In Jack Shafer's recent Slate article, "Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death," it appears he chastises several common news site usage of article headlines. Sites, such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com seem to make use of the most extravagant headlines they can create to lure readers. Shafer states, "What the sites really love are sordid stories that can be presented as serials, if not cliffhangers."
Media is a business. A website, just as any other newspaper, needs to create revenue to keep their site running. In what way do sites generate money? They do it through the number of hits they receive; more hits a website has, the greater the desire to advertise on that site, thus creating revenue. But the question here isn't how they make money.
I think what Shafer's trying to argue is the ethical issue of what websites, such as the three previously mentioned, post. In Shafer's anaylsis, it appears each site tries to outshine the other. The topics of some of the "top stories" are absolutely outlandish, but they all have one thing in common - they are beginning to have the appearance as that of the National Esquire. A majority of their top stories are about issues relating to sex, drugs, and murder. My question is, when did information, deriving from credible websites, become so Hollywood? I don't care about how a "British teen films herself trying to kill parents." Personally, it's a degrading to find the front pages of these three websites splattered with useless information. True, it makes for great table talk, but I think my IQ may have just decreased by one point.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
War of the Words
A bickering battle between Andrew Morton, author of Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, and the Church of Scientology began earlier this week.
"His book is a bigoted, defamatory assault replete with lies, ” the church said in a fifteen page rebuttal to Morton's claims of the organization.
In Morton's defense, he claims to have requested an interview with David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center, which was denied. Meanwhile, the church stated in the release that Morton at no pointed requested an interview. Who is to be believe? This whole issue is a "he said she said" childish argument.
The biography is not strictly about Cruise and his relationship to the Church of Scientology. Morton incorporates the church in his book because the organization plays a significant role in Tom Cruise's life. Also, I wonder where's Cruise's comment? It appears he is out of the picture. Perhaps he's letting his church deal with the issue? I don't know, but if he were truly outraged at Morton's claims, we would know wouldn't we? Stars have always received more coverage than they could have imagined, so why isn't Cruise's opinion of the book being stated? It is about Cruise and not the church, yet it's the latter who has been issuing statements about Morton's book.
The book's title, Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, should alone be a hint to its credibility…..it's UNAUTHORIZED. Cruise's no-comment stance thus far, combined with the title, seems to lack validity….at least for me.
"His book is a bigoted, defamatory assault replete with lies, ” the church said in a fifteen page rebuttal to Morton's claims of the organization.
In Morton's defense, he claims to have requested an interview with David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center, which was denied. Meanwhile, the church stated in the release that Morton at no pointed requested an interview. Who is to be believe? This whole issue is a "he said she said" childish argument.
The biography is not strictly about Cruise and his relationship to the Church of Scientology. Morton incorporates the church in his book because the organization plays a significant role in Tom Cruise's life. Also, I wonder where's Cruise's comment? It appears he is out of the picture. Perhaps he's letting his church deal with the issue? I don't know, but if he were truly outraged at Morton's claims, we would know wouldn't we? Stars have always received more coverage than they could have imagined, so why isn't Cruise's opinion of the book being stated? It is about Cruise and not the church, yet it's the latter who has been issuing statements about Morton's book.
The book's title, Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, should alone be a hint to its credibility…..it's UNAUTHORIZED. Cruise's no-comment stance thus far, combined with the title, seems to lack validity….at least for me.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Unique Compliment?
Once again, Americans are in an uproar over an inappropriate remark. According to the Associated Press, Golf Channel's first female correspondant, Kelly Tilghman, is suspended for her remark regarding Tiger Woods. During Friday's Mercedes-Benz Championship golf tournament, Tilghman and analyst Nick Faldo were discussing participants and their challenge to beat Woods, in which Tilghman is quoted to have said, "lynch him in a back alley."
Acting accordingly, the Golf Channel has suspended Tilghman for two weeks, but to Reverand Al Sharpton, justice has not been served. Becoming the front supporter in voicing for Tilghman's professional dismissal, Sharpton appearanced on The Today Show. He not only wished her fired, but also compared the situation to the Don Imus incident in which he called Rutger's University Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos."
If no one knew the context in which Tilghman stated her remark, regarding Woods, one could assume it was as derogative as Imus' Rutger comment. But, after viewing the clip, it is up to the viewer to decide whether she truly meant the comment. The context in which she speaks is noticeable different than Imus' situation; she praised his golfing ability, which implies no intention of purposely stating a racial slur.
Woods accepted Tilghman's apology, acknowledging each other's existance of twelve years, after his agent, Mark Steinburg, quoted, "Tiger and Kelly are friends, and Tiger has a great deal of respect for Kelly. Regardless of the choice of words used, we know unequivocally that there was no ill-intent in her comments."
Should Tilghman consequently be fired and her career potentionally tainted for what appears to be silimiar to the "nappy headed hos" remark? Review the two situations and decide for yourself whether it truly is as harmful as it seemed.
Acting accordingly, the Golf Channel has suspended Tilghman for two weeks, but to Reverand Al Sharpton, justice has not been served. Becoming the front supporter in voicing for Tilghman's professional dismissal, Sharpton appearanced on The Today Show. He not only wished her fired, but also compared the situation to the Don Imus incident in which he called Rutger's University Women's basketball team "nappy headed hos."
If no one knew the context in which Tilghman stated her remark, regarding Woods, one could assume it was as derogative as Imus' Rutger comment. But, after viewing the clip, it is up to the viewer to decide whether she truly meant the comment. The context in which she speaks is noticeable different than Imus' situation; she praised his golfing ability, which implies no intention of purposely stating a racial slur.
Woods accepted Tilghman's apology, acknowledging each other's existance of twelve years, after his agent, Mark Steinburg, quoted, "Tiger and Kelly are friends, and Tiger has a great deal of respect for Kelly. Regardless of the choice of words used, we know unequivocally that there was no ill-intent in her comments."
Should Tilghman consequently be fired and her career potentionally tainted for what appears to be silimiar to the "nappy headed hos" remark? Review the two situations and decide for yourself whether it truly is as harmful as it seemed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)