Kid Gleason Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Not really worse, there's just more forms of reading about it. I'm also not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying things have always been the same. The whole reality thing isn't even new, there is just more of it because there can be, with cable and all. There was an old radio program called Nightwatch, which was basically Cops. It's just that we like to knock our present society for being a bunch of scuzzy creatures, when in all reality, the human race has always been the same. The only difference was that in 1926 you only had magazines. Then radio rolled around, and you got more gossip shows and game shows. Listen to the old shows and tell me Star worship has changed. Watch the old Ed Sullivan show and tell me people still react the same to seeing their favorite bands play. Nobody cries anymore when the bands walks on stage. TV added another dimension to the whole star attraction, then it moved into cable and internet. We are just as obsessed as ever, there are just more ways to be. Anna Nicole is no different than somebody like Jane Manfield. Pretty dang similar as a matter of fact. If Monroe had not done a few good movies, she would be in the same boat, as she also made some poor movies, but her personal life was a wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) Not really worse, there's just more forms of reading about it. I'm also not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying things have always been the same. The whole reality thing isn't even new, there is just more of it because there can be, with cable and all. There was an old radio program called Nightwatch, which was basically Cops. It's just that we like to knock our present society for being a bunch of scuzzy creatures, when in all reality, the human race has always been the same. The only difference was that in 1926 you only had magazines. Then radio rolled around, and you got more gossip shows and game shows. Listen to the old shows and tell me Star worship has changed. Watch the old Ed Sullivan show and tell me people still react the same to seeing their favorite bands play. Nobody cries anymore when the bands walks on stage. TV added another dimension to the whole star attraction, then it moved into cable and internet. We are just as obsessed as ever, there are just more ways to be. Anna Nicole is no different than somebody like Jane Manfield. Pretty dang similar as a matter of fact. If Monroe had not done a few good movies, she would be in the same boat, as she also made some poor movies, but her personal life was a wreck. FWIW, I don't mean to say our society is full of scuzzy creatures. I'm just saying the media doesn't deserve the blame - they just deliver what we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) FWIW, I don't mean to say our society is full of scuzzy creatures. I'm just saying the media doesn't deserve the blame - they just deliver what we want. They should get some blame for how they present things and what they do and do not report. Sure, there's interest from the public, but I'm sure some of this crap gets force-fed to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) FWIW, I don't mean to say our society is full of scuzzy creatures. I'm just saying the media doesn't deserve the blame - they just deliver what we want. Is it just 100% that though, or does anyone else think that to some level it does flow both ways? In the sense that to some extent, the media does have the ability to decide what they think is important and how much emphasis to put on a particular topic, they can use their abilities to create topics of discussion when there really aren't anything. I mean, think about the "Missing White Woman" craze in the media from a couple years ago...every time some attractive, wealthy, young, white female went missing for whatever reason, it turned into a nationwide story for weeks/months. To my eyes, the media figures made a series of choices about what topics to cover nationally - there were older women, men, African American women, etc. who went missing or who were killed who never made it national, but someone made a choice that these particular stories needed to be covered. Hell, one of my former co-workers in NW Indiana was shot and killed in what appears to have been a bizarre love quadrilateral involving hit men, kids, and millions of dollars, and that never became a national story. Someone is making decisions about how much time to give stories and which stories to start featuring, and that does feed back into the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Is it just 100% that though, or does anyone else think that to some level it does flow both ways? In the sense that to some extent, the media does have the ability to decide what they think is important and how much emphasis to put on a particular topic, they can use their abilities to create topics of discussion when there really aren't anything. I mean, think about the "Missing White Woman" craze in the media from a couple years ago...every time some attractive, wealthy, young, white female went missing for whatever reason, it turned into a nationwide story for weeks/months. To my eyes, the media figures made a series of choices about what topics to cover nationally - there were older women, men, African American women, etc. who went missing or who were killed who never made it national, but someone made a choice that these particular stories needed to be covered. Hell, one of my former co-workers in NW Indiana was shot and killed in what appears to have been a bizarre love quadrilateral involving hit men, kids, and