It will be no surprise to read that British tabloid news is getting dumber. And dumber.
Recent evidence shows that one paper (I refuse to add the prefix "news") has devoted more webspace to Big Brother than to the recent terrorist events in London and Glasgow. Maybe they're right - slamming a burning car into a provincial airport is not the height of professional terrorism, but it seems to me a trifle more important than whether Attention Seeking Clown No 1 has succeeded in beating Attention Seeking Clown No 2 in the "bedding" of Annoyingly Unsophisticated Airhead No 1.
However, journalists will try any kind of questioning to get a sensational article printed. Take Wimbledon, for instance. The finest tournament in tennis seems to be suffering from over-excited middle-aged pervo-papas looking for the Ultimate Article On Underwear. I read in the Guardian that after Justine Hénin had won her match on Centre Court against Ms Vesnina, she was asked "apart from tennis, do you have any special talents or party tricks when you're not on court?" She must have been utterly flummoxed! Could you imagine, you go to Paris where they ask about your skills and flair. Florida, where they bring up your ranking, your future plans and your ability to stay in the top positions. Melbourne, where they ask intelligent questions on your style. Then you land in London and you're asked in the press conference whether you're quizzed on whether you can sing Donna Summer tunes at karaoke or walk with 5 tennis balls between your legs.
And poor Tatiana Golovin, asked ten times about her underwear. She only got twelve questions. One journalist even said he'd like a pair. Do these mercenaries know no shame? I have always found tennis players to be far more courteous, more down-to-earth than the average footballer or singer, but these savages who have been given the privilege of asking questions for a nation seem to feel they can bully tennis players into notoriety by seeking a reaction. What did they hope? That is easy to answer. If the tennis player cracked and got upset, there would be a national vilification and even scandalisation including bringing up past misdemeanours, usually about the time they threw their racquet away in despair (a sure sign of a loose wire), and if the tennis player replied politely yet confusedly to the question, they would appear the next day as the New Kournikova on the back pages, depending on what Thierry Henry was doing.
This is by no means a new thing. The catalogue of missed chances and lack of scruples by the tabloid press has been around for decades, but just a lot bigger now that competition is so deadly. Why question a famous person on the sensitive subjects when answering the question for them in a roundabout way can deliver so much more juicy headlines? Why make a fuss over them when you can tear their career apart? A soft approach has always worked far better than an embarrassing torrent of low-grade interrogation ever will.
Take Sir David Frost, who has interviewed just about everyone who ever mattered. He is still on speaking terms with most of them despite being a ruthless questioner. Why? Because he knows how to get information from people. Take his recent Al Jazeera interview with Tony Blair. He even made the former PM admit Iraq was a failure. Simply by being an intelligent, polite and erudite speaker. The only way the tabloids get this type of info is by paying extraordinary amounts of money. Otherwise they would be out of ideas.
A recommendation to tabloid editors: raise your intelligence levels, or you risk being blamed for normalising taboos and reducing intelligent debate to its lowest form - bigoted, self-righteous and totally lacking in morals.
No comments:
Post a Comment