Take Some Punds Off The Media

Why should New Yorkers care that image of Katie Couric was altered in the recent edition of CBS Magazine? Is this really such important news that it deserves front page (urgent) attention, no less, in the New York Post (August 30, 2006)!? WIll this news affect global warming somehow? Maybe the war in Iraq, perhaps the genocide in Darfur; or possibly even the mid-term elections coming later this year? If you thought so, you thought wrong. This story has nothing to do with anything politically or economically important.

So why is it given such frontal attention? The answer could be found in this week's edition of The Economist. In the article which, ironically, is also given front page attention (Who Killed The Newspaper?), the author suggests that this phenomenon of seemingly pointless stories is, in fact, a tool of the newspaper corporations to stay financially afloat: "Many [newspapers] are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting the mix of their stories towards entertainment, lifestyle and subjects that may seem more relevant to people's daily lives than international affairs and politics are."

If that truly is the case, these papers might as well not be called "newspapers" since they aren't truly fulfilling their unsaid purpose, which is to "maintain civilization" according to Alexis de Tocqueville. Newspapers would do this by informing the public of affirs that affect them and perhaps what they could do about it.

The private worlds of many too often get confused with reality. Thsi can be no more truly seen than in the publication of this article on the front page of a newspaper. In one's own world, one may care about his looks and it might irk him that the media alters images without permission, but this should not be front page news.

Perhaps New York should know that we're at war now and elections are coming up or maybe even that enrgy costs are going down, thats good. Whatever it is, please, let's get back to reality.