This semester has been very eye-opening in terms of understanding the various patterns of the mass media industry. With every media era has come a different view of politicians and the roles that they have been expected to play in our society. Overall, we have grown more comfortable with the politicians who lead our towns, cities and country. We use sketch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live to illustrate and exaggerate the flaws our political leaders possess, making them appear more human. Television programs like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart provide honest critiques about political policies and controversies, removing the mystique and barriers that once existed between “normal” American citizens and politicians. Indeed, we have come a long way from the days when people were punished for speaking out against their political leaders. Today, people have a very passionate relationship with their politicians; we love them ferociously, with bumper stickers and Facebook groups proclaiming our support, yet we are not afraid to question some of their policies and decisions.
I think that this American pattern relates to our current attitude towards President Obama. It’s no secret that the public’s opinion on the President has been steadily declining over the past few months, with many citing his suggested policies as anticlimactic and disappointing. The video posted below from CNN.com outlines the changes that have contributed to a more skeptical public response to President Obama. During his campaign, Obama appeared strong and fearless, appealing to many young college students and hopeful Americans who desperately wanted to see our country led in a more progressive, liberal direction.
Unfortunately, with power comes great responsibility, and becoming President of the United States meant that Obama would have to make some concessions to his ideological and hopeful campaign points in order to truly remodel the current American system. I think that some people were unprepared for the direction that President Obama took with some of his recent responsibilities, including job creation and the future in Afghanistan. The health care and deficit problems are also laid out for President Obama to tackle, but unemployment remains the main concern among Americans, as it went up to 10 percent last month. People are growing increasingly frustrated with Obama, and I think that the media’s new, unfriendly tone towards the President is somewhat to blame. As of late, the media has been diverted from the Obama-loving frenzy that filled newspapers and websites throughout the presidential campaign. I think that an unrealistically high set of expectations are to blame for the media’s recent disillusionment with President Obama; ironically, these expectations were set by media figures themselves.
Watch the video here:
-Sarah
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Unwelcome Salahi Party of Two
This past November, Tareq and Michaele Salahi put on their best attire and attended a star studded state dinner at the White House. They excitedly snapped photographs with some of the evening’s biggest names, including Vice President Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Katie Couric. The following morning, Michaele, like so many others, logged onto her Facebook account to post pictures and status updates about the exclusive affair on her profile.
Within hours, the pictures had garnered media attention and The Washington Post became the first paper to report on the mystery guests. By Wednesday, the Secret Service was alerted to news of the security breach after increased media attention revealed that the Salahis had never been invited to the dinner. The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility quickly began reviewing the data from the dinner party. They quickly found that a checkpoint was responsible for the breach, after failing to follow proper procedures to verify that the couple was on the guest list.
As news of the Salahis’ party crashing antics spread across the country, Americans everywhere were shocked at the thought that two uninvited people were granted access into the one of the most high profile, security-stacked events of the year. The Secret Service’s spokesman, Ed Donovan, rushed to defend the agency, assuring reporters that the President was in no immediate danger because the Salahis went through the same security screenings as every other guest. This point seems irrelevant and unworthy of praise; it goes without saying that anyone who enters a room with the President be subject to intensive security screenings beforehand. Even though they did not have weapons in their possession, the Salahis still gained access to a White House affair that was supposed to be closed to the public. This is a major breach in security, suggesting to outside parties that Presidential events may not be as well-guarded as one would assume. I feel like this makes us appear disorganized and weak to other countries, with a Saturday Night Live skit and various editorials devoted to mocking and analyzing the incident.
Additionally, I think it’s fascinating that the Salahis essentially created this unflattering media attention themselves by posting their pictures to Facebook. Most people update their Facebook statuses and photo albums with their Friends List in mind; while they are aware that their ex-boyfriends and mother-in-laws may view their birthday party snapshots, it is quite unlikely that pictures from my family vacation will ignite a media frenzy. If, however, I attended a White House dinner to which I was not invited and managed to snag pictures with the President himself, I would probably be satisfied with a framed photo on my desk, rather than a detailed and cocky Facebook album. This logic leads me to believe that the Salahis, potential new cast members on Bravo’s hit reality franchise, “Real Housewives of D.C.,” fully intended to receive attention for their jaw dropping antics. The sheer nerve behind their actions and the ease with which Michaele posted their pictures on the Internet proves that the instant accessibility made possible by the mass media can breed an unhealthy sense of entitlement and exhibitionism. The Salahis clearly believed that they were worthy of fame and attention because of their socioeconomic status and used the mass media unfairly as a means of achieving their dishonest goals.
