It's about the Media Conglomerates selling Newspapers, Magazines and Tabloid Copy!

[KoKo]

It's about the loss of control of our Airwaves. It's about money. This will rage on in the press and they will make her into a Princess Di story. Bottom line is that it SELLS PRODUCTS. I'm talking about Anna Nicole in case anyone wondered :eyes:

We shouldn't expect anything different. It's ENTERTAINMENT...and only 42% of Americans bothered to vote in the Mid-Terms. That means 58% could be an AUDIENCE for this CRAP.

No use getting worked up about it. Our Number 2 PRIORITY after IRAQ/IRAN is MEDIA REFORM! Break the Monopolies up! Bush's Budge already has big cuts in PBS funding and we all know that they've drifted rightward. What do we have left? 24/7 of focus with analysts, therapists, doctors and criminal investigators pontificating about something that is nothing but Tabloid fodder.

58% of Americans.... Think about that....:-(

[porphyrian]

1. Re-regulate the fucking media. - n/t

[onenote]

3. and would you have that regulation dictate what stories are covered?

Or do you actually believe in a free press?

on edit: to be clear, I think that we need ownership limits on media consolidation. But I am not going to pretend that it will make an enormous difference in how the media covers stories like this one.

[porphyrian]

6. What do you think I think?

As I'm guessing you don't know, I'm a rather big fan of the 1st Amendment. However, unless the media decides to put journalism first, it isn't journalism, and the media today isn't journalism, it's entertainment and advertising. Fuck the corporate media. They gave up their rights when they aided and abetted the treason of this administration in lying us into war.

[onenote]

9. okay, so you answered my question

You would have the government decide what is news.

Okay.

[porphyrian]

13. No, you said that, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to speak for me.

I don't care if you understand my position or not, but stop projecting your stupid ideas into what I write.

[onenote]

17. you're doing just fine speaking for yourself

Well, maybe "fine" is a bit strong. But your message is quite clear.

[porphyrian]

18. Good, then I don't have to tell you to go fuck yourself. - n/t

[onenote]

19. free speech, I love it!!

[onenote]

2. and you really think it was different in some golden era in the past?

Do you think that the media ignored celebrity deaths during the 1960s and 1970s and spent all of their time telling us detailed news about the soldiers that died each day in Vietnam? Do you really think that?

24 hour news channels magnify everything, but they really haven't changed things as much as some people think.

[KoKo]

4. I don't know where you were...but it WAS different. There weren't

parades of "Media Consultants" (doctors, therapists, psychologists, criminologists and the various "entourage" of "experts") yapping out there 24/7 for hour after hour about someone unless they were VERY IMPORTANT in the Entertainment Field. This Anna Nicole doesn't fit that. I didn't even know who she was until I came home and turned on CNN. I do watch some TV...and I didn't know who she was...but had heard the name. This person isn't someone who should be getting this kind of coverage if even "well informed people" don't know who the Hell she is.

[Lex]

7. Granted, it wasn't on the same scale due to 24 hour cable news now.

However, media coverage of celebrities and their deaths, trials, arrests and other problems has always been waaaay excessive.

Now that we have 24 hour cable news, that coverage has grown to fit that is all.

[onenote]

8. like I said, 24 hour news channels magnify everything

but even back in the day, the death of someone like Judy Garland would result in a several minute retrospective on the news, while information about the war would take up 30 seconds.

[KoKo]

10. Art Buchwald and Molly Ivans Deaths didn't get Air-Time like this "Anna Nicole Nobody"

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

[NYCGirl]

16. How old was Buchwald? And Ivins had been battling cancer for a long time.

A celebrity who dies at 39 years old is news.

[onenote]

20. anna nicole nobody to you, but not to a lot of other people

You may think she was a "nobody" (and in terms of accomplishments, she certainly wasn't much) but she was someone who a lot of people were interested in. Maybe that just makes her a celebrity for celebrity's sake, but it doesn't change the fact and its pretty odd to imagine that the media would just ignore her death when so many people are interested in it.

Did Molly Ivins make a greater contribution to society than Anna Nicole Smith? Unquestionably. Did more people know who Molly Ivins was than Anna Nicole Smith -- not even close.

[NYCGirl]

5. Watched a 1951 Billy Wilder movie last night called "Ace in the Hole"...

Here's a little review from allmovie.com:

A movie truly ahead of its time, Ace in the Hole (also known as The Big Carnival) turned out to be too bitter and cynical for moviegoers in 1951. An unrelenting portrait of media sensationalism and the human obsession with tragedy that propels it, the film is based on a true story that also spawned Robert Penn Warren's novel The Cave. Director, screenwriter, and producer Billy Wilder suffered perhaps the biggest commercial and critical failure of his career with Ace, losing much of his standing at Paramount, even though the movie was released between two of his most enduring and popular triumphs, Sunset Boulevard (1950) and Stalag 17 (1953). Ace was perhaps not up to the standard of those works, but it clearly stands as one of Wilder's many achievements. It's hardly surprising that this film failed to find a mainstream audience, despite the added attraction of emerging star Kirk Douglas in the lead. American culture wouldn't be ready for such a large dose of pessimism until the 1970s; even then, a film such as 1976's Network, which clearly paralleled the tone of Wilder's effort, was dismissed by many viewers as too hysterical.


You're so right. It's not a new phenomenon.

[KoKo]

11. It was coming and many savvy directors tried to warn us what would

come with the same "Media/Film Industry" that they saw "Control" creeping into. It's like our "Internet" ...THEY (Corporatists) want a hand in it....And remember Joe Macarthy era where folks who wrote, directed and produced "dissent" were hauled into Congressional Hearings. Today...Congressional Hearings are a JOKE...as the movie the GODFATHER pointed out when the Senator from Nevada was in the pocket of the Corliones.

There's always been a "dance" between the Corporatists/Govt. and Media/Entertainment. BUT THIS IS THE WORST EVER. And, it's sad that those who tried to warn us are now lying in their graves and their kids and grandkids just didn't GET the LEGACY! :-(

[KoKo]

12. kick.......

[conscious evolution]

14. LOOK!! A Bright Shiny OBJECT!!!

You are absolutely right Koko01.Something needs to be done to the media in this country.
There pushing off as important news the current B.S. Object du jour is a mass distraction aimed at pushing the really serious news out of the publics consciousness.
IMO That is gross negligence on the part of the press and goes against everything the founders of our country stood for when they gave the press constitutional protection.They wanted a press to be free to stand against abuses and criminal activities by government and individuals.Not as enablers and co conspirators of criminal acts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. They're providing the circuses but we have to buy the bread.

What passes for "journalism" in this country is certainly well demonstrated in this latest round of celebrity worship.