Published: May 08, 2008 06:29 pm            

Michael O'Connor: Sensationalizing the news doesn't make it more important

I was watching one of the network morning shows a week or so ago, and the anchor teased to a story by saying we viewers would learn “stunning” details about some celebrity.

The “stunning” revelation was that Paula Abdul prewrites her show comments based on dress rehearsals.

That’s it? The new governor of New York can tell the media that he and his wife had multiple affairs and that he once used drugs, and that’s just ho-hum news. But this, this is “stunning”?

So-called entertainment news shows have long traded in such hyberbole. The news about celebrities is “shocking,” or “amazing,” or “heart-rending,” or some other over-the-top, breathlessly uttered adjective.

In fact, were the news about any ordinary schmo on the street, none of those adjectives would be used.

Joe Blow with a drug problem would probably be treated as a moron of the first degree, not a tragic figure whose struggles merit our sympathies.

Mrs. Smith from down the street will never hear her pregnancy announced to the world by an enthusiastic anchor who confidently tells viewers they will shed tears at her story.

The cheerleader in Smallville caught driving without a license while drunk after smashing into a telephone pole may show up in the police report, but Dr. Phil will not make a guest appearance on Oprah’s show to explain that she’s merely stressed from the attention showered on her.

He won’t say, “She needs our sympathy, not our disapproval.”

Of course, many “entertainment reporters” will say that broadcasting the trials and tribulations of the stars provides inspiration to the unwashed masses. If Robert Downey Jr. can finally overcome his demons, then surely the poor drug addict on Main Street can as well.

Some grain of truth may reside in that explanation, but the simple truth is that the paths traveled by the Downeys and Lohans of the world bear little resemblance to the one of that addict on Main Street.

We seem to think that politicians, actors and industry nabobs are like characters in a play or movie, and we the audience need various “Tump dah dum” moments to keep us interested. Never mind that we really shouldn’t be interested when so many far more interesting stories take place around us daily.

That soft-news enterprises such as the evening entertainment shows use the hype technique to draw us in is bad enough. That morning news shows, admittedly more entertainment than news, should use the technique is worse.

Worst is that hype has invaded regular news domains. Advertisements for stories to be featured on the evening news, whether network or local, promise us shocking, stirring, inspiring fare that will often fail to deliver on the promise.

Piling on adjectives won’t turn a mediocre story into a better one, and the number of overwrought terms used in a teaser doesn’t provide a clue about a story’s importance. If anything, the more hype, the higher the probability the story has little value, especially if it’s about a celebrity.

Remember, Walter Cronkite didn’t become America’s most trusted newsman by reporting on the “shocking” discovery that Paris Hilton is a spoiled brat.



Michael O’Connor can be reached at editor@trcle.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.