So Elizabeth Edwards goes on Oprah to help her promote her new memoir. I don't know why she wanted to write another memoir, especially one about her husband's affair and the aftermath, but she is entitled to do as much. (Although from the looks of their house in the promos, she does not need the money.) Oprah is vigorously promoting this exclusive interview in which she was apparently allowed to ask Edwards any question she wanted. The ads are really dramatic and creepy, but fine. My question--my problem really-- is why is Oprah's interview with Elizabeth Edwards the teaser for the 5 o'clock news and in the Times and everywhere? Where is the news?
Does anyone really care about John Edwards anymore or his maybe baby with the other woman? Maybe you do. Obviously someone does. But why? Is he running for anything? Such rehashing of public betrayal and private pain so long after the fact is fine for a memoir or a talk show, but on the news and in the New York Times?
I guess book publishers, show producers, news ratings gurus, and perhaps Mrs. Edwards herself are banking on schadenfreude as an irrepressible American impulse. Elizabeth Edwards had cancer, during which time her husband cheated on her and may or may not have fathered a baby as a result. Feel better now?
It's clear that journalists are sick of writing about the economy (see swine flu), so why aren't they digging around for the next politician who is or was cheating on his wife? If it's the misery of others we so long to see, let's at least make it about someone we might be able to vote for or against. Then at least it is news-- base and ugly, sure, but news. This is no news at all.
Posts
7 comments:
This story makes me so sad. I deeply respect Elizabeth Edwards and I was truly shocked when I first heard the news of her husband's affair. I suppose that was a bit naive of me but I really believed that they were that rare honest, kind and respectful political couple.
I don't really understand the point of this book but I support whatever it is that this courage woman feels she needs the world to know, for herself and for her children.
Agreed. I certainly don't care and had forgotten about these people over a year ago. Believe it or not I would rather read more articles about A-Rod's steroid use in high school or even bring the Pirates back!!
Elisabeth- I know more than a few people who felt the same sadness/disappointment when the affair story broke. I was pretty shocked myself. I guess I just don't get why it is so newsworthy now. Maureen Dowd has a pretty good column today about it. A bit critical, but worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06dowd.html?ref=opinion
JohnE- I do believe you would rather read about A-Rod, but pirates? ;)
I don't mean to sound heartless or overly jaded but I'm pretty indifferent about this kind of news. I'm not really concerned about the personal lives of our politicians. I know it would be great if they demonstrated solid morals but this seems to be so hard to find. In the end, it just sounds like another soap opera that people find more interesting than the actual news.
I guess I feel uncomfortable about how much she shares, even though I have to admit, I enjoyed reading (I read it in the New York Times when they covered it) every bit of it. It's an interesting issue to me in terms of how this guy (this champion of the poor) played a lot of people including/ maybe especially his wife. I really stopped liking him before I heard about the affair when I saw a video of him with Elizabeth and his kids on the campaign bus during the primary. I could not stand the way he spoke to his kids.
I think it is an interesting question though why the NYT and others gave her memoir/the interview with Oprah so much press. You say they get bored with the real news. And then again, is it that the public gets bored with it? Or both? I guess I think that it is all newsworthy but that I'd rather hear a lot more positive, success stories. Why do we seem to be so drawn to the negative?
It is definitely a chicken and egg dilemma. But I don't think the public has as much influence or impact on what is covered in traditional media as most people would like to think. Dramatic, narrative stories are in general more interesting to all kind of people--journalists or regular humans, unfortunately the most exciting stories usually are the most sensational, and negative. Overall, I think the members of the media drive the news much more than the public.
Post a Comment