Britney Spears and Larry Craig—Feeding The Media Beast

The amount of media available to consumers has grown dramatically, but the irony is there is not enough content to fill all those cable channels, radio stations, Web sites, etc. The new network TV season is upon us and history tells us we will have 2-3 hits and mostly misses. I am not the only one who scans hundreds of cable channels and can’t find anything to watch—unless you enjoy shows on house flippers, close-ups of plastic surgery or reality competition shows. It’s hard to believe that the net result of 5,000 years of cultural development is “Dancing with the Stars.”

One of the implications of all this time to fill can be seen most clearly on the cable news channels and “fake news” shows like Entertainment Tonight and Extra. They are fake news because they mostly consist of pre-packaged PR from celebrities promoting new TV shows, movies and music. It always cracks me up to see the release of a new Justin Timberlake album covered like the Mideast peace talks. The entire concept of news and news cycles has changed—maybe not for the better. Coverage of the adventures of Britney, Paris and Lindsay has been over-the-top relative to their importance. Our parents had the Rat Pack, we had the Brat Pack and our kids have the Skank Pack. The amount of air time devoted to these reprobates’ every move is mind-boggling compared to other real news that gets the short shrift. 

I actually felt bad for Britney Spears when her performance and physical appearance were trashed after the MTV VMAs.   The shear  volume and nastiness of the attacks surprised me. She was called fat and out of shape by legions of fat and out of shape commentators.  She looks pretty good to me, but I am not a fan of the emaciated/heroin addict style that seems all the rage today.

Do people really care about certain celebrities to an extent that justifies the volume of coverage; or do we pay attention because they are constantly exposed to us —a Zen riddle for sure. How much of this is driven by the fact that these news and syndicated shows have oodles of time to fill and sponsors to keep happy? It must be working because we keep getting more of this coverage across TV and the Web.

These media outlets have become addicted to the “Big Story”—it drives their ratings. It could be Imus, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, or a political scandal. It always takes the same predictable arc—round the clock coverage and the trotting out of commentators and “experts” to endlessly comment, usually rehashing a limited body of actual facts. Whole careers are being built out of being a cable news talking head expert. That is how Star Jones got her start. The net effect is an acceleration of the story and a piling on of coverage that often outweighs the real significance of the story. This acceleration ultimately helped do in Senator Larry Craig—the story went from a brushfire to an all out inferno in 24 hours. Let’s not forget that blogs and You Tube act as kindling wood and lighter fluid to spread the flames.

 The “crime” he committed was pretty minor, and you could argue he was entrapped. However, non-stop coverage (and being easy pickins’ for Letterman, Leno and Stewart) focused on the prurient aspects of the story, and the juxtaposition of him being staunchly against gay marriage. The Republicans quickly calculated the cost of supporting him was too great to bear, especially since they would not lose the seat. He was toast within days of the story breaking. Thirty years ago when we were in a non-Web, three network world, the outcome may have been different. Now we live in a world where the cable news channels need to continuously feed the beast. Heaven help the person who gets fed to this insatiable monster.