-Sarah
Within hours, the pictures had garnered media attention and The Washington Post became the first paper to report on the mystery guests. By Wednesday, the Secret Service was alerted to news of the security breach after increased media attention revealed that the Salahis had never been invited to the dinner. The Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility quickly began reviewing the data from the dinner party. They quickly found that a checkpoint was responsible for the breach, after failing to follow proper procedures to verify that the couple was on the guest list.
As news of the Salahis’ party crashing antics spread across the country, Americans everywhere were shocked at the thought that two uninvited people were granted access into the one of the most high profile, security-stacked events of the year. The Secret Service’s spokesman, Ed Donovan, rushed to defend the agency, assuring reporters that the President was in no immediate danger because the Salahis went through the same security screenings as every other guest. This point seems irrelevant and unworthy of praise; it goes without saying that anyone who enters a room with the President be subject to intensive security screenings beforehand. Even though they did not have weapons in their possession, the Salahis still gained access to a White House affair that was supposed to be closed to the public. This is a major breach in security, suggesting to outside parties that Presidential events may not be as well-guarded as one would assume. I feel like this makes us appear disorganized and weak to other countries, with a Saturday Night Live skit and various editorials devoted to mocking and analyzing the incident.
Additionally, I think it’s fascinating that the Salahis essentially created this unflattering media attention themselves by posting their pictures to Facebook. Most people update their Facebook statuses and photo albums with their Friends List in mind; while they are aware that their ex-boyfriends and mother-in-laws may view their birthday party snapshots, it is quite unlikely that pictures from my family vacation will ignite a media frenzy. If, however, I attended a White House dinner to which I was not invited and managed to snag pictures with the President himself, I would probably be satisfied with a framed photo on my desk, rather than a detailed and cocky Facebook album. This logic leads me to believe that the Salahis, potential new cast members on Bravo’s hit reality franchise, “Real Housewives of D.C.,” fully intended to receive attention for their jaw dropping antics. The sheer nerve behind their actions and the ease with which Michaele posted their pictures on the Internet proves that the instant accessibility made possible by the mass media can breed an unhealthy sense of entitlement and exhibitionism. The Salahis clearly believed that they were worthy of fame and attention because of their socioeconomic status and used the mass media unfairly as a means of achieving their dishonest goals.
-Sarah
Google’s Not-So Friendly Neighbor
Since its early origins as the brainchild of two Stanford University students, Google has become the most visited website on the Internet, providing online search tools, e-mail, social networking, map services, video sharing and more. Google is always my first stop when I need to find an article about any given topic; the sheer volume of the search results it produces guarantees a useful website link. Indeed, Google’s mission is “to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful” and available in one, easy-to-use forum. Now, a major change may make that mission statement impossible to achieve.
Recently, Microsoft has been having discussions with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post. These talks have been about potentially removing News Corp’s newspaper content from Google’s search results. Instead of using Google to access articles from these papers, news consumers would have to use Microsoft’s Bing. This search engine is not nearly as popular as Google and, as a result, Microsoft is prepared to pay companies to remove their content from Google and make it exclusively available on Bing.
Online news has become increasingly popular throughout the past few years as a result of changing demands and expectations from readers. In spite of the increased efficiencies of online news, Rupert Murdoch blames Google for the increased traffic on the Wall Street Journal website. With more than 25 percent of the Wall Street Journal’s visitors being directed from Google, Murdoch blames low sales numbers on the vast availability of online content on Google. His plan therefore puts pressure on Google to begin paying for the content it provides.
I think that this business plan is incredibly flawed and will ultimately hurt News Corp’s popularity among Americans. Very few people will take the time to switch from Google to Bing in order to access Wall Street Journal content. They are more likely to choose other, more easily available news sites, instead. This shift is also unlikely to hurt Google, since people have grown familiar with its services already. Additionally, as CNN’s Pete Cashmore explains, the word “news” does not draw the greatest number of hits, so advertisers are not likely to break off their deals with Google.
Recently, in response to News Corp and Microsoft’s discussions, Google has been downplaying the importance of online newspaper content. Google’s UK director, Matt Britain, explained that, “economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue.” For Google’s sake, I really hope that he’s right. Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has not been shy about discussing his company’s dedication to building up Bing’s name. He has said that Microsoft is prepared to spend a great deal of money over a period of several years just to make Bing a major rival for Google. It will be interesting to see how this competitive agenda plays out. Personally, I will always be loyal to Google; I have never had a problem with the site and I think it is a reliable and user-friendly source. May the best search engine win!
