The problem with the OJ trial is that it is used quite a bit as the advent of modern day sensationalist news hitting the main stream media - who were normally sticking to the traditional "top 3" definitions of "what is news":
Immediacy Proximity Emotions
This created a far less sensationalist news climate then what we have today. And one, I personally, feel is more beneficial to it's audience.
With the JO trial, we got the first 3 - but what media outlets discovered is that with the following 4 they got FAR better ratings - ratings equal to a lot of fictional-based TV shows.
Consequence Oddity Conflict Suspense
While the JO trial may be based on legal conflict more closely based to the traditional 3 definitions of "what is news" it's huge audience was more likely watching it for the following 4 reasons. And the media outlets KNEW this and LEARNED from it. With the success of the OJ trial in terms of viewers came the media's acceptance of more sensationalist news stories AND their tendency to skew stories that could be presented in a more traditional way to the sensationalist angle.
So it's not apples to oranges. It's more like Mac power PCs to Mac Power books...just changing of one beginning apple to a more sophisticated version of the same apple. [Hope that analogy works and isn't too cheesy!]
Very interesting and valid points. Did you study Communications in college? Because I did and you sound like someone who has received a higher education in that area.
Anyway, you're right, there is significant overlap between the OJ trial and the aftermath of Anna Nicole's death. I think I follow your Mac analogy; is it kind of like apples and pears? I.e. two items that are ultimately separate but that have a number of notable similar characteristics?
Getting back to my stance, I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that their is such a large audience in America for sensational media is at the core of what I find disturbing. So, yes, in the eyes of many people this *is* news (b/c arguably it emotionally satisfies primal and/or voyeuristic urges), however, in the grand scheme of what is truly important and effects our society and culture, it *isn't* news.
I did, in fact get a BA in public communications [PR] which made me take many many journalism classes. [Walk the talk stuff for press releases.] But I ended up back in college for Graphic Design and now I make things look pretty...so that's the story on that :]
It's more like apples to pears than apples to oranges but ultimately like apples to grapples [do you have those where you are? It's an apple crossed with a grape to make an apple that tastes like a grape. And I'm not making this up.]
I agree - the skewing of news towards sensationalism makes me want to ralph. It's sick - it makes American's look even more like self absorbed idiots than we actually are. It's insulting.
But Lagiz is kind of right - though I hate to admit it because I dislike anna a lot - there is actual news there. The sad & sickning part is how much CNN played up the sensationalist angle [Oddity Conflict Suspense Emotions] and not the sad, successful, life story of Anna [Prominence]. [And then let it rest.]
Instead it's British Tabloid-ed into something of paramount drama that has little to do with things actually affecting [Immediacy Proximity Consequence] to most of America.
LOL, I almost added "...maybe in public relations?" to my question.
Okay, I gotcha on the grapple analogy. (I've never heard of those, btw. Though I haven't been in a produce section in ages so we probably have them and I'm just clueless.)
"I agree - the skewing of news towards sensationalism makes me want to ralph. It's sick - it makes American's look even more like self absorbed idiots than we actually are. It's insulting."
This is precisely what I was getting at.
As far as the actual news angle goes, I wouldn't have been bothered if the story only lasted a day or two. At least not much. Because, after all, this kind of thing is happening to other Americans as we speak and they don't have the media following them around. So the question becomes "Why is the media following Anna Nicole's family around?" And the answer is "Because she was Anna Nicole." And while Anna Nicole did accomplish some notable things in her time, they were very few and far between (and typically related to her body or her crazy behavior) and I don't think it necessitated extensive coverage in the wake of her death.
So the question becomes "Why is the media following Anna Nicole's family around?" And the answer is "Because she was Anna Nicole."
And honestly this goes to the heart of why it's a sad story all together. Lagiz keeps saying she wants her to have a peaceful & honorable post-death story. And yet that was soooooo not the Anna she played on TV. So why are they following it around? You're right, because it's Anna - and if you think about it that's how she made herself famous when she was alive [by being ridiculous, bigger than life, and a bit of fake-Hollywood] - why should we be surprised, shock or annoyed with it post-death? [Unless we were already surprised, shocked and annoyed while she was alive. Which is me.]
Ah yes, PR. I just couldn't live with myself posing as someone scoping for free advertising and hiding the fact that I was trying to advertise. That just seemed so wrong in the end. People may hate advertising - but at least they don't try and mask the fact that they're selling something with the idea that what they have to talk about is "news" or for the "greater good" like PR people like to do :]
[My apologies if you are a PR person. It's a necessary, viable profession...just not for me.]
I love ya, Lagiz - but you have to admit that Anna was over the top and totally played up that role. So why is it very shocking/disturbing that she causes more drama after her death? [Though I think it shouldn't be on the news - more in the entertainment/gossip news outlets.]
Nope, I didn't say I wanted a peaceful and honorable death story. I was semi-responding to helpimarock's original post about how he wanted a normal death observation. I know why people are following her family around, and it isn't because this is JFK's family and we need a reaction, it is because they've all been in court and releasing statements for the last few months since Daniel died. This is a legal story, and whether we like it or not, the public (me included) has been following the family fights over paternity and family rights.
My sadness is that Anna's death is as big a trainwreck as her life, but that's not the media's fault in any way. It's her mom's fault and the fault of the assholes she hung out with.
Noooooo, I'm not in PR. In fact, PR people usually drive me up the wall. They were not well-liked by the greater Communications department (the largest dept. at Miami U. at the time and hence one of the most competitive) b/c they knew nothing about the medium they were supposedly studying. PR students were exempt from so many studies and, as a result, were clueless in a production studio and were near oblivious to media history and law & regulation. Though there were some cool students. For example, we had a PR student in the position of promotions director at the radio station while I was on the board who was easy to get along with, a major asset to the station and really made a difference.
