No, I’m not. I just wanted to test that out and see how it feels.
It feels as stupid as this little blip from the two Timeses. Apparently Entertainment Tonight–bastion of investigative journalism, guardian of a worthy and noble profession, professionals exemplar–may have been duped by someone posing as Jolie’s assistant into running a story that she’d given birth to twins in France. There’s some disagreement about whether the show knew the information was likely fake before the broadcast.
This is the least interesting of journalistic sourcing conundrums to come up in my memory, and the NY Times TV blogger clearly knows this:
Whether or not there was an impostor, the bigger question still has not been satisfactorily answered: Was “ET” wrong when it reported that Ms. Jolie had given birth? The actress “has not been seen or photographed for well over 10 days,” Elizabeth Shead, a blogger for The Los Angeles Times, said Wednesday. “If she would only show her face and her bump all these birth rumors would be instantly put to rest.”
My year at j-school was pretty much an extended eulogy to “real” journalism. Killed by blogs or celebrity magazines or cable television advertisements or the right-wing conspiracy or the left-liberal establishment–the culprits vary, depending on the conversationalists and the number of drinks that have been consumed.
My point is that I came into this knowing the profession is dominated by commercialism–always has been, but now it’s a commercialism its practitioners seem to especially loathe. Me too.
But when did the Timeses start writing about the state of Jolie’s pregnancy with the same earnestness that, when applied to politics or social issues, wins Pulitzers?
And one more thing: When did the LA Times start referring to pregnancy as a ‘bump’? That’s just not okay.