millions of dollars, and that never became a national story. Someone is making decisions about how much time to give stories and which stories to start featuring, and that does feed back into the system. copy-cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 This is either a suicide from pills or an o.d. There is no possible way that it was anything else. if you've EVER seen her on tv you know she was severely medicated. Her son was on heavy antidepressants and methadone. Im betting whichever prescription was next to her was the one that did it in. I dont know why there is so much speculating. She was a terrible role model to her children and look at the mess thats become of her legacy. Her poor daughter should chang her name and never look back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) They should get some blame for how they present things and what they do and do not report. Sure, there's interest from the public, but I'm sure some of this crap gets force-fed to the public. IMO, they get it all. The create it. The public wouldn't know about what the stars do, who they do, what they eat, when they crap, etc, etc... if the media didn't report it. I don't see Joe at the corner store calling the outlets and asking for the latest on who Paris is screwing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) Her poor daughter should chang her name and never look back. Yes, she should change her last name to something less unique than "Smith". Edited February 9, 2007 by knightni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Yes, she should change her last name to something less unique than "Smith". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) They should get some blame for how they present things and what they do and do not report. Sure, there's interest from the public, but I'm sure some of this crap gets force-fed to the public. Again, like any other business, that is only true in the very short run. If people didn't read it, they'd eventually pick other media outlets running other information. This is especially true now, with so many options out there. And if people don't pick other outlets and continue to read this stuff, then, they are getting what they ask for. So in the long run, I think the media themselves only get a very small part of the blame. Businesses don't last when they sell what no one is buying Mind you, there are exceptions - I am not saying some idiot papparazzi photog who rams Zsa Zsa's car isn't to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHAMBARONS Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So none of the meds found in the room where inside her. This is interseting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Again, like any other business, that is only true in the very short run. If people didn't read it, they'd eventually pick other media outlets running other information. This is especially true now, with so many options out there. And if people don't pick other outlets and continue to read this stuff, then, they are getting what they ask for. So in the long run, I think the media themselves only get a very small part of the blame. Businesses don't last when they sell what no one is buying Mind you, there are exceptions - I am not saying some idiot papparazzi photog who rams Zsa Zsa's car isn't to blame. Businesses can dictate what we do or don't like/want by what they do and don't put out. They create some of the hype by flooding us with the crap they choose to put out. That's the part where I think they deserve some of the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Two words Marilyn Monroe only more trailer house and less white house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) So none of the meds found in the room where inside her. This is interseting. And none were illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Businesses can dictate what we do or don't like/want by what they do and don't put out. They create some of the hype by flooding us with the crap they choose to put out. That's the part where I think they deserve some of the blame. I just don't agree. I see this similarly to personal responsibility. No one EVER makes you buy ANYTHING. If you buy it, fine. Just don't complain that its out there, and that stores are going ga-ga over it. I buy Sox tickets, but you don't see me moaning about how popular the team is. That would be hypocritical. They create hype, because thats marketing. The question is, do we buy into it? If not, guaranteed, that hype will die out mighty quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I still think it was the rapid weight loss if it wasn't an OD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) I just don't agree. I see this similarly to personal responsibility. No one EVER makes you buy ANYTHING. If you buy it, fine. Just don't complain that its out there, and that stores are going ga-ga over it. I buy Sox tickets, but you don't see me moaning about how popular the team is. That would be hypocritical. They create hype, because thats marketing. The question is, do we buy into it? If not, guaranteed, that hype will die out mighty quick. *Cough*DukeLacrosse*Cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) Two words Marilyn Monroe only more trailer house and less white house. As I said: Jane Mansfield. Granted she died in a car wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Anna Nicole actually had a better life than Marilyn after their primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) I just don't agree. I see this similarly to personal responsibility. No one EVER makes you buy ANYTHING. If you buy it, fine. Just