How much is enough?

There are two stories that journalists/reporters/commentators must remain steadfastly wary of and constantly vigilant towards misuse: trend pieces and "where's the media coverage on situation...

There are two stories that journalists/reporters/commentators must remain steadfastly wary of and constantly vigilant towards misuse: trend pieces and "where's the media coverage on situation Y?"

Gawker has had field days (field trips?) on the former here. My own previous thoughts here.

David Carr files an archetype of the latter, with respect to Don Imus' recent comments, today.

He writes:
It is hard to say how much coverage the protests will get. Had Fox’s Bill O’Reilly said what Mr. Imus said, he might have been confronted with pitchforks and torches outside his studio. Last month, after Ann Coulter used a homophobic term to describe presidential candidate John Edwards, she received opprobrium from dozens of media outlets, including MSNBC, which featured a running count of the number of outlets that had dropped her column. Earlier this year, Mr. Biden got creamed for describing Senator Barack Obama as “clean” and “articulate.”

Now, it would be false for me to claim that "why isn't this getting media coverage?" was the only ponderous point in his piece. He also, interestingly, pointed out why so many respectable guests go on his show. So, I'm definitely not accusing Carr of filing a nonstory.

But, checking handy Google News, I find 1,444 hits on Imus (many of which, admittedly, are the AP version. And, yes, there are plenty of blogs in Google News). But, as my title questions, how much media coverage is enough to preclude someone from filing the "Mainstream media is not covering this" bromide? I ask because I don't know. Do you?

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in

Would you like to post a comment?

Please Sign in or register.