4 ms·

Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if the media didn't engage in an aggressive 24/7 bombardment compaign. I first noticed this when I was younger and the OJ Simpson t

Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if the media didn't engage in an aggressive 24/7 bombardment compaign. I first noticed this when I was younger and the OJ Simpson thing happened - the news media broadcasted repeated footage of his SUV driving away from a zillion cop cars. We saw this during wartime, Saddam Hussein in 91. We saw this basically for the past 30 years at least via broadcast media and CNN. We see it during wars, but we also see it when media personalities are broadcast repeatedly due to a scandal or perhaps (like the useless Royal Family) due to some human interest thing. We see it on scary things -- the Murder Hornets have arrived. Avian flu is here. Etc. Is there a kernel of truth in some of those things? Sure. But my concern is the repetition and the cycling. Now we see the mechanism at work in social media and online news media. This is not new. It was called propaganda in WWI and WW2, and one tactic (this is discussed in Manufacturing Consent) is repetition. "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. Except we can add to the American news media, perhaps a new, Repeat an image and it becomes numbing. Should we report on mass shootings, on racist actions and everything else. Sure. But ask yourself, are we doing a service or a disservice with a relentless bombardment compaign. Does this affect mental health? Is this useful, productive for society? Have you ever obsessed over anything? Is the media tapping into a frailty?

beaner 6y ago
It's easy to blame the media. But they do these things because we demand it. If they don't show it, we'll flip to the channel that does. The problem is all of us. It's our culture, and partly our human nature.
- dang 6y ago
  Sorry for the off topic comment but could you please email me at hn@ycombinator.com?
Barrin92 6y ago
Thing that also immediately come to mind for me is films and games. Roger Ebert gave a scathing review of Fight Club[1] and I think he's spot on that it is essentially macho porn. Many films do the superficial thing where they attempt to renounce that any of the stuff is cool, but aesthetically they basically dwell in it. One thing that has always impressed me was the Balance of Power losing screen that shows nothing but the message: "You have ignited a(n accidental) nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure."[2] [1]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 [2]https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ
- mercer 6y ago
  I'm of two minds when it comes to this issue. I quite liked Fight Club precisely because in my younger years it was 'macho porn', but it left me with some thoughts that later on bloomed into understanding that the film is really criticising all of that. I've had similar experiences with other works. Starship Troopers isn't quite the fascist power-fantasy that it appears to be on first sight. American Psycho can sorta be seen as a power fantasy, initially, but it's really about a pathetic guy struggling in his environment. And so on. I don't feel it would do the world a service to criticize these (initially) ambiguous works because they're not spelling out the message they contain. And so while I often liked Ebert's reviews, I felt he was judging Fight Club in precisely the superficial way that doesn't do it justice. I imagine he might review 'Lolita' as a work glorifying adults loving prepubescent girls, when clearly the book isn't really doing anything quite like that. Err, I suppose the counterpoint in my 'two minds' perspective is that I do get that there are cases where it does feel like the 'criticism' is a flimsy excuse to revel in its opposite. I don't think that applies to Fight Club, but it's an edge case. Better examples would be shows like Breaking Bad. I enjoyed that show a ton, but I could not find a proper excuse to watch it other than 'crime porn'. Any 'message' it tried to convey was clear from the first season. We all kept watching because we loved to see how bad Walter White could get.

beaner 6y ago

It's easy to blame the media. But they do these things because we demand it. If they don't show it, we'll flip to the channel that does. The problem is all of us. It's our culture, and partly our human nature.

dang 6y ago
Sorry for the off topic comment but could you please email me at hn@ycombinator.com?

Barrin92 6y ago

Thing that also immediately come to mind for me is films and games. Roger Ebert gave a scathing review of Fight Club[1] and I think he's spot on that it is essentially macho porn. Many films do the superficial thing where they attempt to renounce that any of the stuff is cool, but aesthetically they basically dwell in it. One thing that has always impressed me was the Balance of Power losing screen that shows nothing but the message: "You have ignited a(n accidental) nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure."[2] [1]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999 [2]https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ https://imgur.com/XfePBsQ

mercer 6y ago
I'm of two minds when it comes to this issue. I quite liked Fight Club precisely because in my younger years it was 'macho porn', but it left me with some thoughts that later on bloomed into understanding that the film is really criticising all of that. I've had similar experiences with other works. Starship Troopers isn't quite the fascist power-fantasy that it appears to be on first sight. American Psycho can sorta be seen as a power fantasy, initially, but it's really about a pathetic guy struggling in his environment. And so on. I don't feel it would do the world a service to criticize these (initially) ambiguous works because they're not spelling out the message they contain. And so while I often liked Ebert's reviews, I felt he was judging Fight Club in precisely the superficial way that doesn't do it justice. I imagine he might review 'Lolita' as a work glorifying adults loving prepubescent girls, when clearly the book isn't really doing anything quite like that. Err, I suppose the counterpoint in my 'two minds' perspective is that I do get that there are cases where it does feel like the 'criticism' is a flimsy excuse to revel in its opposite. I don't think that applies to Fight Club, but it's an edge case. Better examples would be shows like Breaking Bad. I enjoyed that show a ton, but I could not find a proper excuse to watch it other than 'crime porn'. Any 'message' it tried to convey was clear from the first season. We all kept watching because we loved to see how bad Walter White could get.