12:41 PMMe: To me, the problem is only partially on the media end. much of the problem is the consumer and our obsession with things that aren't important, particularly our obsession with famous people and what they have to say (or just anyone on tv really
12:42 PM Manny: ah yes
but media constructs those people
12:43 PM me: true
Manny: media teaches us to value their appearance, and generates anxiety about ourselves useful for selling products
me: or at least they are co-constructive
Manny: it also begs for our attention, teaching us that our attention is the most freakin valuable thing in the world
12:44 PM not sure what that does, except create a world of people who are too cool for every school
foster wallace has a good essay on tv
that way
12:45 PM me: I like him
in his book?
12:46 PM Manny: a supposedly fun thing
I think I have your copy
ha
he blames tv for irony being the default position of US youth
12:47 PM me: that's funny, I was just looking for it on my shelf
12:48 PM Manny: he's blaming tv for the existence of "My cousin, my gastronteologist"
12:49 PM which is prob fair enough
me: ha
| 5 minutes |
12:54 PM me: from wikipedia: David Foster Wallace excerpts this novel in his essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction", and presents it as an example of postmodern authors fully embracing the symbolism and style of channel surfing while eschewing the plot development and narrative of earlier literature. Wallace, critical of Leyner's superabundance of irony, also calls the book "dead on arrival."[1]
ha
I am just going to spew here, and then when I am done I will have to decide if I even agree with what I just typed...
ReplyDeleteIts like junk food. People want this crap in the background. They are not necessarily obsessed with things that are not important, media in general is not "Important" with a capital I to most people, so there is no expectation that what is being bradcast by the media has any depth. And so the media keep shoveling more and more sensational crap because their audience is really only looking for a surface "Oooh... did you see what so and so did?" The broader audience does not want to be forced to think while consuming media. News/entertainment that requires thought is desired by a smaller audience. Eventually, we (people who consume media that requires thought) will be forced to pay for that media, while the free stuff will be more of the same crap you have (justifably) been deriding, and/or that media that requires thought will come from non-traditional sources. Because of this, a large company that is profit driven will inherently not be able to produce quality material because not enough people will be interested.
Also, remember that TV used to be free. Now most people pay for TV. Paid news content may still happen.
Ask me again in a day or two and I may disagree with this completely.