Regarding Idol and Dancing with the Stars.... I just don't get it. Why do people watch this shit? People stand in the breakroom and talk about it and then ask me if I saw blah blah blah and I'm like uuuuuuuh no sorry I prefer quality shows to garbage. Of course I then start a war about how awesome Idol is.

In the absence of shared social contexts, ie, people you and someone else mutually know, you go back to the most common shared source, which in this day and age is virtually guaranteed to be a television identity -- most likely fictional.

We're on our third generation of people with disfunctional local social network, but fictitious mutual "friends" on TV that many people discuss no differently than real people, and unless put on the spot often have trouble actually admitting don't really exist. Top that off with the emergence of instant acquaintances on the internet and you have a nearly unprecedented level of social detachment in many Western nations on par with having whole cities of refugee camps, minus any sort of disaster.

Shhhh, I'm looking for the latest viral video to share with my "friends".....

In the absence of shared social contexts, ie, people you and someone else mutually know, you go back to the most common shared source, which in this day and age is virtually guaranteed to be a television identity -- most likely fictional.

We're on our third generation of people with disfunctional local social network,

Way to make me feel guilty about talking about BSG at work... Thanks ya jerk! :p

Probably wouldn't like the Ultimate Fighter then either lol. To each their own I guess.

In the absence of shared social contexts, ie, people you and someone else mutually know, you go back to the most common shared source, which in this day and age is virtually guaranteed to be a television identity -- most likely fictional.

We're on our third generation of people with disfunctional local social network, but fictitious mutual "friends" on TV that many people discuss no differently than real people, and unless put on the spot often have trouble actually admitting don't really exist. Top that off with the emergence of instant acquaintances on the internet and you have a nearly unprecedented level of social detachment in many Western nations on par with having whole cities of refugee camps, minus any sort of disaster.

So you're suggesting that before television, people never talked with their friends about radio? Before radio, they never talked with each other about hearing tales and exploits of warlords or the plays they just saw?

Or maybe television is less social than the theater, because when you are home watching television you are alone or with your family and when you are at the theater you are sitting next to strangers you won't talk to anyway.

Its not like talking about entertainment is a new thing. American Idol and the rest of those reality shows I really dislike, but it doesn't mean that the people who watch them and talk about them at work are mindless zombies anymore than the people who post here: http://ayonae.com/television-and-movies-f34.html If you and a bunch of people watch a concert and talk about it, isn't that the same as discussing American Idol? Though you probably had a worse view of the performer at the concert.

Frankly, I think you're stereotyping the same way people used to (and still do) stereotype the folks who play online video games. 99% of our Everquest colleagues still had friends outside of the game, significant others, jobs, and lives. And if we all got together, sure we'd want to talk about video games because they are a shared hobby.

It's not a question of whether or not they talked about it, it's a question of how much of their conversation it took up.

Talking about a shared hobby is fundamentally different from talking about an imaginary person, or a falsely intimate public acquaintance like a celebrity, as if they were someone you had real contact with.

Wouldn't that be considered a psychosis?

And in defense of the Ultimate Fighter, there is no popularity contests on that show. There's a lot of irrelivant drama that gets thrown in, but the competetion generally goes to the fighter that can back up what they say they can do.

Wouldn't that be considered a psychosis?

And in defense of the Ultimate Fighter, there is no popularity contests on that show. There's a lot of irrelivant drama that gets thrown in, but the competetion generally goes to the fighter that can back up what they say they can do.

American Idol is not a popularity contest... it is a Singing competition... The popularity aspect of it is in the minds of the viewers. In the end, the singers try and back up what they say they can do also.

It's not a question of whether or not they talked about it, it's a question of how much of their conversation it took up.

Talking about a shared hobby is fundamentally different from talking about an imaginary person, or a falsely intimate public acquaintance like a celebrity, as if they were someone you had real contact with.

Is your beef with celebrity? Or with television? Because American Idol is a talent competition featuring people singing and generally the conversations I've heard (which admittedly are few) talked about how good someone was and how bad someone else was - rarely about the type of milk they like on their frosted flakes.

As for scripted television ...
The Greeks used to share plenty of tales of Hercules. The British had their Sherlock Holmes. In the age of radio had our Amos and Andy, our Dick Tracy, our Popeye and I'm sure it was different - but not that different. Before that was Pecos Bill, Davy Crockett, Casey Jones, and Paul Bunyan. People were probably as obsessed with Marilyn Monroe then as Paris Hilton today, there just weren't as many medium to convey that.

