Tiger Woods & Aristotle

35181-tiger pic.jpeg

I teach a couple of courses at the university on the media. My students want to learn about the news and what makes something newsworthy. So when they came into the classroom and saw that the lead item of my agenda was the Tiger Woods saga, some revolted, and they all acted as if the topic revolted them.

I explained that it is indeed news and an example of Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives out good money. Or in this case: Junk news drives out serious news. This is a story line that offers everything that makes news. It is simple and human. We may not understand cap and trade or derivatives, but we do know sex, celebrity and cheating. We feel smart because we all knew that no one ever crashed a car backing out of a driveway at 2:30 AM and no one was ever rescued by the wife, who just happened to be carrying a golf club, breaking in the rear window.

Then there is the Schadenfreude (or in Yiddish, reverse nachiss) the pleasure people get in the bad fortune of others. Here are the elements of Greek Tragedy as explicated by Aristotle. A man of high degree, a hero (deserved or not), is brought low by flaws intrinsic to his own character. The hero needs to be otherwise unblemished. This is a classic storyline because Tiger had not previously been scarred by scandal.

While I planned on devoting only 15 minutes of our hour and a half class to this lightweight trash, my students carried on enthusiastically for 40 minutes! That’s why it’s news. It draws eyes, attention and feeling of superiority–as well as the car wreck response of: Phew. Glad it wasn’t me.

2009 Jonathan Dobrer

  • Diane Schrader

    Hmmm. Well, there are the people who hungrily devour shows like Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood. And then there are the people who can’t switch the channel fast enough if they see those things on the air. So, I believe that these types of generalizations about what “we” want to see in news are a bit off-kilter.

    The Tiger Woods story does say something about the mindset/worldview of the people who decide what news we see. It is my observation (and experience) that people in the news media tend to be just a little more “star-struck” if you will then the average American. It’s almost as if by being in the business of reporting what’s happening, they’re getting the vicarious thrill of being the big important person. Clearly we see that with the inflated egos of those at the top (Couric comes to mind) who seem to be a fixture at Hollywood type events (the recent state dinner comes to mind). ANYWAY. If the people who decide which stories will top your newscast are inordinately interested in celebrity… then we get it whether we care or not. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you make it out.

  • Jonathan Dobrer

    Hi Diane
    I actually think it is simpler than I made it. The news stars are mostly just readers. The news is unfortunately a commodity and the stories are chosen to attract the eyes and ears of the public in order to attract rating and advertisers. Yes, even on NPR and PBS rating count.

    There was an hysterically funny segment on Pat Morrison’s show on Tuesday (KPCC) where they did 35 minutes of guilt and justification about why they were talking about Tiger. Admitting it was a “guilty pleasure” and acknowledging that it was beneath them, they had the meta conversation about the hungry public and guilty media.

    Editors know that sex and celebrity sell. The egos of the “talent,” are involved in ratings and face time. They, like the reality TV wannabees, want hot stories more than important stories.

    You and I might possibly agree that we have devolved into a society (I won’t say “civilization”) that doesn’t distinguish between fame and shame.