Viral journalism

So how does this work? Am I supposed to mine the latest current events for an interesting column topic, throw in a few facts and figures that I Googled and pretend to have an opinion that I then pretend people will care about? Forgive me if I’m a little new to this whole “normal column” thing, and I might be a little gun-shy about writing now that my name and picture appear next to my rambling incoherencies.

I have to admit I don’t actually read the news, and I’ve never actually looked at a Chronicle. Most of my news is gleaned from disjointed phrases viewed out of the corner of my eye from a combination of Facebook statuses and Google search bar suggestions. I guess it’s not surprising, then, that until this morning I was wondering what the big deal was about Kathy Lee Gifford being able to “move and breathe on her own,” not even stopping to think about what it was that she was doing before she had those faculties. A few tweets later, and the social networking community had me thinking that Taylor Lautner went on a politically motivated shooting rampage while wearing a red G-string, and I still had no idea why he went after Kathy Lee.

When I finally did try to inform myself about one of the more horrific tragedies in recent memory (referring, of course, to the Arizona shootings), I was suddenly reminded why I don’t read the news: It’s ridiculous! I went to what I thought was a respectable news source, CNN.com, to put an end to the inanity that had been driveling its way into my consciousness. No headlines about Gabrielle Giffords, though, so I still had no idea what anyone was talking about, but dammit at least I knew “Which stars dazzled Piers Morgan?” (an actual CNN headline).

And right there is the problem with the state of modern journalism. Now, I’m not one of those recalcitrant old curmudgeons who pines for the days of Edward R. Murrow in the evenings and a paper copy of The Times with my morning coffee. Indeed, the Internet has been nothing short of a boon to almost every facet of American life.

But with its bountiful blessings to business and communications, the Internet has also provided the masses with the ability to see only what they seek out, and nothing more. Instead of gathering around the television to consume “news” as a good in its own right—one that men with the occupation title of journalist have produced for them in a 30-minute package—people can segment what news they see and ignore the rest. And when more people click on a story titled “Are we too obsessed with Facebook?” (another actual CNN headline) than a story about the Tunisian revolution, then the financial health of news outlets is directly dependent on how many idiots they can attract with their headlines and content.

Even on that rare occasion when CNN is discussing something newsworthy, like, say, politics, the language is dumbed down to attract the same audience demographic as the CW’s “Gossip Girl”: “Are McConnell, Obama BFFs?” was the actual headline to the top story on CNN’s website just a few weeks ago. Incredulous, I went back to show someone just a few hours later, but to my dismay the headline had been updated to: “Spotted in DC: Cranky bipartisanship.” My response when I saw this type of language comprising the top headlines on what is considered by some to be one of the nation’s top news outlets was the only one they deserved: OMFGWTF.

I’m all for a free market, and if the dispersal of viral videos and celebrity gossip is the road at the end of journalism’s course, then it is the province of no one to force it any other way. All I ask is that you think before you click on “Dog has a makeover to look like a panda,” consider the homepage of a news website as a mirror to reflect our society and ask yourself into what, exactly, it has devolved.

Derek Speranza is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Tuesday.