Don't Take Politics in Gossip Blogs Seriously

By Broadside Assistant Style Editor Daniel Odom

In this world of telecommunications and cyberspace, the way in which information is communicated is continually evolving. News media sources such as the New York Times, CNN and even Broadside are changing the way information is relayed to their readers through the new journalistic fad, “blogs.” While blasé political conjecture and mundane economic discourse perpetuate blogs, these days the most popularly read blogs among college students are celebrity blogs such as Perez Hilton, GoFugYourself and Pink is the New Blog. So what’s the big deal?

According to a 2007 Rolling Stone article, the popular site PerezHilton.com gets upwards of seven million hits a day. The author, Mario Lavandiera, also known as Perez Hilton, a chubby, egocentric gay man from Southern California, stated in the article that he started the blog, “to follow the fun, create the fun, and be all about having fun.” And boy does he. Perez’s site features embarrassing photos of celebrity moments in which he draws semen on public figures and frequently “outs” closeted figures such as Jodie Foster and – gasp – Lindsay Lohan.

Sure, sites like Perez’s provide great fodder for social conversation and serve as guilty escapes from academia, but as more and more celebrity blogs are becoming a greater part of the social and political discourse one can’t help but wonder two things. First, should celebrity blogs engage themselves politically? And second, should the rest of us even pay attention to it?

This past Thursday, following Republican Vice President nominee Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech, Perez almost immediately released a report claiming factual inaccuracies concerning fiscal operations present in the Alaskan governor’s speech. Several posts later, the self-proclaimed Queen of All Media posted a Photoshopped image of Palin in a stars and stripes bikini holding an automatic assault rifle. The next morning on CNN television, the commentary shifted to the discussion of inaccuracies of Palin’s speech and her role as a female leader. Does anyone else see the problem?

The point is that when reading information posted by these bloggers, we as readers need to be particularly careful with how we interpret it. While some data found in the site might indeed be factual, its juxtaposition with inflammatory remarks and false representations serves to corrode political discourse rather than enhance it. Additionally, when news source refer to reports initially reported by celebrity blogs notions of impartial reporting and bias are thrown out the window.

Certainly, the freedom of speech which protects writers like Perez to post both factual and misinformed works is protected under his first amendment rights, but our role as viewers should be decidedly more cautious. Therefore, when reading these blogs, take a grain of salt from what is being presented and remember who is presenting it. While I’m certainly not against Perez for what he does (I know I just can’t wait to get my fix on the crazy shenanigans Britney is up to), I don’t refer to him as the is-all-ends-all source on political commentary. That’s why we have the Associated Press.