Entertainment journalism

[pavaniraj]

Entertainment journalism is an umbrella term used to describe all forms of journalism that focus on the entertainment business and its products. Like fashion journalism, entertainment journalism covers industry-specific news while targeting general audiences beyond those working in the industry itself. Common forms include television and film criticism, music journalism, video game journalism and celebrity coverage.


EDIT: Please Do Not use the board to advertise. Link deleted. Contact webmaster@freeones.com. Please read the Board Rules. Here. Failure to abide by the rules may bring other consequences for your membership. Thrad moved to talk section.

 

[calpoon]

All journalism is entertainment.

why else do people watch the news?

 

[mrtrebus]

All journalism is entertainment.

why else do people watch the news?

To find out what is going on in the world?
NOT to be 'entertained'!!

 

[Lungzyn]

To find out what is going on in the world?
NOT to be 'entertained'!!

Some people only have the patience for sensationalist news I guess

 

[Jagger69]

Depends on the "news" show being featured. If it is "ABC World News" with Charlie Gibson, I'd say that's pure journalism (no direct intent to "entertain", only inform). If it's "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann or "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly, I'd say the intent is more entertainment-driven. Hopefully (probably not), the viewing public at large is smart enough to know the difference.

 

[calpoon]

To find out what is going on in the world?
NOT to be 'entertained'!!

But why do you want to know what is going on in the rest of the world? It doesn't effect you. You already know what is happening to YOU. You do it because it is interesting. You can call it educational learning, but it' all the same thing. It's an activity that you engage in to satisfy curiosity, to amuse yourself.

Just because it's "real" doesn't mean it's any less entertainment.

 

[mrtrebus]

But why do you want to know what is going on in the rest of the world? It doesn't effect you. You already know what is happening to YOU. You do it because it is interesting. You can call it educational learning, but it' all the same thing. It's an activity that you engage in to satisfy curiosity, to amuse yourself.

Just because it's "real" doesn't mean it's any less entertainment.

I disagree, finding something interesting or satisfying curiosity is not to "amuse" myself or to be "entertained". Its not all the same thing.
Unless you find, Arrests at new Iranian protests entertaining?
Or Global swine flu deaths top 700 amusing?
:dunno:

 

[titsrock]

Depends on the "news" show being featured. If it is "ABC World News" with Charlie Gibson, I'd say that's pure journalism (no direct intent to "entertain", only inform). If it's "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann or "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly, I'd say the intent is more entertainment-driven. Hopefully (probably not), the viewing public at large is smart enough to know the difference.

Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric may attempt to be unbiased, but they answer to corporate boards ultimately.

I think PBS/NPR try to present factual information in an unbiased way with the intention of educating the viewer and providing useful information.

The only "use" for entertainment journalism is to entertain the viewer. That's a low priority for me and I go to other places for my entertainment.:dunno:

I do think that the culture of celebrity has overtaken American culture and celebritism threatens news programming today...

 

[calpoon]

Unless you find, Arrests at new Iranian protests entertaining?
Or Global swine flu deaths top 700 amusing?
:dunno:

I don't.

But that's because I don't watch the news.

What's the difference between "terrorists kill 700 people" and "Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had a fight."? They are both chronicling real world events. Neither one of them have anything to do with me or you, and so my interest in them is the same thing. You just consider one to be more important than the other and somehow that means that it's not trivial information to "amuse curiosity."

 

[titsrock]

^
The first represents a potential threat to your life if it should happen to occur in your neighborhood or vicinity. Wouldn't you want to know about such an event in order to protect yourself? The second represents nothing more than a threat to your personal time.

Terrorist attacks that occur in exotic places are worth studying so that you/we can keep them from occurring in your neighborhood, or mine, in the future.

 

[calpoon]

How am i going to stop terrorism because I saw a news story? isn't that the Job for the defense department? If it's up to me, this country is fucked.

Now if it said "terrorists are attacking Home depot down the street and here's what you can do to stop them!" then maybe I might be able to help out. Still, probably not. I'm not the dude from Die Hard.

Also if terrorists were attacking my neighborhood, most likely I'd be dead already long before I got a chance to watch it on the news. They don't usually report things before they happen. they are kind of limited in not being psychics.

 

[Jagger69]

Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric may attempt to be unbiased, but they answer to corporate boards ultimately.

Oh, I totally agree T-rock. You can be biased (actually, I guess the proper term in the news industry is slanted) and still not be in an overt attempt to entertain.

 

[historylover]

Journalism seemingly, with its focus on the 5 "w's", forces every story into a structured paradigm. In order to keep the average viewer interested enough to stay with some bit of news, every reporter/newscaster has had to coop an almost film-esque narrative driver. Thus, as cinema turns reality into fiction to tell a larger truth, so must news today. I mean, can one relate to a news story if it did not stay with a single "protagonist," even though said individual wasn't the only one involved?

 

[calpoon]

Also just because something imparts meaningful or relevant information doesn't mean that it's not entertainment. War and Peace is entertainment, but it also is very meaningful and presents truths and insights into human experience. School is not entertainment because it's not entertaining. it's just a presentation of facts. News is entertainment because it is written so as to be interesting and captivating to the audience, not just a guy reciting facts.

"500 people were killed by terrorists today. The Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl. Tune in tomorrow at 11. good bye."


^ yeah, what HL said, in a smart way.

 

[titsrock]

How am i going to stop terrorism because I saw a news story? isn't that the Job for the defense department? If it's up to me, this country is fucked.

Now if it said "terrorists are attacking Home depot down the street and here's what you can do to stop them!" then maybe I might be able to help out. Still, probably not. I'm not the dude from Die Hard.

Also if terrorists were attacking my neighborhood, most likely I'd be dead already long before I got a chance to watch it on the news. They don't usually report things before they happen. they are kind of limited in not being psychics.

I think there's a difference between "being aware" and being paranoid. News reports are meant to make viewers aware, not paranoid. Some news orgs live in paranoia inducement and others don't.

If an attack occurs in an exotic place, goes unreported or ignored, and then a similar attack occurs in your neighborhood, you and your local community have failed in being a good citizen. :dunno:

Is it asking too much to live in a civil society?

 

[shayd]

All journalism is entertainment.

why else do people watch the news?

"We watch the news so we can close our eyes and touch our nuts" - Lewis Black