Today's featured article on the News-Sentinel website --synthetic grass.
From the comments:
"KNS. Your readers don't want articals (sic) on vain people who have money to waste on phony grass and botox. People are going under keeping up with the cost of living and we open the paper to crap like this. How about the hurricane and the blood drive?"
Friday, August 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Reading that article reminded me -- once my blood stopped freezing at the thought of artificial fescue -- of a savvy piece of media criticism I read in The Taste of America by John and Karen Hess. (Yes, I know that I quote from ToA on an hourly basis, and I appreciate your forbearance as I do it again. ;) Embedded within their polemic about the degradation of our food supply was a comment about how the New York Times tries to play to two markets, namely, those who follow the ways/means of the rich, and those who feel too cool or serious or high-minded to follow them. The example they cited was the Times's coverage of the marriage of Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco, starting with the headline "Royal Wedding is Hardly 'Topic A' in New York." Embedded in the context of "oh, we can't be bothered to fuss about this society wedding" was a lot of "look at how exclusive and expensive everything is! gosh, won't Grace look beautiful in this?" subtext.
I see this happening in this article, with, maybe, a reverse of the dynamic. You have meticulous coverage of Botox parties and $18,000-at-a-discount lawns, and at first glance it all looks pretty straightforward, but considering the economic status of the paper's readership (as noted by the commenter you quoted), how could there not be an element of "look at what some people are silly enough to buy, and the enormous sums of money they spend on it!" It may only be subtext, but it's pretty loud subtext.
Wow. I really need to cut back on the coffee. ;)
This is a very interesting blog. Thanks for this postings.
Post a Comment