maybe the backlash for the over-comemrcialisation that is rampant in our current-day culture is beginning proper. To be honest, i have zero sympathy for those who are affected by the backlash, as it is a result of their own drive to push almost every new release of any kind (not even limited to entertainment of course, but any product you can buy) as "The Next Big Thing". People as a whole are generally stupid when it comes to marketing (myself included) but they're not THAT stupid. When the same method is used over and over and over for more than a year or two it gets very boring very quickly.
Maybe some of them will learn from this - then again, maybe not

The American media demonstrated its enormous capacity to SOMAtize its constituency during the endless OJ Simpson trial. I think that this marked a quantum leap in "news" coverage of a "who really gives a shit?" event. Remember the Larry King interviews, the Greta van Susteren mock seriousness, the celebritization of Kato Kalin, all that bullshit? Do you realize that a part of your brain has been set aside to store the name Kato Kalin --- for the rest of your life?

I am skeptical that there will be any large scale backlash against media hype. The fact that the Lynch book didn't take off as hoped by its publishers will help them refine their ideas of marketable hype vs. non-marketable hype. They aren't stupid. Unfortunately, as for the scandal-starved masses, helpless before the media juggernaut, I am compelled to state Mencken's oft-repeated "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

I understand the frustration but it isn't as easy as all that: the public doesn't buy just anything and LOTS of people have gone broke underestimating the American public. There has to be SOME fresh angle for a "media product" (in the broadest sense) to catch on and reach critical mass. If that wasn't the case there would be nothing but hits, and we know that is not the case. It's a delicate balance and achieving it has driven many highly intelligent people insane.

Sure, Eric, if you look at it in terms of isolated marketing ploys and isolated investors. But the hypurveyors, taken as a whole (and we might as well), are always casting enough lines and catching enough fish to keep themselves fat.

Perhaps, but success on any given project is never assured and the system is monolithic only when it works.

As I've said in today's column at Mac-a-ro-nies, the meltdown of the Lynch myth has been gradual and cumulative. I don't believe it will become a model for estimating likely success of book sales.

It is unfortunate the invariably unreliable Robbie Port chose to post a complete falsehood of his own in an entry about the media and falsehoods. Chief Moose did not make a killing from his book and a share of any profits made after the advances and royalties to a co-writer are going to a non-profit foundation.

Mac,

Moose may not have made much from his book, but he's been trying. He's been making plenty of money from speaking at events.

I don't see how I'm "invariably unreliable." Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me unreliable.

The reason I wrote this post was to point out how ridiculous I think it is that every media event gets its own movie and book. Maybe you like reading all the trashy books that spring up around events like the Jon Benet Ramsey murder.

I think its kind of pathetic, but that's just my two cents.

Its good to know I can still count on you to fly off the handle whenver I post something. You missed a couple of my posts, I was begining to think you'd become a Republican or something.

Hardly.

My point is that you make no effort to check material before you post it. Anything you read in non-far Right places in regard to Moose's book will tell you the profits will mainly go to the Chief Moose Foundation. Considering all the time you put into reading Savage and Drudge, you could spare a few minutes to check facts. Do it!

Moose still makes the money--what he decides to do with it is a related but distinct issue, and does not prove that he would have donated to charity had he not received negative coverage for exploiting his job and the sniper victims. And who operates his foundation? As I'm sure you know, charities often consume most of the money they raise--who draws a salary from his foundation? Your assumption that all is aboveboard is typical.

If you were really such a great journalist, you'd be capable of making those sorts of distinctions. What is your source for introducing Michael Savage into the discussion? If you were really a veteran journalist, you wouldn't need to resort to such hysterical attempted attacks.

Because you repeatedly brag about being an author, what books have you written? Because you repeatedly brag about being such a great teacher, where and what do you teach? Because you repeatedly brag about your blog traffic, how come you have locked your site meter?

Go ahead now, accuse me of buying my wife.

one of the great ironies of modern times is how the media's lust to turn any event into a celebrity event was a major contributing factor to the car crash in which Princess Diana died. remember at the time, all the newspapers here in britain claimed they'd reign themselves in a bit, show a bit of restraint. That really lasted, huh
NOTE: i realise the Jessica Lynch story may not be so hyped, at least here in england, as e.g. current "revealtions" about our own surviving Royals, but it applies to media everywhere - occasionally, something *bad* will happen where the media is either imemdiately or shortly thereafter found (by the public at any rate) to be wholly or partly responsible. The usual suspects will line up to apologise, and usually spout off some shit about how they'll be more sensitive to others in future, but nothing really changes. Not unless actual consumer spending patterns change

Jade, perhaps the media played an ancillary role in Princess Di's death, but the proximate cause was a drunk driver. That could have happened to anyone.

I also must say that the media can't get away with sensationalizing news without an audience that loves the stuff. Sad, but true.