Celebrity Journalism is a real thing now, we have termed it as paparazzi. There are even accolades for covering their daily lives, a good example will be National Enquirer winning Pulitzer Price for covering John Edward’s affair. Though It seems morally bankrupt, it was justified by Dan Rosenheim in 2004 as he said, “Ignore the viewer’s or reader’s interest at your own risk. We try to trivialize ourselves and margin the brand”.
There wasn’t any need for that because the news covering celebs on day to day basis was justified almost 30 years ago as a magazine owner said, we have celebs on our cover magazines because it helps us to sell more.
The Economics of This Monopoly
Another important aspect we should mind is the economy of this whole thing. If a celebrity is popular, and creates a scene, it becomes a national obsession, and there is a lot of money to cover the whole thing.
Let’s say, if the news outlet focused on important issues like hunger or injustice, then there are high chances people will stop buying them. They don’t want to see the hard reality. Instead, they are looking for something to feed off their obsession.
The Ideal World
Well, if you are talking about the moral compass, the media outlets better ignore the trivial matters related to celebrity’s meltdown. The news should consist of more important matters, things that affect our lives in one way or another. Let’s get real, a celeb getting arrested for DUI sis not going to affect us any way. So why care about it.
With that being said, I think the consumers are somewhat to be blamed for it. They are the one suggesting ideas to editors, and the companies will only offer for what the consumers are willing to pay.