By Arthur Solomon
And now the toxicology reports are public, the Whitney Houston merry-go-round will start again.
The saga began the evening of February 11. It seemed that the Republicans had decided on their presidential candidate, the GOP and the Democrats decided to compromise on all issues, the mid-east problem was settled peacefully, Europe had solved its financial problems and there was full employment in the United States.
Actually nothing had changed. In fact the obvious was magnified: Exploitiveness and sensationalism – vulture journalism -- are the foundations of cable news.
The shallowness of cable television news reporting was highlighted on Feb. 11, a day that included the much ballyhooed GOP Maine caucus and the tragic death of Houston.
My wife and I were attending a concert earlier that Saturday evening, when we got home and tuned into CNN instead of political pundits serving up their usual bombast, there was wall-to-wall Houston coverage. It seemed as if the network was telling viewers that the GOP primary battle didn’t really matter when compared to the tragic death of a one time super diva, even though she was out of the public spotlight for some time.
Even on supposedly hard news Sunday political programming, like Candy Crowley on CNN, time was carved out for no new news about Houston.
And on Monday, a good portion of the news coverage was still devoted to Houston. Not a surprise when you remember the weeks devoted to Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith. But it was a surprise that Chris Mathews, who portrays himself as a no nonsense hardball political reporter, devoted a segment on Houston on MSNBC.
And the incessant coverage continued with segments appearing on such non fluff programs as the Andrea Mitchell Report, described by MSNBC as “an all political hour,” John King’s USA, which led with a Houston segment on February 14, despite CNN billing it as “Your daily destination for political news,” and included a follow-up segment later in the program about mixing prescription drugs and alcohol, during which King said, Houston’s relatives have been unhappy about some of the reporting (not exactly a shocker, is it?).
The same evening CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 devoted the first half hour of the program to the Houston tragedy and a few minutes later Erin Burnett OutFront led with the story.
And then came the politicians, experts at exploiting tragedies for publicity, led by New Jersey’s Governor Christie, who ordered the state flag to fly at half mast. And, of course, other show business personalities, who suddenly felt compelled to tell their own
addiction experiences on national television.
Perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of the coverage was the many programs that attempted to dignify their exploitation reporting by having physicians explain the dangers of mixing alcohol and prescription drugs. It was as if the death of Houston had spawned the perfect TV reality show, featuring religious leaders, politicians, physicians, the media, entertainers, a troubled marriage of two show business stars, and the fall from grace of an exceptionally talented and very beautiful diva.
At least Houston’s family attempted to bring some respectability to the tragedy by having a private funeral, unlike Michael Jackson’s Staples Center extravaganza. The media’s unhappiness over the family’s decision not to provide it with an opportunity to cover a circus and, instead, opt for a private funeral was obvious: Time and time again, they reported how disappointed Houston’s fans were, the same fans that deserted her during her comeback attempts, stopped buying her recordings until after her death, and who also booed her during concerts. But this fact went largely unreported.
Even though he was told on February 14 by singer Jennifer Holliday that Houston started using drugs before she met Bobby Brown, it didn’t stop CNN’s Piers Morgan from discussing the Brown-Houston relationship. On February 17, the night before the funeral, during an interview with gospel singer Bebe Winans, a close friend of Houston who was asked to sing at her funeral, Morgan asked Winans if Houston really loved Brown. Winans didn’t take the bait and responded in a dignified manner that gave Piers Morgan Tonght a semblance of respectability.
Of course, the entire coverage of the “coming home” church service was televised, beginning well before it commenced, and continued as mourners left the church at the conclusion.
On February 19, the day of Houston’s burial, CNN doubled down with two consecutive prime time one-hour specials: Death of a Diva, about the “bad girl” antics of Houston, and a Piers Morgan Whitney Houston Tribute, which consisted of footage of her “coming home” service.
Augmenting the old news was supposedly new news, as up-to-the minute reports of the status of the toxicology tests were made to sound like breaking real news, of course, always with the disclaimer that the results of the tests could take weeks.
It seems that CNN was addicted to Whitney Houston-themed coverage. A February 21st posting on its web site said, “in the wake of Whitney Houston's untimely passing… the network would feature a new week long In Depth series on addiction with cross-platform pieces on the fight against the deadly disease.”
Another posting said, “…we at CNN have decided to pay one last tribute to her by devoting this week to a series of In Depth stories and discussions about what can be done to fight the scourge of addiction.” (Of course, a cynical person might ask CNN, “Addiction isn’t a new problem. Cab Calloway's 1931 hit recording of Minnie the Moocher was laced with drug references and ingesting illegal or prescription drugs is believed to have contributed to the death of John Belushi, Chris Farley, Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland, perhaps the greatest female entertainer of the modern era. And it’s no secret that addiction has also hurt the career of prominent athletes. So what took so long?”)
