|
June 18th, 2009
06:42 PM ET
What's entertainment news?The question above comes up practically on a daily basis here at CNN's Entertainment Unit, most recently as we pondered stories about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and about Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick. Clinton fell and broke her elbow yesterday, sidelining her from a scheduled appearance at World Refugee Day ceremonies with Angelina Jolie in Washington, D.C., while two Ohio police chiefs are being investigated for a break-in at the home of the surrogate mother carrying Parker and Broderick's twins. Clinton's bone-breaking may not be earthshattering, but it's definitely news. But is it entertainment news? If Clinton had appeared at the event with Jolie, that would have qualified, so does an accident keeping her from attending make the cut as well? And as for Jolie, she's about as high-profile as one can get - a recent Forbes survey ranked her the nation's most powerful celebrity, topping even the mighty Oprah - but does that make anything she does entertainment news, from her charity work to her personal life? The Parker-Broderick story, detailed by Brittany Kaplan in a blog entry below, is literally in tabloid territory. Both actors have been celebrities long enough to understand the privacy tradeoffs of being famous, and have worked to keep as much of their private lives private as possible... and, of course, the surrogate is no celebrity. Yet she's in the middle of this story - if it is a story. When I started in this business, {ahem} years ago, my stock definition of "entertainment news" was pretty straightforward: movies, music, TV, theatre, books - the traditional categories of mass entertainment. Along the way, I added videogames, the Internet and new media to the description. But judging from some of the topics which spur the most interest and debate, on this blog and elsewhere, entertainment news these days is increasingly about what celebrities do when they're not on a set or in the studio. I realize this is hardly a new question, and it's actually part of a larger issue, one journalists have been debating for longer than I've been in the biz: is "news" what journalists think is important, or what the audience finds interesting? How do you weigh journalists' experience and judgment, such as it may be, against the public's classic "right to know," despite the possible inconsequence of the subject? It's a hard line to pin down: for every comment we get here along the lines of "why is CNN covering this garbage?", 20 or 30 or 40 others chew over every detail, showing obvious interest. We can't please everyone, but obviously it's in our interest to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. So what do you think? Do you want us covering celebs off-camera as well as on? Do you look to news outlets for discernment and discretion, or just raw information? In short, what do you want?
Next entry »Will Jon and Kate repair marriage or separate?
« Previous entryTONIGHT: Jonas Bros. on 'Larry King Live'
 |
  About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.  |
The late comedian, Sam Kinison had a line that went something like, “The reason Eskimos eat so much blubber isn’t because the love it—they eat so much blubber because it’s the only (expletive deleted) thing on the menu.” It’s really one of those things you have to actually hear to appreciate fully.
“Entertainment News” is a phrase that is both redundant, and contradictory—all at the same time. By definition, one could argue that anything that is news; is also a version of entertainment—and vice versa. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. Some descriptor like, “Celebrity Report” captures the essence of the effort much better that “Entertainment News.” Leaving the word “news” in the equation lends or suggests some credibility to the proceedings, even if in reality, there really isn’t a whole lot—if any at all. Would any rational person consider any of the so-called “entertainment reporters,” journalists? That’s not intended as a slight—just a suggestion that we call things what they are. A more accurate job description would be “host,” or as some are referred to, “news reader.” In fact, if you look around at some of the more popular entertainment shows, the hosts themselves interject themselves into the “story” on a routine basis—so anything resembling impartiality or thoughtful analysis goes right out the window immediately. When self promotion becomes an accepted reality of “reporting,” then the most honest thing to do would be to at the very least, admit it.
With very few exceptions, the entire entertainment news machine operates—from a practical standpoint—as nothing more than another public relations arm of the various studios, television enterprises, and of course, the celebrities themselves. It’s really more of an extended family kind of relationship. The “news” operations and the so-called reporters; are allowed (and that is the correct word) the access they need to stay in business; by essentially reporting what the suppliers (studios, etc.) want them to report. While there are exceptions from time to time, on balance, there aren’t any insightful or hard hitting reports coming out of the entertainment field. It isn’t because there aren’t any stories to report—there are plenty. Rather, it’s because those tasked with reporting the beat aren’t going to risk losing precious access to a given studio or celebrity, by reporting anything that might embarrass the subject of their reporting.
