41 ms·

Instagram Killed the Tabloid Star

63 points by raleighm 7y ago

buboard 7y ago
good.
- kingkongjaffa 7y ago
  not good, replaced with something worse.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    How is it worse? I mean, personally I find it better, the real news isn't filled with Paparrazi/Celeb incidents, there are fewer creepy upskirt pictures and stalker photos plastered on tabloids, it's all moved to a nice bunch of communities I can ignore.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zby 7y ago
    It is shallow as it always was - but at least it is not mean.
    - cowpig 7y ago
      I think Instagram is harmful in different ways
  - buboard 7y ago
    Selling yourself is much more ethical than others selling you. This is progress
- bottled_poe 7y ago
  Is it better? At least I didn’t need to actively isolate tabloid magazines from other parts of my life.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Why do you need to actively isolate Instagram from your life? Can't you just, you know, not use Instagram?
    - Semaphor 7y ago
      Not OP, but thanks to IG and similar sites I hear about celebrity things and other pop-culture stuff way more than before. Case in point: This post.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        The nightly news and mainstream newspapers used to be full of tabloid spillover; people suing, assaults on paparazzi, paparazzi being charged, updates on court cases. This has all pretty much evaporated. Pop culture itself certainly is "way more than before". The place I do find more pop-culture stuff like this is in the clickbait ads that are everywhere now, but that's just an entirely new thing.
        Semaphor 7y ago
        Didn’t watch and nightly news, read only the economy and political section of newspapers. I don’t see click bait ads because that shit is blocked.
      - leqnl 7y ago
        Don't click. I didn't click.
        Ensorceled 7y ago
        Exactly. "Instagram is full of selfies." "Yes, why are you on Instagram if you hate that kind of thing?"
        Touche 7y ago
        It spills over into real life now, if you haven't seen "influencers" out doing photoshoots you're lucky. I was at a museum in Boston and couldn't see some things because an influencer would spend 5-10 minutes setting up the perfect shot (I never once saw her actually looking at the stuff in the museum).
rkachowski 7y ago
I don't like the idea of everything now being centralised under the control of Instagram/Facebook/Zuckerberg, but the concept of giving the control away from the paparazzi and their invasive up skirt photography and back to the people they harass is a pretty nice switch. There's something to be said about the desire for celebrity news being better satiated with a direct line to the person rather than a third party tabloid. I guess fake news and outrage based clickbate is now the modern incarnation of the tabloid trying to shift copies with celeb photos and gossip.
- Quarrelsome 7y ago
  I'd imagine the switch will be temporary at best. It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP.
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    > It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP. just like the radio power players of the 20century?
    - Quarrelsome 7y ago
      if we're talking about talk-radio then that's somewhat similar. But I'd imagine some of the pioneers of insta-celeb today will translate into gatekeepers of tomorrow.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  I have to assume that the "invasiveness" of paparazzi is greatly overstated - a game that some tabloid stars and celebrities are willingly signing up for, in exchange for free publicity of sorts. Because if that weren't the case, you'd see people being sued for harassment, invasion of privacy etc. all over the place, and that just doesn't seem to happen.
  - toyg 7y ago
adventured 7y ago
https://outline.com/CYg43t https://outline.com/CYg43t
cowpig 7y ago
> Instagram is often accused of producing artificial images, but there’s something very honest about its commercial system I think the author has mistaken brazenness for honesty
unraveller 7y ago
Not well enough, everywhere else just became inescapably tabloidal.
nancycut9 7y ago
Hack Instagram – Hire an Instagram Hacker : https://www.hackerslist.co/hack-instagram-hire-an-instagram-hacker/ https://www.hackerslist.co/hack-instagram-hire-an-instagram-...
spodek 7y ago
The writer says "we" this and "we" that, as if everyone is enraptured by . . . I don't know who the Kardashians are beyond their name. I can't name a song by Justin Bieber. I can't be the only one who doesn't pay attention or care about this world. I posted about six pictures to Instagram a few years ago and can't be bothered to do more. It looks like a world of craving and dissatisfaction. I see people scrolling endlessly on the subway and don't see how it improves their lives. Maybe I'll get it one day and get sucked in. It looks like all "want more" and no "tastes good," as I described in this old post: http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-flavors http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-flavors
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SQueeeeeL 7y ago
  This is a big problem with the culture section of the Times. They really don't think/write for the average consumer. Last week a saw them use the word "Staning" in an article, it's really baffling editorial decisions. (Staning refers to the song the character Stan, from a 20 year old Eminem song, whose an obsessed fan)
  - mpalmer 7y ago
    Here's a fun thought - what if you (or the readership you defend) are no longer the average consumer?
    - mantap 7y ago
      Newspapers don't tend to target the average consumer though. They carve out a readership, because people want to read what they want to read.
      - mpalmer 7y ago
        Sure, and when you get down to it, there is no single prototypical average consumer that it's profitable to market to. Publications create their own average consumer. Fair to say though that the Times's own 'average' has definitely shifted over the last decade.
Hitton 7y ago
I don't consider this plausible. Although I don't have anyone who would consume celebrity gossip or tabloids among my acquaintances (or at least they pretend no to), I doubt that the kind of people who does consume it will be satisfied with meticulously constructed self-presentation of celebrities when they can have the "raw reality" brought to them by paparazzis. Tabloids are here to stay.

