Coolio Arrested and other Celebrity Gossip
 

I always find it fascinating when trivial celebrity news makes it to CNN's lineup of breaking news. Another headline today is "CNN anchor sings duet with Dolly Parton".

Is this news you're interested in?
Are these stories drawing additional readership?
Do you feel bothered when these headlines appear before substantial news from abroad such as suicide bombings, earthquakes, or a military coup?
Perhaps you love easy access to news about the stars and are bothered by my following harsh critique.
Please share!



I see articles like this on CNN and it cheapens my opinion of their reporting. I consider articles like this fit for the National Enquirer or Star Magazine. There are outlets for celebrity news. Does CNN wish to attract new readers by appealing to this audience? I suppose so. A considerable amount of internet traffic comes from high school and middle school-aged children, who are more likely to be interested in such articles. Perhaps I'm too saturated in academia, but I don't know a single person who discusses celebrity news. It may come up in passing or in the form of a joke, but it ends there. By listing these articles on their breaking news alongside substantial articles such as "deaths in Spain from mad cow disease" and "US reportedly considering talks with North Korea" they raise celebrity gossip to the forefront of public discussion and diminish the effect of substantial world news.

No, I don't find this even slightly interesting. The drug use/abuse I'm interested in is my own, my family's or my close friends.

Personally I'm tried of all the "celebrity news." Have been for along time. A while back I got so sick of hearing about the Paris Hilton I actually left a little ill just hearing her name. Probably won't ever stay in a Hilton again. I could give a rats ass if she or anyone else gets arrested, has a boob job or falls of the face of the earth for that matter. None of this is news to me.

I blame the 24 hr news cycle. Once the 24 hr news stations went on the air they suddenly had 24 hrs to fill. And fill it they have... unfortunately with a lot of crap.

I find it funny that Fark had predicted years ago that news is just filled with crap that isn't news.

I read my news very selectively now from multiple sources and tend to read the regurgitated articles, unfortunately they too are getting Paris Hilton crap as well. Thanks Harvey Levin and TMZ.

This is why one of my major newslinks is the NYTimes website. Celebrity news? Good luck finding it. It's usually buried somewhere in the tiny, tiny window of AP/Reuters headlines. There are exceptions to the lack of celebrity news. For instance, there will often be a mention if someone dies. There are occasionally interviews because of an upcoming movie, in which case it will be under "Movies" or "Arts and Leisure"; right now there is a very small picture of Dwayne Johnson on the front page because he did an interview for the Sunday Times to promote Escape to Witch Mountain. There will also be celebrity interviews if the celebrity in question has recently tackled a show on Broadway (ie Jane Fonda has been taking up one of the sidebars on the NYTimes website for the past week, and there is an interview with Joan Allen in Arts). But they don't bash you over the head with celebrity culture; it's clearly not their priority.

I don't care about celebrity antics. It's not interesting, nor is it informative. I don't really learn anything when I read about it. In fact, I think it does more harm than good in terms of our national intelligence to be so focused on this malarky.

Is this news you're interested in?
No, absolutely not. It's crap.
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people - Eleanor Roosevelt

It seems that a majority of the world consuming this stuff is small minded.

Are these stories drawing additional readership?
Unfortunately yes. Pander to the lowest common denominator and you get just that coming to your place.

Do you feel bothered when these headlines appear before substantial news from abroad such as suicide bombings, earthquakes, or a military coup?
There's much more going on in the world than which star is fucking some other star or getting divorced or showed up at Starbucks. It's really pathetic. I see paparazzi in SoHo all the time. It's silly but people buy the magazines and the magazines buy the photos.

Perhaps you love easy access to news about the stars and are bothered by my following harsh critique.
absolutely not.

I don't usually read stuff like that, unless it concerns a celebrity who I really admire for their work. If I think it might affect whatever they're working on at the moment, maybe I'll glance at it casually.
Other than that, the celebs that usually get the headlines in tabloids(Angelina Jolie, Britney, Lindsey, Paris, etc) don't interest me in the slightest. I don't think their professional work is the best in the business, and what they do in their own time is something I really don't care about.
They got drunk, made an ass of themselves? Great. What bothers me is that they do normal stuff, and people pay so much attention to it.
Seriously, many people have a 18-23 year old phase where they occasionally get trashed, drive drunk, etc, the only difference is they're not getting photographed by 35 people every waking minute of their life. Regular people get a divorce, but they don't have millions reading about it and discussing it; Same thing with eating disorders, it's a pretty common thing with young women(and some men as well).
I tend to feel bad for celebs, sometimes, just because I think some of those who do get the attention wish they didn't. And I am certain however, that there are many of them who profit greatly from always being in the public eye, but in the end, that type of thing can be very unhealthy.