As an example; when was the last time you heard any entertainment reporter or producer ask any celebrity of any note, something like, “Please (enter A-list celebrity name here), can you explain your (recent arrest; reported drug use; alleged spousal abuse charges; recent infidelity; recent fist fight; etc.) to our LIVE audience?” Since this is CNN, when on ANY occasion, has Brooke Anderson, or Lola Ogunnaike—or anyone else—asked something like that, live from the red carpet of any event? The answer is easy: Never—and they never will. They wouldn’t risk it. Or more to the point: the executive producers of the shows they represent; would never risk it.
The current business model for just about every entertainment news operation (including CNN), requires a level of content that is essentially a regurgitation of some other source of information; whether it be the wires, the celebrity magazines, TV Guide, the trades—or in some cases—news from other “entertainment news” sources, who are also reporting on information they got from some other source. You could argue that there are very few outlets that actually enterprise entertainment stories. Two that come to mind that sort of do that are, The National Enquirer, and the stepchild of entertainment news; TMZ. These two sources are—on their best news day—very questionable; but what you can’t say they are, is in denial about what they are. They pretty much admit what they’re in business to do—so as pathetic as they may be in terms of adding anything meaningful to our cultural; they are at least honest about their motives.
And as luck would have it; “legitimate” news sources such as CNN have re-reported, rewritten, or provided “commentary” on their stories thousand of times. It’s easy, it’s cheap to do, and if we’re honest, it’s lazy. However, it is also foolproof. If the source of the information happens to be completely wrong about a story or event, we’ll just report that too, and credit them for offering up the unreliable information in the first place. That we reported it face value, is beside the point—they should have checked their facts! Go figure.
If you stop reporting rumor, stop reporting unsubstantiated claims, stop reporting “alleged” incidences, and stop reporting information that was produced by sources other than your own—you wouldn’t have anything to report at all.
As to the question, “What do you want?” What some (or many) may want is something you can’t deliver—because if you did deliver it in exactly the same way someone like Wolf Blitzer might report on a political figure; none of the people you report on would talk to you. Discernment and discretion are lofty ideals and terms that entertainment news reporters and producers toss around during the morning meeting—but the sad reality is they never honestly pursue them with a measurable amount of conviction.
They could—but they won’t… because to do so, is to risk their very existence. And who wants to do that?
AMEN, DavidF & JS. To quote the reason I dread what I'm going to find on CNN.com each day.... "LOHAN'S TOPLESS TWEET RAISES EYEBROWS".
This is RIGHT NOW on your home page as a top story. Lohan hasn't contributed to movies or TV in ages. She is non-news – she is entertainment tid bit for E! or for Entertainment Tonight.
JS put it best:
"Sometimes even articles like “Six Ways To Tell If He’s Cheating” is in the “Latest News” section. This is NOT Cosmopolitan. "
It is also pathetic when I see an entertainment bit from PerezHilton.com or TMZ on CNN two or three days after it first appeared. It makes CNN appear... sad.
OF course, as DavidF points out we are at a point where traditional news outlets sell " the news as entertainment". Deals with the current Administration (a la ABC) to broadcast from the White House, bowing before the President (NBC), or turning the family of the President into sensationlist coverage, makes even the most reverntial and traditionally honored post in our land nothing but...
for sale.
i find a more fundamental issue at work here. specifically the selling of the news AS entertainment.
once that line was crossed, it seems that anything goes.
please... make it stop.
It's unfortunate that the CNN.com International page typically seems to contain more "newsworthy" headlines than the CNN.com US page.
I think it's appropriate to report a story if the CONTENT of the story is worth reporting.
While that sounds redundant, consider this:
If we're not reporting EVERY break-in, why report this one?
