We ignored Paris Hilton, and no one noticed.

[Der Alta]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html

I hesitated to post this story, as it defeats the purpose of the experiment, but in consideration of the possible discussion, I decided it was applicable.

To analyze this abit, the Associated Press made a concious decision to not post any material or news info centered on one subject. A deliberate media blackout of an section of news. Any possible story that did come up, they did not publish.

Taking the subject on as a discussion, I could understand why they decided this. Paris Hilton as an individual is only news worthy because of her last name and the train wreck she is aiming for. I cannot think of one thing she's done that warrants the media coverage she does get. So in that perspective, the Media Blackout didn't really mean anything. If its not news worthy, why cover it?

Lets step back a bit and look at this in a different light. Would the same reaction be garnered if it were Britney Spears or Castro that was blacked out? Obviously we couldn't black-out GWB, but we could black out Ralph Nader or Possibly John McCain.

If the AP decided to blackout Hilton, why couldn't they blackout The Queen of England? Neither one really plays on politics or contributes to the daily conduct of the population.

Where do you stop or begin a blackout, and Who decides whom or what to black out?

Thoughts?

 

[Kent]

Well I know this is the short side of an answer but...
Atleast someone in the world (I assume) honestly cares about the Queen.
Likewise for so many others who don't have great affect on the world but still draw media coverage.

Paris Hilton on the other hand... No one really cares about her (maybe her family?)... She may have people who care to hear or see what rediculus crap she's up to but she certainly doesn't have anyone who honestly cares about her.

I believe that "care factor" is what establishes the differences in black-outs of non-essential media coverage.

Regarding the people who have great affects on our society, I don't see a way to do a black-out on them without being in the wrong for doing so.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

This "experiment" proves my point about celebrities. We really don't care about their every single move. The only reason we appear to is that the media shoves people like Paris Hilton down our throats, covering every single move they make every single week. This constant bombardment leads the public to naturally discuss it (because no one can fully avoid such coverage), and it is this "interest" that leads the media to think we care, thus making them cover celebrities even further. It's a perpetual cycle of crap that continually feeds itself, slowly growing.

 

[V1P3R]

Shows like Entertainment tonight, Extra, Insider and maybe even mags like People would be out of a job... which I wouldn't miss.

 

[Zrow]

It's a bit disconcerting that a media blackout can easily go unnoticed by the general public. It's clear how influential it could be: blacking out, or at least cutting down, on a particular political candidate would probably result in far less votes (and its obvious what effect media bias can have on political viewpoints). For people that rely on exposure, it can make or break entire careers.

Part of why it goes so unnoticed, though, it is that because so many things are covered and something's always being reported on, there's no noticable gap when a particular topic is omitted.

 

[Jedi2016]

It's different to blackout parties of political interest, which includes the Queen.

Hilton is simply a private individual, with no interest in anything at all. Same for Spears. I wouldn't miss it one damn bit if the two of them dropped off the radar entirely.

 

[Keichi Tsuchiya]

Why not do that with all this Anna Nicole crap going around?


eh, Ch. 7 would probably have nothing to broadcast.

 

[Pupik]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/02/ignoring.parishilton.ap/index.html
Where do you stop or begin a blackout, and Who decides whom or what to black out?

Perhaps a great deal of the world is actually tired of the Paris Hilton. It's just a hotel in France, anyhow.

Simply put, non-notable people doing non-notable things have their own media blackout. Media is run by companies who garner sponsors or shareholders, and in many cases, they get to say what flies and what gets grounded. Personnel get to black out anything that would make their own company look bad, too.

An exception to this is Keichi Tsuchiya's example; [wikipedia]WSVN[/wikipedia] 7 likes to remind the world that their former weathermen were once drunk drivers and potential pedophiles, for some reason. They'll never run out of break-ins, car chases/crashes, and pets caught in trees/wells/mud.

 

[McLaren]

It's different to blackout parties of political interest, which includes the Queen.

Hilton is simply a private individual, with no interest in anything at all. Same for Spears. I wouldn't miss it one damn bit if the two of them dropped off the radar entirely.

Oh, they have an interest. It's called being 'attention-whores.'

Hell, I think the dumb blonde just lost her 3rd Bentley just for the news coverage.

 

[EXelero]

we should definately have an eternal black out on big brother winners. specially such pr*ts as Jade Goody and Chantelle!
what do these people really bring to anyone's lives?!

 

[Wolfe]

This "experiment" proves my point about celebrities. We really don't care about their every single move. The only reason we appear to is that the media shoves people like Paris Hilton down our throats, covering every single move they make every single week. This constant bombardment leads the public to naturally discuss it (because no one can fully avoid such coverage), and it is this "interest" that leads the media to think we care, thus making them cover celebrities even further. It's a perpetual cycle of crap that continually feeds itself, slowly growing.

I'd give you +Rep if the system would let me.

 

[wfooshee]

And here I was, thinking she'd just faded away for a while. How disappointing.

 

[Danoff]

I skimmed the article and it appears that it was only for a week. It's hard to notice a "blackout" of a relatively obscure "celebrity" for only a week.

I still feel like I hear about her all the time, so either the AP doesn't have as much influence as it thinks it does, or she's just getting way way way too much coverage.

I think a blackout on non-news stories is a good idea. They should actually apply this same line of thinking to most of their stories... like Britney Spears, Tom Cruise, maybe shark attacks, or, more recently, an overhyped kidnapping.

Basically, they gained journalistic integrity for a week.

 

[EXelero]

what really bugs me bout the news over here is that the football scores is always the main headline!
even when theres a disaster somewhere, chelsea v man u come first! thats a world gone mad.

 

[ledhed]

I seen naked pictures...almost naked and some funny pictures...so whats not to ignore ?

 

[Omnis]

The only reason they "blacked-out" Paris Hilton was because they were too busy "whiting-out" Anna Nicole Smith.