PressEthic

Is journalism entertainment? Great anchormen like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings will forever be the faces associated with history, but as I watched these three men honored at the 57th Annual Emmy Awards, I was amazed at how thin the line appeared between journalism and entertainment. In a way, journalism does entertain. It entertains curiosity, inquisitiveness, and even morbid fascination, but isn’t information for the sake of entertainment a dangerous precedent to set?

Like the doctor who excitedly anticipates her first heart transplant or brain surgery, most journalists can’t help but salivate at the thought of a juicy story. What makes a “juicy story?” Well. . . not peace, love, and happiness, that’s for sure. Just like The Andy Griffith Show and Leave it to Beaver have been replaced by Cops and Family Guy, so too has the public’s taste for the sensational and dysfunctional bled into the nightly news. Under ever increasing pressure for higher ratings and the added competition from cable news stations, is it any surprise that news stories are beginning to resemble reality television?

But, then again, this shift towards the sensational appears to be motivated largely by the capitalistic balance of supply and demand. Is it really wrong for newscasts to show the public what they want to see? It’s amazing how quickly the attention of the nation was hooked in 2005 by the exhaustive coverage of celebrity court cases, the Scott Peterson murder trial, the “runaway bride” Jennifer Wilbanks, and the missing teenager Natalee Holloway. It’s easy for us, as aspiring journalists, to criticize and look down upon such frivolous excuses for news, but isn’t it the height of arrogance for us to tell the public what they should care about? Instead of collectively rolling our eyes, it would behoove us to dissect and understand the universal appeal of such stories. Could it be the suspense, the drama, the real-life struggles of other people; in other words, the entertainment?