- The Washington Times - Monday, March 5, 2007

NEW YORK

So you may have heard: Paris Hilton was ticketed the other day for driving with a suspended license.

Not huge news, even by celebrity-gossip standards. Here at Associated Press, we put out an initial item of about 300 words, but it actually meant more to us than that.

It meant the end of our experimental blackout on news about Miss Hilton.

It was only meant to be a weeklong ban — not the boldest of journalistic initiatives and one, we realized, that might seem hypocritical once it ended. It wasn’t based on a view of what the public should be focusing on — the war in Iraq, for example, or the upcoming election of the next leader of the Free World, as opposed to the doings of a partygoing celebrity heiress/reality TV star most famous for a grainy sex video.

No, editors just wanted to see what would happen if we didn’t cover this media phenomenon, this creature of the Internet gossip age, for a full week. After that, we would take it day by day. Would anyone care? Would anyone notice? And would that tell us something interesting?

It turned out that people noticed plenty — but not in the way that might have been expected. None of the tens of thousands of media outlets that depend on AP called in asking for a Paris Hilton story. No one felt a newsworthy event had been ignored. (To be fair, nothing too out of the ordinary had happened in the Hilton universe.)

The reaction was to the idea of the ban, not the effects of it. There was some internal hand-wringing. Some felt we were tinkering dangerously with the news. Whom, they asked, would we ban next? Others loved the idea. “I vote we do the same for North Korea,” one AP writer said facetiously.

The experiment began Feb. 19. A few days before, AP had written from Austria about Miss Hilton’s appearance at the Vienna Opera ball, just ahead of her 26th birthday. We didn’t cover her weekend birthday bash in Las Vegas.

During “blackout week,” AP also didn’t mention Miss Hilton’s second birthday party at a Beverly Hills restaurant, at which a drunken friend reportedly was ejected by security after insulting Paula Abdul and Courtney Love. Editors also asked our Puerto Rico bureau not to write about Miss Hilton’s visit there to hawk her fragrance. However, her name did slip into copy unintentionally three times, as background in stories about Britney Spears and Nicole Richie and even in the lead of a story about Democrats in Las Vegas.

Then Miss Hilton was arrested Feb. 27 for driving with a suspended license — an offense that conceivably could lead to jail time because she may have violated conditions of a previous sentence. By that time, our blackout was over anyway, so reporting the development was an easy call. (On the flip side, we never got to see what repercussions there would have been if we hadn’t.)

Also, by then, an internal AP memo about the ban had found its way to the outside world. The New York Observer quoted it on Wednesday, and the Gawker.com gossip site linked to it. Howard Stern was heard mentioning the ban on his radio show, and calls came in from various news outlets asking us about it. On Editor & Publisher magazine’s Web site, a reader wrote: “This is incredible, finally a news organization that can see through this evil woman.” And another: “You guys are my heroes.”

We felt a little sheepish that the ban was over, and we braced ourselves for the comments that would come when people realized it wasn’t permanent.

We also learned that Lloyd Grove, former columnist for the New York Daily News, had attempted a much longer Paris Hilton blackout. He began it a year into his Lowdown column and stuck to it, he says, for two years, until the column was discontinued last October — except for a blind item (no names) about Miss Hilton crashing a pre-Oscar party.

So was Mr. Grove attempting to raise the level of discourse in our society by focusing on truly newsworthy subjects?

Well, not really. “The blackout was a really heartfelt attempt on my part,” he says, “to get publicity for myself.”

A trait that Miss Hilton, it must be said, has turned into an art.

One measure of Miss Hilton’s fame: She was No. 5 last year on the Yahoo Buzz Index, a list of overall top searches on the Web site. (Her ever-so-brief buddy Miss Spears is a perennial No. 1.)

Another is that US Weekly has at least a mention or a photo in just about every issue. “People now come to expect to see pictures of her,” says Caroline Schaefer, deputy editor of the celebrity magazine. “They’re intrigued by her unshakable self-esteem. People are fascinated by that.”

Jeff Jarvis, who teaches journalism at the City University of New York, decries the “one-size-fits-all disease” afflicting media outlets, which he says feel that “everybody’s covering it, so we must, too.” Even the New York Times, he notes, had substantial coverage of a hearing concerning where Anna Nicole Smith — perhaps the one person who rivaled Miss Hilton in terms of fame for fame’s sake — would be buried.

“That disease leads to the Paris Hilton virus spreading through the news industry,” says Mr. Jarvis, who puts out the BuzzMachine blog.

So what have we learned from the ban? “It’s hard to tell what this really changes, since we didn’t have to make any hard decisions,” says Jesse Washington, AP’s entertainment editor. “So we’ll continue to use our news judgment on each item, individually.”

That means that for the immediate future, if not always, we’ll still have Paris.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide