[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Princess D. v. Mother T.




Mostly inspired by an earlier posting from Stephanie Beck, but also based
on what I've seen on the Web . . . 

Any comparison of coverage of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa seems to me
to be not so much a journalistic one, but a human interest one. Let's face
it, Mother T. was old and it was not unexpected that she died. Diana's
death was far more of a shock,and there is far more of a sense of intrigue
around the circumstances in how she died. For many, Mother T. fit the
traditional mold of a "saint", which, as a concept is a role that people
are familiar with. Mother T. was unique in the sense that few are like
her, but at least there is a historical precedent for her. In contrast, it
is obvious that people view Diana as a truly unique person, both in her
acts and deeds, but also in what she represented and the role she played.
For many, Diana seems to represent a new version of royalty, a
combination of celebrity and "down to earthness" that endeared her in a
way that Mother T. didn't inspire (at least to many  people in the West).

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the sense that perhaps more that more
than any other media (well, okay television was still pretty powerful in
it's ability to cover the funeral) the Internet is ideally suited to cover
a person like Diana. It seems less so to cover a person like Mother
Teresa. The people who were truly touched or impacted by Diana are far
more likely to go online to express their feelings, or to looks for news
and updates, than the people who were touched or impacted by  Mother
Teresa.  But that could be a whole other issue . . . 

-Mike

************************
Michael Manning
Graduate School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
manning1@email.unc.edu