Intentional cluelessness?

Either that, or Good Morning America gloriously missed a point.

This morning, they aired a segment in which they talked about Disney Channel actress Demi Lovato and her public apology to her fans via social media. I have no idea what she had to apologize for, outside of hearing about her having some sort of fight with a back up dancer or somesuch at a concert. *shrug* I dunno.

I know she stars in a show my kids have watched (and truth be told had a couple of really clever segments. I liked the one in which she and a couple of co-stars played the part of Disney princesses on a "Real Housewives"-type of show. Hi-larious), and I know that Disney is doing all they can to squeeze every cent out of her tween/teen years by having her do a whole pop star thing as well (like they do with almost every actress on any of their shows) before dropping her when she decides to shed her squeeky-clean image (that's a whole other blog right there), but I digress.

The point here is that GMA this morning sees her addressing her fans via social media as "the star taking control" of her re-emergence after being out of the public eye, rather than allowing the traditional media to have a hand in it.

The reason they miss the point is that there is no comparison to Hugh Grant, Jamie Foxx, or any other star that has ever engaged in an all-out mea culpa media campaign.

While the examples I stated above can show up on Leno, Letterman, Dateline, etc to be seen by their fans, tween/teen stars cannot. Their fans don't WATCH Leno, Letterman, etc. Their fans will pay attention to social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

It's less that the star involved wants to take control of their own exposure, and more the stars involved want to be seen by their fans, so they are doing what traditional media has failed to do, and recognize that social media is the way to do this.

These young stars and their handlers see that the "old media" just simply doesn't speak to the Internet generation(s). Sure, CBS has Facebook pages, and Leno's monologues can spread like wildfire if there's a funny clip involved, but the vehicle by which such things take place remains the same. Social media.

For years, the national attention span has been dwindling. If it cannot be communicated within a few minutes, as dictated by Youtube limitations, then it is just simply not important enough to know.

While I recognize that this is true, it is sad. That the important news of the day (of which Demi Lovato, or the Royal wedding are NOT) gets lost in quick stories, and the majority of what we laughingly call news is garbage like this. Thousands are dying in what is basically a civil war in Libya, and the only indication that too many Americans have about this is rising gas prices.

But teens know all about Pippa Middleton, an English girl who is sister to a future princess. They know all about Charlie Sheen's mental breakdown, including a video where he is seen drinking from a bottle and waving a machete from a rooftop (video on Youtube).

It seems that the traditional media might need to keep up with social media in order to keep any sort of relevance as those who seek their news online become those who MAKE the news as elected officials, business owners, and the labor force in this country.

Otherwise the United States faces a collapse from within, as did Rome. When people have their bread and circuses, they tend to not worry about what is really going on, leaving those who are making things happen to allow divisions to take hold.

And right now, our young have all the circuses they could possibly want, while the decision makers are divided. History doesn't have to repeat itself, but it sure looks like it is heading in that direction.

And the "old media" is too busy paying attention to the wrong things, and too busy wondering why no one under the age of 30 seems to listen to them, to notice and report it.

Michael Phelps, a dopey swimmer...

Okay, so Michael Phelps has been photographed using a bong. According to reports, he didn't seem to be a stranger to it either.

Now the media is eating him alive. Sponsors are dropping his endorsements of their products. He's basically being roasted alive worse than that welfare-receiving single mother with the dozen plus two kids.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Phelps SHOULD suffer some. This is someone who was a hero. He was supposed to be better than his contemporaries. During the Olympics the reporters oohed and ahhed about how Phelps got to where he was with having never failed a drug test.

Looks like he finally failed one.

But at the same time, the media's failure in all this needs to be brought to light.

Sure, he was photographed by probably an amateur using a cell-phone camera who turned around and sold it to a tabloid for some cash. And that trickled into the "legitimate" media, and became a huge story.

There almost seems to be some bitterness in the voices of some of the mainstream media talking heads covering this story. Almost like they feel betrayed. How could this... kid who they built into an icon do this to THEM?

I think that it may be a little different.

I think the media is put off by the fact that it was not one of their own to "out" Phelps as a pot-head, but rather some guy who happened to be at the party (the right place at the right time). I think the bitterness has to do with the parallel to the lack of due diligence that took Dan Rather down.

They bought into the phenomenon aspect of Michael Phelps, and didn't bother to do more than look at the surface. He never failed a drug test, so he's gold. Had they dug deeper, as they did in the case of another "instant celebrity" figure like Joe the Plumber, maybe they would have found Mike's pot connections. But they didn't.

They bought their own hype. And now they have egg on their face, because a tabloid with a picture taken by an amateur out-did them. Since they cannot blame themselves, they can take solace in the fact that Phelps, while still having never failed a drug test, will lose all his multi-million dollar deals, and the icon that they were duped into propping up will take the fall, and they will report each and every blow he takes on the way down.

Meanwhile, we will watch either disappointed ("He seemed like such a nice kid") or gloating ("Huh. Punk kid. I never did like him. He seemed too good to be true"). We will tune in to see what merchandising deal he lost now. And the media will be, once again, held to no standard but whatever they decide is a appropriate now.

The media of course will not say anything, and will attack those who say that the media bears any responsibility. After all, they just report the news. But when they make the news, and they deny it, that never gets reported. The media thinks that their job is to make sure that public figures are held accountable, but who does the accounting of the media?

It's asked "who watches the watchers". I would like to ask, "who reports on the reporters?"

How long will we allow the media to behave with impunity, never held accountable for what they say or do to get the story?

Yup. Michael Phelps is human. He's a 21 year old who smokes pot. Why is this a story?

The question should be, why is Michael Phelps known to anyone outside of the swimming world?

Fame, it seems is fickle, especially when the media is involved.

What they have given, they can take away. I hope Michael has some non-swimming related job to fall back on. I'm sure when he starts there, the media will let us know, so they can close this book before anyone looks too closely at their failure.