Anyway, the main reason I held back with the "maybe PR?" comment was b/c I thought to myself "nah, she actually really knows what's she talking about." :)
I can totally see how PR kids would've driven you nuts while at school. Most of them stunk where I went and seemed to be only studying PR becuase they already tried at something else, failed, and were looking for an "easy" degree. But there were some good ones, indeed.
Thanks for the compliment in your last para - BTW :]
Immediacy
Proximity
Emotions
This created a far less sensationalist news climate then what we have today. And one, I personally, feel is more beneficial to it's audience.
With the JO trial, we got the first 3 - but what media outlets discovered is that with the following 4 they got FAR better ratings - ratings equal to a lot of fictional-based TV shows.
Consequence
Oddity
Conflict
Suspense
While the JO trial may be based on legal conflict more closely based to the traditional 3 definitions of "what is news" it's huge audience was more likely watching it for the following 4 reasons. And the media outlets KNEW this and LEARNED from it. With the success of the OJ trial in terms of viewers came the media's acceptance of more sensationalist news stories AND their tendency to skew stories that could be presented in a more traditional way to the sensationalist angle.
So it's not apples to oranges. It's more like Mac power PCs to Mac Power books...just changing of one beginning apple to a more sophisticated version of the same apple. [Hope that analogy works and isn't too cheesy!]
Reply
Reply
Traditional news reasons to:
Immediacy
Proximity
Consequence
and the other 4 to:
Prominence
Oddity
Conflict
Suspense
Emotions
Dunno how I listed them wrong. Sorry!
Reply
Reply
Anyway, you're right, there is significant overlap between the OJ trial and the aftermath of Anna Nicole's death. I think I follow your Mac analogy; is it kind of like apples and pears? I.e. two items that are ultimately separate but that have a number of notable similar characteristics?
Getting back to my stance, I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that their is such a large audience in America for sensational media is at the core of what I find disturbing. So, yes, in the eyes of many people this *is* news (b/c arguably it emotionally satisfies primal and/or voyeuristic urges), however, in the grand scheme of what is truly important and effects our society and culture, it *isn't* news.
Reply
It's more like apples to pears than apples to oranges but ultimately like apples to grapples [do you have those where you are? It's an apple crossed with a grape to make an apple that tastes like a grape. And I'm not making this up.]
I agree - the skewing of news towards sensationalism makes me want to ralph. It's sick - it makes American's look even more like self absorbed idiots than we actually are. It's insulting.
But Lagiz is kind of right - though I hate to admit it because I dislike anna a lot - there is actual news there. The sad & sickning part is how much CNN played up the sensationalist angle [Oddity Conflict Suspense Emotions] and not the sad, successful, life story of Anna [Prominence]. [And then let it rest.]
Instead it's British Tabloid-ed into something of paramount drama that has little to do with things actually affecting [Immediacy Proximity Consequence] to most of America.
Reply
Okay, I gotcha on the grapple analogy. (I've never heard of those, btw. Though I haven't been in a produce section in ages so we probably have them and I'm just clueless.)
"I agree - the skewing of news towards sensationalism makes me want to ralph. It's sick - it makes American's look even more like self absorbed idiots than we actually are. It's insulting."
This is precisely what I was getting at.
As far as the actual news angle goes, I wouldn't have been bothered if the story only lasted a day or two. At least not much. Because, after all, this kind of thing is happening to other Americans as we speak and they don't have the media following them around. So the question becomes "Why is the media following Anna Nicole's family around?" And the answer is "Because she was Anna Nicole." And while Anna Nicole did accomplish some notable things in her time, they were very few and far between (and typically related to her body or her crazy behavior) and I don't think it necessitated extensive coverage in the wake of her death.
Reply
And honestly this goes to the heart of why it's a sad story all together. Lagiz keeps saying she wants her to have a peaceful & honorable post-death story. And yet that was soooooo not the Anna she played on TV. So why are they following it around? You're right, because it's Anna - and if you think about it that's how she made herself famous when she was alive [by being ridiculous, bigger than life, and a bit of fake-Hollywood] - why should we be surprised, shock or annoyed with it post-death? [Unless we were already surprised, shocked and annoyed while she was alive. Which is me.]
Ah yes, PR. I just couldn't live with myself posing as someone scoping for free advertising and hiding the fact that I was trying to advertise. That just seemed so wrong in the end. People may hate advertising - but at least they don't try and mask the fact that they're selling something with the idea that what they have to talk about is "news" or for the "greater good" like PR people like to do :]
[My apologies if you are a PR person. It's a necessary, viable profession...just not for me.]
I love ya, Lagiz - but you have to admit that Anna was over the top and totally played up that role. So why is it very shocking/disturbing that she causes more drama after her death? [Though I think it shouldn't be on the news - more in the entertainment/gossip news outlets.]
Reply
My sadness is that Anna's death is as big a trainwreck as her life, but that's not the media's fault in any way. It's her mom's fault and the fault of the assholes she hung out with.
Reply
Anyway, the main reason I held back with the "maybe PR?" comment was b/c I thought to myself "nah, she actually really knows what's she talking about." :)
Reply
Thanks for the compliment in your last para - BTW :]
Reply
http://www.grapplefruits.com/
Reply
...WEGMAN'S??
Reply
Wegmans is teh best eveah!
Reply
Leave a comment