Likes pods leaving their mother ships... « PREV | NEXT »: Checking In

March 18, 2009

An Actress Is Injured, and the Hordes Descend

So, what did we gain from the breathless, constantly updated, rumor-fueled media deathwatch over Natasha Richardson?

In whose interest was the deathwatch held? What were the compelling reasons for it? The public's right to know definitely wasn't one of them.

It was tawdry celebrity journalism, and it was ugly -- the kind of thing that makes a person feel dirty just reading it. (Thus the lack of links to the coverage here. No sense spreading the grime.) And yet some of it was dressed up as arts journalism: Richardson was a serious actress from a famous family of serious actors, including her famous mother, and she was married to a serious actor who happens to be a movie star. Mother, daughter and husband had a string of stage as well as film credits. So there was an upscale appeal to the story, which played everywhere.

For anyone but those closest to the family, however, there was no real urgency to it. Yes, one could argue that there are financial repercussions when Liam Neeson has to leave a film set, and that bears reporting. But could the media not simply have reported Richardson's accident and his going to her side, then given their family a couple of days, for God's sake, to deal with the unfolding crisis on their own? Was it necessary to be such voyeurs, such rumormongers? Was it beneath no one to descend on the family and report tidbits and hearsay that were, truly, none of our business?

I'm not saying it wasn't a story at all. I am saying the media could have been more dignified and more decent about covering it. Restraint would have been a nice thing.

Yes, the technology exists to report a story moment to moment. Choosing not to cover something that way can mean being beaten by the competition. But the questions we ask ourselves to determine whether -- and, by extension, how -- we cover something are the same as they've always been: Is it a story? Is it the kind of story we want to tell our readers? Is covering it the best use of our resources? Does covering it require us to debase ourselves?

And there's this litmus test of journalistic performance, a piece of advice I heard David Isay give at a panel discussion once: "Just act like a fucking human being."

With all its panting disregard for decency and fact, coverage of Richardson's last two days of life failed that test in spades.
March 18, 2009 6:02 PM | | Comments (1)

1 Comments

Isn't "tawdry celebrity journalism" redundant?

Leave a comment

















Archives

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


About

    ARTicles ARTicles is a project of 
    the National Arts Journalism Program, an association of some 500 journalists in the United States. Our group blog is a place for arts and cultural journalists to share ideas and information, to celebrate what we do, and to make the case for its continuing value. ARTicles is edited by Laura Collins-Hughes. To contact her, click here.
    more

    ARTicles Bloggers Meet our bloggers: Sasha Anawalt, MJ Andersen, Alicia Anstead, Laura Bleiberg, Larry Blumenfeld, Jeanne Carstensen, Robert Christgau, Laura Collins-Hughes, Thomas Conner, Lily Tung Crystal, Richard Goldstein, Patti Hartigan, Glenn Kenny, Wendy Lesser, Ruth Lopez, Nancy Malitz, Douglas McLennan, Tom Moon, Abe Peck, Peter Plagens, John Rockwell, Werner Trieschmann, Lesley Valdes and Douglas Wolk. more

    NAJP NAJP is America's largest organization dedicated to the advancement of arts and cultural journalism. The NAJP has produced research, publications and discussions and works to bring together journalists, artists, news executives, cultural organization administrators, funders and others concerned with arts and culture in America today. more

    Join NAJP Join America's largest organization of arts journalists. Here's how more

see all archives

Contact: articles@najp.org

Recent Comments