-Sarah
Recently, Microsoft has been having discussions with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post. These talks have been about potentially removing News Corp’s newspaper content from Google’s search results. Instead of using Google to access articles from these papers, news consumers would have to use Microsoft’s Bing. This search engine is not nearly as popular as Google and, as a result, Microsoft is prepared to pay companies to remove their content from Google and make it exclusively available on Bing.
Online news has become increasingly popular throughout the past few years as a result of changing demands and expectations from readers. In spite of the increased efficiencies of online news, Rupert Murdoch blames Google for the increased traffic on the Wall Street Journal website. With more than 25 percent of the Wall Street Journal’s visitors being directed from Google, Murdoch blames low sales numbers on the vast availability of online content on Google. His plan therefore puts pressure on Google to begin paying for the content it provides.
I think that this business plan is incredibly flawed and will ultimately hurt News Corp’s popularity among Americans. Very few people will take the time to switch from Google to Bing in order to access Wall Street Journal content. They are more likely to choose other, more easily available news sites, instead. This shift is also unlikely to hurt Google, since people have grown familiar with its services already. Additionally, as CNN’s Pete Cashmore explains, the word “news” does not draw the greatest number of hits, so advertisers are not likely to break off their deals with Google.
Recently, in response to News Corp and Microsoft’s discussions, Google has been downplaying the importance of online newspaper content. Google’s UK director, Matt Britain, explained that, “economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue.” For Google’s sake, I really hope that he’s right. Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has not been shy about discussing his company’s dedication to building up Bing’s name. He has said that Microsoft is prepared to spend a great deal of money over a period of several years just to make Bing a major rival for Google. It will be interesting to see how this competitive agenda plays out. Personally, I will always be loyal to Google; I have never had a problem with the site and I think it is a reliable and user-friendly source. May the best search engine win!
-Sarah
Barack Obama's BlackBerry Addiction
Who doesn’t love e-mail? Even my grandparents have jumped on the bandwagon, using e-mail as a means of communicating with me around the clock. This form of correspondence has done amazing things for our society, creating an instant connection between people across the globe. It’s hard to imagine how international businesses survived before the days of Outlook Express and Google Mail. As a college student, I use e-mail on a daily basis, whether I’m sending a paper to a professor, e-mailing my brother a YouTube video or organizing a study group meeting time.
The scope of e-mail’s influence also extends to the political spectrum. When President Obama entered the White House this past January, he made headlines with his decision to keep his personal BlackBerry in order to stay in communication with family and friends. This arrangement was made possible by a special software approved by U.S. intelligence officials that allows him to send e-mails without the risk of hackers reading his messages.
Obviously, the fear behind President Obama’s choice to maintain his personal e-mail account is that confidential data will be compromised by outside sources. FBI agents use BlackBerrys to share important information using similar software programs, but they do not have the same fame and recognition that President Obama has now. The fascination and celebrity-worship that he has encountered since his campaign make him an obvious target for the most technologically skilled hackers. In spite of these and other safety risks, President Obama cannot give up e-mail because of the role it has played in his life up until this point. Whereas previous leaders like President Clinton and President Bush barely thought about abandoning e-mail altogether, President Obama belongs to a different generation. Roger Entner, a telecommunications analyst with the Nielsen Company addressed this generational gap, explaining that, “With all due respect to Presidents Clinton and Bush, they didn’t really grow up with these mobile devices. President Obama is like so many others of his generation—this is the device that helps determine how he perceives the rest of the world.”
I think it’s admirable that President Obama wants to maintain contact with friends and former colleagues that are outside of his Washington D.C. bubble. As our President, Obama is expected to maintain an understanding of the common struggles of middle America in order to improve our quality of life. While I don’t have any personal experience being President of the United States, I can imagine that it becomes difficult to stay in touch with the backbone of our country when you’re constantly surrounded by Secret Service officers, journalists and political advisors. Hopefully maintaining his e-mail account will help President Obama maintain the sense of empathy and understanding that helped him advance to his current role as our nation’s leader.
-Sarah
The scope of e-mail’s influence also extends to the political spectrum. When President Obama entered the White House this past January, he made headlines with his decision to keep his personal BlackBerry in order to stay in communication with family and friends. This arrangement was made possible by a special software approved by U.S. intelligence officials that allows him to send e-mails without the risk of hackers reading his messages.
