The not-New Journalism - rise of the viral

Upon reading the Observer this Sunday* as we are wont to do, our eyes were caught by an article on Glenn Beck, the American news -anchor? -journalist? -presenter? -preacher? We smiled wryly at the typically deadpan treatment by the British left-leaning press of the freak show that has come to embody Murdoch’s chest pumping, liberal-baiting Fox News network. We sipped our mocha pot espressos while a thought came to us...

Of course, anything that brings to people’s attention the utterly perplexing insanity-masquerading-as-political-opinion or even cultural-representation that is Glenn Beck has adequate justification in itself, be it for the cause of entertainment or comment. But the Gaby Wood article — accepting that it was a Sunday-edition comment piece — didn’t really have any newsworthy angle to it. Yes, Glenn Beck sounds like what a retarded sack of hemorrhoids would do if it were given a microphone. Yes, he and the White House don’t get on because the President is a Communist. Yes, he’s popular with a lot of people that seem to have eaten their own brains. This much — being such enlightened creatures — we know.

So rather than being to inform and to reflect concurrently, this article is an example of how newspapers are increasingly separating these two into distinct spheres. Glenn Beck’s rants on his radio show, his calling Obama ‘racist’ and his myriad other performance pieces are gaining presence this side of the Atlantic owing mainly to Youtube and the like's hosting of Beck’s finest moments. [Any posts linking The Marilyn Mansion to some Beck videos would be welcomed below.]

Beck is, however, newsworthy in the context of going viral. This is nothing new of course: SuBo is a recent testament to former internet greats like Charlie Bit My Finger and Tron Guy. But what is new is how journalists and their editors seem willing to give more currency to cultural peculiarities generated from sources outside of the usual ‘news’ remit, be that the internet in the Beck case or in older forms of viralism (yes, viralism) such as word-of-mouth.

We’re talking specifically about The Wire (the last season of which ended on US TV on 9^th March 2008 — nearly two years ago). It's a social fact nowadays that people either don’t know The Wire, or if they do communicate their love for it through the medium of semi-sexual groans and ululations. For example it may go:

--Have you seen The Wire?

--No.

Or otherwise:

--Have you seen The Wire?

--Arrrghhhh! Ooooorrrhhhh! The Wwhhhyyyyeeerrrrr!

Considering that the show isn’t even airing on the BBC anymore and is only available through DVD boxsets or online streaming, the sheer space and time given over to the David Simon and Ed Burn classic doesn’t match up with the usual, more contemporary press love-ins about admittedly decent TV shows (such as the recent The Thick Of It obsession). This may just be because The Wire is so awesome. Which it is. Or perhaps it is the pervasive blogification of the press (yes, that’s right — blogification) in which the more open, reflective tone befitting the blog reaches beyond into wider editiorial practices.

What is really going on here is clearer in the newspapers' reactions to the viral mode itself. How the older generations of journalists write about Twitter, Facebook, Spotify et al reveals the generation gap that they endeavour to close by whispering into the ear of readers of similar age just what those young-uns are doing, be that on those internets of theirs or otherwise. Andrew Brown’s blog on Twitter language and Tom Service’s comment on the ‘dangers’ of Spotify searches for classical music fans are perfect examples of this anxiety over technology of the thirty-pluses, summed up wonderfully by The Onion here.

*Note: We did not in fact read the paper. We looked at the website. Yes, we're those mysterious people you’ve read about who are ruining the newspaper industry.