Gay Talese’s smart exposition on Sinatra serves as a journalistic benchmark, well known for its artistic flair of paparazzi mixed with literary genius. The subject is interesting because it poses such a paramount problem since Old Blue Eyes’ fame and fortune is owed largely to his prized vocal cords, offering insight into his life by revealing the blessing of this gift as well as its curse. Talese obviously structured his article with such care and owed its success to obsessive research of the singer that it almost pigeonholes the author as a fan-crazed stalker.
But in today’s reporting of celebrities, who are treated as the royalty of America, too many journalists have capitalized on the trivial (and, sadly, more profitable) aspect of revealing the “cold” without the character, and therefore betray the example that Talese set. That is to say, he set a bar for quality that few have matched, and today the tabloids are littered with stolen glances of the rich and famous rather than revealing profiles; a cheated view of the people that presents an unfair and cheap insight into their lives. Some young tween (pre-teen) girls I know could name the toothbrush colors of The Jonas Brothers members (the new teen-heartthrob boy-band), but they would not be able to tell you about the sibling rivalry that these pop stars might be experiencing within their own world. As a result of public demand, the inconsequential is glamorized, and we may be all the dumber for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment