Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	X-Ray Reading Helps Interpret Author's Intentions 12:05 AM Feb. 10, 2010
2.	USDA Drops National Animal ID Plan 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
3.	Live Chat Today: What Position Should I Apply for When Company Has Multiple Openings? 12:01 AM Feb. 10, 2010
4.	AP stories are back on Google News again 7:21 PM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Romenesko feedback

Why does the press cover trivial matters like the "lipstick on a pig" flap?
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 1

THEY DROOL WHEN THE BELL IS RUNG
Posted by JAMES JOHNSON 9/11/2008 5:47:57 PM

I think media has bought into the "Gold Stars For All" philosophy to such an extent that it has a Pavlovian response to the idea of judging or discriminating. Likely a severe muscle spasm or a flood of drool.

It's not that trivial...
Posted by Alexandra Kitty 9/11/2008 4:11:14 PM

Not world shattering, but very telling.
Until this point, there was something almost magical and mythical about Barack Obama -- his speeches got him very far.

His background and body of work is modest for someone who has achieved what he has achieved to date -- but his oratory skills were seen as strong suit.

He is seem as a master of words.

So when a master of words uses a tired cliche -- and one that can be very easily construed as a sexist gaffe (something we'd expect another greenhorn of the past -- Dan Quayle -- to have done) that mythical aura gets shattered, which leads to some interesting questions:

1. How well does this candidate react under criticism and pressure?

2. How well does he anticipate the actions of veterans who are his rivals?

3. What is his game plan in the face of adversity?

And these are important questions -- so now the certain illusions are shattered, we can take a second look at the candidates -- a more realistic one where two mundane guys who have very different pasts are duking it out for a coveted position.

And it's not always the "big" things that need to be closely examined to find out a person's true nature -- often times, it is the little things that say a lot more than the big things. A big obstable we can see -- it's the mundane little pebble in the engine that will get us every time.

$
Posted by Mark Forstneger 9/11/2008 4:00:21 PM

Money. Advertising. Attract audiences by manipulating their emotions with stories about sexism, or racism, or religion, or any number of "inciteful" topics.

Easy story to do, easy for audiences to understand. They'll come back for more slop, ad rates will go up, investors will be happy.

In theory. :-)

Insipid Stunts
Posted by Doran Barons 9/11/2008 3:52:34 PM

Not wanting to miss a "game changing" event doesn't explain why an organization such as NPR would, shortly after airing Senator Obama's complaint about media inanity, call a farmer and see if he could actually apply lipstick to one of his pigs.

Too often news outlets confuse their job with entertainment. Until that changes (hah!) boring substance will always lose to fun vacuousness.

Easy as ...
Posted by Alex Dering 9/11/2008 2:35:49 PM

pie. Mmmm... pie.

You see, if the press covered serious matters, and by covered I mean, did research, spoke to experts, went back and forth with it, they'd eventually have to come to a conclusion. And that means they'd have to take a side.

Example: Perpetual motion machines do not exist. Here are the experts. Here is the lack of any working models of perpetual motion machines. End of story until someone sends up a working perpetual motion machine. Until then, these crackpots working in their basements on "overunity" machines need to have their heads examined. On to next issue.

Now, let's take the press' approach to the lipstick on pig thing. Practically no work is needed to make articles out of this. It's like soup: just throw in some more water.

Why? Because there's no "there" there. Someone said something in a speech. Someone else expresses an opinion about the first thing being sexist or racist or pigist or whatever. There is no way, whatsoever, to get a fixed point to start a conversation from.

Drilling in Alaska has fixed points. Someone can be asked why they support or don't support it. "Oh, it will take 10 years for the oil to get to the gas tanks." That, right there, is something that can be checked. But it takes effort.

And effort is hard.

Since there's no way to prove ANYTHING about pigstick, you can keep writing about it forever. Interview Oprah. How upset is Dr. Phil? Let's get Deanna Troi, Betazed empath, down here to talk about what she senses from Obama and Palin.

Then let's go to the "moron on the street" interviews. Ever notice that? Whenever the news interviews "common people" it's always about something silly? "Do you own a iPhone?" "How long have you been in line for the Harry Potter book?" "How much do you love Justin Timberlake?" "How many gallons of milk are you buying for the storm?" (The answer is usually: "Two dozen. The storm might last a day.")

fear
Posted by Andrew Nusca 9/11/2008 1:36:30 PM

Perhaps the reason the press engages in covering such topics is because it simply fears that rival publications will cover it first?

Seems to me very much a prisoner's dilemma.

Always,
The Editorialiste.
http://editorialiste.blogspot.com/

Page 1 of 1

View all Romenesko feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)