Obviously, the fear behind President Obama’s choice to maintain his personal e-mail account is that confidential data will be compromised by outside sources. FBI agents use BlackBerrys to share important information using similar software programs, but they do not have the same fame and recognition that President Obama has now. The fascination and celebrity-worship that he has encountered since his campaign make him an obvious target for the most technologically skilled hackers. In spite of these and other safety risks, President Obama cannot give up e-mail because of the role it has played in his life up until this point. Whereas previous leaders like President Clinton and President Bush barely thought about abandoning e-mail altogether, President Obama belongs to a different generation. Roger Entner, a telecommunications analyst with the Nielsen Company addressed this generational gap, explaining that, “With all due respect to Presidents Clinton and Bush, they didn’t really grow up with these mobile devices. President Obama is like so many others of his generation—this is the device that helps determine how he perceives the rest of the world.”
I think it’s admirable that President Obama wants to maintain contact with friends and former colleagues that are outside of his Washington D.C. bubble. As our President, Obama is expected to maintain an understanding of the common struggles of middle America in order to improve our quality of life. While I don’t have any personal experience being President of the United States, I can imagine that it becomes difficult to stay in touch with the backbone of our country when you’re constantly surrounded by Secret Service officers, journalists and political advisors. Hopefully maintaining his e-mail account will help President Obama maintain the sense of empathy and understanding that helped him advance to his current role as our nation’s leader.
-Sarah
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Michael Jackson’s Death Marked by Tweets
I have a confession to make: I have a Twitter account. I crumbled under the pressure, really; with so many references to celebrity Tweets popping up in various news articles, I felt somewhat obligated to begin “following” my favorite celebrities and organizations.
The process of checking my Twitter quickly became quite addictive. I grew fascinated with the countless personal anecdotes and photos so many celebrities posted to their profiles, feeling like I was a part of their lives in some small, insignificant way.
The love affair ended quickly. I began to grow disillusioned with the Twitter world around the time of Michael Jackson’s death. I was “following” CNN at the time, and their constant coverage of the hours leading up to the King of Pop’s death quickly began feeling superficial and disrespectful. Similarly, TMZ tweeted constant new conspiracy theories about MJ’s cause of death, each one more far fetched than the last. As the posts spilled across my computer screen, intertwined with slews of ‘RIP’ messages from famous faces, I couldn’t help but think about his children. Their father died that afternoon, but his passing was marked by a myriad of questions from strangers about drug use and foul play. It was especially disappointing to see that CNN, a typically reliable source of straightforward news, fell into the same pattern as gossip networks like TMZ and E! Online. Even President Obama made a statement about the King of Pop’s passing, garnering major attention from the press.
While mass media can be a wonderful tool, it can also be dangerous in excess. Michael Jackson’s death became a spectacle and media frenzy, with Google.com becoming temporarily inaccessible on the day of his death due to the intense number of searches.The unrestricted freedoms possessed by web-based journalists allowed for a constant exploration of the possible causes of Jackson’s death, as well as countless photo montages and music video tributes. Although the grief and overflowing love expressed by Michael Jackson’s fans was touching, the weeks following his death were mainly marked by a circus-like hysteria.
Situations like these make me wonder whether or not Twitter will have a positive effect on our society. Without the constant updates from news sources like CNN, people would have been forced to grieve for Michael in a more subdued, less gossip-oriented manner. Although instant news updates can be valuable, maybe some things--like death--are best left unexplored, at least for the first 48 hours.
-Sarah
The love affair ended quickly. I began to grow disillusioned with the Twitter world around the time of Michael Jackson’s death. I was “following” CNN at the time, and their constant coverage of the hours leading up to the King of Pop’s death quickly began feeling superficial and disrespectful. Similarly, TMZ tweeted constant new conspiracy theories about MJ’s cause of death, each one more far fetched than the last. As the posts spilled across my computer screen, intertwined with slews of ‘RIP’ messages from famous faces, I couldn’t help but think about his children. Their father died that afternoon, but his passing was marked by a myriad of questions from strangers about drug use and foul play. It was especially disappointing to see that CNN, a typically reliable source of straightforward news, fell into the same pattern as gossip networks like TMZ and E! Online. Even President Obama made a statement about the King of Pop’s passing, garnering major attention from the press.
While mass media can be a wonderful tool, it can also be dangerous in excess. Michael Jackson’s death became a spectacle and media frenzy, with Google.com becoming temporarily inaccessible on the day of his death due to the intense number of searches.The unrestricted freedoms possessed by web-based journalists allowed for a constant exploration of the possible causes of Jackson’s death, as well as countless photo montages and music video tributes. Although the grief and overflowing love expressed by Michael Jackson’s fans was touching, the weeks following his death were mainly marked by a circus-like hysteria.
