Monday, January 23, 2006
shit flows down the mainstream
There's no point in ripping Red for running fashion features like today's on grills on its cover -- that's part of the nature of the beast. What interests me is this subhead: "Rappers bring million-dollar smiles into the mainstream." I feel like I see this sort of storyline in so many newspaper stories and, like many disappointing media trends, it is overrepresented in RedEye. When people are fastening metal and gems onto their teeth, why is it that the most interesting thing someone can say about it is that a few more people are doing it than last year? And do these stories ever actually demonstrate the increase? And, even if they can, what does it mean to call the practice "mainstream"?
Let's contrast grills with something everyone would consider important -- murder. When the number of murders in an area increases or decreases, it's a story. It's also a story when the way people are being murdered changes. For instance, if more people are murdered in their homes than on the street (as opposed to the last year), that's useful information that affects the way readers may live their lives. It would be useful to talk about murders in homes becoming "mainstream."
But these aren't the only kinds of murder stories we read -- in fact, not the main kind at all. Nearly every individual murder is inherently interesting because of things each one tells us about human nature. Even when they come from a shoddy writer, these stories are almost always worth reading. Stories about people (or even a few people, or one person) doing outrageous things with their bodies should be just as intriguing. But these stories are almost always accompanied by some claim that the practice is "growing" or "becoming popular" or "coming into the mainstream." Writers just as often go out of their way to speculate about future popularity -- will it be the next big thing? Will it catch on? Will teenagers want to buy it? -- or deflate trendsetters' future hopes -- not likely to become popular soon, won't be sold at a drug store near you, etc., etc.
Why does anyone really care? Or why do Red (and other papers) *think* we'll care. I'm sure that many times it's a way of satisfying journalistic instincts by inventing a news peg. (Reporter: Grills are really cool, let's do a story on them. Editor: Well, these aren't a new thing, are they? Reporter: Well, no, but they make great art, and they might be getting more popular...) But they also satisfy a sort of mob fear that many mainstream media seem to have. It seems very, very important for media outlets to remind their audiences that an outrageous action is *only* important because it's becoming more mainstream, more popular, making more money. And you can always find out about what's becoming mainstream by reading mainstream media. The end effect is to smother the idea of a story being important for its own sake.
Outed? For some reason, Red thinks Isaac Mizrahi's antics on the Golden Globes red carpet is only news now. Even bigger news -- in case you missed it -- Isaac Mizrahi is GAY. Gay gay gay. For some reason, Red thinks it is really important to point out that Mizrahi is "openly gay" in its article about his show before the show. Mizrahi's sexual orientation is relevant to the story (it's probably why Scarlett Johansson hasn't sued him for assault... though I'm still not sure why that matters... I know that if I were randomly groped on the street, it wouldn't make a difference in the woman later explained that she's a lesbian). But facts like sexual orientation are only fair game if the author explains *why* they're important. And what's the deal with "openly"? This isn't 1985. And if Red is seriously worried about outting Isaac Mizrahi, well, someone may also want to let them know that Ronald Reagan and the Pope died.
Let's contrast grills with something everyone would consider important -- murder. When the number of murders in an area increases or decreases, it's a story. It's also a story when the way people are being murdered changes. For instance, if more people are murdered in their homes than on the street (as opposed to the last year), that's useful information that affects the way readers may live their lives. It would be useful to talk about murders in homes becoming "mainstream."
But these aren't the only kinds of murder stories we read -- in fact, not the main kind at all. Nearly every individual murder is inherently interesting because of things each one tells us about human nature. Even when they come from a shoddy writer, these stories are almost always worth reading. Stories about people (or even a few people, or one person) doing outrageous things with their bodies should be just as intriguing. But these stories are almost always accompanied by some claim that the practice is "growing" or "becoming popular" or "coming into the mainstream." Writers just as often go out of their way to speculate about future popularity -- will it be the next big thing? Will it catch on? Will teenagers want to buy it? -- or deflate trendsetters' future hopes -- not likely to become popular soon, won't be sold at a drug store near you, etc., etc.
Why does anyone really care? Or why do Red (and other papers) *think* we'll care. I'm sure that many times it's a way of satisfying journalistic instincts by inventing a news peg. (Reporter: Grills are really cool, let's do a story on them. Editor: Well, these aren't a new thing, are they? Reporter: Well, no, but they make great art, and they might be getting more popular...) But they also satisfy a sort of mob fear that many mainstream media seem to have. It seems very, very important for media outlets to remind their audiences that an outrageous action is *only* important because it's becoming more mainstream, more popular, making more money. And you can always find out about what's becoming mainstream by reading mainstream media. The end effect is to smother the idea of a story being important for its own sake.
Outed? For some reason, Red thinks Isaac Mizrahi's antics on the Golden Globes red carpet is only news now. Even bigger news -- in case you missed it -- Isaac Mizrahi is GAY. Gay gay gay. For some reason, Red thinks it is really important to point out that Mizrahi is "openly gay" in its article about his show before the show. Mizrahi's sexual orientation is relevant to the story (it's probably why Scarlett Johansson hasn't sued him for assault... though I'm still not sure why that matters... I know that if I were randomly groped on the street, it wouldn't make a difference in the woman later explained that she's a lesbian). But facts like sexual orientation are only fair game if the author explains *why* they're important. And what's the deal with "openly"? This isn't 1985. And if Red is seriously worried about outting Isaac Mizrahi, well, someone may also want to let them know that Ronald Reagan and the Pope died.
