by Jacob Jenkins

Created on: May 08, 2009

Most Americans support our capitalistic society without great pause for analysis. It would stand to reason then that we should expect no less from our media enterprises, meaning that it stands to be in the media's interest to amass the greatest amount of capital in order to expand their enterprises. Our capitalistic system's ruthless overall efficiency applies just as readily to the media; they market the stories we are most likely to buy at the highest possible returns (mostly our viewing time). Despite many viewers of the mass media networks acknowledging and often even slandering the many shortcomings (bias, 5th grade programming level, and entertainment only stories) of the very news programs they watch, the bottom line is clear, they still tune in. The supreme irony of this debate lies in the fundamental fact that we care enough even to participate and, as consequence, add yet another notch to Paris's (really the media's) belt.

Now the obvious counter argument will be that without public dissent the media will continue to drum to it's own beat . This argument has it's merits but is so simplistic that it deserves a thorough and ruthless dissection. The first point of business is to spend one minute on Paris. Should the media provide airtime for a woman who has written a new York times bestseller, had a musical album reach #6 on the billboard charts, had a TV show premier with over 13 million viewers, has had a role in 17 movies, has multiple product lines, was a model and designer for the world's top companies, and has appeared in countless major publications, shows, etc? Of course they should; we gobble it up. In another person's case the world might be hailing the coming of the world's next polymath, so why not for poor Paris? Because she is a useless actor, musician, intellectual, and human being in general. However, she may be the single greatest self-promoter of our time, with a combination of sex appeal, wealth, and megalomania strong enough to attract immense attention, whether good or bad.

The media has no choice whether or not to cover Paris; we as a people have spoken and not simply to the media. We have crowned her a champion author, musician, and television star. So how can we as a people turn on the media for reporting our choices as a culture? Of course, it's predictable; your not the one who supports her, it's the minority with enough of a base to push her to stardom. If that's the case then why do we enter into a debate at all? If Paris were

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>