Or is it better for us to discuss Indiana Jones because we watched him outside of our home opposed to inside?

Again, I don't like watching, shooting, or discussing reality TV (except for Kid Nation, which alas was canceled) ... but shouldn't people be allowed to enjoy what they enjoy? Or should we make them feel guilty and bad about liking something that we personally don't?

I work in an office setting in a building of about 30 people, it's my company's primary data center. The conversation in the hallway and in the breakroom is most certainly guaranteed to be about Idol or Dancing with the Stars. It's 90% women and they speak of these people as though they are their best friends and know their life stories. They know intimate details about the contenders and often discuss how some of those details make them better or more worthy to win. And they talk about how many times they will vote over and over again and wonder why their hubbys significant others do not like the show. This is not discussing shows you like, this is obsession in middle aged women rofl.

It's one thing to enjoy programming and discuss it, it's another to spend too much company time stalking your entertainer online, and yacking in the breakroom for minutes on end about how someone deserved to win b/c someone had cancer. It's not like talking about how good a movie was or how much you enjoyed it, it's day in and day out while the season is going and actually my employer has started nipping in the butt b/c it's excessive.

It's not whether or not I like it, it's an unprecedented amount of media saturation that is socializing people in a different way than we have experienced in human history until about 50 years ago. This is new, and has clearly already started having effects that we don't really understand, and of which some people aren't even aware. We now have children who see more advertisements before the age of 3 than someone a hundred years ago would read in their entire lifetime. We now have a barrage of false intimacy with publicized people unprecedented in human history -- sure, a lot of people may have discussed whether or not they liked the latest Sherlock Holmes or Dick Tracy dime novel, and Wild Bill or Davey Crockett were famous and had folk songs in their day ...

But you can't possibly be serious in saying there isn't a difference between going to see a play about Davey Crockett versus getting daily updates on Manufactured Boy Band' #52's waistlines and sexual preferences every time I go to the mall. The publicity industry is orders of magnitude larger than it was even in the 1950s and 60s and doesn't show much sign of slowing down.

It's not good/bad or right/wrong, but it's new, and it's changing the sort of people we are becoming.

It's 90% women and they speak of these people as though they are their best friends and know their life stories. They know intimate details about the contenders and often discuss how some of those details make them better or more worthy to win. And they talk about how many times they will vote over and over again and wonder why their hubbys significant others do not like the show.

I think the hidden danger is that it now becomes abnormal for people to be anything but pop-culture zombies.

I think the hidden danger is that it now becomes abnormal for people to be anything but pop-culture zombies.

I would agree with that.

Good 4.5 minute talk about the impact of our collective vapidity:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/248

Idol and Dancing... both play into peoples' desire to vicariously link themselves to celebrity status. The whole idea of voting for the possible winner offers proof of one's "talent" at spotting talent.

Our culture has become so devoted to celebrity that shows like this are only surprising in their relative scarcity; why aren't there more? Going by 20+ years delivering mail in a couple towns, on several routes, more subscriptions are getting sold to People Magazine than any other publication. There is also Us, Entertainment Weekly, Star, Ok, etc. They all are geared to providing that little bit of "extra inside information" about celebrities that hooks into that sense of living vicariously through the celebrity, and being able to "identify" with him or her.

People talking about BSG or Harry Potter or Seinfeld or Friends, etc., were talking about characters and plots. Not about real people with a measure of celebrity status.

I find it sad that we have allowed celebrity status to become such that someone like Paris Hilton can be paid $100k for simply attending a party; a spoiled skinny unattractive rich kid completely devoid of any talent (including her sex tape) but who has used her agent and the press and paparazzi to convince the world she is a celebrity.

, on several routes, more subscriptions are getting sold to People Magazine than any other publication. There is also Us, Entertainment Weekly, Star, Ok, etc. They all are geared to providing that little bit of "extra inside information" about celebrities that hooks into that sense of living vicariously through the celebrity, and being able to "identify" with him or her.
.

Sell those People magazines yes!!! One of many magazines we print. Along with Us, and E.W.