If we're not reporting on EVERY TV show, why report this one?
If we're not listing EVERY divorce story, why report the one about this couple whose celebrity-status is merely a fact of a "reality" television show?
These questions should be answered before a story runs.
Sometimes even articles like "Six Ways To Tell If He's Cheating" is in the "Latest News" section. This is NOT Cosmopolitan.
I understand that the news business is now a 24-hour operation, rather than the evening or morning paper. That leaves CNN in the position to post stories which will draw in viewers/surfers all day. However, I would appreciate that ONE of the big news channels stick to important and relevant news of the day.
I charge CNN to take up this "burden." Maybe some more reporting of positive news could be a nice side effect, rather than all negative violence. People don't realize that some ongoing items are still legitimate stories, since the reporting stops. Yes, we tire of stories after awhile, but that's why we need more reporting, not new "artificial" news.
Leave the "entertainING" news to the places that specialize in such things.
What bothers me is the way that CNN has started calling basically anything "Entertainment News". A few weeks ago, they kept leading the entertainment news show with the Octo-mom, before there was any talk of a reality show for her! Basically the Octo-mom was hot news and they were reporting on her, even though the story had nothing to do with entertainment.
I don't care about Jon and Kate or the Octo-mom when I am wanting entertainment news. I want to hear about new movies, new television shows and new music. If there is honest scandal in the entertainment world, then cover it, fine. By the Octo-mom is pushing it. And I hope that Jon and Kate's "annoucement" is that they are quiting the show. That would be the only good news in that whole mess.
When a celebrity is "working", whether it be while filming a movie, promoting a novel, or supporting a cause, these events are newsworthy the same way as political speeches are newsworthy. That of course isn't to say they might be as important as something Obama has to say, but they do warrant consideration for "news" coverage (after determining what more important events may have happened that day – clearly if there was a major disaster the weight given to all other news, including celebrity gossip, should be given reduced).
But when a celebrity is "off duty", merely wandering around town or hanging out with friends, particularly if they are with their children, this type of gossip should clearly be off limits for any major news organization, the same way shots of Obama in a bathing suit frockling with his family while on vacation should be considered inappropriate for a mainstream news carriers.
To me it doesn't seem like a difficult decision.
Keep yourself respectable, and let the tabloids loiter in the trash.
Remember when journalists went out and found the news instead of waiting for some wire service to compile topics and subjects for them?
Must be a slow news day when CNN's offices are sent into upheaval by some Hollywood couple breaking up.
I remember being incredulous when CNN.com replaced Education News with Entertainment News. There's plenty of places to go for entertainment news and the American public is inundated with it every day. While it's not outrageous that CNN has a section devoted to entertainment, I think it is outrageous that we value entertainment news enough to replace education entirely. Please bring back the Education News section.
I think more and more entertainment news has turned into entertainment advertising. Reporters take their speaking notes from the publicist and do not go off topic lest they be denied an interview in the future.
I think the term news is incorreclty used and in fact we have glorified society pages. And the only person to blame is the reader.
I think you will always have that age old question of "who came first, the chicken or the egg?" when it comes to news and tabloid articles. The news reports on what the people want. The people watch what the news gives them. It is a endless circle. So in keeping with the entertainment theme of this article, there is a quote from Spiderman that says "With great power, comes great responsibility".
Individuals are smart, groups of individuals are dumb. Just because society begs to see the most intimate gossip about someone doesn't mean we should. No matter what you do in life or who you are, everyone deserves to have their own personal time. I understand even the execs in the news business have to be aware of the "bottom line" and make money for the company. But that is now coming at the expense of people's lives. When some media outlets/paparazzi hope (and sometimes push) for peoples lives to spiral out of control for ratings and financial gain, that is when a red flag should go up for the respectable news reporting agencies.
Do I want to know about behind the scenes of movie making, music, TV, writing, etc? Absolutely. Who doesn't ask other people what they do for a living?
