If media coverage were determined by what DU discusses

[jpgray]

It would be exactly the same. Reagan, Paris, Edwards's hair/house/lightbulbs. Isn't that sort of ridiculous?

:rofl:

Yes it is caused by the media coverage to some extent, but it's interesting to see how easily the high and mighty "this is a distraction!!1" people are swept up by what they claim to despise. This coverage is meant to cheaply gain attention, and it seems like it works perfectly even with people who are ostensibly politically aware.

[RagingInMiami]

1. There would definitely be many more ...

Impeach Bush articles.

[jpgray]

2. There would be differences, that's true. I'm just fascinated by how the superficial creeps in

[swag]

3. When man erects a monument to the association of ideas,

the angel of the bizarre will invent the art of billiards.

[EFerrari]

4. That's funny but I don't think it's true, really. Since I started reading

DU, I usually get news days or even weeks before most people do.

Okay, some of them are Paris Hilton, but most of them aren't. :)

[canetoad]

5. I particularly enjoy the responses

that cunningly and condescendingly point out that there are much more important things to discuss, while drawing attention to the frivolous and trivial threads they bump to the top.

JP, we are all children of our own particular generation. Posting or discussing does not automatically mean that the issue is the most important one in your life. DU relies on user generated content, and I can't see the big 3 sitting down each morning and generating a brazillion posts to grab the attention of each and every punter that cruises by here.

What works for me is to ignore what I think trivial, reply when I have something to say. Could account for less than 1000 posts in 3 years eh?

[incapsulated]

6. Bah

Look at the post counts and join dates of the people posting in these threads, myself included. Do you really think we racked up thousands of posts over the years talking about Paris Hilton? 90% of my posting history, and that of most people here, is about relevant issues. So what if we turn to gossip once and a while.

:shrug:

[canetoad]

7. Waiting for that

The weary defence of quantity over quality.

[Kurovski]

8. You make a good point, but I'd like to point out a pattern

I've noticed when stories obviously designed to distract from BushCo travails are presented in the Corporate Media.

We see more posters who suddenly arise from the cellar to post repititous one sentence posts to flood the boards.

It's not that we don't take the bait, but it seems to be a fun game for some perhaps not so progressove folks.

Maybe, I dunno. I've made note of it three times so far.

[canetoad]

9. I would not judge so harshly

So what if there is a flood of posts on a topical item.

Better to engage your own personal trivia filter and let it go whoosh rather than get your knickers in a knot about people who don't post in a manner that meets your approval.

[Kurovski]

13. There's no judgment there. There's no knotted knickers.

Oh my goodness, no. Where'd you read that?

Page one of GD had 70% Paris threads throughout the day. That's a bit much even for a gossip like myself.

It is cause for suspicion given that it's a departure from regular posting habits.

There are numerous causes for suspicion that present themselves after one reviews DU on a nearly daily basis for Seven years.

Anyone coming to DU for info on Libby would have had to search into page four of GD to find it.

We have plenty of purposeful disruptors. Oh my stars and garters, yes.

[canetoad]

14. I'm going to go out of my way to take exception to you post

because I see far too much of this bullshit on DU. Plant doubt and propagate insinuation about those who disagree with you? Have you no better argument than that?

So, you need to explain exactly what your suspicions are.
You made a pointed reference to disruptors. Don't fuck around, name names or shut the fuck up.

[Kurovski]

16. You appear to be feeling peckish tonight.

My goodness, but it's clear that you wish to fight. You will have to seek a fight elsewhere.

[canetoad]

17. I am peckish

It means a little hungry. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apeckish&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Don't make trouble where there is none, and please don't resort to the Oprah method of reading meaning into what is not there. I wish to make my point clear. If that means I disagree with you, then so be it. It is underhand to to insinuate that I am looking for trouble by the mere fact that I disagree with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. You basically admitted you were looking for trouble

when you said "I'm going to go out of my way to take exception to you post".

When you follow that up with a lot of aggressive language - "bullshit", "Plant doubt and propagate insinuation", "name names or shut the fuck up" (when you know very well that 'naming names' in a thread is against the DU rules) you confirm what was said - you were looking for trouble.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. The problem is that

so many people here think that ANY story that doesn't reflect badly on Bush is "obviously designed to distract."

I think that's nonsense.

The media are selling a product. If Time Magazine were to put out two identical issues - one with Monica Goodling on the cover, and the other with Paris Hilton on the cover, there's no doubt which one would outsell the other by greater than 10:1.

The media don't really care what storie they cover - they're selling advertising.

[jpgray]

18. That's exactly it

[BlueStater]

10. This Paris Hilton stuff will die down soon enough

When Falwell kicked the bucket last month there were almost as many posts concerning him as Hilton. Surely you're not going to say we're all obsessed with Jerry Falwell now. :-)

[emilyg]

12. Or Imus

died down

[canetoad]

15. Bingo

and while a subject is topical people will post about it. I don't see the boards owners shutting these threads down. Why would they - it keeps the topics coming, the ads clicked on and the members feeling they are getting bang for their contribution buck.

It's a personal choice whether people join into those threads or not and I'm fucked if I will give any creedence to anyone who whines that their pet subject is not getting the attention it deserves. Sounds a bit like young Paris eh?

[jpgray]

19. I don't have a pet subject, and I'm not complaining

I just think it's interesting. :D Apparently so do you.

[canetoad]

20. Americans are interesting people to observe

They are so removed from our own rather down to earth Ozzie culture.

Given that the USA exports to most of the worlds media companies, it is in my interest to analyse what you are covering and why. Please remember that many things you take for granted, I question.

If you are interested in a non-American's viewpoint, filtered carefully through the lens that the mass media provides, I can give it to you. However, if you choose to disregard it, that is your right. JP, I can only call it as I see it, through my eyes, my background, my social situation.

There are times when the imps of satan creep in and tells me that Americans are not interested in what other people think. And you know what I say? Get thee behind me, you little nationalistic, jingoistic demon you. Americans are good, thoughtful people who have the good and common sense not to be sucked in by the posturing of monied celebrities and corporations with a political agenda to push forward.

[wtmusic]

22. Excellent observation jp

A kick in the ass we sorely needed :thumbsup:

[JVS]

23. Yeah, but we like to swear a lot, bash people, and are subversive