• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

crimes by celebrities

newsworthy or sensationalism?


  • Total voters
    11

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course it's important/newsworthy when a politician commits a crime, especially if it's a high ranking politician, but what about entertainers and athletes? If a famous athlete commits a crime, is it more newsworthy than if Joe Schmoe commits the same crime?
 
No, I wouldn't say anyone is more newsworthy than anyone else. I don't care if a celebrity or a sports star or a politician commits a crime, put them in jail, put them on trial and get on with life. Who cares what they do for a living?
 
No, I wouldn't say anyone is more newsworthy than anyone else. I don't care if a celebrity or a sports star or a politician commits a crime, put them in jail, put them on trial and get on with life. Who cares what they do for a living?

Need more be said?

Thread answered.
 
The problem is not my opinion on the matter of newsworthiness but that obviously there is a market for coverage of Celebrity / Sports Star activities and that includes the crimes they commit. Yes I think it is sensationalism when Lindsey Lohan commits a crime that receives wide publication and coverage, but there clearly is a market they are appealing to as everyone from Entertainment Tonight to TMZ to CNN to FoxNews covers the damn story. In her case, plural, stories.
 
A crime may be newsworthy no matter who commits it. That being said, news of a celebrity committing a low level crime tends to be more sensationalism than news. For example, it's not newsworthy that some actress got a DUI.
 
Forget it, I blame Bush 43 for the whole thing.
 
People need to give up on the silly notion that famous people are, or should be, role models.
 
People need to give up on the silly notion that famous people are, or should be, role models.

It appears a great number of people did not get that memo, or did not care about it one or the other.
 
It appears a great number of people did not get that memo, or did not care about it one or the other.

Because a great number of people are stupid. That's why the planet is so screwed up.
 
The purpose of the news is to get people to read what you write more than it is to report or inform. And more people want to read and gossip about the hollywood people than they do about Joe Schmoe unless he does something horrific for the most part. I'm not saying that is a good thing but that is where we are at.
 
Of course it's important/newsworthy when a politician commits a crime, especially if it's a high ranking politician, but what about entertainers and athletes? If a famous athlete commits a crime, is it more newsworthy than if Joe Schmoe commits the same crime?

Depends entirely what you mean by newsworthy.

If you're meaning from the sense as the public has some significant need to know, not at all.

If you're meaning from the sense as the public wants to know, absolutely.

Scandalous things envolving people in the public eye draw ratings and buy rates because the public generally are interested in reading about it, listening to it, talking about it, etc. It generates controversy, and controversy generates cash. Most of the time Joe Schmoe committing a job isn't going to cause much controversy and thus isn't going to get much attention...and thus isn't very "news worthy" as it relates to the public. However replace Joe Schmoe with a public figure and suddenly it does become interesting to the public because there's a semi "personal" feeling the public has as it relates to public officials.

Even though we don't actually KNOW actors or athletes or muscians or what have you, we have a closer familiarity with them (or what is projected to be "them") then we do with a random person in the world.
 
Depends entirely what you mean by newsworthy.

If you're meaning from the sense as the public has some significant need to know, not at all.

If you're meaning from the sense as the public wants to know, absolutely.

Scandalous things envolving people in the public eye draw ratings and buy rates because the public generally are interested in reading about it, listening to it, talking about it, etc. It generates controversy, and controversy generates cash. Most of the time Joe Schmoe committing a job isn't going to cause much controversy and thus isn't going to get much attention...and thus isn't very "news worthy" as it relates to the public. However replace Joe Schmoe with a public figure and suddenly it does become interesting to the public because there's a semi "personal" feeling the public has as it relates to public officials.

Even though we don't actually KNOW actors or athletes or muscians or what have you, we have a closer familiarity with them (or what is projected to be "them") then we do with a random person in the world.
You forced me to look up the definition of newsworthy and it turns out that it's synonymous with sensational. I guess I should've said important instead of newsworthy.
 
If we go by the "whatever the market will bear" doctrine, then it's newsworthy simply because others are will to read/watch it and pay for it. Just because YOU claim to not be interested doesn't make it irrelevant.
 
Of course it's important/newsworthy when a politician commits a crime, especially if it's a high ranking politician, but what about entertainers and athletes? If a famous athlete commits a crime, is it more newsworthy than if Joe Schmoe commits the same crime?

I hate to say it, but it's obvious that famous people are far more newsworthy, regardless of the activity, simply because they're famous - after all, that's basically the definition of fame, isn't it?

It's a little elitist to hide or try to belittle the vast majority of people's lurid interest in what "the other half" is doing. I don't pay much attention to celebrity, but when someone famous does something asinine it's newsworthy. If the media didn't cover it, we'd be complaining about the media protecting celebrities and not being transparent.
 
I hate to say it, but it's obvious that famous people are far more newsworthy, regardless of the activity, simply because they're famous - after all, that's basically the definition of fame, isn't it?

It's a little elitist to hide or try to belittle the vast majority of people's lurid interest in what "the other half" is doing. I don't pay much attention to celebrity, but when someone famous does something asinine it's newsworthy. If the media didn't cover it, we'd be complaining about the media protecting celebrities and not being transparent.
This is the post that should end the thread. Well done, sir.
 
Of course it's important/newsworthy when a politician commits a crime, especially if it's a high ranking politician, but what about entertainers and athletes? If a famous athlete commits a crime, is it more newsworthy than if Joe Schmoe commits the same crime?

I don't think so, but in our celebrity obsessed society, it becomes so for the news agencies since they operate on ratings.
 
Politicians? Only if it affected law or policy.

Athletes? Only to tell us they are not playing as that affects betting.

Celebrities? Not at all because Jack pulling out a golf club to his somebody with does not affect my watching his movies.
 
Back
Top Bottom