When talking about journalism and entertainment, it is important to make a distinction. I will purposely present a dichotomy whose parts are the opposite sides of a long spectrum: 1) journalism of entertainment vs. 2) entertaining journalism.
1) Covering the entertainment industry. I don’t consider this journalism. I consider this type of “journalism” precisely what it is covering—entertainment, and nothing more. News of movie-star breakups, rock-star drug use, athlete orgies, and so fourth, is not news. There is no value in those stories.
2) Presenting the news in an entertaining way. Legitimate journalism can certainly be done in a witty, interesting manner. I am tempted to use “The Daily Show” as an example, but a case could be made that it isn’t journalism (or that it’s perhaps too entertaining): there’s no original reporting and the interview questions are pretty soft. On the other hand, it filters out a lot of bullshit, especially that of politicians and television news (and the combination).
An example, among many, of a magazine article I found to be gripping and entertaining was “A Foreign Affair: on the great Ukrainian bride hunt,” which appeared in the June 2006 issue of Harper’s. It presented a serious issue—American men looking for, and sometimes finding, “brides” in the Ukraine—in a way that made you care about the characters involved and even about the reporter’s methods (he went undercover and presented himself as an American looking for a “bride”). But not all issues are—pardon the context—so sexy. There is usually no way to present WMDs or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a way that is both entertaining and penetrating. They are certainly interesting topics, and should be presented as such, but it is important to keep in mind that the primary goal of a journalist is not to entertain but to inform.
Although journalists should create stories that are relevant, interesting, and when possible witty and entertaining, they should not confuse the meat with the seasonings.
Lastly, I do believe that almost any topic can be relevant and interesting if approached from the right direction. I have already admitted to the slippery nature of the dichotomy I presented in the first paragraph. An interesting and insightful piece can be written about the drug use of a certain rock star, for example, if the journalist asks the right questions of the issue. But asking the wrong questions or sensationalizing the issue makes for a leap across the spectrum—from entertaining journalism to “journalism” of entertainment, from value to nil.
September 8, 2006 at 1:39 am |
Glad to see you finally found a dichotomy you agree with, and better yet, one I agree with too! I think news should be somewhat entertaining to draw in a larger audience (those who can’t digest what looks like dry politics and bad news), but not sensationalized. I think it can be done tastefuly so as not to mock serious topics but to make subjects three-dimensional and show more layers of otherwise cut-and-dry situations. This could be something as small as describing seemingly mundane details in a subject’s life that we can relate to, or, my favorite, capturing irony in a person’s life or situation that makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. People are funny, even when times are rough, and I think individual quirks are important elements in telling complete stories (when done tastefully.)
But I agree that news about the entertainment industry is not journalism – at least not to me – and for the same reason I don’t think professional sports should qualify as news. To me, and I’m sure some of my (most likely male) classmates will take offense to this, professional sports are an invented story. They take place in a regulated setting in predictable, orchestrated patterns. Sure, there are surprises, but only within pre-defined parameters. I’m sure it could be argued that government and business news also takes place in controlled and limited settings, but at least they actually have bearing on our lives. No other topic is covered like sports. When it comes to art shows and the like, which also take place in controlled settings, they are covered only if reviewed for their quality. I would much rather hear a health report about how out-of-shape all the Americans are who are sitting on their couches living vicariously through athletes they will most likely never interact with, and becoming emotionally involved with teams they have nothing to do with. It really doesn’t make any sense to me, and if anyone would like to try and help me understand, they are welcome to do so.
Same for the entertainment and fashion stories. I just don’t understand why they captivate people. I’m not calling for censorship. I just think everyone should stop watching them.
September 13, 2006 at 1:55 am |
[...] In reference to a discussion about the blurry line between news and entertainment (posted here), I am posting a Daily News article that discusses the 9/11 docu-drama as an example. The article ends with: Former Gov. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), a paid consultant to the production, said, “I think they did a pretty good job.” But former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) said, “It is either a documentary or it is a drama and to fudge it causes me a great deal of concern and suggests to me that news and entertainment are getting dangerously intertwined. And I do not think that is good for the country.” [...]
January 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm |
The reality for any parent who’s child has been diagnosed with adhd, add can be one of relief. The fact is once diagnosed the illness becomes more bearable to live with as you have a better understanding of adhd.