Do I want to hear JK Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter on napkins? Yeah. It reminds us that hard work and dedication sometimes do pay off.
Do I want to hear Keith Urban checked into rehab? Yes. Everyone is human and it reminds us of issues needing to be dealt with in our society as a whole.
Do I want to hear if Jon and Kate will repair their marriage or if Jen and Brad met in secret or if Lindsay Lohan is destroyed about her break up? About as much as I want to know if a bear poops in the woods does it make a sound.
Use this section to educate us on issues that face the entertainment world and who is doing amazing things to improve our world and issues celebrities face that . There are so many people improving our world that never get more then a "They were at a club saying something to someone else and they looked flirty at each other. The two left together canoodling then seen the next day having coffee and smiling. A stranger at a table close to them said he even heard laughing and thinks there is something going on. Each Rep contacted had no comment. They are both in town to promote a cancer foundation."
When Sarah Jessica and Matthew's babies are born, that can be reported. Yay, they have new babies! But the surrogate's house being broken into? That can be reported in her hometown, where people might CARE. I used to work at a nightly entertainment news show, and was appalled at the tabloid-like changes made while I was there. Sites that report where celebrities get their coffee are just annoying, and promote the paparazzi's unscrupulous ways of getting their shot no matter who's in their way. People.com (I think) uses photos on their website of celebs and their children, and names the parks they go to... which seems kind of dangerous to me. Who wants stalkers while you're at the sandbox with your 2-year-old? Hillary Clinton breaking her elbow is news because she's our Secretary of State. Honestly, for CNN I expect more "real news"; if something interesting or newsworthy happens in entertainment, by all means report it, but leave the "what are they wearing" stories to People and Us.
I have to say that the questions you pose here in this article are a breath of fresh air. People deserve privacy! Furthermore, news is defined as "information about recent and important events." If you'll notice the definition above it clearly states recent and important. That means celebrities don't fit into the category of news at all. Keep in mind also that reporting on every little detail of their lives is more or less an invasion of their right to privacy. I would personally be more then happy to hear about the news as it pertains to its definition of being information about RECENT AND IMPORTANT events only please. Whether or not a celebrity Twitted topless or not is inconsequential and furthermore irrelevant to daily life. It's just a ploy by news agencies to invade privacy of others to make more money. So, in the interest of credibility please drop all content and useless banter related to such endeavors. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Please avoid stories like: Lohan's topless tweet raises eyebrows. This informs absolutely no one of anything remotely important. And also, American Idol results are not news either, nor are results from any other reality shows. Also, news about celebrity childbirths, adoptions, and custody battles is very tiresome and completely meaningless to anyone not involved. Not to mention it's none of our business anyway.
I would suggest to inform people of upcoming movies, substantive interviews with media figures, and news within the entertainment industry (buyouts, sales, cancellations, upcoming schedules, etc) CNN does a good job mostly with decent entertainment stories, but it would be nice if they cut out the meaningless tabloid junk.
CNN is almost all entertainment news now. Even legitimate news stories are often covered in a sensational manner designed to attract the lowest common denominator viewer who revels in scandal and gossip.
My advice? Cover half as many stories for twice as long. That will help the network get back to its roots and separate legitimate news from entertainment.
And cnn is not the only media that has this problem.... my local paper (in a county of one million) front pages the most useless stories. And they wonder why people are dropping subscriptions......
I used to use CNN as my number one respected news source. No longer. It seems that so much of the 'news' on this website is nothing more than fluff. As for the entertainment? Well, most stories are nothing more than tabloid trash. Private lives should remain private. Just because there are too many lame people around who don't have any sense of decency or morals and thus thrive on reading about every little detail of a 'stars' life doesn't mean that CNN or any reporter needs to give them what they want.
What happened to the CNN that used to carry hard news of National and International importance? You look at cnn.com nowdays, and at least half of the stories are celebrity-driven or fluff "feel good" reports.
I guess "CNN" now stands for
Celebrity
News
Network.
