The spectacle of Steve Lopez

Last night I attended a talk given by Steve Lopez, the author of The Soloist. Before Steve Lopez became Robert Downey, Jr. he was perusing the streets of LA for a column. How and why he came to be head over heels for Nathan Ayers is pure marketability. During his speech he discussed his only interest in Ayers was that he had previously attended Julliard. Had he not, Steve Lopez told us he would have given up and moved on. Was the accreditation of Julliard the only thing that made his life worth writing about? What makes a person's life interesting enough to be worth a column in the LA Times? Mr. Lopez's semi-sympathetic attitude towards the homeless and mentally disabled was overshadowed by his own career and desire to exploit an individual more talented and interesting than himself. Despite the funny self-abasement Steve Lopez pandered off at the beginning of the lecture where he apologized for not being Robert Downey, Jr. (apology not accepted) he didn't seem terribly interested in the life of Nathan Ayers at all. I think this is where a lot documentaries fail (arguably the Soloist isn't necessarily a documentary). Obviously Lopez had some conscious, some empathy and heartfelt concerns but his overall attitude and demeanor spoke of the struggles of a journalist trying to find a story to gain readership. I don't mean to attack the morals of journalism, but a feeling of arrogance, in this case, won over inspiration.