As for the american mainstream news agencies, it doesn't really bother me. Most of their news stories are worded and engineered to get higher ratings and views, and since celeb news works best in this society, if you have to compete with other news outlet to stay on top, go ahead. The news game has changed for many news outlets, and unfortunately they need to adapt.
Unless you're BBC, or some other already highly respected news corp., it's tough to attract a good readership without BS stories.
Well, that's why I read mostly BBC news. That, and I like to get world news, which you don't get in American news (except in good papers like the Times).

It's so odd to see these words in the same sentence.

did you know coolio is almost bald, yes thats right that mop on his head is a wig,
snoop doggy dog actually "fathered" children, wow I know incredible isn't it

the fact that they even call that news instead of gossip always bothers me

I'd like to disagree with the Americans are interested in this crap but unfortunately I can't most Americans really are interested in that and consider it "Breaking News", the days of looking to your newspaper,TV or radio (some of us like to watch ours) for actual informative news is long gone, at least we know what the life of the rich and "glamorous" is like



I think you'd be interested in Project Censored - Media Democracy in Action

They generally have some hard hitting pertinent news stories

Don't even get me started on this subject. I wanted to blow my brains out with the Anna Nicole Smith coverage that went on for DAYS. Really? All the shit going on in the world, and I'm supposed to give a flying fuck about some fat bimbo and who her baby daddy is?

Dang Man, just because she gets more coverage than you'd like isn't any reason to call her "fat bimbo" ... It's not really her fault. Or the other celebrities' either. The only thing they did wrong was become famous for singing, or sometimes, in Anna Nicholes case, living. Thats not what this thread is about.

No, her dumbass behaviors are the reason to call her a bimbo.

I don't even know what you're trying to say with your last two sentences.

Well, I'll try to be clearer ... why don't we not pick on the people with the coverage, and instead answer why the news agencies cover them.

heh. That's easy. Lowest common denominator always win. That's why the Romans flocked to see the Christians fed to the lions. We flock to see the "celebrities" do stupid stuff. You're on the right track, though. A better question would be "why has the news media lost focus on hard news?"

Too depressing? Not very accurate? Same thing over and over again we start looking for ways to be entertained?

Back at school, I stopped attending parade because all the teachers did was whine about attendance and performance instead of giving either incentives to do better or propose a plan besides punish folk out of adherence.

I feel it's the same. I simply don't watch TV news any more.

You're right, fat bimbo was uncalled for. She was a skinny bimbo thanks to all the drugs she took.

The news coverage had nothing to do with her being a bimbo, every single other aspect of her life did. But wait, what's not her fault again? I didn't know the media made her pose for Playboy, forced drugs down her throat, or forced her into marrying an old billionaire. My mistake.

I have a problem with THAT sort of bullshit being plastered over POLITICAL news stations. Go ahead, throw it on E!, MTV, etc. But to put it on MSNBC, CNN, etc. is absolutely asinine. Real "news" has absolutely zero credibility to it anymore, because people no longer make any sort of differentiation between what's news and what's gossip. Not like it matters anyways, because aside from the polarizing republican figures ala Limbaugh, even "real" news has such an overwhelming liberal bias anyways, it would have lost all its credibility even if completely segregated from the pop culture fluff.

Off the soapbox, and out of this thread before my blood pressure gets even higher.

Many celebrities complain about their lack of privacy and simultaneously have their publicists call photographers to tell them where they will be and when.

As The Jazz suggested, stations broadcast it because viewers buy it (or the products advertised when it is shown).
Huh? I don't watch television news, but sitting in the airport earlier this week, I heard CNN reporters characterize Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele apologizing to Rush Limbaugh as a "Machiavellian" liberal effort. Doesn't sound like liberal bias to me. They then segued into a discussion of Rihanna and domestic abuse...

i donot read the celebrity news, but they jumb in front of me in many programmes so i found myself that i always knew what celebrities were doing