NBC Fires Matt Lauer

Further clarify, it doesn't just have be a situation that compromises an elected's position. Could be a political appointee or other.

 

Absolutely. I wonder about that all the time when I'm talking to them. I've had them tear up during interviews and I've been, like, Are those genuine?

Watch Amy Adams at the 2:00 mark in this video.

Now, I know we dismiss "celebrity journalism" as a bunch of bullshit, and not real journalism. It's fucking hard, because of exactly what you just said: You're writing about PROFESSIONAL ACTORS. They are really good at this shit.

 

Would you care if, say, he shoplifted a nice watch from the store?

 

I think there's also a difference between what is news for US Weekly and what is news for the New York Times, and I think doesn't mean that the New York Times is sugarcoating the news.

 

Yes, the watch cannot consent and referring to it as shoplifting denotes that the shop owner did not consent to the taking.

 

Oh, I would never argue that we should look to Charlize Theron for all our answers. But when you're assigned to write 3,000 words about someone, you kind of have to talk to them about something. You can't write 3,000 words about how hot they are, and there is nothing in the world more boring than actors talking about acting. That's why the other stuff enters the frame.

No one here is going to believe me, but I honestly think writing a good, compelling, interesting celebrity profile is one of journalism's greater feats of strength. It's almost impossible.

 

Tom Hanks allegations would destroy the nation.

 

Did the spouse consent to the politician's affair? Did the politician's children? Did the mistresses' spouse or children?

 

That's right. She mentioned him, too.

 

Well said.
And that is part of the distinction between journalism and 'celebrity journalism.' Right?
As well as the distinction between practical and philosophical.
If the NYT goes around publishing about celebrity facelifts because, in a practical sense, there's an audience there, the NYT crosses from journalism to 'journalism.'

 

I'm not sure I get the distinction there.
I am not trying to minimize possible family outcomes from marital infidelity. I'm saying there is no intrinsic news value in it.
People get hurt in those situations, including children, but that doesn't make it news in of itself.

Politician who drinks a lot - not necessarily news.
Politician who drinks a lot and drives around - news.

A politician who cheats on spouse - reprehensible behavior, I don't condone it, but not necessarily news.
A politician who cheats on spouse with an intern who believes he/she must acquiesce in order to advance in a political career - news.

The context may or may not make the infidelity news.
Just because something is not newsworthy doesn't mean it's not wrong.

 

Probably not unless one of them crashes into a tree because of it.