Being an features/arts/entertainment writer and editor it would make some sense for me to say that tabloidization of newspapers is a good thing. I actually think the opposite. "Tabloid" has negative connocations on its own, but after looking through the New York Post it's clear that that is not what news needs to be. Sensationalizing everything and pushing political news behind Heath Ledger's death makes no sense no matter who you are.
I do think papers like the New York Times would benefit from having a "low brow" entertainment section, but I wouldn't call that tabloidization. The structure of the Times, with news in the A section followed by the "other stuff" is perfect, but the entertainment section shouldn't just be book, play and art show reviews - that's not what most people care about. But low-brow doesn't neccessarily constitue tabloid.
It's the presentation of news (in the generic senes of the word, not a genre classification) that makes tabloidization bad – the sensationalizing and backwards ordering of stories.
So is tabloidization a bad thing? Yes. Is adding more common, pop culture aspects into more widely read ("high brow, educated") newspapers a bad thing? No.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment