Hard News has always been defined as politics and economics and soft news is considered to be "lifestyle" information. With the onset of new media competitors like "professional bloggers" for example many traditional news outlets, like The New York Times as well as local news and cable news networks are turning to more soft news than ever before. Most "news snobs" would say that this is no good serious news is meant for "serious" topics, and the use of health stories and shopping tips to atract more readers could be considered selling out.
Although I do believe that traditional news outlets have used more and more non-traditional news topics in order to gain and hold on to reader interest; who is to say that this is all negative. One can argue that using more soft news takes away from important hard news issues, distancing Americans further and further from political issues. However, to play devil's advocate one can say that if people want to hear and read soft news they will find a way to read it. Why shouldn't traditional news sources cash in on the fact that people have an interest in things other than politics? If old media sources survive that means jobs survive, and that is talking economics.
The New York Times' Style Section is one example of a section in a highly respected newspaper that is often looked down upon, however in a consumer society shopping and fashion can be considered economics as well, along with the travel section and the entertainment section. If people buy clothing, travel, and go to the theater (assuming they can do all of these things with out going into debt) they are most definitly stimulating the economy. Although not traditional economic statistics telling people in a consumer economy the best, newest, and greatest things they can buy could be considered economics as well. Despite seeming a bit trivial imagine what would happen if everyone in the United States stopped buying new clothes, stopped going out to dinner, and stopped going to the movies.
I would not say that soft news does not have its consquences; in general the coverage of the news is a chicken or the egg situation. Does the news cover what people want to hear or do people want to hear what the news tells them is important? Americans are becoming increasingly disenfranchised from politics both American politics and world politics; however soft news is not the only thing to blame. Even if it was, soft news does not always mean bad news. Although The Kardashian's should not be on the front page over say a meeting at the United Nations and the new Hermes bag is not nearly as "important" as a newly declared independent country that new Hermes bag is made by a company employing hundreds of people and that junk reality show that is a guilty pleasure of yours employs hundreds maybe even thousands of people when looked at as part of a bigger network. Getting rid of everything frivolous in the news and in American life would probably put an end to the economy as we know it; thus leading to political turmoil and economic distress, and that is not so soft.
To clarify, if major news sources stop talking about pop culture and leave that to say E Entertainment, and the Style Network, the economy as we know it will not come to an end. There will still be plenty of advertisements for companies in every other aspect of our lives. This being said, today's media culture filled with DVRs and internet viewing has meant that advertisers of products that aren't exactly nessecary for human survival must find creative ways to advertise. Remembering that the media is a business that also needs to make money, they partner with advertisers to get their product in in anyway possible. In the case of scripted and reality shows there is product placement and the same in a way is true for news show. I do not advocate for this but simply believe that this is reality, and until some media scholar or scholars figures out how the media can make money with out the ever important advertiser I do not believe this reality is going away.
In the above portion of this blog I discuss the use of so called soft news fashion tips, where to go on vacation etc. it is not to say that product promotion should be included in the news but rather the definitions of soft news seem to be changing, as soft news often brings to mind the idea of being unimportant. In a world where people want more and more, a western world of consumerism what to do where to go and how to shop is considered important to many. The Media is there to be a business serving the public therefore their news will cater to what the people demand, or think they want, because the media has creatively steered them in that direction. This may not be for the best but we must face up to the fact that the media can not be totally to blame for the shift in news about the economy in numbers to news about where to get the best prices on designer fashions. I am not advocating product placement but rather emphasizing the value people, besides those in the media have placed on lifestyle news.
