AquaMan2342 wrote:Mine is pretty easy: Tabloid journalism. It's probably already been said, but it's something the world would be better off without. Case in point, I am purchasing some goods today and the women behind me are talking about Jennifer Lopez getting a divorce as if its relevant to anything of importance. Sadly, this is what society has become.
In order for society to have 'become' this it would had to have transitioned from something else. Your parents and your parents' generation was just as celeb gossipy as people are now, but, as with everything, the media wasn't as prevalent and there weren't as many avenues to broadcast it. This is a double edged sword we have to deal with in order to have the good associated with it, which far outweighs the negative.
How is tabloid journalism a good thing? There are good aspects to it, but it contributes more to the decay of society than it does the enrichment.
I think he meant the accessibility brought by the information age (a good thing) produced the spread of tabloid journalism as a negative side effect. The demand for it has always been there, meaning that if media was as accessible in 1900 as it is now, tabloid journalism would've been just as popular as it is now.
Rocinante2: you know Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team ofanrex: go on Rocinante2: i'm done Rocinante2: lmao
I can't believe people actually watch any of the crap that network poops out.
I watched the History Channel and Court TV a lot when I was a kid, and I actually still have a VHS of a Forensic Files marathon somewhere. It's a shame both networks have fallen so hard.
The History Channel is still entertaining at times. Tru TV is absolutely unwatchable.
History Channel is obsessed with showing us enough reality TV featuring 300 pound guys with beards that Real Housewives of New Jersey could become watchable.
For the topic, any infrastructure that doesn't include central air.
bigh0rt wrote:The NFL Lockout ended like a half hour ago and ESPN just flashed a "Will He or Won't He?" about Brett Favre playing... this is what I want to die off
Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to avoid Sportscenter until September now.
Seriously, What Will Brett Favre Do? needs to be put down like a rabid human-biting dog behind the shed.
bigh0rt wrote:In order for society to have 'become' this it would had to have transitioned from something else. Your parents and your parents' generation was just as celeb gossipy as people are now, but, as with everything, the media wasn't as prevalent and there weren't as many avenues to broadcast it. This is a double edged sword we have to deal with in order to have the good associated with it, which far outweighs the negative.
How is tabloid journalism a good thing? There are good aspects to it, but it contributes more to the decay of society than it does the enrichment.
I think he meant the accessibility brought by the information age (a good thing) produced the spread of tabloid journalism as a negative side effect. The demand for it has always been there, meaning that if media was as accessible in 1900 as it is now, tabloid journalism would've been just as popular as it is now.
Yes, this. It's not like people weren't obsessed with celebrities in the 1980's or 1950's or 1930's. It was as silly then as it is now. It isn't something that has 'become'. It's pretty much always been.
AquaMan2342 wrote: How is tabloid journalism a good thing? There are good aspects to it, but it contributes more to the decay of society than it does the enrichment.
I think he meant the accessibility brought by the information age (a good thing) produced the spread of tabloid journalism as a negative side effect. The demand for it has always been there, meaning that if media was as accessible in 1900 as it is now, tabloid journalism would've been just as popular as it is now.
Yes, this. It's not like people weren't obsessed with celebrities in the 1980's or 1950's or 1930's. It was as silly then as it is now. It isn't something that has 'become'. It's pretty much always been.
That's irrelevant because the media wasn't as prevalent then. It is now, and that's become a problem.
Neato Torpedo wrote:I think he meant the accessibility brought by the information age (a good thing) produced the spread of tabloid journalism as a negative side effect. The demand for it has always been there, meaning that if media was as accessible in 1900 as it is now, tabloid journalism would've been just as popular as it is now.
Yes, this. It's not like people weren't obsessed with celebrities in the 1980's or 1950's or 1930's. It was as silly then as it is now. It isn't something that has 'become'. It's pretty much always been.
That's irrelevant because the media wasn't as prevalent then. It is now, and that's become a problem.
Yes, but if you want to enjoy the positives that have come out of expanded mediums of receiving all types of media and news, you've got to be willing to accept some of the drawbacks that are part of the package, such as increased tabloid coverage. If you have one, the other exists almost necessarily. You can't eliminate one and not the other. In an ideal world, sure, but not in the real world.
bigh0rt wrote:Yes, this. It's not like people weren't obsessed with celebrities in the 1980's or 1950's or 1930's. It was as silly then as it is now. It isn't something that has 'become'. It's pretty much always been.
That's irrelevant because the media wasn't as prevalent then. It is now, and that's become a problem.
Yes, but if you want to enjoy the positives that have come out of expanded mediums of receiving all types of media and news, you've got to be willing to accept some of the drawbacks that are part of the package, such as increased tabloid coverage. If you have one, the other exists almost necessarily. You can't eliminate one and not the other. In an ideal world, sure, but not in the real world.
I realize all of this. All I wanted to say is that the negatives are what I hope will die off during our generation. Y U NO LET ME BE?
AquaMan2342 wrote: That's irrelevant because the media wasn't as prevalent then. It is now, and that's become a problem.
Yes, but if you want to enjoy the positives that have come out of expanded mediums of receiving all types of media and news, you've got to be willing to accept some of the drawbacks that are part of the package, such as increased tabloid coverage. If you have one, the other exists almost necessarily. You can't eliminate one and not the other. In an ideal world, sure, but not in the real world.
I realize all of this. All I wanted to say is that the negatives are what I hope will die off during our generation. Y U NO LET ME BE?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Neato Torpedo » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:42 pm 
