I think the Globe and Mail put it best in the story Blondes Aren't Going Away by stating "It's almost an irresistible story for journalists...news organizations around the world took the bait".
Going on to say that "work routines are such that reporters are cutting corners — or feeling that they can get away with cutting corners", however, may have been going a bit too far.
Both of these statements are probably true. In terms of news value, even if blondes were in danger of imminent extinction, the fact is there really isn't any. It's a story about vanity more than anything else. When did hair color start determining species?
The appeal of the story, of course, is that it's interesting to both sexes. Blondes, women who believe they have more fun and the gentlemen who prefer them would snap a newspaper up in an instant if they saw a headline trumpeting the cessation of their golden-coifed existence.
The second statement is worrisome not due to its honesty but rather its emphasis. The repetition of the phrase "cutting corners" creates a focus that implies that reporters are being lazy. Were the true emphasis on the idea of "work routines", it would more clearly indicate the root of the problem.
I read a story that cited a press release as the source of the erroneous information that was the basis for this story. It is easy to piece together how this whole fiasco may have played out - provided it wasn't a planned hoax. Press releases tend to be handled quickly and usually not by regular reporters. Those experienced professionals have beats to keep up with, meetings to attend, and would be burdened - if not offended - at being asked to process a press release. PRs contain most of the information pertinent to a story, so they usually receive less time and attention than spot news or investigative pieces.
It is conceivable, then, that an editor handed this release to an ambitious young reporter new to the newsroom. The writer of this article found an impressive second voice in Jonathan Rees, which indicates that they were genuinely trying to write a credible news story. The problem is that press releases are considered to be reliable sources of information. The organization responsible for the release is providing the news, and the tendency is for a reporter to seek out the impact of the info on the audience, not to question its validity. When the limited amount of time allotted for the processing of releases is taken into account, it is easy to see that it is often the work routine and not necessarily the slacking of reporters that creates situations like this.
Posted by Jess P at October 20, 2003 12:12 AMMy feeling is that somewhere along the line, a fashion reporter probably got handed the press release by a grizzled newshound who thought it was worth a laugh. The fashion reporter would have been hired for the ability to hobnob (and put up) with celebrities and divas, not for the ability to think critically about science. Thus, the "Vogue" book becaue an authority on science.
In such a case as this, an experienced editor should have pointed out the newbie reporter's mistake. That didn't happen.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 20, 2003 12:22 AMWill it really matter by the year 2202. Even now, lots of brunettes fake being blonde and vice versa. If you were to survey a group of men or women if they have ever changed their hair color, you would probably find that the majority have. Check out my blog by the end of the day. I am so intrigued on this topic, I may do some looking around.
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/BrianMcCollum/
Posted by: Brian McCollum at October 28, 2003 10:48 AMI only heard about this story secondhand when it rolled through the media a year or so ago. This gave me a chance to find out more, something I was happy to do. It seems to me that this issue runs much deeper than the fashion pages. Blond-ness is an extreme of white-ness, and one of the continuing anxieties of white people is that they will be absorbed into the colored tide beneath them.
Posted by: John Spurlock at October 31, 2003 10:19 PMOnly Blondes are Blonde. No matter how much bleach you put on a Brunette she will still be a Brunette. These women cause a FORCED association between themselves and Blondes. Blondes are actively disassociating from these women. Attaching a derogatory word such as "fake or bleached" to the GOOD name Blonde does not in any way describe or identify Brunettes that are bleached. The correct name for these women is BLEACHED BRUNETTE. Pass it on. Thank you.
Posted by: carol at December 7, 2003 10:44 PMKeep a good work man!
Posted by: Diesel at March 18, 2006 06:51 AM