Botox and the Media

“All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.”

H. L. Mencken

“It’s white and black like industrial waste,
Pollution of the highest degree,
You wonder why I don’t hang out much,
I wonder how you can’t see.”

George Harrison, The Devil’s Radio

There is a report this morning that the Washington Post is investigating whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. I have been waiting a long time for someone to tackle this most important issue, since I suspect that the fate of the free world and free markets hinges upon getting a correct answer to the matter. I am particularly gladdened that it is the Washington Post, that most venerable of newspapers, that has chosen to tackle as important an issue as this. After all, we cannot allow our country to rest on its botox.

The really important question is “why?” Why on earth would anyone care whether Biden did or didn’t have a botox shot? Why would a prestigious newspaper like the Post waste time on this drivel? Why would other news media report that the Post is so engaged? Why would Biden’s campaign deign to issue a denial (as, in fact, they did)? And, why is it the subject of this blog entry?

The answer to the last question is that it isn’t the subject of this blog entry, but only my excuse to wonder aloud about the nature and character of those working in the news industry. I warned my faithful readers (is there such a thing?) I would do this; I was simply biding my time until the inevitable opportunity presented itself.

Among the many suspicions I harbor about modern life is that the concept of “news” is nothing more than one end of a continuum of information sharing that ranges from “news” (acceptable information about shared events) to “common gossip.” They are of a kind, with one end of the spectrum being rightfully condemned by George Harrison in song as “industrial waste” and the other end elevated beyond acceptable into a commodity for which we are willing to pay. The question then becomes: what is the nature and character of those who determine where information fits on this continuum.

At any given time, it is the currently active journalists, reporters and editors that make the decisions that matter about the newsworthiness of an item. The professors, critics and pundits can subsequently debate whether or not something was newsworthy at the time it was published, but by the time they get around to having the debate it is too late to matter, since the subject of the debate has, by then, long since been reported and largely forgotten. The results of such a debate may well marginally influence some future reporting event, but likely not to any appreciable degree since publication decisions happen in the urgency of real time. So it is the people working in the news industry – the journalists, reporters and the editors – who effectively decide what is reportable news and what isn’t. It is their character and nature that should interest us.

It appears to me that far too many of the decisions to publish “information” are in the gray area between news and gossip, and that the consistent quality of these decisions must say something concrete about the nature of journalists, editors and reporters. Whether they get the continuum placement decision wrong 10% of the time or 75% of the time in your point of view, the fact is that they get it wrong with far more frequency than any thoughtful person should care to see. We would like our news people to be dispassionate, to report the facts, to leave the editorials to the editorial page, and not to report gossip. I would have presumed that someone of the stature of Edward R. Murrow – a true, serious journalist whose reportage was stellar, but who was reduced by his editors to broadcasting programs that he despised and which brought him no honor – would prefer to stay far clear of anything that even remotely smacked of gossip.

Without further preamble, it is my humble opinion that many employed in gathering and reporting news take on far too many of the characteristics of the gossip monger than they do of the serious journalist. How else can you explain the need to determine whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot? I suppose, if you are absolutely determined to try and justify a salacious interest in the subject, you can argue that your interest has something to do with Mr. Biden’s underlying character, but wouldn’t you rather be honest and simply say you want to know because you need fodder for a good gossip session? That Mr. Biden might have some aspects of personal vanity can hardly be news to any of the rest of us who have our own private vanities which we “enjoy” – and, in case any of you are wondering, the term “the rest of us” as used in this sentence includes everyone, everywhere, specifically including me and all of the gossip mongers and serious journalists out there.

I am as certain that not all journalists are gossips as I am that more than a fair share of them are gossip mongers or little more than such. No other conclusion explains the syndicated entertainment gossip shows, the extraordinary and almost loving focus on the bad behavior of Britney, Paris and Lindsay, the immense popularity of magazines such as People, and, yes, any sort of interest whatsoever on whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. Scholars might well counter that many of the folks starring in the syndicated gossip shows are not real journalists, but these folks maintain stoutly and loudly that they are. Talk about lipstick on a pig!

The journalistic professionals can make whatever distinctions that please them about such matters, but, to those of us outside the profession, it seems as if an inordinate amount of time is spent by the media in informing us about the more disgusting aspects of the lives of celebrities that most of us would never willingly invite into our homes in the absence of such information.

Of course, people pay good money to listen to or read this garbage, so one cannot wholly blame the media for pandering to their tastes when they are trying to earn a living. One can, however, ask serious journalists – like those working at the Washington Post – to refrain from becoming infected by the gossip mongering bug if they wish to continue to be taken seriously.

To quote George Harrison again (check out YouTube if you want to hear a great song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mGBpoFxB4 ):

“I hear it through the day,
Airwaves gettin’ filled,
With gossip broadcast to and fro,
On the devil’s radio.”