The Shellys. No, the other Shellys

Ugh, media. It's tough avoiding it around the 'burgh the past few weeks since Ben Roethlisberger's latest adventure, and today especially with the announcement of his suspension and whatnot. I want to pose a question: namely, what is he guilty of to deserve his suspension? He hasn't been charged with anything, much less found legally guilty of anything. No one knows what happened that night except Ben and his accuser (even that is questionable). For all we know it could have been consensual. That wouldn't make it morally right (as I don't believe in sex outside of the context of a comitted marriage) but legally speaking then, there would be no basis for legal accusations. From all indications, it has been thoroughly investigated by the law, who found no legal basis ("lack of probable cause") to charge, let alone convict him.

Anyways, I don't want to make a big debate about Ben vs. Right and Wrong. It's just that with his suspension, it sets a new precedent for professional sports: someone has been sanctioned and punished for wrongdoing that they have never been charged with legally. The NFL has a right to do so, I guess ... their league, whatever they want to do, whatever. But still I find it a curious decision, and I think it was reached because of the ever-emerging intense public interest in the personal lives of public figures fueled by media who are only too happy to deliver what they perceive as what the public wants.

I find this troubling. With the focus of celebrity and fame and privilege in the media, it is what the public consumes the most, while ignoring or skating past bigger, more important news. I would wager the average American knows more about Tiger Woods' sex life or whatever it is that Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton (whatever she is famous for) than about recent economic on-goings or healthcare debate and reform. And even the coverage of those current events are dumbed down to surface-level issues, without much of honest reporting and analysis of the issues. For example, every article about healthcare reform on CNN.com boiled down to "Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat so it's going to be harder for the Democrats to force their way. ." Yes, you can make the argument "Don't read CNN, use the BBC, use multiple sources of information, blahblahblah," which I agree with wholeheartedly. But the fact remains CNN is one of the most popular (if not THE most popular) and most easily accessible forms of media out there, and their homepages and telecasts either focus too intently on celebrity and fame, or ignore too much valuable information about issues that affect people's lives.

I think the reason behind this is it is easy. For the media, it's easy to report on and cover. I know this from personal experience in my journalism background. No, I never stalked Brad Pitt, but on 9/11, I was a staff writer with my college newspaper. My editor asked me to call up architectural experts to explain how the Twin Towers collapsed. Those were not easy questions to ask, and despite the emotionality attached to those questions in the hours after the attack, they were not the most pertinent for the day. It's hard to cover complex issues evenly and fairly without prejudice and to do so in a way accessible to the average reader. (Side note: As a journalist in training I was told to write on roughly a fourth grade level of comprehension. Yikes.) For the public, it's easy to read and digest and make safe conversation about at work and with friends and family. I too would rather talk about Roethlisberger with my co-workers than chat about politics or personal beliefs, because at the end of the day, the Roethlisberger discussion doesn't matter and there's no emotion involved for me. Also, it's just easier to digest and read about after a day of work and other commitments we all have. In a way it's more fun, too - given the choice between the sports page or whatver and national hotbutton issues, myself (as well as most people, i assume) would rather catch up on the latest about things that entertain us, instead of wading through murky waters of attempting to find reliable, unbiased, complete information. And so it goes ... we consume what the media gives us because the media gives it to us because its what we want, and there's no real momentum to change anything about it. In the case of Roethlisberger, it goes and goes and goes to the point where he's punished for, legally speaking, doing nothing wrong, but speaking public perceptionwise, is a jerk, a criminal, a piece of $&^%&. And who propagated that? The media. Why? It's what we would consume.