It's not good/bad or right/wrong, but it's new, and it's changing the sort of people we are becoming.As I was telling a friend earlier tonight upon skimming this thread, the first sentence out of *my* mouth as a 17 month old toddler, 43 years ago, was "You love Doublemint Gum". Considering that *my* TV exposure prior to age 2 was sporadic and on a single black and white set when my mother had it on in the living room, I can't imagine what the aggregate effect of being totally saturated by electronic media from birth, even to it being on in the car, in their bedrooms, and on computers and related toys from the 'Baby Einstein' programs on up has on cognitive development, especially when children are heavily exposed prior to age 7. The American Pediatric Association is now recommending *no* television prior to age 2 and very limited exposure prior to age 5. All I have to say is good luck with that.

This total media saturation is not only causing false identification and intimacy, as Byl has mentioned, but more importantly it by its intensity crowds out whole areas of other sorts of stimuli that ought to be driving connection-making in the developing brain, and even creates tremendous difficulty in otherwise rational adults in sorting wheat from chaff (in a strict informational sense and otherwise), as well as distorting their priorities in the seductive vacuum of our relatively low-drudgery lives.

There's no question in my mind that this bombardment is linked to the skyrocketing rates of both ADHD and autism, the modern obsession with labelling everything as pathology, as well as other physiological factors that have been linked to these notwithstanding. Children and adults that have grown up in the last 45 years expect to be passively entertained 24 hours a day, and are at even more of a loss than I was as a child (Bored? I'll give you something to do, my dad would say, grinning ;) ) in the absence of the electronic tickler. My own partner of the past 13 years has provided an ominous canary/coal mine example of that in that he was raised by overprotective parents who would not let him and his siblings leave the yard, a mother who learned English with her kids in front of the TV screen; mis-warehoused in Special Ed classes for six years due to a learning disability and, frankly, racism when he first went off to school (resulting in his returning to TV as his primary source of novel stimuli), and stuck back with the trusty tube post-spinal cord industry. He has a tested IQ of 156 (beats mine), and is a gifted artist, but every minute of the day he is awake, whether working or not, he has at least one form of broadcast media on, and he frequently regales me with detailed stories from and about the characters in various TV shows as if he knew them personally, or as if they offered powerful inspiration. If he wakes up and doesn't have anything imperative to do that day, he'll get wrapped up in his TV, podcasts, and games from the time he wakes until it is time for him to go to bed. Sadly, I don't think this is that unusual anymore. It's clear that the line between fantasy and reality frequently and subtly becomes blurred for him, and I have to remind him (when I get impatient) that these are *characters* that a writer came up with, and which aren't flesh and blood but are enacting that writer's agenda. And he's *not* an isolated only child who was surrounded by those images 24 hours a day on screen, in print, and on the Internet, like many of our under-30 friends were!

The media has *become* the substance of reality for many people, eclipsing the material world, and therefore, why *wouldn't* everyone want to be a star, or at least a contestant on a reality show? After all, if those pixilated media images are what one's cosmology and universe are made of, wouldn't becoming one ironically make one's life 'real'? I think that's the most disturbing thing I see in the eyes of both these kids (and not so kids) that try out for American Idol and its like, the 'In Touch!' magazine readers, and those (usually teens) who commit spectacular violent crimes for their moment of celebrity. And don't get me started on the fact that all this bread and circus is driven by *advertisers*, whose goal is not entertainment but to sell their products, and how much of the crap, especially digital crap, in people's houses, and on their credit card balances, stems from that aspiration both to be more absorbed in that wonderland, and to emulate its inhabitants? We've come a long way from the crude 'keeping up with the Jones's level of more or less conscious insinuation here...

On my more pessimistic days, I genuinely fear for the day, which doesn't seem too distant given where our economy is currently going, where most of us are forced to rely on actual life skills that any child growing up 50 years ago would have acquired (my mother, nearing 70, has for years been the only person in her clothing store who can do even minor alterations to their merchandise, as a simple example), not to mention cooperative skills, in order to keep the wolf away from the door, or simply provide the minimum infrastructure (of all types) for a functioning society, and wonder what is going to become of us.

Regards,
Nydia

Odd, my edit isn't showing, and I can't tell if it's because my refresh isn't actually reloading the page, or it isn't taking. I had cleaned up a sentence a bit to read "...this bread and circus is being driven by boared of directors and their advertisers, whose primary goal is to sell their products..."

Regards,
Nydia

I think media just made the sensations more wide spread. I do believe people had the same fervor for celebrities as before just in more localized levels with a few Regional celebrities making it.

