|
|
Post by swankivy on May 14, 2010 22:51:15 GMT -5
Tabloids
So, are tabloids harmless fun? Or do their over-the-top, sensationalistic stories teach people to believe rumors and believe in crazy things?
|
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on May 14, 2010 23:53:21 GMT -5
TabloidsSo, are tabloids harmless fun? Or do their over-the-top, sensationalistic stories teach people to believe rumors and believe in crazy things?
It only becomes harmful when the truly delusional take things too far, but of course, what doesn't become harmful when delusional people become obsessive and try to push their fantastic beliefs on the rest of the world? |
|
|
|
Post by shadowfreder on May 15, 2010 0:10:21 GMT -5
I once did a journalism project in high school, where my group brought three newspapers to pass around the class. The New York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, and a tabloid, the National Enquirer. The class (an Honors English class) seemed deeply engrossed with the National Enquirer.
|
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on May 15, 2010 1:16:47 GMT -5
The class (an Honors English class) seemed deeply engrossed with the National Enquirer. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowfreder on May 15, 2010 1:40:46 GMT -5
LOL!! Nope, there were no Sho!Z in the class.  As for the tabloid... I don't particularly remember and Sho!Z in it, but from what I gather, they do write and photograph Sho!Z every now and then... |
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on May 15, 2010 1:44:50 GMT -5
LOL!! Nope, there were no Sho!Z in the class. As for the tabloid... I don't particularly remember and Sho!Z in it, but from what I gather, they do write and photograph Sho!Z every now and then... |
|
|
|
Post by blondiviolette on May 20, 2010 21:19:06 GMT -5
Having done a class on this topic in college we found out that newspapers and other media really do sometimes sensationalize and stretch the truth in their stories.
However, there are reports which are the honest truth and have been researched which people are skeptical about because of all the deception in the past. I get annoyed at people writing off ALL current affair program segments because they are cynical that they are full of rot and judge those who read them as idiots. Some of their segments have vital information that anyone could find themselves if they happened to come across what they're reporting on, I know I've noticed certain things in shops that are suspicious and then it is reported later on, on a current affairs show and I'm like, "Oh yeah! I noticed that too! Good on you for reporting it!". I think with proper news programs you can put your trust in them that they are here to give you information but with gossip magazines which have tabloid spreads on the front page you can be a bit more doubtful, they are based on rumours like 'Is some celebrity pregnant?: So-and-so went to the supermarket yesterday and was spotted with a bit of a belly, does that mean her dry spell is over? read more inside'. Anyway, with some good judgement you can tell which are a bunch of crap and which aren't by researching for any evidence of truth by asking professionals or books or articles on the internet by professional sources. Sometimes in this world we are too guarded but those who are out for evil will prey on the ones who aren't guarded making the world suspicious of everything even the ones out for good. As Aaron Carter says, "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch" - use your judgement and find out what is the truth and rid yourself/fight to eliminate the lies. That's all you can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by synesthesia on May 28, 2010 21:31:11 GMT -5
I don't think tabloids should be allowed. There's freedom of press and then there's getting into other people's business and exaggerating and making up stories about people.
Just because someone sings a song, stars in a movie or on a television show, does NOT mean I need to know their private details.
The worse of these would be folks who run around taking pictures of stars on the beach and selling the pictures saying, "Look how fat this star is! He's got a BEER BELLY!"
Why is that even legal? Dude's trying to chill out on the beach and unwind. Why do I care if he's off his famous dude regime of health and jogging and eating doughnuts for every meal?
|
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Jun 6, 2010 11:19:48 GMT -5
I don't think tabloids should be allowed. There's freedom of press and then there's getting into other people's business and exaggerating and making up stories about people. Just because someone sings a song, stars in a movie or on a television show, does NOT mean I need to know their private details. The worse of these would be folks who run around taking pictures of stars on the beach and selling the pictures saying, "Look how fat this star is! He's got a BEER BELLY!" Why is that even legal? Dude's trying to chill out on the beach and unwind. Why do I care if he's off his famous dude regime of health and jogging and eating doughnuts for every meal?
I used to dislike the paparazzi too and believed I needed to voice an opinion defending some of my favorite (and not so favorite) celebrities. Then one day I sat down and reasoned out the logic.
It's true, sometimes the paparazzi seem to invade the lives of celebrities and encroach upon their privacy by dogging and tracking them all over the place. Sometimes people/workers in restaurants and stores spot a celebrity and call the paps to come quick and just barely catch the celebs leaving a place. But think about all of the times they take pictures of celebrities just arriving some place or just beginning their walk/jog/bike ride. How would the photographers know? How could they have the tripods and lights needed to keep those long range cameras steady enough for the crystal clear, hi-def photos before or shortly after arrivals? It's because the celebrity themself contacted the photographers and tell them where they would be, the celebrity or the celebrity's agent, manager, friend, family, or publicist contacted them on the request of the celeb.
Here's another thing. Most celebrities are wealthy. Why would wealthy famous people have to go to such public places to do their business? For instance, both L.A. and New York have thousands of restaurants and shops of varying scale, but the camera hog celebrities always get "caught" at the same places. These are places that the paparazzi camp out because when famous people WANT their pictures taken they go to those business where the crowds of photographers will be, then pretend they don't want their picture taken (yet mysteriously are ALWAYS readily identifiable). Those restaurants and shops that don't deliver WILL deliver to famous clientele (the upscale Japanese restaurant, Nobu, used to deliver to Howard Stern's apartment as well as to the studio while he was on air). They have personal assistants to walk their dogs, raise their children, drive their cars, but they have to go pick up a pineapple and avocado Jamba juice smoothie in person? Doubtful.
And finally, think about the celebrities (and "celebrities") that are always having their privacy "invaded" by those "evil" paparazzi. It's the same ones all the time: Jennifer Anniston, Paris Hilton, Simon Cowell, Puff Daddy, Marlon Wayans, Hugh Jackman, lLindsay Lohan, Megan Fox, porn stars, a handful of athletes, etc. There are much much more famous people that live in the same places and do the same things but you never see them in the tabloids. Why is that? Why no Tom Hanks, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Sean Connery, Morgan Freeman, Abigail Breslin, Seth Rogen, etc.? Because these are people that actually don't want their picture taken, so they act like it, don't tell the photogs where they are going before they leave the house, and do not instruct people to tell the world where they are vacationing.
It's all a big game and personally, I feel the celebrities playing the game are kind of jerks to let someone, doing a job they've requested, take all the heat as the bad guys. |
|
