In an era of uncertainty such as this, I am the first person to advocate for something to lighten the mood a little bit. We all get sick of hearing about the "doom and gloom" of the financial crisis, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and global warming, to name just a few. But at a certain point, when the media begins to report nonsense fluff stories as though they are hard, substantive news, it begins to insult my intelligence.
Thankfully, the national obsession with the "Octomom," aka Nadya Suleman, has finally died down a little bit. For weeks, I was hard-pressed to find a news outlet that wasn't covering the octuplet story from one angle or another. As much as it drove me crazy (who really cares about some lady in California who is having babies to fill an otherwise empty void in her life?), I could on some level understand it; at least it sparked a decent discussion about medical ethics and social welfare in this country. But the latest soft-news obsession has pushed me, and many others, over the edge.
The Sunday, April 12 edition of one of our nation's preeminent newspaper, The Washington Post, had a front-page story entitled "The First Puppy Makes a Big Splash." The massive story (which was nearly double the length of this column) about the Obama family's new puppy Bo was a nauseating display of tabloid trash gone mainstream.
Unlike many other dopey stories that have captured national media attention for all the wrong reasons recently (like the Octomom), the people at the center of this story are not at all to blame; the Obamas are buying their daughters a puppy. What could be more innocent? That is the kind of story that is supposed to maybe score a two-paragraph blurb in the second-to-last page of the Arts section, not the front page of the Sunday edition.
This isn't to say that the story hasn't garnered much interest: as of 10 p.m. Sunday, the Washington Post's Web site had received 870 comments about the story. But people weren't asking how much the dog weighed or why the Obama's picked the breed that they did. In fact, most of the commentators weren't even talking about the content of the story at all, but rather questioning the same thing I am: who the hell cares? It is fine and dandy if the Obamas want to get their kids a puppy, but with the numerous crises occurring across the world, doesn't The Washington Post have some more important leads to be working and stories to be following?
As I said before, it is not as if I am suggesting that the media only report on red-alert crises. But can't they do a little better than a cover story about the Obamas' dog? If you want to provide an uplifting break from the day's depressing news, talk about a human interest story that actually pertains to everyday people. Run a story on how people are managing to do more with less during this economic pinch. Talk about people who are making a difference in their communities. ABC News anchor Charles Gibson runs a segment called "Person of the Week" every Friday night. It is a great, "feel-good" story about people doing extraordinary things for those in need.
News outlets are first and foremost a business, and I understand that. They have to provide us with stories that we want to see and read. But the fact of the matter is, as much as people want to watch stories about things that take our minds off of the uncertainty we face in our daily lives, it is irresponsible of the media outlets, which shape public opinions and perception on issues, to provide us with entertainment stories poorly disguised as hard news.
Be the first to comment on this article!