Jules and the CNN pix -Reply

[SHUBHA GHOSH]

Maybe the HH PR machine began back in November with Nancy Jo Sales
article.   Also, any connection between Nancy Jo and Kirkpatrick, one of
P's intimates from Cornell?   And how about that last name, Nancy Jo
sounds like a really booster for capitalism, at least the late twentieth
century kind.


On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, john wells wrote:

> Tom Gorman wrote:
> > 
> > John: Trust me: I don't think everything I see in the media is "rigidly true."
> 
> Excuse me, I tried to soften that by saying "I'm surprised that ANYONE
> would think that what THEY see in the media is rigidly true." Not YOU in
> particular, at least that's what I meant to imply.
>  
> > Nor, however, do I assume a conspiracy where I can't see a motivation.
> 
> The motivation is, again, ratings, which equal the charges for
> advertising which equal income for the media (it's the same for print
> and tv, but in print the means of measure is circulation, that alters
> the charges for advertising)
> 
> > It's difficult to see how the momentary titillation of a small segment >of the population (Pynchon fans) translates into "big bucks" and >ratings for a network like CNN. 
> 
> SMALL segment? Pynchon is on the best-seller list of the New York Times
> right now. He's IN THE NEWS! 
> 
> >(I don't think the Pynchon story is comparable to a
> > product-safety expose like the one you referred to.)
> 
> My point was they'll pump him up for a news angle exactly like they blew
> that truck up. 
> 
> >It seems to me we would do well to keep in mind that the vast majority of the >population doesn't give a rip about our beloved TRP... 
> 
> TRUE, but the vast majority of the population doesn't give a rip about
> pickups either -- they both needed a "boost" to make them MORE
> INTERESTING. 
> 
> And you should consider WHO exactly makes the news decisions about what
> gets covered and what doesn't. Most journalists these days are "academic
> powder butts" who haven't a clue about what the real world is like for
> most people. It is these "academic powder butts" who would find a
> reclusive author like Pynchon MOST interesting, and would want to pump
> him up to make their stories more interesting. 
> 
> (now to run off on a tangent, excuse me but I'm having fun slamming the
> media :)
> Prior to World War II most journalists were just blue collar men and
> women who knew how to type and had a genuine empathy for the people they
> covered. They told stories from the subjects' perspective, not from
> their own. They wouldn't presume to do that, they "reported." Now, they
> pontificate.
> 
> Now they're all college graduates, not bad in itself, but they are ONLY
> college graduates with little experience doing anything else and they've
> lost empathy too often for the people they cover.
> 
> That's why people and, sadly, news people, have the impression that
> reporters are out there not only to get the story, but also to "GET" the
> person the story is about -- thereby making themselves "heroes" and the
> subject of the story the person who was "gotten" as in "GOTCHA!")
> 
> And what better "GOTCHA" is there than a live video feed of a presently
> BEST SELLING author whose picture hasn't been seen in 30 years. It's not
> exactly a scandal but it sure is a "GOTCHA!"
> 
> >...and that therefore a huge media outlet like CNN wouldn't really get a lot of mileage out of pulling a Pynchon hoax.
> 
> Again, it's not a hoax at all if there is only a "suggestion" or
> implication that Pynchon is in the picture.
> 
> Thanks for your quick reply. Now I'm going to try to readdress this,
> since I wanted to post it.
> 
> John
>