the clock to those orderly days when everybody read newspapers, and TV and the Internet and cell-phone twitter didn't have the power they do today. But a clear sense of what's really important -- compared to what isn't -- is definitely missing in our national media consciousness.

If our media can't figure out what the real top news is, if they can't give it all the time it needs, how can Americans ever solve the problems that the top news is supposed to be about?


Recent Entries Filed under Media:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Patricia;
One wonders what today's media would have done to Eleanor Roosevelt, probably the outstanding First Lady of all time...

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | March 26, 2009 10:06 AM

The value of newspapers to separate the "pop" culture from the real news is very important. This is becoming a lost skill. One of the delights of living in Thailand is to miss out on the goings on of Paris Hilton or her ilk. I do not care what celebrities do at all. I do care about the good works of a First Lady and applaud Michelle Obama's ability to look excellent in anything while promoting a more casual, but involved hands on approach.

Also in the category of nitpicking is the way that even the important stories are nitpicked to death. Yesterday's press conference by the President, for example. First came the endless pre-event predicting and second-guessing. This is now being followed by the endless post-event regurgitating, re-analyzing and micro-viewing through ever more magnified political microscopes. That's the way the whole Presidential election was covered, to the point where many people got sick of hearing about it. Now it's the MO for covering Obama's first Hundred Days. It's the Nancy Grace approach -- the way she fills a whole hour of coverage by rehashing the tiniest details of a single crime. While all the networks have their different viewpoints, they all use that same MO now. MSNBC may focus on commentary, rather than pure news, but even they often have a tendency to bore endlessly into a limited number of stories.


Yes, yes yes! And it's still there, even in the "serious" coverage, with the hours upon hours devoted to trivial parts of the budget but then chastising Obama for being "boring" when it comes to the economy.

This is a good, related blog post people might be interested in:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/here-we-are-now-entertain-us-by-dday.html

A. J. Lopp | March 29, 2009 6:34 PM

One problem with the hi-tech modern media is that there is virtually unlimited bandwidth ... which means, also, that there is enough bandwidth for all the nitpicking that would-be nit-pickers wish to produce ... and there are nitpick-loving readers that will create blogbuzz about what all the nitpickers are saying.

Of course, while the bandwidth of the system might be virtually unbounded, the bandwidth of any one individual to take in what he or she feels a need for, while increased, has hardly increased anywhere nearly as quickly. Thus, our responsibility to use our individual media time more wisely has gone up --- and it is unwise for us to expect indiscriminate media editors to do the sifting for us. (True, this opens a new niche for outstanding editors whose judgment we can trust.) But the main challenge is this: As the supply of online "news" content skyrockets, how do we become more efficient media sorters, sifters, and selectors in this vast universe of content, with its galaxies of text, photos and videos, both relevant and irrelevant? How do we each become a Google personified?

= = = = = = =

As for Michelle Obama, her sleeveless dresses don't bother me. However, her posture does.

Like many tall women, she maybe suffered teenage years when her height was embarrassing, and to this day has a tendency to slump ever so slightly. (I don't mean to be ugly; I slump a lot, too.) But as a model for young girls in America, I do hope that someone would lovingly work with her to straighten her back and take pride in a physical stature that matches her social stature.

It's a delicate point to make about a woman whose social presence in all other respects is more than adequate. Somehow I just don't see her spending much time balancing a book on her head while walking across the room reciting, "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." Oh my God, how boring! I'm sure that Maya Angelou and bell hooks could supply recitations more interesting and apropos.