Opinion: TV’s Envy for Celebrity Blogs

There are certain news stories that define a generation. Do you remember where you were on that sombre morning in August 1997 when news filtered through to people squinting through their hangovers that the most famous woman in the world had died? How about on September 11, 2001? I was quietly shuffling around a Curry’s in a retail park in Birmingham when my mission to buy a toaster was cruelly cut short as the wall of Tv screen played and replayed those unbelievable images of airliners banking into skyscrapers…

But do you remember where you were on march 4, 2008 at 10.36am? Come on, it wasn’t that long ago. Let me paint the picture: the world’s last remaining superpower is engaged in the most exciting presidential nomination battle for years as a black man and a woman duke it out in Ohio and Texas. President Putin cedes power to Dmitry Medvedev. But more importantly…

STOP THE PRESSES! News just in! Sarah Harding talks about her breasts
“My boobs aren’t too bad, but they fluctuate. They go up and they go down. They’ve got a life of their own. I don’t like them too small or too big, just in the middle. I used to think I wanted them done when they got really small. I used to be a DD cup but when I lose a bit of weight, they get smaller. And it’s not like they just suddenly shrink and stay really pert either – sometimes you need something just to refill them a little bit.”

OK, Harding’s pneumatic approach to her bust didn’t exactly break onto main stream new bulletins, but if British television executives really are as desperate to co-opt the innovations of the Internet as they appear, with the appalling user generated chat show Lily Allen and Friends, and tele-viral flop LennyHenry.tv, then it’s surely only a matter of time. A recent Observer list of the ‘50 most Powerful Blogs In The World’ featured more than half a dozen celebrity blogs, with Perez Hilton at number 6 and
the UK’s Holy Moly! a respectable 23. What draws readers online must surely draw viewers on the box, right?

So is it too much of a stretch to imagine a not-too-distant future where a stony-faced Sir Trevor McDonald shuffles his papers and brings the full force of his gravitas to bear on Camera One…
BONG! Lindsay Lohan gets her tits out for a magazine shoot, the skanky whorebag! BONG!! Pete Doherty spotted in the street – we ask the question, have you ever seen a heroin addict look more like the Staypuft Marshmallow Man? BONG!!! Does Kerry Katona really dip her chips in ketamine? find out in our extended report. BONG!!!! Is Johnny Borrell porking Emma Watson or is it Daniel Radcliffe or someone else entirely? We ask our panel of experts.

This might be extrapolating to the point of absurdity, but 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable that mainstream TV news would have been saturated, as it was last year, with coverage of a woman mostly famous for a homemade sex video going to prison (briefly) on a drink driving charge. But apart from the debatable news value of Paris Hilton compared with, say, genocide in Darfur, there are two main problems with TV news covering celebrity stories – timing and lexicon. That TV can’t keep
pace with the Internet is obvious, but the fact that it doesn’t have the language to deal with celebrity stories is a new point. TV news can’t access the sort of bile needed to chastise these wayward imbeciles; so something has to give. Either TV news leaves celebrity news alone or it learns a new language.

Personally, I’m for the latter. Embrace the inescapable rise of ‘citizen journalism’! Welcome THE REVOLUTION! Let the lunatics take the asylum! Let the noble Jon Snow be dragged into the gutter by the hordes of ROLFing Internet posters!

Rejoice as they poke Hugh Edwards with sticks until he shrugs, says fuck it, and turns to Camera Two with the full charm of his valleys drawl as he intones breathlessly, with a wink:
“Paris Hilton there, the wonky-eyed slut.”

Welcome to the future.

Posted by Rory Kinsella in Other | May 29, 2008 9:08AM |