UnSpun

Movin’ on Up?

Have the tabloid’s gotten just a little bit more respectable?  Not really, but their topics of coverage have.  An article in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/media/13shame.html) brought up the recent tendency of tabloids to focus on business scandals (aka Bernie Madoff) and the economic crisis instead of their typical trashy celebs.

In a way I think this is a beneficial, if temporary, change.  As low-quality as tablods are, they do reach a very large audience, and one that may not seek out more serious news (not to judge tabloid readers or anything…).  In a time of crisis I’m glad to see that even the intentionally mindless tabloids can shift their focus to something a little more mindful.  Their coverage may still enforce sensationalism and spectacle, but awareness is still worthwile.

But then again, do we really want these serious and complicated issues wrapped up in tabloid shallowness?  I can’t help but think of the Obama family coverage in almost every type of tabloid magazine.  These publications cover all of the least important parts of the presidency: Obama’s tie colors, Michelle’s outfits, Michelle’s arms, the Whitehouse puppy spectacle, etc.  While I would say that these coverage topics make the Obama family feel more personable and real, they also cheapen them to the status of celebrities (at least in my opinion).  Serious issues and fluff get mixed up together in such coverage, bringing down topics such as Presidential policy and economic issues down to the lower level of fluff.

I can’t decide whether to think that the tabloids are improving or bringing loftier subject down to their level.  It’s the same old dilemma between increased awareness and quality of the message.  If, as Marshall McLuhan says, “The medium is the message”, then perhaps serious messages are better left out of the medium of tabloids.  For now, I’m still in the middle.  I think only time and coverage will tell…