Anna Nicole, RIP
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=171759
R.I.P., Anna Nicole Liza Featherstone
At times, the right and the left share a school-marmish attitude
toward pop culture and the people who enjoy it. (You know, those
benighted fools who make up most of the world’s population.) Not
surprisingly, then, liberals and conservatives alike have been
falling all over themselves to chide the masses for taking an
interest in the tragic story of Anna Nicole Smith. Writing in the
March 19 National Review, Rob Long admits that watching the judge cry
on television he thought: “What are we fighting so hard for? Let the
terrorists win. They have a point.” New York Times token conscience
Bob Herbert recently lamented that Americans care more about Anna
Nicole than about global warming or the resurgence of terrorists in
North Waziristan. (He even quotes arch-scold Neil Postman, author of
Amusing Ourselves to Death.) Over the past month, I’ve heard numerous
similar laments.
People, get a grip.
First, what’s not interesting about this story? An iconic and
beautiful celebrity dies after enduring a horrendous trauma (her
adult son died while she was still in the hospital after giving birth
to a daughter). Everything is in question, from the cause of death to
the paternity of the baby to where — in a creepy twist — Smith’s
rapidly decomposing body should be buried. Sure, it won’t affect our
children’s futures and won’t matter that much a year from now. But if
you weren’t — at least briefly — sucked into the high drama and
supreme weirdness of this story, you’re probably the lovechild of
Theodor Adorno and Donald Wildmon.
And look how much more compelling it is than many allegedly “serious”
news stories, many of which are simply pallid — rather than tragic
or titillating — gossip. Most of the endless reports about the
presidential candidates and their little tiffs and beefs with one
another are, after all, about nothing more than celebrity and
personality, and these don’t even deliver sizzle, much less steak!
Furthermore, why should we have to choose between gossip and “real”
news? We journalists are perfectly capable of following both Anna
Nicole’s autopsy report and Al Qaeda — why should we assume that the
rest of the public can’t do the same? People spend ample time on the
Internet, and watching TV. Bob Herbert intones gravely: “I imagine
that there are a fair number of television viewers and newspaper
readers who have trouble distinguishing the relative importance of
celebrity stories, like the death of Ms. Smith, from other matters in
the news, like the reconstitution of forces responsible for the
devastating Sept. 11 attacks.” Herbert imagines this is true, but
provides no data or evidence showing that it is. I’ve never met any
mentally functional adult (much less a “newspaper reader”) who had
“trouble distinguishing” between a celebrity story and a news story
of longer-term social or economic significance, and I doubt that Bob
Herbert has, either.
In the case of Anna Nicole, broadcasters did get carried away; for
two days in February, the story took up half the airtime on CNN, Fox
and MSNBC, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. But
as the Associated Press reported today, the networks backed off in
their coverage of Smith’s Friday funeral. And guess what? You’re
still not going to see much in-depth coverage of North Waziristan. Or
much thoughtful coverage of anything else. So let’s not blame Anna
Nicole for the sorry state of the U.S. media. Hasn’t the lady
suffered enough?