Reflections on changes in what we once called ‘tabloid’ reporting

There was a time when you saw Paris Hilton’s picture on the news or in the paper and you said to yourself, “OK, so what has she done now?”

And she wasn’t alone in attracting such publicity. Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Charlie Sheen. All are names that come to us of a certain generation with images of alcohol- or drug-fueled misbehaviors, arrests and social outrages. There were many others. They provided a seedy foundation for a certain type of gossip journalism that fed the coffers of sensationalist tabloids and sometimes became so prominent that it spilled over into more-reputable news media.

I use the past tense, because I find it hard to think of a contemporary equivalent in today’s journalism. Not that such reporting has disappeared. But it definitely has changed in some subtle ways.

I am come to reflect on these changes as I read a story about Paris Hilton on Wednesday’s Back Page of the Daily Herald. The report describes Hilton’s efforts on behalf of students at a so-called “troubled teen” boarding school where she says she was abused when she attended as a teenager.

Two conclusions come immediately to mind when reading this story. One could be summed up in the maxim “Not everyone grows up, but most people do.” The image of Hilton as a social reformer rather than a reform-school bad girl certainly suggests an image of those who do mature. Another is a simple statement of reproach for the journalism that preyed (preys?) on troubled souls, especially young ones. That journalism survived, of course, because it found an eager audience, but it was unsavory, if not also cruel, nonetheless.

Perhaps here, too, I should be using present tense. There is surely still plenty of appetite for celebrity news, and outrageous celebrity actions or comments still attract attention. But somehow, the Hilton-Sheen-Lohan type of persistent, unrelenting sensationalism has shifted in the social media age.

Perhaps, it seems to me, because offensive behaviors, words and pictures are so ubiquitous in the social media universe that they don’t hold the surprise they once did or they don’t become the embodiment of one or two or three reliable people who, largely, were seen as famous just for being famous. Now, that phrase seems to apply to half the names we hear or see referencing internet celebrities.

It would be nice to think that we in the media and we as media consumers also have grown up. That we’ve gotten beyond our fixation on mocking and shocking, drawing entertainment value from the misguided behaviors of troubled people in the public eye. It would be nice to think we have developed a more sympathetic understanding of people having trouble navigating the rarified world of fame and extreme wealth, so we’re less inclined to hold them up to public ridicule.

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice?

I think it is not yet true, if ever it will be. But perhaps we can move in that direction. I don’t know anything much about Paris Hilton or the cause she is advocating, but I do know that advocating for the safety of others is a far cry from than making sex tapes and going on all-night drinking binges, and that distinction emphasizes the layered nuances of what it means to be human.

Keeping that in mind as we swipe from viral post to viral post online could help us understand each other better, couldn’t it?

To quote Ernest Hemingway, “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher. His book “To Nudge The World: Conversations, community and the role of the local newspaper” is available at eckhartzpress.com.