What is journalism? Is it writing about what Britney Spears does with a new love interest? Is it appearing on a "talking heads" show like "Crossfire" to argue with someone who has taken a polar-opposite stance on an issue?
The vast majority of journalists would say that these activities, and others similar to them, aren't true acts of journalism. They are, rather, attracting more readers and viewers by merging journalism with entertainment.
This ethical issue of convergence of journalism and entertainment is what James Fallows is making light of in his book "Breaking the News." The book also discusses politics and journalism going hand-in-hand, thus turning politics into entertainment to a degree.
Before the days of television, radio and the Internet, print journalism was how Americans found out about the world around them. That world could be as close as a local man accused of robbery, or it could be as distant as a war between Spain and France.
People relied on print journalism to help keep the world in perspective. But as technologies like radio and television began to emerge, print journalism became more and more archaic.
People began listening to a news report on the radio or watching the evening news on the television. Unfortunately for journalism, emerging technologies did more harm than good.
These same technologies that added new facets of journalism also gained America's attention with flashy celebrities and the glamorous lifestyles they led.
Celebrities were, and still are, the figureheads of the entertainment that America fell in love with. Slowly, the country became apathetic towards to the "real" world around them, and became more concerned with the "fake" world that entertainment put into the American psyche.
Journalism had to do something to get America's attention back. Informative and newsworthy stories didn't catch the average American's eye anymore. So journalism began to implement entertainment into the industry.
If stories didn't have a conflict or some kind of drama between two opposing sides, it wasn't received well by the general public because it wasn't entertaining enough.
For example, if country A was to form a treaty with country B that would impact both nations for the good, it might be on page 13 of the news section. But if country A was to invade country B, it would be on front pages all across the country.
Happenings external to the journalism industry are more appreciated when drama is involved, but this is also true for happenings internal to the industry.
Internal drama in journalism is much worse than external drama, though. At least when focus is facing out, the public gets some view of what is going on in the world around them. But when the focus is facing in, the objective third party becomes the star, and the "news" is now about the person who is suppose to be bringing the news.
Talk show "journalism" is a good example of drama being created within the industry.
Imagine two people on a news talk show who know a great deal about capital punishment. The program would consist of a discussion using factual information, and even if they do disagree on certain aspects of the subject, they would most likely agree on some things.
But if two people are brought on the show that know basically nothing about capital punishment, but have different opinions, 30 minutes of uninformative entertainment is shown in the form of yelling and arguing.
The first instance is of knowledgeable people having an informative discussion that is actually worth viewing. The second instance is of "journalists" who appeared on television for their own profit rather than for actually caring about the death penalty.
Celebrity journalists like the ones that appear on "news" talk shows set a bad example for what journalists should be striving for.
Like all people of all crafts, journalists aspire to become the best at their trade. But when they are told the best is becoming a "talking head" on a news network, it corrupts the whole industry.
Journalists aren't the only people being turned into celebrities because of modern-day journalism. Politicians are also an example of this.
For example, think of a movie star like Brad Pitt and how a movie he was in was edited together to make a final product. The majority of people only care about Brad Pitt, not how a computer-savvy editor transitioned scenes of a movie he was in. The same is true of saturated-journalism politics. Imagine a politician running for an office on his firm stance against poverty.
Modern-day journalists don't ask the "how" questions like how the politician will go about combating poverty, but rather "what" questions like what that stance will do to help the politician get elected. Just like Brad Pitt, the politician becomes more of a celebrity than a politician, and no one cares about the implementation of anti-poverty legislation.
The journalists of old would be asking the "how" questions, not the "what" questions. The "how" questions, though, don't sell as well, are harder to obtain, and don't propagate our politicians into a celebrity status that entertains.
Just like Fallows states in his book, journalism will never catch up to "true" entertainment. If people want entertainment, they'll watch a movie, not "Crossfire."
So even though the convergence of entertainment and journalism is keeping the industry afloat for now, it won't last forever. Raising the price of advertisement space will only last while there are subscribers.
But when Americans can get their "news" from "Entertainment Tonight," what's the point in subscribing to a newspaper?
Michael Stone is a junior business major and can be reached at mjs3v@mtsu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!