I really don't care much about what your religious beliefs are. They are yours, and probably not mine, but know what? As long as you don't advocate molesting some little girl in the guise of "spiritual marriage," crash an airplane into a building because of some radical fundamentalism or are deeply rooted in some of that spiritual nonsense about a woman's place in marriage or society, I don't care what brand of spirituality you embrace.
That's why watching this whole business about Harold Camping and his prediction about the Rapture was so interesting.
I don't know about you, but I have a number of fairly literate Facebook friends who kept asking me why "the media" was "wasting" so much time on Camping and his followers.
It is a legitimate question, one I can only answer with a couple of questions of my own, like did you try to maneuver the Internet Friday or Saturday? Did you go to youtube for any reason? Did you see how many of your FB friends were posting messages, songs, and all kinds of other stuff about Camping and his prediction? Personally, I wish there was a way for Michael Stipe and REM to get a royalty for each time "It's The End of the World as We Know It" was posted on FB over the weekend. I guarantee it would have set up their great-great-great-great-grandkids for eternity. Or, at least until the real Rapture takes place, whichever comes first.
And, reputable media -- Associated Press, Reuters, The Los Angeles Times, NPR and most others -- were posting stories as well.
Why?
Because the media has become so market driven.
Having just come from that world, I can tell you that inside the media, a close eye is focused on FB and Twitter, studying what is trending, what is drawing people into conversation.
It's studied closely, with the daily question: "What are people interested in today?"
Back in the old days, when there were three major television networks, radio and newsprint as the only media outlets, we printed all the news we thought was important. It really was never a matter of the old "all the news that's fit to print" ideal. We were the experts. We KNEW what the public wanted. Or, at least, what was "important." And, that is how we planned our daily content.
Our stories were much longer than they are today because, well, we just knew that our readers waited with baited breath to read our latest treatise. Truthfully, a lot of what we did back then was over-blown, ego-centric blather, with a touch of sensationalism. The thing is, we can now track what people are interested in thanks to social media, and feed the intellectual(?) fires. Go to Twitter and see what is "trending," find a story angle and run with it. Go to FB and see what your friends are talking about and use it for the root of a story. It is a guaranteed way to hit those important online numbers advertising staffs like to shove in the faces of prospective customers. The higher the online readership, the more the ads will cost.
It's supply and demand journalism. If there is a demand for a certain kind of story, the media jumps on it to ensure there is a ready supply. Online readers will go somewhere for that stuff, might as well offer something on your site.
It doesn't mean that all of the coverage is legitimate, of course. I mean, back in the "old days," would we have saturated coverage of Camping and his bunch? I don't think so. Only thing I can compare it with is the coverage of the Moonies many years ago, which had a relatively -- in comparison -- short lifespan. Until the Boss Moonie ended up in tax trouble. Then it became real news.
When I was still in school, one of the first things we learned was developing news judgment.
The example, of course, was "Dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is."
Now?
"Man bites dog...good piece...but do you have an online element to go with your story?"
Some people made a fortune over the weekend.
And, it wasn't only Harold Camping.
