Years ago tabloids like the National Enquirer were considered bottom-of-the-barrel publications. They did break some credible stories on celebrities here and there. TMZ, for instance, was the first to break Michael Jackson's death. NE was one of the first to report on Anna Nicole Smith's passing. But calling either of them newsworthy is like calling a quarter-pounder and supersize fries healthy because they're served with a side salad. You're still guzzling crap. Mostly they deserved the rap, with their weekly fast-food diet of exaggerations, exploitations, and downright fiction. Problem is, in the hyper-drive pace of today's digital world, it's the portable, bite-sized bits of sensationalism that sell. Or so we're led to believe. So a lot of media, new and old, is reaching back into the bottom-of-the-barrel to present trash as substance. But it doesn't necessarily sit well with folks who are used to the good stuff. Even Scallywag & Vagabond, itself a digital celebrity and pop culture medium, questions why we are so quick to eat up whatever the Google machine regurgitates. Its article, "Dilemna of A Paperback Writer," reconsiders whether all of modern media should aim to be the Biggest Loser.
Click to read entire article at Scallywag & Vagabond
