Some of the predictable scandal-coverage we saw since my last posting:
*Ganging up. Read the bylines on the NY Times and you'll see that 20 reporters from that one newspapers alone were working the story, going after every angle and seeking new sources.
*Repetition. As the coverage heated up there was increased competition for new, fresh angles. But they are hard to come by and so you saw MANY outlets writing about supportive wives and about NY's predicted first black governor. Other predictable stories: how the Mayflower Hotel in Washington likes the publicity; the mass of reporters covering the spectacle; the shut-down of Legislature in Albany including budget negotiations.
*Bringing in the experts. The search for new voices requires that journalists bring in people knowledgeable about the subject of the scandal. This has been particularly amusing in the Spitzer case where the subject is prostitution and the fall of the mighty. Thus we have ex-Madam Heidi Fleiss answering "professional" questions about what unsafe sex the governor wanted to buy and a former call girl turned writer opining in the NY Times about the value of sex workers.
*Hunt for the prize source. That would be the prostitute the governor visited Feb. 13. She'll probably surface and she'll be asked what she had to do to earn more diamonds in her rating.
*Hand wringing over how much to tell the public. Should we go into the "prurient details" or only tell the people what they need to know? Do we have to respect the feelings of the governor's poor family? Does it make a difference that this is a sensational tabloid story of the sort that has people clicking though Internet listings for more details??
No comments:
Post a Comment