don't complain that its out there, and that stores are going ga-ga over it. I buy Sox tickets, but you don't see me moaning about how popular the team is. That would be hypocritical. They create hype, because thats marketing. The question is, do we buy into it? If not, guaranteed, that hype will die out mighty quick. Wait, what don't you agree with? That they can dictate what the public likes or dislikes by the amount of focus they put on it? Makes sense to me. You can't know if you like or want something if you don't know about it. Businesses and media have a hand in deciding what they are going to bring the most attention to and, therefore, some of the blame should fall on them for overhyping crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) *Cough*DukeLacrosse*Cough* Sort of a good example, given people's quick reaction to take a side and be outraged. Although there, that was a public servant hyping an unfounded criminal case for politcal gain, which is much worse. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) Wait, what don't you agree with? That they can dictate what the public likes or dislikes by the amount of focus they put on it? Makes sense to me. You can't know if you like or want something if you don't know about it. Businesses and media have a hand in deciding what they are going to bring the most attention to and, therefore, some of the blame should fall on them for overhyping crap. I don't agree that they deserve blame for that. They hype (a.k.a. market) what they think will sell. If it doesn't sell, they stop hyping. Are you serious that you only know about what is hyped in the media? You have the power to decide what you do or don't buy, watch or read. There are nearly infinite choices of what to do with your time and money. Pick whatever you want, just don't blame the media or businesses for giving some segment of the market what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) Sort of a good example, given people's quick reaction to take a side and be outraged. Although there, that was a public servant hyping an unfounded criminal case for politcal gain, which is much worse. My point was more that the Public was seeing through the BS and it became less than newsworthy until Nifong was disgraced recently. We were completely inundated with the story until the cracks started showing through. The hype on this will probably last a little longer because it is a nationally recognized celebrity, but it will probably die down just the same. I dont think elton john is going to be rescripting "Candle in the Wind" anytime soon, either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) Are you serious that you only know about what is hyped in the media? You have the power to decide what you do or don't buy, watch or read. There are nearly infinite choices of what to do with your time and money. Pick whatever you want, just don't blame the media or businesses for giving some segment of the market what they want. If it's not in the media... you wouldn't know about it, correct? While I decide to watch the news.. I don't decide on what comes out of their mouths. I don't have the ability to know that tey are going to talk about some stars personal life. In order to watch the news, and get real news (traffic, weather, etc) we all have to endure some of the smut. It's not a choice not to hear it unless you're Miss Cleo, or don't watch any tv or listen to the radio at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) Are you serious that you only know about what is hyped in the media? You have the power to decide what you do or don't buy, watch or read. There are nearly infinite choices of what to do with your time and money. Pick whatever you want, just don't blame the media or businesses for giving some segment of the market what they want. I'm reading my previous posts and still searching for where I said I only know what is hyped by the media... My point still stands that the media deserves some blame for going overboard with unimportant crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) If it's not in the media... you wouldn't know about it, correct? While I decide to watch the news.. I don't decide on what comes out of their mouths. I don't have the ability to know that tey are going to talk about some stars personal life. In order to watch the news, and get real news (traffic, weather, etc) we all have to endure some of the smut. It's not a choice not to hear it unless you're Miss Cleo, or don't watch any tv or listen to the radio at all. There are hundreds of TV channels, thousands of newpapers, and millions of websites. All spewing information, news, etc. And none of them are exactly the same. So unless they are all in some conspiracy to provide the same content, then you always have choice. Those choices will mold what media companies present. For example, if you choose to watch a channel that has less (or none) of something you don't like, and the masses do the same, then you and the masses will have successfully molded the media. The channel people avoid losses viewship, then advertising dollars, and they either have to adapt or die. Is Anna going to flash across my face a few times in the next few weeks, yeah. And then I'm going to find something else to look at. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) I'm reading my previous posts and still searching for where I said I only know what is hyped by the media... My point still stands that the media deserves some blame for going overboard with unimportant crap. I understand your point. I just think that the media deserves very little of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts