I don't know that I'd describe myself as "frustrated" by the manner in which this particular conflict is being covered. As a "media" person myself, it's more of an curiosity at the ways technology is used to both disperse information "objectively" and at the same time, to perhaps influence public opinion and/or placate a widespread desire to know what's happening immediately.Originally posted by derek
i understand your frustration, but this is really big news, and if the networks didn't have "wall to wall" coverage there would be as many people complaining about the lack of coverage or say the government is trying to hide something.
I couldn't help but think of the movie Rollerball (James Caan version) and the premise behind that story. If I remember it correctly, war had become so destructive (go figure) that the world community had chosen to "solve" all of it's conflicts using the outcome of a sport to decide the victor. The problem arose that it became popular as entertainment and "stars" were developing as public heroes.
But the whole concept of "reality tv" is really interesting anyway. Essentially what's going on is that a whole lot of people sprawl out on their couches, munching on Cheetos, while watching electronic images of other people actually doing something flash in front of them night after night. The scenario isn't really that far off from regular fictional programming except that "reality tv" isn't scripted in the same way. But the end result is the same. "We" are fed images of other people doing extra-ordinary things that we would never do for one reason or another. Sometimes it's entertainment. Sometimes it's informational. But "event" after "event," that line seems to be getting a bit blurrier.