We are a sick society

[SeaCat]

On Thanksgiving we had a multiple murder near here. Four people dead including a six year old girl.

A couple of days later there is a multiple murder in Washington State, four cops ambushed and gunned down.

So what have been the leading headlines in our local newspapers? Tiger Woods.

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Cat

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It isn't what society is interested in. It's what bone-head 'journalists' are interested in . . . gossip!

 

[TE999]

On Thanksgiving we had a multiple murder near here. Four people dead including a six year old girl.

A couple of days later there is a multiple murder in Washington State, four cops ambushed and gunned down.

So what have been the leading headlines in our local newspapers? Tiger Woods.

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Cat

He's a celebrity. Celebrities are news. Unknown people alive or dead are not news, unless they're involved in some way with a celebrity.

Twas' ever thus. Roman gladiators were the rock/movie stars of their day. Women adored them, men respected them and they even endorsed products.

 

[DeeZire]

It isn't what society is interested in. It's what bone-head 'journalists' are interested in . . . gossip!

I would suggest that most journalists are interested in reporting real news, but their editors - who answer to the media owners - are more interested in sales numbers. When the news industry is based on profit, you really can't expect to see integrity in the presentation.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

On Thanksgiving we had a multiple murder near here. Four people dead including a six year old girl.

A couple of days later there is a multiple murder in Washington State, four cops ambushed and gunned down.

So what have been the leading headlines in our local newspapers? Tiger Woods.

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Cat

Clearly.

 

[vrosej10]

On Thanksgiving we had a multiple murder near here. Four people dead including a six year old girl.

A couple of days later there is a multiple murder in Washington State, four cops ambushed and gunned down.

So what have been the leading headlines in our local newspapers? Tiger Woods.

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Cat

Clearly.

I fully agree. I can't believe that Tiger Woods is more important; frankly I don't understand why anyone is interested in professional sport. It doesn't improve humanity in anyway. It's simply the genetically gifted showing off. I only enjoy the special olympics. That's real acheivement.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I fully agree. I can't believe that Tiger Woods is more important; frankly I don't understand why anyone is interested in professional sport. It doesn't improve humanity in anyway. It's simply the genetically gifted showing off. I only enjoy the special olympics. That's real acheivement.

I'm going to go off course for a moment...

I was listening to an NPR segment while getting showered/dressed this morning. It was actually about a young man with a rare eye disorder (approx 1 in 9,000). He was a swimmer in high school and eventually made it to the Special Olympics.

Such are my hopes and dreams for my daughter that after I heard this fantastic story, I started picturing the S.O. as a real possibility for my baby.

And you're right, it IS real achievement.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

And just to add to that sickness....

Rape At School Brings New Despair To Richmond

 

[mynameisben]

On Thanksgiving we had a multiple murder near here. Four people dead including a six year old girl.

A couple of days later there is a multiple murder in Washington State, four cops ambushed and gunned down.

So what have been the leading headlines in our local newspapers? Tiger Woods.

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Cat

I guess I don't really understand your post. Are you lamenting the fact that murder doesn't dominate news headlines any more? Having the media splashing the grisly details of murder to millions of people who don't know the victim from Jack has always struck me as a case of the sickest feeding the sick. It's none of my damned business to know the details of a guy who got killed who I don't even know. Reporting such sensational gossip is a media bonanza, but a crass and horrible disservice to the families of the victims. Murder stories entice borderline personalities into copycat terrorism. They numb and depress good, sympathetic people. Is it any wonder folks prefer to read celebrity fluff stories to violent and senseless murder headlines?

Society itself isn't sick. Society rocks. It's the uncivilized minority that slithers amongst us that gives society a bad name. It's always been that way, and the less press depraved miscreants get the better.

 

[blondebabydoll]

It isn't what society is interested in. It's what bone-head 'journalists' are interested in . . . gossip!

There are plenty of respectable journalists covering serious issues. Tiger Woods is a hot media topic because people are interested in it. It is the society, not the journalists.

 

[Handley_Page]

There are plenty of respectable journalists covering serious issues. Tiger Woods is a hot media topic because people are interested in it. It is the society, not the journalists.

More like how the Journos/ Editors see the society.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm going to go off course for a moment...

I was listening to an NPR segment while getting showered/dressed this morning. It was actually about a young man with a rare eye disorder (approx 1 in 9,000). He was a swimmer in high school and eventually made it to the Special Olympics.

Such are my hopes and dreams for my daughter that after I heard this fantastic story, I started picturing the S.O. as a real possibility for my baby.

