Lightdemon

Yea, certain celebrities do. But certainly not the above mentioned. But if it isn't a scandal, it isn't worth putting out in the media.

The rap artist known as Ice Cube gives millions of dollars to charity to poor black neighborhoods, he does it constantly, there's nothing in the media about that. But when there's a scandal, you'd be sure to read the heading of the next magazine, "Ice Cube stopped by police for drug use" or some sh!t like that.

I don't think anyone "allows or encourages" thier behavior. The problem is that people pay more attention to them when they behave the way they do. Or at least that's what popular media seems to think, thus the constant saturation with the celebrities gossip on FOX and NBC, etc.

what I don't understand is why people know more about Anna Nicole's case and when Paris went to jail, how much time she served, than what is the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, or the current situation in Palestine and Israel. It's absurd that people would know what J-Lo wore to the MTV awards, yet they wouldn't know whether Australia is a country or a continent.

__________________
Democrats are thieves
Republicans are thieves too,
Where's my liberty?
- by Ethereal

new coup for you

Yes, kids today, blah blah blah. Really, we've all heard plenty of criticism about the banality of news today. Here's the solution: read the newspaper. A good newspaper will have barely a mention about all those mind reducing celebrities and their pantyless hijinks.

TV is for entertainment. And don't tell me it's having a new and profound effect on the proles because they get most of their news from the tv. The proles have always been shockingly uninterested in substantive issues. they aren't less informed now then they were in the past. in the past often they couldn't read.

Look at celebrities, as I attempt to, from the perspective of a social scientist.

Scandal is what makes them interesting. No one wants to hear about check signing and credit transfer and the alleviation of inner city poverty. they get enough of that at work. what they want is glamor, provocation and titiliation- all packaged as a soap opera and horse race.

People aren't egalitarian by nature. They love the beautiful people because they're favored and recieve preference. They love them because everything they do is beautiful and epic while the rest of us trudge onto the subway like the pitiful little cogs we are.

But what's even more fun then be ruled is deposing rulers. You'd think that for Paris, being the object of adoreation, there would be mass sympathy for her when she was sent to jail. No. People want to feel intensity about her, the sad reality is that it doesnt matter in what direction. they want to love her, but the enjoy hating her just as much.

And yes, we do encourage her behavior. We love it when she outrages us. You love being outraged by her outrageously unwarranted prescence in the media. That's the key: she's famous for doing nothing. The final excess has been found and ****ed. I love celebrities because they're fabulous, you hate them because they're useless, but we both get the same thrill.

I'll finish, aptly, with a quote from Disco Bloodbath (later adapted into the movie Party Monster):

(after being chastised for excessive drug use)"...I'm not addicted to drugs, I'm addicted to glamor."

Lightdemon

Where do I find these "good" newspapers? lol. I know you're not talking about any of the Times because they're all full of celebrity bullsh!t too.

Speaking from a psychologists point of view, you're just rationalizing thier behavior. Nothing that you have said above is true, you're just assuming. You think people want to watch glamor on thier TVs? I don't even think it's thier choice. People turn on the TV just because they have one. It's the ones who are producing those shows, they are the ones who put "glamor" up there in the first place.

But you said we love things that are beautiful, I can hardly find anything beautiful about all the scandals that are being shown daily. That's actually not beauty, it's glamorizing idiocy. Making it "seem" like glamor.

There you go with your assumptions again. I get no thrill in hating them. There's no thrill in hate. And I certainly do not like being outraged, I could use a little less of that actually. Do you see the flaws of your rationalization now? I'm sorry, but that's not social science. It's simply rationalizing other people's behavior, and it's irrational to do so. Speaking, of course, from a psychologists point of view. Speaking as an average-joe, are you f**king serious? lol

new coup for you

You're asserting that what is on television does not represent what people want to see. In a free market society that cannot be true. It's on television because we want it to be, because we watch it and because both can be demonstrated through advertising ratings.

There is no conspiracy to infantilize the American public. The public willingly chooses to hear about Paris over the Red Mosque. If the public wanted to hear about the Red Mosque it would be profitable and it would be done.

Don't blame the media for the people.

new coup for you

I WIN!

Both Nicole and Lindsay have basically gotten off free

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.