At the sixth Eurasian Media Forum in Almaty, a topical, far beyond such events theme - the so-called “glamor” in journalism was raised. In honor of this, an almost nominal Ksyusha Sobchak was invited, who irrefutably believes that glamor is not content, “just an attractive form that makes our life more beautiful”.
Another guest of the forum, Vitaly Tretyakov, editor of the Moscow News newspaper and teacher of analytical journalism at the Faculty of International Journalism at MGIMO, defined the topic of glamor in his speech: “Political journalism as a victim of glamor society”. Mr. Tretyakov has a very negative attitude towards this phenomenon.
Of course, there are more topical themes, but glamor in the media is perhaps a symptomatic trend, demonstrating the increasing dominance of the “brand” value system of the modern reader, the apotheosis of the consumer society. There are a number of very accurate and interesting definitions of "glamor."
Glamor (eng. Glamor proper “enchantment”, “charm”) is an evaluative concept (the assessment can be both positive and negative depending on the speaker’s views), meaning closeness to the generally accepted standards of “luxury”, “elegant”, externally "Brilliant".
“A man of glamorous thinking is a being who considers acts of consumption to be achievements” (Konstantin Krylov).
“It is applied, first of all, to fashion for clothes and cosmetics (opposed, in particular, to grunge), and in widespread use - also to lifestyle, entertainment, and so on. The standards of clothing and life advertised in “female” and “male” glossy magazines are usually referred to as “glamorous” (the concepts of “glossy magazine” and “glamor magazine”, “glamor” and “gloss” often appear interchangeable). Glamorous are usually women or VIP parties. ”
"The English word glamor originated in the Middle Ages as an option for grammar" grammar "," book ", borrowed from the French. grammaire (the development of values is: grammar> complex book> book of spells> witchcraft, spells> charms, charm; cf. also fr. grimoire, Russian grimoire “book of spells”, of the same origin). The University of Oxford still has the position of professor of glamor (grammar). ”
“Glamor is the glossy edge of the neoliberal project. Completely divorced from the reality of most of his readers, he nevertheless seeks to set this reality. ”
Such a definition from the “Short Chatlano-Patsak Dictionary” (“a small dictionary most often, and out of place, from words from a glossy language” —by Dmitry Vishnyakov http://mauzer82.nm.ru/slovar.htm) “ Glamor is a completely untranslatable word in our language. It can mean anything; but most often does not mean anything.
In general, one can find, as a rule, several types of attitude towards “glamor”: skeptical, aggressive, contemptuous, condescending, neutral. But this does not prevent this fuzzy concept from becoming increasingly embedded in the minds, especially of young people.
Many explore the phenomenon of “glamor”, make sharp conclusions like “this is what annoys me so much that it brings me almost to deaf rabies, strangles and does not sleep peacefully - it’s the glamor itself,” dusting reality ”, etc. You can agree with this, you can defend, but the fact remains that what is called “glamor” exists and flourishes, becoming a new ideology of success - a synonym for rich, stylish, sexual, etc. Perhaps one of the most accurate definitions of this phenomenon: “Positioning himself as the most accurate cut of fashion trends, G. seeks to dominate the minds - and he succeeds. "
In this case, it is worth considering a very specific view of this phenomenon in the media space. For example, you can meet this look. “Glamor is entertaining journalism in its most pretentious, lacquered version. The main product - glossy magazines of the format "Cosmo", "El", "Vog". G. distance from the tabloid press tabloid. The yellow edition - a brawler, gossip, voyer; G. - a wise adviser, a rich and attentive friend. However, the relationship of attraction / repulsion in G. does not arise with his tabloid relatives. ”
One can agree with the opinion that “the central concept of glossy journalism is success. How to tie a useful acquaintance. How to improve family life. How best to choose a weapon, pump up muscles, charm your partner (partner). Which dress looks best diamond brooch. Where is the best lingerie boutique? Indeed, “the world of glamor is a consumer paradise, which is ruled by a depersonalized, as if dissolved in the air saturated with expensive perfume, the deity of success. They get divorced easily and get married happily, make an instant career, travel wherever and whenever they want, drive expensive and very beautiful cars, eat in unheard of exotic restaurants, wear jewels in kilograms, and never, ever get sick or die. But sometimes they indulge in charity. ”
Mr. Tretyakov urges, honestly and without fear, to go against the mainstream, which, in his opinion, is represented by "a giant amoeba-like body of glamor." According to him, many people confuse the media and journalism, while “all this glamor is a journalistic form of mass culture”. According to the expert, glamor responds to the demands of a mass consumer; he is not interested in what policies the president has, but he wonders what ties the president wears. Mr. Tretyakov is concerned with the expansion of the entertainment genre, which "devours more and more space, displacing quality journalism."
Speaking about the ways out of the current situation, he says: “Of course, it’s honorable to die heroically, defending the purity of quality journalism, but still I don’t want to, because if all representatives of quality journalism die, even heroically, then there will be no quality journalism. Moreover, it is still needed. Journalism through the media corrects the actions of politicians, it still manipulates public opinion. Everyday it is only through journalism that one can influence the political elite, the ruling class, the state. If all this journalism is glamorous, the channel will stop. ”
Meanwhile, it is worth noting that recently there has been a noticeable trend in the same Russian press: sometimes glossy editions allow themselves something that serious editions do not allow. Quite sharp political theses appear in Esquire and other seemingly glamorous editions.
In this situation, you can break a spear in the address of a media product, but probably the most reasonable would not demonize entertainment genres, but use all the resources for the common cause - informing the reader. A form of information ... how can I not agree with the "glamor of glamor" Ms. Sobchak, probably the second case. If the reader is drawn to the light form, you cannot force him to read serious reading - neither by accusation, nor by threats. This can only lead to the marginalization of serious journalism. Mastering the same sought-after forms, journalists can just as well inform the reader, and not only about the ties of the presidents.