And you're right, it IS real achievement.

Everyone qualifies for the Special Olympics. If you can pick your nose and drool youre good to go.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CAT

This gives me an idea for a horror story.

 

[Liar]

I would suggest that most journalists are interested in reporting real news, but their editors - who answer to the media owners - are more interested in sales numbers. When the news industry is based on profit, you really can't expect to see integrity in the presentation.

And at the heart of that is really something that is niether the news industry's nor the journalists' fault: They only give people what they want to consume.

More like how the Journos/ Editors see the society

They don't view society through any other lens than their bottom line. Is it their fault that their ratings soar wioth shallow gossip and nosedive with serious news? Nope, it's supply and demand. The demand from society for crap is huge.

 

[xssve]

All societies are "sick" - it's called primacy effect, two incidents, at opposite ends of the country, which you heard about within hours of their occurrence.

A hundred years ago it's likely that thing like this happened everyday, you'd never have heard about it, if you lived more than a few hundred miles away, or it would have been months, even years after it happened.

Now I'd have agreed things were falling apart in the Eighties, they were; during the crack epidemic, some little girl was getting caught in the crossfire of some streetcorner firefight on literally, almost a daily basis.

When you start thinking this is normal, society is sick.

You will see an upswing in incidents like this, stress tends to increase irrational behavior, and the recessions has increased stress levels considerably going into the already financially stressful holiday season.

Good time to count your blessings - it might be bad, but it can always get worse.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Around here the paper boys argue for a government check to help them resist the pressure to be like THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

If Mercedes Benz used the same argument (help us NOT be like FORD) we'd think they were daft.

 

[3113]

Has our society become so decadent that murders no longer interest us but the antics of a so called sports hero does?

Bit of a leap you're making there, Cat. First, you're implying that our society has reached some strange unique point where we don't care about murder. In certain places in the world there is a lot more murder and people really don't care--it's too common. Mexico was just went though drug lords leaving each other's acid-melted bodies in bathtubs. Murders, kidnappings...we are still able to be shocked at such things. Which means we are astonishingly civilized. These stories appear in the newspaper, they get talked about on the internet, and strangers lay flowers down where the shootings happen, send condolences to the families. People are out there looking for the murderers and putting them behind bars.

Hardly evidence of a society gone to the dogs. So. First thing, don't accuse our society of not caring about murder. We are decadant beyond belief--that's a whole other issue--but it's calumny to imply that we don't care at all, especially as the evidence proves otherwise. Next, is this really the first time you've noticed such admiration for athletes and other celebrities? Human society is always seeking heroes of all kinds to admire, emulate, to teach our young how we want them to be. Among those "heroes" have always been the sports' figure. Always. The best hunter, the fastest runner. Athletics competitions brings out in us the same feeling as when we see any battle between two sides. It's a "trick" as it were, because the athlete is being paid and not trying to put his life on the line to rescue anyone. But it gets the same response as worship for the hero who saves lives, kills the beast that's been eating villigers or conquers the enemy.

Now, I'm afraid that as much as you may not like that, we humans can't help it. We're hardwired to respond--to cheer, love, admire and worship such athletes. We're SO hardwired to respond to it that we'll cheer on heroes that don't even exist! This is the norm and has always been the norm and it likely always will be. So let's put a lid on the "Oh woe is our society!" bit because a "hero" gets as much ink as murders of people who are prefect strangers. That's human nature, not our society.

Which gets us to the third point: if you had a personal newspaper that only printed information on what was happing to friends and family and neighbors, what would you want on the front page? News of your father, however minor, or news of that neighbor down the street who you don't even knows exists, however major? It's not decadence. It's something that has always been and always will be. People who garner enough of our attention make us feel like they're our friend even if we don't know them from Adam--yet another trick we play on ourselves--and that's hardwired into us, too. Hence, we care about them and what happens to them as if they were part of our family.

But what is remarkable here is that we ALSO care about the strangers. About their deaths. In short, you need to turn your thinking around. Don't be horrified that we care about Tiger Woods over the death of strangers. Be amazed and proud that we care about the death of strangers. We aren't hardwired to care about them, but we do! That says wonderful things about us! Tiger Woods is to be expected. Of course people care. But caring about strangers, that's amazing!

Instead of using this to bemoan our society, you should be impressed and hopeful about it.

 

[3113]

You will see an upswing in incidents like this, stress tends to increase irrational behavior, and the recessions has increased stress levels considerably going into the already financially stressful holiday season.