Situations like these make me wonder whether or not Twitter will have a positive effect on our society. Without the constant updates from news sources like CNN, people would have been forced to grieve for Michael in a more subdued, less gossip-oriented manner. Although instant news updates can be valuable, maybe some things--like death--are best left unexplored, at least for the first 48 hours.
-Sarah
Page Turns at the Click of a Mouse
For most of my adolescent life, I dreamed of being a magazine editor. I would soak up the pages of my Seventeen Magazine subscription, eagerly ripping out my favorite stories and pinning them to the bulletin board above my desk. In the wake of the layoffs and sales troubles that the magazine industry has recently endured, I have readjusted my future plans.
It’s no secret that print journalism has encountered its share of struggles over the last few years. With the economic recession that swept across the nation last year came the demise of several several prominent magazines at Hearst Corporation and Condé Nast, including Gourmet Magazine, which shut down this past month after 75 years of publication. The demise of print journalism has also affected the newspaper industry, with the Boston Globe experiencing a major drop in sales. Though the paper has been owned by The New York Times Company since 1993, the company began hunting for a new buyer in April due to the Boston Globe’s mounting losses. In October, the New York Times Company announced that they would be holding onto the paper.
Many attribute the decline in print journalism’s popularity to the rising influence of online media, since newspapers and magazines are now available on the Internet. While some newspapers require a paid subscription in order to view their online content, many sites are free for the public, relying on revenue from advertisements to draw a profit. This is a selling point for many time pressed Americans who have five minutes to read the day’s headlines on their BlackBerries each morning. Why buy a paper everyday when you can access so much unlimited content with the click of a mouse? While I do think that there is a certain appeal to holding a paper in your hands and flipping through the pages of a magazine, I must admit that the convenience of online media outweighs the nostalgia of print journalism. The realm of news, food & culture, travel and sports sites is so complex and detailed that it makes a daily newspaper seem limited.
I believe that print journalism will be completely obsolete in the not-so distant future, as many now-terminated magazines have already begun presenting original content in a web-based forum. Publishing groups like Time, Condé Nast and Hearst have even announced that they plan to be equity partners in a new online newsstand for various publications. This service has been described as an “iTunes for magazines,” providing a wide array of themes to read about. I think this decision shows an acceptance about the changing role of journalism. In our ever-changing society, it’s important to be flexible and willing to adapt since we are constantly expanding and improving our technological capabilities. It is bittersweet to think that young girls may no longer pore over glamorous magazines or that newspapers will someday be missing from Sunday morning breakfast tables, but ultimately, I believe that the evolution of online journalism will contribute to the diversification of news sources and well-roundedness of future generations.
- Sarah
It’s no secret that print journalism has encountered its share of struggles over the last few years. With the economic recession that swept across the nation last year came the demise of several several prominent magazines at Hearst Corporation and Condé Nast, including Gourmet Magazine, which shut down this past month after 75 years of publication. The demise of print journalism has also affected the newspaper industry, with the Boston Globe experiencing a major drop in sales. Though the paper has been owned by The New York Times Company since 1993, the company began hunting for a new buyer in April due to the Boston Globe’s mounting losses. In October, the New York Times Company announced that they would be holding onto the paper.
Many attribute the decline in print journalism’s popularity to the rising influence of online media, since newspapers and magazines are now available on the Internet. While some newspapers require a paid subscription in order to view their online content, many sites are free for the public, relying on revenue from advertisements to draw a profit. This is a selling point for many time pressed Americans who have five minutes to read the day’s headlines on their BlackBerries each morning. Why buy a paper everyday when you can access so much unlimited content with the click of a mouse? While I do think that there is a certain appeal to holding a paper in your hands and flipping through the pages of a magazine, I must admit that the convenience of online media outweighs the nostalgia of print journalism. The realm of news, food & culture, travel and sports sites is so complex and detailed that it makes a daily newspaper seem limited.
I believe that print journalism will be completely obsolete in the not-so distant future, as many now-terminated magazines have already begun presenting original content in a web-based forum. Publishing groups like Time, Condé Nast and Hearst have even announced that they plan to be equity partners in a new online newsstand for various publications. This service has been described as an “iTunes for magazines,” providing a wide array of themes to read about. I think this decision shows an acceptance about the changing role of journalism. In our ever-changing society, it’s important to be flexible and willing to adapt since we are constantly expanding and improving our technological capabilities. It is bittersweet to think that young girls may no longer pore over glamorous magazines or that newspapers will someday be missing from Sunday morning breakfast tables, but ultimately, I believe that the evolution of online journalism will contribute to the diversification of news sources and well-roundedness of future generations.