The country LOVED outlaws. Billy the Kid, while infamous for what he did, was often portrayed in a softer light.

The fact that plays were created and taken on the road about Daniel Boone should testify to the fact.

Yes, they had the same fervor for entertainment - but you can hardly compare the experience of people being excited about the once a year (or less) appearance of a travelling show, or reading the latest serial articles, which came every few months, or even of kids in play emulating or identifying with notorious personalities, to that of modern people being bombarded by multimedia multiple hours per day from birth and those fantasy personalities/events becoming a significant part of one's life, not to mention cognitive development.

I'll agree with your premise that modern media have only significantly abetted the normal human attraction to fantasy - but in the modern age the level of immersion in that fantasy often dwarfs all other imputs that go into people's waking hours, crowding out concerns about or receptivity to about events that are happening *right around them*, as well as strongly reinforcing the behavior of people as passive consumers, rather than active agents, and this is where the real danger lies.

It's not surprising, as Malse said, to find that media personalities and events, in a shrinking world with its fractured and altered social/dependency networks, have become the common social currency among groups of people, and that in itself isn't a horrible thing. What *is* frightening is the level to which those personalities and images are taken not just as templates to be emulated from a fashion or aspiration perspective, but taken in with our mother' milk and internalized as the substance of reality by the last two + generations at an accelerating rate, and making human beings, and our society, something else in the process.

Regards,
Nydia

I think I've said this here before, so I apologize for the repetition. Technology has outpaced our culture, we just haven't figured out yet how to deal with the explosion of media around us. I have students who flip out when they can't carry an iPod all day, and even I get a little fidgety in the evenings when the Internet/Cable doesn't work. There is no cultural norm for how much TV to watch, or when to use a cell phone, or how to handle discussions about the latest media stories. In many ways it's fascinating, and my thought has always been that if growth plateaus at some point (how much more saturation is possible? scary...) then culture might at some point catch up and adapt.

I don't really watch television, but I do watch Idol. I also do watch Chinese and Taiwanese channels (I have a box that lets me watch them) to get up to date on Asian news, since part of my job involves going to Asia and being informed about its happenings.

I can see both sides viewpoints. I do view Idol as a talent competition, and I really think this kind of program has been around for a while (e.g, American game shows). It really is not that much different from people watching sports and idolizing their favorite players. And, like any other sport, it has the potential to be gamed.

I do see the other viewpoint that American Idol is trying to manufacture an artist. We can see that in the patterns of how the producers have been trying manipulate eliminations.

But in all honesty, it's been entertainment for me. And while it's entertainment, I don't let it interfere with my work. Furthermore, if people enjoy it, why tell them it's wrong to enjoy? Malse phrases his first post as a critique of shows like American Idol, but so far in my workplace (although my workplace is 35% Asian), I haven't found anyone who is obsessed with the show. More often than not, people enjoy the show but don't revolve their lives around it.

However, I don't watch American news anymore--that is something that is beyond saving. Ever since CNN started spouting propaganda (and you can tell they're trying to start a war with China by calling Chinese people a bunch of fraudsters and quacks), I haven't watched cable news at all. I get my news from multiple sources on the net these days, including BBC, Taiwan newspapers, Chinese newspapers in the US (WorldJournal.com), Mainland China newspapers, as well as Hong Kong newspapers. When I do want to practice my Japanese, I'll read the Asahi Shimbun.

I find sites like Reddit and Digg too much to be mob mentality.

I agree with the other posters though. If it's harmless, why make a critique of American society?

Ryb, none of us were discussing the merits of XYZ Idol as a means of finding good singers. We were talking about the suffocating force of mass media on people's social interactions. I really don't care whether it's Dawson's Creek, American Idol, E! Insider, or Steve Irwin adventures -- that many people's social context has been replaced by a manufactured one is more than a little disturbing and new in human experience.

I see it more than most people because I don't watch TV, and have a pretty hard time finding things to talk about with people because that's all most of them know.

I see it more than most people because I don't watch TV, and have a pretty hard time finding things to talk about with people because that's all most of them know.

Same here. I watch maybe 1.5 hours a week, on average, and am amazed by how seriously people take their television.

Same with most sports. I enjoy watching a good game of most any sport, but I don't follow every player, team, and stat to the point of obsession.