Good time to count your blessings - it might be bad, but it can always get worse.

Agreed. We are also likely to "see" more in such events during the holidays than at other times of the year. A shocking murder during the spring isn't viewed the same way as it is over winter holidays when we're focused on thinking about how people should be good to each other, or depressed about our lives and more sensitive to bad news. We're also more housebound and likely to listen/read/see more news, as well as the same news reports over and over again. This can affect our perception of how bad things are.

 

[lance gt]

As I see it, from what Cat has mentioned, it isn't that Tiger is more important than murders, it's where they put the stories on the paper. No one begrudges the fact that Tiger is popular, but his newsworthiness doesn't warrant a front page headline. Murders do. If editors put the emphasis on placement to portray the news, this thread would be redundant.

 

[3113]

As I see it, from what Cat has mentioned, it isn't that Tiger is more important than murders, it's where they put the stories on the paper. No one begrudges the fact that Tiger is popular, but his newsworthiness doesn't warrant a front page headline. Murders do.

I know what Cat's saying, Lance, and it's bogus. I don't know about Cat's newspaper but mine had the following on the front page:

Upper Right: Afganistan/Iran
Upper Left: Some Human interest story.
SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE WITH PHOTO: 4 Police Officers Murdered
Below that: Other murders
Lower left: Shocking story about economy
Lower right: Tiger Woods.

Yes. Tiger got the Front Page. But he didn't trump the Murders. Not by a long shot. He is news--because he is "family" and celebrity just like I said. The Front page isn't the "murder" page. It's the "big news" page and that includes a lot of stuff.

I mean, why is Cat complaining NOW about THIS? Why not all those murders that must have happened on the day some team won the world series? That got the front page AND the center section with picture. The murders didn't. What about when Phelps won all those gold medals. That was front page--no murders as the big news. What about when Phelps got the front page (but not the big center part) for smoking weed? Or Michael Vick's dog fighting?

Go back to the 1930's and SeaBiscuit getting the front page for winning. That's a goddamn horse! Why did he rate front page news over everything else?

What I'm asking is why is Tiger Wood's getting a place on the front page (bottom left on my news paper) suddenly a sign that our society is "sick" when every other goddamn bit of news about a sporting event or athlete that ever made it to the front page in place of a murder, any murder, in the history of American newspapers isn't?

You can't have it both ways. Either sports and sports figures and sporting events deserve NO front page, EVER, because they're not as important as murders and wars and such, and our society has been sick for a very long time, or sports figures and sporting events get the front page because they are news. You can't suddenly say that our society is, to your shock and amazement, sick, because now, all of the sudden, to your horror, there's a sports figure sharing the front page with news of people being murdered.

 

[SeaCat]

I know what Cat's saying, Lance, and it's bogus. I don't know about Cat's newspaper but mine had the following on the front page:

Upper Right: Afganistan/Iran
Upper Left: Some Human interest story.
SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE WITH PHOTO: 4 Police Officers Murdered
Below that: Other murders
Lower left: Shocking story about economy
Lower right: Tiger Woods.

Yes. Tiger got the Front Page. But he didn't trump the Murders. Not by a long shot. He is news--because he is "family" and celebrity just like I said. The Front page isn't the "murder" page. It's the "big news" page and that includes a lot of stuff.

I mean, why is Cat complaining NOW about THIS? Why not all those murders that must have happened on the day some team won the world series? That got the front page AND the center section with picture. The murders didn't. What about when Phelps won all those gold medals. That was front page--no murders as the big news. What about when Phelps got the front page (but not the big center part) for smoking weed? Or Michael Vick's dog fighting?

Go back to the 1930's and SeaBiscuit getting the front page for winning. That's a goddamn horse! Why did he rate front page news over everything else?

What I'm asking is why is Tiger Wood's getting a place on the front page (bottom left on my news paper) suddenly a sign that our society is "sick" when every other goddamn bit of news about a sporting event or athlete that ever made it to the front page in place of a murder, any murder, in the history of American newspapers isn't?

You can't have it both ways. Either sports and sports figures and sporting events deserve NO front page, EVER, because they're not as important as murders and wars and such, and our society has been sick for a very long time, or sports figures and sporting events get the front page because they are news. You can't suddenly say that our society is, to your shock and amazement, sick, because now, all of the sudden, to your horror, there's a sports figure sharing the front page with news of people being murdered.

