It is obvious by reading the history section of this chapter that there has always been a place in society for the sensational and the entertaining. It is not just a phenomenon of today. As McKee states there was a dividing line along the way, the elite classes did share the culture with the common people that they despised. It was not until the 1800's that their descendents stopped participating in popular culture. There has always been a place for this popular culture, this commercialized media.
I think that it is important for information to be disseminated in a manner that is accessible to all. The "dumbed down" version of the news is not always a bad thing even for the elite, it provides a quick hit on all the topics going on in the state or nation. If these elite want to find out more information about important topics they will need to research them and find the proper source for what they are looking for. The news media wants the ratings so they will dissimenate information that they feel will draw the biggest number of viewers. The old saying of "if it bleeds it leads" still holds true today.
Entertainment seems to be a leading draw for the popular culture. As I stated in my last blog the fact that we spend more time on the troubles of celebrities than on the election really bothers me. If I want to know what is going on with my favorite celebrities I would tune in to one of the many entertainment "news" shows like "Entertainment Tonight" or "Inside Edition". These shows that present entertainment news just like the "serious" news shows, yet they are all about celebrities. I believe that when a celebrity dies, it absolutely needs to be one of the leading stories on the news, but I think there is definitely a place for all of the other entertainment goings on. Don't get me wrong I am the first one to have compassion for these celebs and their alcohol and drug problems, but I do not think it warrants being on a "serious" news show before things like politics.
There is one statement that McKee makes "one's thinking is formed in part not only by rational arguments and informatin, but by 'key formative events of (one's) intellectual biography...(and) formative situations' {Matusik, 2001: xv}, by 'all sorts of contingent circumstances-who teaches us, how and where, what we read, when and with what resonances in our memories, senses of experience and identity' {Beliharz, 1991:9, see also Ingram, 2003; Bernstein, 1985:1-2)". I believe there is definitely some truth to this statement and for that reason some of what I see on television (when there is time) now a days does not say a lot about what kind of a world we are becoming.
McKee presents both the "modern" perspective and the "postmodern" perspective on this topic. While I am very conservative and think that part of Habermas's arguement seems to be something that would be wonderful if it could be attained, I think on this issue I would side more with the postmodernists. I think that we need a venue for both the elite and the working class to get information about what is going on in the world in a way that best suits them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment