The general decline in standards today

[Puzzicato]

In America, there's something even more vile at work, and most people don't dare to say it out loud because we're supposedly "beyond that sort of thing." But look up the Charles Stuart case and you'll find a very instructive look at the rotten core of modern media culture, and what drives certain stories to be covered in a certain way. It also explains exactly why the OJ case was the sensation it was.

I did look it up - how very interesting.

Yes, the racial aggravation does tickle the tabloid fancies. In the UK it's any hint of an Indian or Pakistani man laying a finger on a white woman. It's all very To Kill A Mockingbird.

 

[Gregg Axley]

It also boosted the sales of white Ford Broncos.
I vaguely remember the trial, because I wasn't interested.
I guess he just wasn't a star to me, not like a former child star, etc.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I've noticed that sort of thing - a pretty young woman is much better media currency than a plain one. Unless of course the missing plain woman is a prostitute, then we all get to clutch our pearls and click our tongues.

Even at work, we have been asked by newspapers for case-studies of attractive young women, instead of old, funny-looking men. Even if the story behind the man is much more interesting.


... more than one of the British media outlets ran stories commenting on what the mourners wore to Amy Winehouse's funeral. I think that is pretty much the lowest of the low.

The media is so very guilty of having no respect for those that have passed away and their families and loved ones. I am really shocked the media did not "dig" into what brand coffins get used by famous celebrities, but I should have not said this here, as now they will read this and rush right out and snoop and it will be headlines in wall street journal!

 

[Puzzicato]

I have seen it noted when a celebrity has a humanist funeral with a wicker coffin!

 

[LizzieMaine]

As much culpability as the media itself bears for this stuff, it's the general public itself that deserves most of the blame. It wouldn't be put out there if people didn't want to buy it. And in the fact that millions and millions of people willingly stuff their heads full of garbage and make the garbagemongers very very rich -- and that there's no longer any shame in either producing or consuming it -- is the real sign of social decline.

 

[JimWagner]

As much culpability as the media itself bears for this stuff, it's the general public itself that deserves most of the blame. It wouldn't be put out there if people didn't want to buy it. And in the fact that millions and millions of people willingly stuff their heads full of garbage and make the garbagemongers very very rich -- and that there's no longer any shame in either producing or consuming it -- is the real sign of social decline.

I believe the demand has always been there. It's just that the combination of technology, population size, economics, and people willing to supply that demand have come together today in a way never possible before. The refined portion of society was never all that large a percentage. Until recent years the rest of society probably didn't have the money to spend satisfying that demand. Add to that the sheer number of people alive today and you get the viable economic base worth exploiting.

I really don't think basic human nature has changed all that much. What has changed is that "polite society" has not been able to distance or insulate itself from "rude society" as effectively as in the past.

 

[rue]

What has changed is that "polite society" has not been able to distance or insulate itself from "rude society" as effectively as in the past.

Why do you think that is? Because more people today have greater wealth as compared to back then?

 

[JimWagner]

Why do you think that is? Because more people today have greater wealth as compared to back then?

Right. And there are more of them. Take a little from many and it adds up.

 

[JimWagner]

Right. And there are more of them. Take a little from many and it adds up.

Oops, thought you were asking something different.

To answer what you asked, I think it's the internet and tv mostly. It's in your face 7/24. And aimed at the masses but like a shotgun, hitting everyone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Once again, though, the point is this -- trash has existed in every era. It has only become *mainstream* in *this* era. There is no longer any shame attached to wallowing in it -- for many, it's a point of pride.

That, to me, no matter how you jigger the statistics and rationalize the explanation, is a sign of social decline. And yes, I agree that the Internet and television are factors in this -- they're contributing to that decline as much as anything could. It seems that the natural trajectory of any popular media is downward, and the more powerful that media is, the more forceful the downward propulsion.

Remember, again, the example of "Information Please" -- a radio program frankly directed to the sophisticated and the intellectual which nevertheless was one of the top-rated radio features in the country in 1939. Would that happen today? *Could* that happen today?

 

[rue]

Oops, thought you were asking something different.

To answer what you asked, I think it's the internet and tv mostly. It's in your face 7/24. And aimed at the masses but like a shotgun, hitting everyone.

That's okay I think I asked it oddly

Anyway, I have to agree.

Once again, though, the point is this -- trash has existed in every era. It has only become *mainstream* in *this* era. That, to me, no matter how you jigger the statistics and rationalize the explanation, is a sign of social decline.

And I have to agree with this too. Trashy is popular, it was never popular before as far as I know.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'll also submit this for consideration -- even the quality standards for *trash* are declining. Walter Winchell was the prototype of the Golden Era gossip columnist, considered a rather disreputable figure in his day, but he was also acknowledged as being a very very gifted writer and when he put his mind to it, a bona-fide journalist. If you go back and read his columns today they're extremely well written and can appeal to the intellectual as much as to Joe Straphanger reading the Mirror on the way home from the racetrack.