Nope you can't have it both ways, you are correct in that respect. You are also correct in that it is too late for one to start acting shocked. Then again who is shocked? I expect this from a society that glorifies those who play kids games for vast sums of money yet ignores or vilifies those who protect us on a daily basis. I expect this from a society that glorifies violence yet feels that the sight of nudity will permanently warp the minds of the young.

Do I honestly give a shit about Tiger Woods, The Kardashians, or any number of other Glitteraty? Nope I don't. You can ask me about so and so the star of some movie and I would most likely have no idea who they are. They are not heroes of any kind in my mind.

I understand that you disagree with me but unless they do something special they don't belong on the front page. Come from behind and win the Super Bowl? Sure put them on the front page, for a day. Break all records for movie box office takes? Okay that might be good for the corner of the front page.

On the other hand I have mentioned this more than once before and believe it or not I usually get the same reaction as I received from you. Then again I have also mentioned other ways in which I find our society lacking.

My contention is that the American Society is sick and I stand by that.

Cat

 

[DeeZire]

...My contention is that the American Society is sick and I stand by that.

Cat

I would agree, but for different reasons. My gauge of a sick society is the fact that we refuse to cut our medical bills in half by adopting a single-payer system for healthcare. I don't have the number in front of me, but how many thousands of Americans die every year because of not having access to affordable healthcare? These deaths are our fault, because through our apathy, (or fear, or ignorance) we allow them to happen.

Another example of a sick society is the polling numbers after 9/11 indicating that 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussien was responsible. This ties back in with the news media issue, and brings context to JBJ's quote:

Around here the paper boys argue for a government check to help them resist the pressure to be like THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

If Mercedes Benz used the same argument (help us NOT be like FORD) we'd think they were daft.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy.

This is the reason we need newspapers to print the news, rather than succumb to the non-ethics of bottom-line journalism. Presenting news has nothing to do with manufacturing cars. News is not a commodity, it's a necessity, (assuming maintaining our democracy is more important than maintaining a decent return for a select group of shareholders.)

 

[Verdad]

Media theorists sometimes talk of an information/action ratio, that is, how much potential (or relevance) for our actions there is in the information we receive from media.

The answer would be, increasingly little, and in that sense, there's little difference between being informed about a distant murder and being informed about the misfortunes of celebrities. As unpretty as that sounds, both are entertainment as much or more as they're information.

This situation is by no means new, though. It goes all the way back to the invention of telegraph, if not all the way back to the invention of news.

At one time, one's local paper would have printed mostly the news of direct importance for the locals' lives. Notices about local events and such like occupied most of the space and were directly important for the community and its members. News from 'outside', by virtue of being slow to travel, would have been limited to major political and economic events, which again had a very real potential to shape the readers' concrete decisions.

The moment it became a matter of hours or minutes for a piece of news to travel from one side of the country to the next, or one side of the world to the other, the idea of news—and eventually, the idea of community—changed forever. One could read, on a daily basis, a torrent of information that concerned him not at all. The publishers included it simply because they could—which is one of the senses in which 'the medium is the message'—but also, they included it because we're buying it. Technological determinism is one part of the story; our voyeuristic nature as humans, another; specifics of a culture in which the medium is imported, yet another.

The consequences, at any rate, are a few. On the downside, the flood of news resulted in a feeling of saturation and helplessness. What to do about all the information that gets us involved but is forever out of reach of action? On the comical side, developed further forms of entertainment, whose purpose is in big part to let us do something with all that extraneous information. Like, say, quiz shows once, where one could flaunt knowledge of facts bereft of pretty much any other purpose, or discussion boards today, where we can argue to our hearts' content about stuff we can barely affect.

On the upside, the sense of community has broadened, and whether we like it or not, the trivial news, the kind of thing we read and wonder why on earth we needed to know that, go a long way toward achieving it. We agree to adopt Tiger Woods, or whomever, as an acquaintance or a family member we can all discuss, the way we couldn't do with my Aunt Millicent, who is known only to me. Like it or not, though, we do the same when we pour our outrage on a most recently reported murder, which is after all, at any given moment, just one of the millions of human disasters that happen every day.

The concern of media ecologists is sometimes similar to Cat's: in the constant succession of "coming up next!" on the TV, dictated by the TV's very nature as a medium, or in our clicking from one topic to the next on the net, now Britney Spears' pussy and now the growing rate of unemployment, do all the lines between news and entertainment vanish, and with them, our ability to react accordingly?

Doubtless there is something to that; politics was certainly done differently before and after TV and changes again with the net, and one is often skeptical whether the voters, for all their being theoretically better informed actually make better informed decisions.

