Nice idea!

Sadly, it probably has more to do with the fact that they are well paid -- by us, the subscribers -- to keep doing it. Cut a newspaper's subscriptions by 50% overnight out of disgust, and it would stop. Cause an advertiser to fail to meet financial forecasts because of a boycott based on its support of garbage in the media, and changes would be made.

It isn't going to happen. Some of the greatest revenues being raked in today are generated by a show in which contestants drink pureed beetles and grubs and egg yolks, to see who can keep it down and thus "win." That's the industry that we're hoping will exercise good judgment and display good taste. It isn't going to happen. Not if Jerry Springer has anything to say about it.

I caught he*l just this past week for not being "up on" a recent legal development in New York that, another editor told me, had been "all over TV." Well, the fact is, I don't watch TV. Haven't for years. I can't stand it. Can't stand wading in the cesspool of ignorance and bad taste and bad writing. Most radio is just as odorous (and odious), full of hatemongering windbags and high-wire fraud acts that make "Off" the best channel selection (short of revolution, which we've become too lazy and compliant to even court.)

I agree that the year-round sweeps-week media mentality is degrading and bottom feeds off the most toxic holding ponds in our culture. It disgusts me every time I see a microphone or camera lens pushed in the face of a grieving or tormented or heartbroken soul. But we tune in. For every one of us who just turns them off and tunes them out, a thousand more sign up for satellite radio so they can mainline their Howard Stern fix first thing in the morning and check out of life.

That's the bee in my bonnet for the moment.

What more to do about it? Go ahead and paint those Chinese mah-jhong players, and what the heck, the Irish musicians, with all the dignity that they deserve. Avoid any caricature or false light or mean-spirited invasion of their lives. Hold the result up for comparison with the sinister and the base, and let those who still are capable of choosing, rather than merely being led like cattle, make their choice.

Disclaimer -- I did not mean by comparing them to Rivera or Stern or Springer fans to cast any aspersions on the good members of the cattle community, or any bovine named or unnamed.

I think you've summed it up Mr. Steven Sweeney.

You've exorcised the bees from my bonnet.

While this thread was developing, I was constantly in mind of one of the iconic, Depression-era photographs that we

Florence Owens Thomson was a Cherokee from Oklahoma, though she had been living in California for some time. Her husband

Steven,

Thank you for sharing that story.

Not to argue, I agree with you totally, but - some of these intrusive photographs do make people take action. At the expense of the person photographed unfortunately. Take the Katrina victims for example. Reading about demolished homes or even seeing photos do not have the same impact as seeing a real live devastated person. Seeing them...brings the human side to any story and Im willing to bet it encourages folks to give money, volunteer their time, etc.

Im wondering how many of us would allow our image (taken at our worst) if it meant it would move people to help?

Just another thought on the subject.

Steven:

I remember that photograph, and your story brings to mind maybe the most famous of all depictions from that era: John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath."

I've watched that movie many times and I am still moved by it. One of the great American stories. It too portrayed the "Okies" in circumstances which were strained at best. Of course it was only a movie, and brought out at a time removed from actual events. Much different than the story which you convey.

Kim:

In the case of the Katrina victims ...

To my sensibilities there is a wide chasm between documenting the circumstances in order to gain public support for relief, and gross exploitation for commercial gain. What could be gained further by pointing a movie camera at a person wading in the remains of her life; while she is shouting, crying and cursing at the camera man to please stop filming. Does this compell me to give more?

In my cynical mind I don't think the media cares a tinkers **** about rallying public support. They understand that their actions do have an effect in that regard, but I believe it is purely coincidental to their purpose.

I heard recent'y that there have been three movies made about Amy Fisher. I suppose there will soon be a movie about the lost girl in Aruba. You could make a strong case that we are given exactly what we want, and deserve. I wonder ...