Since David Petraeus has testified before congress, we’re finally getting some substantive news. But for about the past month we haven’t. That’s because the media was obsessed with two men: Larry Craig and Michael Vick.
To be sure, both men are accused of serious crimes. Craig’s in hot water for supposedly soliciting sex in a public restroom, while Vick is rightly on the way to prison for killing dogs. But the sheer attention focused on these men in the last couple of weeks is truly astonishing.
Condemnation of Michael Vick even made its way onto the Senate floor—after all it’s not like Congress has any really important issues to take on. Channeling a passion that I wish the Senate would muster about the war in Iraq, Robert Byrd (D-WV) said, “I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt.”
I’m not defending Michael Vick’s actions, but this sort of vitriol is simply unacceptable, particularly from an elected official. More to the point, I wonder why people can work up more outrage about the deaths of dogs than those of human beings. While the media spent hour upon hour covering the Vick drama, several murders occurred in the nation’s cities. It’s a fair bet that those killers of human beings were not demonized nearly as much as Vick.
On the other hand, I was taken aback that some Vick supporters tried to make the incident racial. I believe that the justice system can be biased toward blacks—as the case of the “Jena six” shows--but the Vick saga simply is not an example of said bias. In fact, Vick’s fame and money allowed him to get the kind of high-powered attorneys who could negotiate the sort of plea agreement he got, where he didn’t have to admit to killing dogs or gambling. Racism is enough of an issue in this country without looking for it in places where it clearly isn’t present.
The attention focused on Craig has been even more bizarre. Even before this scandal in the men’s’ room broke out, the Idaho Statesman had decided to spent precious resources investigating whether or not Craig was gay. Personally, I don’t care. The country has far more pressing issues—the war in Iraq, healthcare, the economy, and immigration among others—to waste time on such trivial questions.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Lee Richards
Let's combine celebrity sleaze with politics;that way the media stays busy and the public will continue to be as well-informed as it is now.
After we elect President Whozit in 2008, how about a government of:
Sec. of Treasury - Paris Hilton
Sec. Of Interior - Britney Spears
Sec. of Offense - Michael Vick
Sec. Health & Human Services - Larry Craig
Foreign & Domestic Affairs Advisor - Bill Clinton
Director of Diplomacy - Rosie O'Donnell
Homeland Security - O.J. Simpson
Drug Enforcement Agency - Rush Limbaugh
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Why talk about Michael Vick, when we have tons to talk about regarding Bill Belichick?
You know, their last names RHYME.
3 - Nancy
The MSM focuses on these shallow jerks because the MSM has become a bastion of shallow jerks themselves, headed by those whose only interest is in making money, which is far more easily done by running after slutty celebrities & deviant politicians than in actually investigating & reporting NEWS. Moreover, most of the MSMs are owned these days by a handful of people all of the same political bent, who have no interest in allowing their personnel to investigate the shady dealings of those in a position to matter, who are also in their pay if not their employ. Nuff said?
4 - Baronius
Nancy, I think you'd be surprised how little impact the ownership of a media outlet has on its content.
5 - Nancy
I don't know as I believe that. I remember reading how much the owner of the Washington Post influenced the investigation of Nixon/Watergate, not to mention how Hearst used to direct his numerous enterprises as to their 'slant'; and it still goes on today, only more so because now the owners hold virtual monopolies that include all kinds of forms of media. You're trying to tell me the owners never exert subtle but definite pressure on their subordinates to lean to this side or that, or to investigate this but not that? I don't think so. I'm thinking I vaguely remember hearing about such a story not too long ago that seemed to me fairly Big News, yet it suddenly sank out of sight & I never heard of it again.
6 - Luigi999
Dumb article on Vick. By far Vick's crime was greater than Craig's so why even mention Craig? The media attention paid to Vick was CORRECT, owing to the sheer brutality and mindless actions of the former NFL player. The media got it right on Vick, channeling a nation outraged by his torturing and killing of innocent animals. I can't wait for more media coverage on Vick when the thug is sentenced to a long prison sentence in Dec.
7 - Baronius
Nancy, sorry about the quick post. I was expecting my system to crash. (One of those days.)
Hearst, Graham, and Pulitzer were legends in the newspaper business for their direct involvement. A lot of papers these days are run by a smaller number of companies, but the corporate ownership inhibits personal influence. Even if a sole owner wanted to exert influence, how would he? The editors are coming out of the same journalism schools. They all got into journalism to "make a difference". All the stories come off the same feeds, and the editorial pages have the same columnists. It's laziness that drive stories, not bias.
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
Now that we all agree on this article, we can finally move on and focus our energy on OJ Simpson's latest crimes.
9 - bliffle
Luthor Murdock, for example, exercises almost no control over his media outlets. He operates them as a public service. you can ask him, if you don't believe me.
10 - handyguy
Hearst did his share of sensationalistic hooey, too.
I don't think journalists, editors, and network news execs just pull these stories out of their ass, even though it might appear that way. They know they will sell papers and get ratings. It's 'our' fault, meaning the public. If more of us showed our distaste by not tuning in, a message might be sent. That does not seem to be happening.
11 - handyguy
"...the media was obsessed with two men: Larry Craig and Michael Vick.
To be sure, both men are accused of serious crimes."
Um, they were? The animal abuse in the Vick matter is indeed a serious matter.
But Larry Craig's crime has not been seen as 'serious' by anyone I've talked to about it. We can't stop giggling, in fact. [Even if it involved a police sting that is distasteful in itself.]
12 - Nancy
No, you're right: but the MSM always seems to feed to the lowest common (in the worst sense of that word) level of the public, and then always reaches even lower. And lower. And lower. They do nothing but cater to the tastes of the stupidest, most ignorant, crass, & vulgar of the population. So do the celebrities, & the MSM eggs them on. Which is why the little quality stuff like Masterpiece Theatre - invariably out of Britain or Europe - is rapidly disappearing from TV; indeed, has disappeared. Even old series shows like The Avengers or Honeymooners is head & shoulders & everything else above the crap that passes as "entertainment" these days, while I doubt many if any at all of the Old School MSM reporters & editors would even bother to spit in the direction of such self-styled newsies as Fox or MTV or any other current outlet, because they're all geared to sensationalism & celebrities in 15-second sound bites, instead of actual, important NEWS. We get days - nay, weeks - of Britney Spears or OJ Simpson, but almost nothing of the details of legislative debates or investigations, and then very little of substance, because it's presented "down" to the Marching Morons of the public.
13 - handyguy
I'm not sure I agree about the quality of entertainment TV. We didn't have shows as good as The Sopranos and The Office and Battlestar Galactica in the 'good old days.'
14 - Baronius
Handy, explain this to me: the number of viewers and readers *is* dropping. Like a rock. People are getting their news from alternative sources like the internet. TV networks consider it a good year when their viewership doesn't drop. (That's true for both news and entertainment.) People don't want to watch fluff news, but it keeps getting fluffier, and the ratings keep getting lower.
As a free marketeer, I find this vexing. Maybe you've got an insight.
15 - handyguy
It's the Internet. Eventually newspapers, TV and movies will be completely transformed into online media. We're practically halfway there now. Currently print advertising is going through painful changes, so magazines and especially newspapers will feel the pinch. But eventually new forms will take the place of the old.