There aren't many modern trashmongers of whom that could be said. Most of their stuff is not only schlock, it's *bad* schlock.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It may be my imagination, but I've noticed that the quality of American advertising --TV, radio, and print-- has really gone downhill over the past ten years or so. Are they paying creative people less money these days? What gives?

 

[rue]

It may be my imagination, but I've noticed that the quality of American advertising --TV, radio, and print-- has really gone downhill over the past ten years or so. Are they paying creative people less money these days? What gives?

Mostly I'm offended by the way men are portrayed now.

 

[Undertow]

It may be my imagination, but I've noticed that the quality of American advertising --TV, radio, and print-- has really gone downhill over the past ten years or so. Are they paying creative people less money these days? What gives?

We have had years of analyzing and perfecting a special formula which is then applied in mass effect to various media; i.e. newspapers articles are nearly identical, there is no personality bleeding from the reporter, there is no feel to a story.

Advertisement, similarly, is nothing more than a formula which has become "perfected" over the years. The only variables are the flavor-of-the-month injection, whether that's a prat-fall husband character, a clever yet seemingly-helpless woman character, or some other variance on "today's humor".

So yes, I feel advertising has turned into badvertising because there is no soul to their spiel. Old commercials were still banging away and trying to get a feel for their audience, while observing some company integrity. Now, any company will sell itself right down the river just to make a buck.

 

[Undertow]

Mostly I'm offended by the way men are portrayed now.

Expand on that, Rue. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[rue]

Expand on that, Rue. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Well, look at advertising back in the day.... good examples here: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/show...odd-or-the-most-absurd-ads-you-have-ever-seen....
Almost all of them were showing women in a certain light which is offending to a lot of women these days. Now we have advertising that makes every man look like a total idiot. For whatever reason the roles have reversed. Basically it shows that all women are smarter than men. Why is that?? Are there more women in advertising and they're getting revenge?

An example: http://youtu.be/jihlpcYmC1M

Personally I'm appalled.

 

[vintageTink]

As am I, rue. I think some of it has to do with militant feminism and the idea that all men are stupid, sexist, and mean. Women are still the primary buyers in the home.
I have yet to see a commercial where anyone other than a white male looks foolish.

Just my $.02

 

[sheeplady]

For whatever reason the roles have reversed. Basically it shows that all women are smarter than men.

I don't know what comes first or what comes second, but either this is a contributor to the trend of boys not becoming men or a symptom of the larger problem. This is something that I have increasingly observed, and it is really worrisome to me. Essentially, many young men are never growing up and becoming men- accepting responsibility, moving out of their parents' homes, or financially supporting themselves or their families. Meanwhile, women of the same generation on the whole are less likely to live at home and be supported by their parents than men of the same age. There also seems to be an attitude of helplessness that I have observed in many college aged men about their future, which I have not seen as much in women of the same age.

Some of this may be due to the economy (men have been hit a lot harder). (Note: this is a trend, and not about every young man.)

As am I, rue. I think some of it has to do with militant feminism and the idea that all men are stupid, sexist, and mean.

Which runs counter to most feminists (not militants, but the militants are a minority), who want quality and choice for everybody. Not women being better than men, or getting paid more, or having more choices; but for everyone of both sexes getting equal pay for equal work and everyone having the same choices open to them. For instance, I believe that women and men should have equal opportunities for staying at home with their children. So that if a father (rather than the mother in a heterosexual relationship) wants to stay home with the children, he is equally free to do so as his wife would be. In order to do this, it would be helpful if women didn't earn less than men and there wasn't a social stigma that men were somehow incapable of raising children, cooking, or cleaning. It would also be helpful if as a society we didn't look down on people who stayed at home to raise their children, regardless of their sex/gender.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

It bothers me immensely that this has become the case. Just watch any sitcom. The leading male role is a bumbling, usually overweight, idiot, married to some attractive woman with a lot of intelligence. I don't really know any families that fit this dynamic. Usually it's smart people marry each other and not so smart people marry each other. There's smart people of both genders and I think it should be portrayed as such.

Unfortunately, it's declining like this:

As am I, rue. I think some of it has to do with militant feminism and the idea that all men are stupid, sexist, and mean. Women are still the primary buyers in the home.
I have yet to see a commercial where anyone other than a white male looks foolish.

Just my $.02

Well, look at advertising back in the day.... good examples here: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/show...odd-or-the-most-absurd-ads-you-have-ever-seen....
Almost all of them were showing women in a certain light which is offending to a lot of women these days. Now we have advertising that makes every man look like a total idiot. For whatever reason the roles have reversed. Basically it shows that all women are smarter than men. Why is that?? Are there more women in advertising and they're getting revenge?

An example: http://youtu.be/jihlpcYmC1M

Personally I'm appalled.