I watched a couple of national news shows this morning (NBC and CBS) and both of them devoted a major chunk of coverage to the “breaking news” about goings-on in the wacky world of Tiger Woods. They spent a lot of time rehashing the golfer’s alleged infidelities, and dissecting every possible aspect of this morning’s ambulance run to Tiger’s home.
I don’t have any problem with the coverage, even though I’m tired of the whole story. But what struck me as more than a little hypocritical was the way both networks referred to the “tabloid” aspects of the media coverage, as if those seedy print publications were guilty of sensationalism, while the broadcast giants were simply providing good and decent journalistic services.
In this instance, the only difference between the two forms of media is that the tabloid publications at least serve a useful purpose if one has a bird cage or fish in need of wrapping.
Eric, normally I would rear-up on my hind legs and bleat in opposition to your post … but in this case, I really can’t. I caught the NBC version of the report you’re describing – and couldn’t help but ask myself, ‘why is this being placed where it is?’
You’re right about the attitudes of serious journalism towards their brothers and sisters in the tabloid sector. In this particular instance, though, I can’t help but recall Pogo’s observation, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
I agree. I am tired of hearing about it. Plus, I don’t like the fact that the news shows 5 minutes of news about the troops in Afghanistan and 30 minutes of Tiger Woods! I don’t see how anything he does affects my life.
Actually, I think it does affect our lives – because, whether he wanted it or not, he IS a role model for many, and his behavior has an impact on the moral fabric of our nation. Poor decisions by “leaders” chip away at the convictions of young adults – and others.