I suspect that I was not the only subscriber to The Atlantic Monthly who was shocked and dismayed to see Britney Spears on the cover of the April 2008 issue. I do my best to defend my home against the onslaught of Britney images that seek to tintillate interest in the ongoing dramas of this poor, ridiculous woman, but here she is, her face covering the Atlantic banner, looking vulnerable in a pair of oversized sunglasses, surrounded by cameras and outstretched hands. She is truly inescapable. (Heck, she’s even on this web site.)
The Atlantic Monthly is supposed to be brain food, a source of informative coverage and commentary about foreign affairs, politics, and cultural trends. At least they could have stuck their Britney musings towards the back, with the book reviews, food and travel writing, and the monthly woman’s essay that is usually backlash against the femininist backlash, backlash in support of the feminist backlash, or ranting about housework. I do not dispute that Britney Spears is a disturbing cultural trend, but finding her on the cover was like ordering a healthy grilled fish at a restaurant and being served fudge-drenched chocolate cake.
Of course I ate the cake. I totally lapped it up. The journalist splits his time following Britney’s omnipresent pack of 30 to 45 “shooters,” and expounding on this new brand of “powerful and lucrative” paparazzi, born out of “the online convergence of instant images and dramatic story lines [that] encouraged the idea that the news was filter-free and that readers were part of the story.”
Candid shots of stars used to be fodder for marginalized tabloids, but in the past 5 years, mainstream media has grown ever-more eager for these pictures and video clips, too. And even the Atlantic, in the guise of reporting about the reporting, is eager to get a piece of the Britney bonanza.