Entertainment Tonight used to be about allowing the public to get sneak peeks at upcoming movies, TV shows and backstage access they would otherwise never see. That changed in the mid 90's when stories like the OJ trial and the Nancy Kerrigan-Tonya Harding scandal began the tabloid trash era. They have changed their format to compete with trash shows like Extra, The Insider and TMZ. It is all garbage and is as popular as ever. It's sad that people are so interested but not surprising. Has anybody watched VH1 lately?
I find myself having less respect for news organizations due to their dabbling in tabloid/entertainment news. I think abcnews.com is the worst. Just today on their home page, if you scroll down, you'll see a slide show re: victoria beckam's breasts, a "who wore it best dress-off" regarding 4 actresses wearing the same dress and photos of "hollywood's hottest dads". I don't believe Charlie Gibson talks about these on his newscast, so why are they on abc's NEWS web site? CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC do this as well – so lately I've been going to NPR to get my info because it's too much useless information and has become too much of a time suck. I think it's making you all appear less serious and making me, the reader, question your judgment and ultimately the accuracy of what you report. Great article. Keep exploring this as you news sites need to get back to reporting the news.
The legitimate news outlets have become publicity shills for these celebs. Most of the things reported are orchestrated by the celebs or their PR types. It's reached new lows with the reporting of twitter comments.
Don't report on their dating patterns, adoptions, political rants, party lives, etc. They are no more important than anyone else and the behaviors of most of those reported on are below expected societial norms. Just report on their work in the arts and leave it at that.
Those who thrive on the latest exploits of Lindsay, Paris, etc. can still get it in the tabloid section.
Thank you for covering some entertainment news. I like to know what's going on in the entertainment world, but I'm not going to read tabloids. I read CNN.com to catch up on all the world's highlights. Sometimes it seems like there's a little too much tabloid trash, but I appreciate the highlights that make it on to CNN's homepage. If CNN didn't cover the main stuff, we'd all be saying "Who's Angelina Jolie?" But we're glad we at least have a clue what's happening out there, even if no one cares what she and Brad and the kids did on vacation.
I've been writing about the film industry since the late 1970s for the L.A. Times, N.Y. Times and other publications, and have been the film industry reporter for both the L.A. Daily News and N.Y. Daily News.
When I broke into the business, writing mainly for the L.A. Times' Calendar section, I was working for a wonderful editor who saw entertainment news as encompassing a whole lot more than the lives of celebrities and what's happening on the red carpet. We did stories about mob infiltration of the porno industry, paranoid movies about Vietnam M.I.A.s and what they said about America, cocaine and its effect on the biz, etc. There were also plenty of stories about the 'meaning' of things, i.e., why certain types of films were coming out at certain times, the subtext of things, etc.
Those stories are increasingly hard to sell in the current marketplace. Given that film is a multi-billion dollar business with international implications, it saddens me that so few writers and editors want to cover it in the same way someone would cover crime, or politics, or even the auto industry. It's (almost) all about celebrity, bling, and the minutiae of marriages, drunk driving cases, whatever.
The argument is that no one really cares about the 'serious' stories. I don't buy that. The biggest reaction I've ever gotten to a story was when I wrote about M.I.A. flicks, a deadly serious subject that produced a torrent of mail. This convinced me that readers are dying for stories with meaning, not just endless reruns of the Jon and Kate soap opera. It's about time some of you guys stepped up to the plate and started producing. There are plenty of 'real' stories out there.
I'm a nut for "entertainment news" so I don't mind the stories you cover.
There are some celebs and stories that I really don't care to read. The beauty of it is that I simply don't have to click. I wish people would stop complaining about "this is not news", when they had the opportunity to not click on the story. It's not really that hard to move onto a story that interests you.
Entertainment news is a crock, get out there and do some real journalism, there is nothing special about these celebrities, or reality tv stars, you "journalists" are just trying to take the easy way out...as a matter of fact I wouldn't even call you journalists, as much as stalkers. To me, you are worse than the tabloids!