- Sarah
Political Gossip Heats Up
There was a time when political figures were revered and idolized from afar. President Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis were icons in both the political and cultural realms of American life, with President Kennedy’s boyish charm and easy charisma making him the epitome of the ideal all-American boy turned leader. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (or “Jackie O” as she came to be known) also set a similar ideal for women, with a polished, classic fashion sense and poised demeanor.
In spite of the public’s love affair with the Kennedy clan, boundary lines still existed between the First Family and the rest of the country. We’ve come a long way since those days, and today we have grown accustomed to accessing detailed information about prominent political families. With media tools like Wikipedia providing educational and personal facts about politicians and the constant use of polioptics, political figures have become A-list celebrities.
This phenomenon is illustrated in part through the LA Times’ political gossip blog, Ministry of Gossip. Although mainstream politicians like Barack Obama frequently appear on celebrity blogs for television appearances, the Ministry of Gossip blog is one of the only websites entirely devoted to chronicling the gossip in and around D.C. Recent post topics include Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Gridiron Club's 2009 winter dinner, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s soon-to-be expired term as governor of California and Chelsea Clinton’s engagement to Marc Mezvinsky. Even peripheral political figures like Chelsea Clinton’s fiance and Bristol Palin’s former boyfriend, Levi Johnston, have become popular on gossip blogs. Their proximity to the political families with whom we are infatuated makes them equally fascinating to us, providing an insider’s glimpse into the exotic lives of the rich and powerful.
Although our society has rapidly moved into a period of instant gratification and constant access to celebrities, I wonder if humanizing politicians their families through gossip blogs is ultimately damaging. While Barack and Michelle Obama may be a loving, seemingly “normal” couple, they are still at the forefront of our political spectrum, representing America to nations across the globe. Is an entire blog devoted to their dog, Bo, really conducive to the sense of respect that the President of the United States should be receiving? In the same way that our professors’ profiles are not accessible to students on Facebook, I feel that snapshots from the President’s familial gatherings should remain private in order to maintain a respected position as our country’s leader.
While I know some would argue that, as voters, Americans are entitled to see and write about the inner workings of politicians’ daily lives, I feel that this attitude promotes a sense of comfort and familiarity that should be reserved for celebrities whose daily decisions do not affect the fate of our nation.
-Sarah
In spite of the public’s love affair with the Kennedy clan, boundary lines still existed between the First Family and the rest of the country. We’ve come a long way since those days, and today we have grown accustomed to accessing detailed information about prominent political families. With media tools like Wikipedia providing educational and personal facts about politicians and the constant use of polioptics, political figures have become A-list celebrities.
This phenomenon is illustrated in part through the LA Times’ political gossip blog, Ministry of Gossip. Although mainstream politicians like Barack Obama frequently appear on celebrity blogs for television appearances, the Ministry of Gossip blog is one of the only websites entirely devoted to chronicling the gossip in and around D.C. Recent post topics include Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Gridiron Club's 2009 winter dinner, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s soon-to-be expired term as governor of California and Chelsea Clinton’s engagement to Marc Mezvinsky. Even peripheral political figures like Chelsea Clinton’s fiance and Bristol Palin’s former boyfriend, Levi Johnston, have become popular on gossip blogs. Their proximity to the political families with whom we are infatuated makes them equally fascinating to us, providing an insider’s glimpse into the exotic lives of the rich and powerful.
Although our society has rapidly moved into a period of instant gratification and constant access to celebrities, I wonder if humanizing politicians their families through gossip blogs is ultimately damaging. While Barack and Michelle Obama may be a loving, seemingly “normal” couple, they are still at the forefront of our political spectrum, representing America to nations across the globe. Is an entire blog devoted to their dog, Bo, really conducive to the sense of respect that the President of the United States should be receiving? In the same way that our professors’ profiles are not accessible to students on Facebook, I feel that snapshots from the President’s familial gatherings should remain private in order to maintain a respected position as our country’s leader.
While I know some would argue that, as voters, Americans are entitled to see and write about the inner workings of politicians’ daily lives, I feel that this attitude promotes a sense of comfort and familiarity that should be reserved for celebrities whose daily decisions do not affect the fate of our nation.
-Sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)