63 points by raleighm 7y ago

buboard 7y ago

good.

kingkongjaffa 7y ago
not good, replaced with something worse.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  How is it worse? I mean, personally I find it better, the real news isn't filled with Paparrazi/Celeb incidents, there are fewer creepy upskirt pictures and stalker photos plastered on tabloids, it's all moved to a nice bunch of communities I can ignore.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zby 7y ago
  It is shallow as it always was - but at least it is not mean.
  - cowpig 7y ago
    I think Instagram is harmful in different ways
- buboard 7y ago
  Selling yourself is much more ethical than others selling you. This is progress
bottled_poe 7y ago
Is it better? At least I didn’t need to actively isolate tabloid magazines from other parts of my life.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Why do you need to actively isolate Instagram from your life? Can't you just, you know, not use Instagram?
  - Semaphor 7y ago
    Not OP, but thanks to IG and similar sites I hear about celebrity things and other pop-culture stuff way more than before. Case in point: This post.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      The nightly news and mainstream newspapers used to be full of tabloid spillover; people suing, assaults on paparazzi, paparazzi being charged, updates on court cases. This has all pretty much evaporated. Pop culture itself certainly is "way more than before". The place I do find more pop-culture stuff like this is in the clickbait ads that are everywhere now, but that's just an entirely new thing.
      - Semaphor 7y ago
        Didn’t watch and nightly news, read only the economy and political section of newspapers. I don’t see click bait ads because that shit is blocked.
    - leqnl 7y ago
      Don't click. I didn't click.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        Exactly. "Instagram is full of selfies." "Yes, why are you on Instagram if you hate that kind of thing?"
        Touche 7y ago
        It spills over into real life now, if you haven't seen "influencers" out doing photoshoots you're lucky. I was at a museum in Boston and couldn't see some things because an influencer would spend 5-10 minutes setting up the perfect shot (I never once saw her actually looking at the stuff in the museum).

rkachowski 7y ago

I don't like the idea of everything now being centralised under the control of Instagram/Facebook/Zuckerberg, but the concept of giving the control away from the paparazzi and their invasive up skirt photography and back to the people they harass is a pretty nice switch. There's something to be said about the desire for celebrity news being better satiated with a direct line to the person rather than a third party tabloid. I guess fake news and outrage based clickbate is now the modern incarnation of the tabloid trying to shift copies with celeb photos and gossip.

Quarrelsome 7y ago
I'd imagine the switch will be temporary at best. It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP.
- senorjazz 7y ago
  > It won't take long for powerbrokers to put up shop yet again in another decade or two once they find a USP. just like the radio power players of the 20century?
  - Quarrelsome 7y ago
    if we're talking about talk-radio then that's somewhat similar. But I'd imagine some of the pioneers of insta-celeb today will translate into gatekeepers of tomorrow.
zozbot234 7y ago
I have to assume that the "invasiveness" of paparazzi is greatly overstated - a game that some tabloid stars and celebrities are willingly signing up for, in exchange for free publicity of sorts. Because if that weren't the case, you'd see people being sued for harassment, invasion of privacy etc. all over the place, and that just doesn't seem to happen.
- toyg 7y ago

adventured 7y ago

https://outline.com/CYg43t https://outline.com/CYg43t

cowpig 7y ago

> Instagram is often accused of producing artificial images, but there’s something very honest about its commercial system I think the author has mistaken brazenness for honesty

unraveller 7y ago

Not well enough, everywhere else just became inescapably tabloidal.

nancycut9 7y ago

Hack Instagram – Hire an Instagram Hacker : https://www.hackerslist.co/hack-instagram-hire-an-instagram-hacker/ https://www.hackerslist.co/hack-instagram-hire-an-instagram-...

spodek 7y ago

The writer says "we" this and "we" that, as if everyone is enraptured by . . . I don't know who the Kardashians are beyond their name. I can't name a song by Justin Bieber. I can't be the only one who doesn't pay attention or care about this world. I posted about six pictures to Instagram a few years ago and can't be bothered to do more. It looks like a world of craving and dissatisfaction. I see people scrolling endlessly on the subway and don't see how it improves their lives. Maybe I'll get it one day and get sucked in. It looks like all "want more" and no "tastes good," as I described in this old post: http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-flavors http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-flavors

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SQueeeeeL 7y ago
This is a big problem with the culture section of the Times. They really don't think/write for the average consumer. Last week a saw them use the word "Staning" in an article, it's really baffling editorial decisions. (Staning refers to the song the character Stan, from a 20 year old Eminem song, whose an obsessed fan)
- mpalmer 7y ago
  Here's a fun thought - what if you (or the readership you defend) are no longer the average consumer?
  - mantap 7y ago
    Newspapers don't tend to target the average consumer though. They carve out a readership, because people want to read what they want to read.
    - mpalmer 7y ago
      Sure, and when you get down to it, there is no single prototypical average consumer that it's profitable to market to. Publications create their own average consumer. Fair to say though that the Times's own 'average' has definitely shifted over the last decade.

Hitton 7y ago

I don't consider this plausible. Although I don't have anyone who would consume celebrity gossip or tabloids among my acquaintances (or at least they pretend no to), I doubt that the kind of people who does consume it will be satisfied with meticulously constructed self-presentation of celebrities when they can have the "raw reality" brought to them by paparazzis. Tabloids are here to stay.