I especially zeroed in on the CNN converge because, unlike the other two major cable channels, CNN prides itself in covering important serious in depth coverage of news stories around the world. But, as it has in the past coverage of a celebrity death, CNN resorted to exploitation journalism. CNN promotes itself as “The Worldwide Leader in News,” but after watching its news coverage for many years, a more apt description might be “CNN, The Worldwide Leader in Exploiting Tragedies.”
Then on March 11, Queen Oprah joined the cable muck with the first interview of Houston’s daughter, Bobbi Kristina, and other family members on her OWN network.
In contrast to the cable coverage, a two hour ABC 20/20 special on February 17 showed how a sensitive subject can be handled in a dignified manner. The report delved into every part of Houston’s life without resorting to seamy British tabloid-type journalism of CNN and Oprah.
The relentless coverage made it seem as if not only the music stopped, but so did the world. And the soap opera-type coverage continued ad infinitum for weeks.
Soon the wall-to-wall exploitation coverage about Whitney Houston’s life and death is certain to be repeated, when her move Sparkle, based on the1976 film with an addiction subplot, is released this summer. The film seems tailor made for the cable shows to again rehash Houston’s addiction problem.
The 24 hour every detail and conjecture about Houston’s death eclipsed that of the coverage devoted to important world leaders when they die. The raison d'être for the excessive cable coverage is obvious: the Houston saga resembled a classical Greek tragedy, where a highly thought of protagonist self destructs because of human weakness.
But there are more important reasons for exploitation coverage: a ready made (no script writers needed) low production reality show. As disgraceful as exploitation news coverage is, I can at least understand why it’s done. Ratings jump. The Houston
coverage is another example of what we already know: whether on radio (yes, Rush Limbaugh), print or on television, exploitation sells.
The death of Whitney Houston is news. It should be reported more so than the death of an unknown person. The issue is in what degree and how often it should be rehashed. As with any young person, a death is more shocking than when someone has lived a full life. But the constant use of her tragedy to attract television viewers is shameful. It is not even low-quality journalism. It is super market tabloid type reporting at its worse, and any resemblance to dignified need-to-know journalism is unjustifiable.
Perhaps exploitiveness and sensationalism are not the proper words to describe the Whitney Houston media coverage. Predatory journalism might be more appropriate.
Some day there surely will be a movie, television drama and book about Whitney Houston (probably all three), who found fame again only through death.
The title that would be most fitting has already been used by author Neil Strauss: Everyone Loves You When You’re Dead, which also applies to the cable news reporting of her demise.
* * *
Arthur Solomon is a former senior VP at Burson-Marsteller, where handled national and international accounts. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations and sports business publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He is available at [email protected]. |
Kevin Foley (3/23):
Its not the media. It's the audience. They serve up what the viewers demand. This is how a reprobate like Newt Gingrich can actually run for president. Too many people don't know and/or don't care. They just want their bread and circuses, two-for-one sirloin steak smothered in four cheesees at Appleby's and then home for American Idol. Fox affiliates actually "cover" American Idol on their local newscasts...what does that tell you? The audience is unegaged, indifferent, has no skin in the game, or, more often than not, simply lacks the intellect to know and care. Sad.
Fed Up In NYC! (3/23):
Mr. Solomon- perfectly said... the tragedy in all of this is where is everyone when the person is alive and something can be done to help? That being said, on some perverse level- we want these things- we need these things- and at the core of it is because these celebrities and leaders are fortunate recipients of fortune and fame. Something we all strive for. But when we are able to tear them down- we find- they are no better than any of us.
Joe Honick (3/26):
Of course, your anger is well directed, Arthur. Perhaps we need a TV special about those NOT using and killing themselves. But then the story would not be usable for Morgan and his colleagues.
Wes Pedersen (3/26):
The New Journalism is much the same as the Old Journalism, with this notable exception: Chasing headlines in the old days was not only a professional mandate but a continuing contest to see who could score the most "gets" in a given period of time. Today, headlines are tokens of the ability to manufacture stories from the leavings of the more talented, dedicated and ethical professionals. The latter are in increasingly short supply, which bodes ill anew for the devotees of original, well crafted stories that are in themselves newsworthy.
When Elvis Presley, the notorious drug abuser, died, the cause reported by his doctor was "straining at stool." How commonplace that seemed. (There was more to his death than dealing with things like Pot or the pot.)
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/27):
Kevin Foley hit the proverbial nail on the head. Remindful of Sam Goldwyn's (I think) funeral when thousands showed up. One witness, amazed by the crowd, asked about it. One old timer said: "Well, Sam always said give the people what they want, and they'll show up!
[email protected] (3/30):
Joe --I'm certainly not angry, mad,irate or livid about what now too often passes for journalism on cable and other news outlets. As a former reporter/editor, before entering PR, a better word to describe my feelings about much of the new journalism would be "disgraceful." |