How long has Mary Hart been on ET? She should sit down and watch a few episodes of the show in the 80's and today. Even that show has joined the tabloid TV party.
Celebrity news, if it must be reported, should be about the movie they are promoting, album, concert, etc. Leave the tabloid reporting to TMZ.
I want entertainment news to be related to entertainment ONLY. I am disgusted with most entertainment news shows who cover what politicians are doing, etc., when it's not related to entertainment. The media coverage about Octomom was pointless and annoying. She is not at ALL related to entertainment. One entertainment TV show thinks the audience needs to know what the female host is wearing and how we can have her look for less. Really? Do we really care?
I believe you should indeed have some class and report stories that are related to the entertainment industry and NOT tabloid-style reporting. The time spent telling us that Lindsay Lohan tweeted something funny could have been spent telling us about artists, theatre, radio, concerts, movie-making techniques, new media, etc.. It would be great if CNN would have integrity in entertainment reporting and leave the fluff celebrity tabloid fodder alone. I think you would be respected for doing so.
CNN covers "entertainment news" for the same reason Extra, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and US Weekly does: money. Apparently this is what viewers/readers want to see, and as long as the advertising dollars roll in, even so-called "hard news" outlets will continiue to bring us stories about SJP, Jon & Kate, and Brangelina.
I just mute the audio and read the "ticker"......that's where the real news is.
I would love to read anything about what you defined as media without the gossip on celebs. It would be nice to read more about music, theatre and books. There are plenty of other places to read or hear about movies and tv.
Good article. I agree with Michael's above comment. You need to ask yourselves, What type of image do you at CNN have/ want?
I think you should keep a more respectable image and report on the work happening in the entertainment industry. Without a doubt sometimes that does require you to ask questions and report on topics of a more personal nature. Those things have an effect on the work. However, you should leave the tabloids to the tabloids.
Your anchors are famous..ask them how they feel about having their private lives dissected for the entertainment of the masses.
This is a very interesting questions. What do I want to read when it comes to Entertainment? What am I really looking for? For me, sometimes just reading the headlines is enough, unless it looks really catchy or it includes people that are "it" at the moment. I think that celebrities are entertainment. Reading about them is giving us an insight to their life, and letting us know they make mistakes to. I think that is the main thing that people look for.
Good article. We want integrity.
WHO CARES about Lindsey Lohan. WHO CARES what Paris Hilton is doing or Heidi Montage. Michelle Obama NEVER belongs in entertainment and this country couldn't care less what she is wearing. I cannot accuse just this site but from cnn to perez to even fox and msnbc... we have way to many people that are famous for NOTHING being force fed to us. I just see it as lazy reporting. You cannot cast out a line in hollyweird without hitting one of those "people" that are famous for nothing but breathing.
There are tons of movies, books, art and a whole ocean full of musicians that could use the coverage.
You're CNN for crying out loud. Arguably the most important news outlet on the planet. Show a little class and retain your dignity, leave the tabloid stuff to the tabloids and keep your self respect.
I think private lives should be private. I am sure that as much as some celebrities love the spotlight, they need and are entitled to some time out of it. These celebrities have children, family and friends who are not famous and maybe do not want to be.
The entertainment news can be a great place to promote movies, games, books, fashion and charity work. I am always interested in more background about a movie I loved or a singer I admire. But, I admit that I almost always avoid the entertainment section because it seems cheap, tawdry and invasive. I would like to read more about the behind-the-scenes of the movie and not the marriage.
GREAT ARTICLE. As an entertainment blogger I deal with writing what's news and what I think will bring traffic. My blog, Hollywood As I Live & Work grew to something entertainment publicist respect because I don't write gossip but what you originally defined as entertainment news, from often a personal perspective.
But when these sites incorrectly termed blogs began doing gossip, it appears it's a matter of meeting the demand. And thus they become a business thanks to heavy traffic and sponsored and Google Ads.
Personally I want celebrity news be more about them as celebrities not what they do off camera unless it's criminal.
Hollywoodliveandwork.com