Life's too short. These things should be entertainment, as originally intended, not obsessions or replacements for reality.

Same here. I watch maybe 1.5 hours a week, on average...

But we spend maybe 40 hours a week staring into a computer monitor. *shrug*

When I walk away from my computer, I have usually created or improved upon something.

When I walk away from my television, all I have to show for it is a slightly lowered IQ.

When I walk away from my television, all I have to show for it is a slightly lowered IQ.

I can accomplish the same thing by not walking away from beer. :p

When I walk away from my computer, I have usually created or improved upon something.

When I walk away from my television, all I have to show for it is a slightly lowered IQ.

What about Discovery or History Channel? I watch a fair amount of TV, but then again I live in a state that actually has a winter, so not much else to do. I'll put about as much time in front of my computer for entertainment as well though.

When I walk away from my computer, I have usually created or improved upon something.

When I walk away from my television, all I have to show for it is a slightly lowered IQ.

Your /played time easily rivaled the guys who created Everquest, I don't buy that :)

While I played EQ on one monitor, I was usually doing productive work on a few others.

I spent the day in the mountains today, while things I've made online brought in money all day. I'm going out tonight, and those properties will continue to make money every hour.

Even though not all of my online time is productive, it's easy to beat the 0 amount of productive time I spend watching TV.

Regardless, TV vs. computer is way off topic.

What about Discovery or History Channel? I watch a fair amount of TV, but then again I live in a state that actually has a winter, so not much else to do. I'll put about as much time in front of my computer for entertainment as well though.

I'd say that's a lot better than watching something mindless like American Idol.

while things I've made online brought in money all day


Its good to be the king!

Yes it is nice, I'm sure you know, it still takes a good amount of work to keep those sites going strong.

Yes it is nice, I'm sure you know, it still takes a good amount of work to keep those sites going strong.

Absolutely. Which is why Kelraz's quip about how staring at a TV is the same as staring at a computer rings hollow to me.

I would hope he meant when playing flash games or something.

Along with my design and SEM customers I also have a few adult oriented online retail sites that Squish and I own, our object is to sell the design/marketing business and go fulltime into online retail then add wholesale. But when it gets down to it I wonder if I'll be happy selling out...maybe if the check is big enough if I sell.

I guess I'd also be open to a merger with the right company/people. (hint) j/k

Watching and enjoying people sing is mindless? Didn't this story play out already in Ancient Greece? Productive Sparta vrs cultural Athens.

In the case of 300 guys.....

Watching and enjoying people sing is mindless? Didn't this story play out already in Ancient Greece? Productive Sparta vrs cultural Athens.

Did you just compare Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to Kelly Clarkson? Hopefully, that speaks for itself.

Comparing a philosopher to a vocal artist isn't exactly a good comparison. I'd say you could compare Kelly Clarkson to Thespis perhaps.
I don't care for American Idol any more than I care for Kelly Clarkson's music, but that doesn't make her any less talented. She's sold millions of albums, apparently she has a fan base.

You and I both know you certainly got to level 60 in Warcraft faster than I, and you certainly were on Everquest more than I, yet I played as often as I could (and wished I could have played more). We can easily say you played somewhere between 20 and 30 hours a week. The way you and I spend our free time is only OK to you because you do it, people who spend that same (or less) time watching television somehow are mindless zombies. If they all work on scrabble websites while watching American Idol, are they then decent people by the Sanchek standard? If 37 million people played Everquest, I bet a lot of people would be talking about that at work. Truth be told, there's been plenty of times I've entered a workplace where a bunch of people played WoW and they discussed that. But these people are OK because they shared a hobby with you while those who watch American Idol are ... zombies!!! That reeks of hypocrisies. If someone is gonna work 8-10 hours a day, who is Sanchek to tell them what they can and can't do in their leisure time?

Somewhere in the distance, the point went whooshing past.

Kelraz, I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with the fact that I can multitask and have half-decent time management skills. Yeah, I played a lot of EQ and WoW for a few years. Yeah, I also got a lot of other things done at the same time. That's entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about though.

Back on topic, yet again...

Of course Ms. Clarkson has a fan base. That's sort of the point.

However, do you honestly think that would be the case without constant media bombardment of the "she's a winner" social proof message?

Of course not.

(Also, it's just as ridiculous to compare Kelly Clarkson to arguably the first stage actor in history. You can't be serious.)