h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Is Popular Culture Dead? - A1340146
Author: Hussassan - That's H-U-S-S-A-S-S-A-N, Notice the lack of Is - U200779

Thi started off as an English assignement, and after getting an a in it, I figured, why no?

"...where we are all forced to listen to the same music, play the same games, and watch the same movies ad infinitum."

Or we switch off the radio, the CD player, the TV and get writing on the internet .

My father is in his 9th decade, and except for substituting the 20s 30s and 40s for the 60s 70s and 80s, it could have been him typing this article. I don't know if you were intending to be humorous, or just my family that is wierd.

hi Hussassan (did i get that right? )

interesting and well written, , but not, for my money, all that earth-shatteringly 'new'.

Interesting what Sea Change said about 'substituting 20s, 30s and 40s' for '60s, 70s and 80s'. It's the eternal generational 'not what it was in my day' argument.

and some of the points you make strike a false not with me, such as "Nowadays, pop stars use their personal lives to garner publicity."

Not that i don't agree that this is how things happen today - but wasn't the media fascinated with the private lives of Presley, Lennon, Jagger, Hendrix and all the rest?

Marketing pop culture has been going on longer than just the last 20 years. Don't forget the 'underground' culture of today, who don't buy the latest boy-band stuff, but perhaps prefer to steep themselves in the emerging rhythms of drum 'n' bass and esoteric electronica. And the persistent popularity of many musicians and bands of yesteryear.

well, I'm not knocking the entry, cos it's your opinion and that's fair enough. But Don't Panic!

Give people some credit and remember that you're not the only one who doesn't necessarily buy into what the surface level of the corporate media is feeding to the masses,

cyaround
spiff

*Not that i don't agree that this is how things happen today - but wasn't the media fascinated with the private lives of Presley, Lennon, Jagger, Hendrix and all the rest?*

Yes but I don't believe that they actually forced their way repeatedly into the limelight the way people like Britney and Justin always seem to be doing.

*interesting and well written, , but not, for my money, all that earth-shatteringly 'new'. *

Yeah, it's been going on for a while, but I don't think that there's an entry on this on h2g2.

*I don't know if you were intending to be humorous, or just my family that is wierd. *

A surprising amount of people have similar sentiments. I am 17 and see a lot of people my age and above going nuts over the latest boyband, which tends to annoy me and most of my friends, who see ourselves as having better taste.

I think that celebrities themselves cannot really be blamed for much of the 'cult of celebrity' found in mass media these days. Newspaper print these things, people buy the papers. A simple fact.

Since the death of Princess Diana, the media has been searching for someone to replace her as tabloid fodder. And what has happened is that a morass of people in various fields have come to fill that media void together.

As for private lives etc.. 'Honesty', of a kind, is much more prevalent in today's media than at other times. The famous were once protected to a certain degree by that fame, and scandal involving their personal lives was generally supressed. If they broke the law, that would scurrilously be reported on, but not a great deal else. Stars were in a different firmament.

There has been, however, a drift in what the public want the famous to be. They now want them to be accesable, to be more like us. Thus people want to read about love affairs, fights, and the minutae that makes 'them' more human. And if they are human, like us, then maybe we could be like them. So goes the thought process.

Boring you may find it, but these people sell papers and magazines. There are many magazine that exist solely to report upon the activities of these people. The general public seems to, must want to read them, or they wouldn't exist.

Media, like anything else, is business, and business is about making money. Printing all this stuff leads people to buy, so they can continue functioning and making money.

Um. Yes. Intersting article, though. But I don't feel it is very balanced in its opinions, nor terribly convincing in its arguments. Developed, it could be, should you feel like expanding it. But thank you, because the AWW thrives on debate. All is as it should be.

Fatty

*Boring you may find it, but these people sell papers and magazines. There are many magazine that exist solely to report upon the activities of these people. The general public seems to, must want to read them, or they wouldn't exist.*

OK, but what's the deal with making a story about Britney Spears smoking a cigarette? People may like to read about celebrities, but I feel it has been taken a bit too far.

Still, thanks for commenting. Maybe I will expand it in some way, although my main point is about lack of originality in pop culture.

I certainly hope you can expand it It has a lot of potential.

I personally believe that pop culture takes far too much newspaper space. Yes it sells newspapers, but what are we actually learning?

That is the point of the newspaper, isn't it? News.

I mean it may be interesting that Geri tried to tie her bra to the seat of a bus, or Beckham finally did manage to write his first word, but at the end of the day the point of the newspaper is to give us the facts of the WORLD, and not a slanted view of what they think celebrities are up to.

Celebrity? What is exactly? Do these people actually contribute to society? They are entertainers.

Why do Elton John or Alex Ferguson get Knighthoods? The highest honour the British Government (alright the Queen, but she does what the Government says) can bestow on its citizens, and we're giving them to people because they entertain us?

Surely it is a surreal world we live in. People who should be recognised do not, because of these celebrities. Information that should be common knowledge gets suppressed, because of celebrities. It has gone too far.

I hope you continue

Just my ...

I'm thinking that somewhere in the 'eighties, the beautiful people realised that Controversy is an art-form. No matter how banal, insipid, or turgid someone's 'schtick' might be, just add Controversy, and *voila*, it'll sell!

Our challenge as consumers, then, is to recognise controversy by its smell, and avoid it.

Filter through what remains, and incorporate the good things within your personal culture.

(This fool stubbornly resists being told where to spend his money.)

It was money well spent

No it is a valid point. As consumers we can't blame everything on the powers that be. We are the majority after all. We have to somehow over come our apparent stupidity (its more apparent in me I think ), and force the newspapers to print newsworthy news.

Verc