3 ms·

I'm not sure it's an ... axiomatic ( meaning just made up out of whole cloth ) assumption that doing meaningful things for other people is part of a path to hap

I'm not sure it's an ... axiomatic ( meaning just made up out of whole cloth ) assumption that doing meaningful things for other people is part of a path to happiness. It may have the advantage of being true. It does not mean that it's the only condition for happiness ( it is necessary but not sufficient ) , but I know of no good assault on this idea. Adam Smith's "to be loved and to be lovely" exists, and is deeply imbedded. The advertising/media industrial complex problem is much more profound. But in order to propagate criticisms of it you'd sort of need the advertising/media industrial complex to get those ideas out. Still, Adam Curtis documentaries exist, the work of Marshall MacLuhan and Vance Packard and others exist. Of these, Adam Curtis seems to have taken the thing on most directly. And it was very funny watching "Mad Men" pull its punches.

jernfrost 11y ago
Media and advertising isn't quite the same. There is a clear value in people writing articles in newspapers about what is going on around us. Advertisement OTOH is frequently of little use. And it is perfectly possible to deal with advertisement/media through laws and regulations. E.g. I find that where I live in Norway, much of the informative and quality media exist almost exclusively due to government policy. Either you got the state run broadcaster or quality newspapers which get economic support from government. The quality newspaper typically don't make a lot of money because they are not shameless sell outs to advertisement and pop culture. Now for entertaining movies I am happy about the purely commercially driven TV channels, but it is also painstakingly clear that you can run well balanced and insightful journalism easily on primarily profit driven media.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  In the US, the giant of the newspaper industry was William Randolph Hearst, who used those papers mostly for personal gain. He foemented actual invasions ( mainly of Mexico, where he owned a ranch ). He'd damaged the reporting of American history in a manner to set back the literature for a century. He's set the stage for most of the nonsense American believe. Of course small papers can maintain some degree of integrity but there's very few voices in mass media that can. I am very happy if good journalism still exists in Norway. That's great. In America? I'm much less hopeful.

jernfrost 11y ago

Media and advertising isn't quite the same. There is a clear value in people writing articles in newspapers about what is going on around us. Advertisement OTOH is frequently of little use. And it is perfectly possible to deal with advertisement/media through laws and regulations. E.g. I find that where I live in Norway, much of the informative and quality media exist almost exclusively due to government policy. Either you got the state run broadcaster or quality newspapers which get economic support from government. The quality newspaper typically don't make a lot of money because they are not shameless sell outs to advertisement and pop culture. Now for entertaining movies I am happy about the purely commercially driven TV channels, but it is also painstakingly clear that you can run well balanced and insightful journalism easily on primarily profit driven media.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
In the US, the giant of the newspaper industry was William Randolph Hearst, who used those papers mostly for personal gain. He foemented actual invasions ( mainly of Mexico, where he owned a ranch ). He'd damaged the reporting of American history in a manner to set back the literature for a century. He's set the stage for most of the nonsense American believe. Of course small papers can maintain some degree of integrity but there's very few voices in mass media that can. I am very happy if good journalism still exists in Norway. That's great. In America? I'm much less hopeful.