Sometimes, especially when you’re a twenty year old in today’s day and age, it is difficult to understand just how much things change. That’s a really obvious statement isn’t it? Life is constant. But when I think about change I think of it in such short periods of time. I think about how there were days when I didn’t have my BlackBerry at my side twenty-four/seven. I think about how my mom used to be so afraid of the internet in the 90’s that she refused to have the computer in the house. It’s so funny how she has her own Facebook account now.
I’m aware that things change. But I wasn’t aware of exactly how these changes have affected our media. I took two articles from People Magazine. The first one is from an issue on March 25, 1974. It’s about Cher and Sonny’s divorce (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20063893,00.html). The second one is from last month, August 30, 2010. That one is about Tiger Wood’s divorce (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20415582,00.html).
The first thing I noticed was that the article about Cher was long. It also told of the issue and date that the article was released. Also, the article was set up more dramatic. The author of it described the place where he interviewed her, the way she wasn’t wearing her make up and that her fingernails were long and purple. Along with this more dramatic language, the article is mostly quotes from Cher rather than the author reporting on what she said. As a reader, the article made me feel some what sorry for her. The article gave the tone of remorse that it didn’t work out between them. Even though there was a hint at her relationship with another man I never got the feeling that people at that time thought of her as a home wrecker or a cheater.
Tiger Woods’ article does not give me the same feeling of remorse, even though he is quoted as saying he was sad about it. There are a few reasons why I think this as well. First of all, this article is significantly shorter. This may have to do with the fact that it probably wasn’t actually published in their magazine (there is no volume number). The Tiger Woods scandal was all over the news for quite some time, with mistresses coming out left and right so nothing about this divorce was shocking as it may have been for Sonny and Cher. The story also focused more on what Tiger had said rather than setting up the scene of what he looked like when he said it. With Cher, you can see her sitting at a table with the reporter having in dept conversation about it, but with Tiger it feels as if People Magazine just took some quotes here and there from places where they may have heard him talk about his divorce.
I think this may have something to do with the way people view men and women in divorce. Often, people assume it is the mans fault that someone divorces. Perhaps in the case of Sonny and Cher (though I have no idea as I was born 16 years later) even if she was cheating there was probably a reason - she was unhappy, he was much older than her and maybe she wasn’t as ready as she was to be tied down. Even though there were hints about her being with someone else, it was never brought against her in the article. But in Tiger’s case, being that he is a man, he must be a sexist pig who just uses women. If he hadn’t been such a horrible cheating lying scumbag of a husband, they wouldn’t have divorced, and even the reporters won’t let it go. It’s just one of those double standards that we see with men and women and the way that people treat them.
Wow... it's amazing what a difference there is. The first article presents Cher in a sympathetic light, where the second article shows Tiger in a much more harsh view. The author is also playing on the fact that Cher is a woman, and thus more vulnerable. It was improper at the time to attack a woman like that. I think most of the reason that the articles are so different is not so much because of the way times have changed, but more the difference in genders. It still isn't sociably acceptable to attack a woman in the way that reporters have attacked Tiger Woods. It may be unfair, but I think that this stems from the Victorian beliefs of how fragile women are, and that an attack like that may cause them to have a breakdown. I think is also why people automatically blame the man, because someone needs to take the blame, and since it isn't acceptable to attack the woman, the man catches the blame. Perhaps some of the difference is the times, and how we seem to be such an angry, accusatory generation. We like to stir up trouble and cause drama. There is no more quiet gossiping in the ladies room, we would rather splash it across the cover of every tabloid in the country.
ReplyDelete