Journalistic sensationalism

Early this morning, my friend Jill Lavender posted an article from The New York Times about the number of actors and actresses in the adult film industry that have contracted HIV, the virus that nine out of 10 times leads to AIDS. You all remember that disease, the one that killed Queen lead singer Freddy Mercury and led to the end of the basketball career of Ervin "Magic" Johnson, all of this happening in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, it seemed the spread of the word to use condoms or not to have sex with people you don't know that well has quelled the AIDS scare, so it's not that much in the news.

However, as Jill posted here, 22 actors have contracted HIV since 2004. Well, that is just a five-year span. And as she explained in her personal comments:

"So 11,000 films x 4 years = 44,000 films divided by 22 infected actors = one infection for every 2,000 films. Or, another way, 22 actors divided by 4 years = 5.5, say 6 infections per year which in a population of 1500 actors = .4% infection rate which in my opinion is quite remarkable, under the circumstances since we are talking about the adult film industry."

Four-tenths of one percent. That's a problem? I can see it being a problem with those four-tenths of one percent were mainstream actors and actresses and been working in the major film and TV industry and can spread the disease all over Hollywood. However, the Times article simply stated the adult film industry is mainly centered in the San Fernando Valley. And as Jill has posted in her past blogs, "sex workers" usually keep within themselves. They would only go outside their circle if they absolutely know if their intended parter is clean. Otherwise, they would use a condom.

Now, my rantings isn't all about Jill's, it's about how the news can become senationalized in today's 24-hour news cycle, where radio stations, TV networks and newspapers with online outlets are trying to find the angle on certain stories that will generate the most eyeballs or eardrums that will either read, watch or listen to their reports.

I am a journalist myself. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Iowa. I have a grand total of seven years of experience doing both general news and sports with five different newspapers, both weekly and daily, though neither having a general circulation of more than 20,000. The Times circulates more than 10 million copies around the world, with countless his on its website every day. I always had a dream to get to a major metropolitan daily, or even get on ESPN's SportsCenter or be the Chicago Cubs play-by-play voice on WGN (and also now Comcast SportsNet Chicago).

Still, the way several stories have been played out over these last few years, it makes me realize my ideals may not mesh with the editorial boards of some of these newspapers or networks. In fact, it made me glad I focus more on sports nowadays, though some sports pages are getting more senational with the obcession on whether Brett Favre will play for the Minnesota Vikings this season or stay retired, how rampant the use of steroids is still in baseball, or the fact Portugese soccer star Cristiano Rinaldo garnered a £80 million ($131 million) transfer fee paid to his current club Manchester United so he can go to Real Madrid next season.

Here's my thing on this: It's OK to report on what's going on with certain people or events. It's also great to uncover what our government is doing, because that's why the Founding Fathers put the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution when this country started way back when. However, if you must try to scare people with how many people have been infected with AIDS in the last five years or whether the H1N1 ("Swine Flu") virus will become a full-blown pandemic when the Southern Hemisphere goes into winter next week, or even whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor is fit to be a Supreme Court justice just because she thinks a Latina would be better at making decisions than a white man, then that's getting a bit too far.

We journalists have to get back to being the eyes and ears of the public and report what we see and hear to the public, who by buying newspapers and magazines, clicking on links on the Internet, watching us on TV or listening to us on the radio, pay our salaries. It may be directly through newstand sales or subscriptions or indirectly through buying the goods and services our advertisers advertise. We journalists have to be servants of the public, just like those who serve in a democratically-elected government do. The "Fourth Estate" is a key to a robust society like ours.

However, when the media goes too far to sensationalize the stories, people start tuning out or stop reading newspapers, magazines or Internet news sites and instead watch shows like "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!" or "The Real Housewives of [insert geographic region here]" or "The Hills." If we lose the news media - and I'm talking all of them, not just the dying newspapers - then we lose the conduit between us and those who represent us.

However, if sensationalism continues to grow, then it should die a horrible, painful death.