There's something to be said about pornographication of violence in the name of 'information', too—do we really need to see some gruesome stuff we get to see on the news?—and also about reality TV and again the net, which in combination with the celebrity cult, encourage everyone to let their own mini attention whore out. Lot of it does warrant the label of decadent, and American society does put some specific twists on it, but in the final analysis, I don't think the sky is falling. As the flood of garbage news increases, so does our ability to be selective and critical about it, or so I think when I'm in a good mood.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEEZIRE

In graduate school I earned certification as a vocational evaluator along with my major; I used voc-eval for electives. Anyway, I learned that the principle business of newspapers is advertising, followed by general printing, then the news. TheFederal guvmint classifies the news segment as entertainment, because thats what its used for.

One of our local papers hired a gal to manage the news part, and she filled the paper with stories about prom dress angst, reunions with old friends from France, whines about smoking on the beach, etc. She dumped the national and local pundits to make room for the teens and old ladies and gay men to blabber, and the paper lost its ass from reader defections. And the news manager was sacked because her 'news' wasnt entertaining very many people. No one but your mom gives a shit about your freshman year at Dartmouth, and no one gives a shit about the hordes of Democrat sub-species dropping out of school, going to jail, and residing in crack houses. Its all Bush's fault, and that aint news.

The papers place the cart before the horse when they blame advertisers for the demise of newspapers. But given a choice between Henry Winkler and Paris Hilton, they opt for Paris. The papers havent done the math and discovered that Henry is their problem.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Media theorists sometimes talk of an information/action ratio, that is, how much potential (or relevance) for our actions there is in the information we receive from media.

The answer would be, increasingly little, and in that sense, there's little difference between being informed about a distant murder and being informed about the misfortunes of celebrities. As unpretty as that sounds, both are entertainment as much or more as they're information.

This situation is by no means new, though. It goes all the way back to the invention of telegraph, if not all the way back to the invention of news.

At one time, one's local paper would have printed mostly the news of direct importance for the locals' lives. Notices about local events and such like occupied most of the space and were directly important for the community and its members. News from 'outside', by virtue of being slow to travel, would have been limited to major political and economic events, which again had a very real potential to shape the readers' concrete decisions.

The moment it became a matter of hours or minutes for a piece of news to travel from one side of the country to the next, or one side of the world to the other, the idea of news—and eventually, the idea of community—changed forever. One could read, on a daily basis, a torrent of information that concerned him not at all. The publishers included it simply because they could—which is one of the senses in which 'the medium is the message'—but also, they included it because we're buying it. Technological determinism is one part of the story; our voyeuristic nature as humans, another; specifics of a culture in which the medium is imported, yet another.

The consequences, at any rate, are a few. On the downside, the flood of news resulted in a feeling of saturation and helplessness. What to do about all the information that gets us involved but is forever out of reach of action? On the comical side, developed further forms of entertainment, whose purpose is in big part to let us do something with all that extraneous information. Like, say, quiz shows once, where one could flaunt knowledge of facts bereft of pretty much any other purpose, or discussion boards today, where we can argue to our hearts' content about stuff we can barely affect.

On the upside, the sense of community has broadened, and whether we like it or not, the trivial news, the kind of thing we read and wonder why on earth we needed to know that, go a long way toward achieving it. We agree to adopt Tiger Woods, or whomever, as an acquaintance or a family member we can all discuss, the way we couldn't do with my Aunt Millicent, who is known only to me. Like it or not, though, we do the same when we pour our outrage on a most recently reported murder, which is after all, at any given moment, just one of the millions of human disasters that happen every day.

The concern of media ecologists is sometimes similar to Cat's: in the constant succession of "coming up next!" on the TV, dictated by the TV's very nature as a medium, or in our clicking from one topic to the next on the net, now Britney Spears' pussy and now the growing rate of unemployment, do all the lines between news and entertainment vanish, and with them, our ability to react accordingly?

Doubtless there is something to that; politics was certainly done differently before and after TV and changes again with the net, and one is often skeptical whether the voters, for all their being theoretically better informed actually make better informed decisions.

There's something to be said about pornographication of violence in the name of 'information', too—do we really need to see some gruesome stuff we get to see on the news?—and also about reality TV and again the net, which in combination with the celebrity cult, encourage everyone to let their own mini attention whore out. Lot of it does warrant the label of decadent, and American society does put some specific twists on it, but in the final analysis, I don't think the sky is falling. As the flood of garbage news increases, so does our ability to be selective and critical about it, or so I think when I'm in a good mood.

quoted because it's worth reading twice