Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By RogerS
#1336598
phil.p wrote:Social media undoubtedly has a lot to answer for. With the exception of this forum I take no part in it - I couldn't give a monkey's toss what other people are doing, like or dislike or what they think of me. To do otherwise, madness lies.:D


Mark Zuckerberg ....charged with crimes against humanity. I live for the day when I see that headline.
User avatar
By Trevanion
#1336613
ColeyS1 wrote:Hearing Jeremy Kyle's tv programme getting finally axed was a good day. Making entertainment about other people's misery didn't sit right.


Again, only because someone killed themselves. It's all fun and games and "entertainment" until somebody dies.
User avatar
By El Barto
#1336620
Doug B wrote:But these folks actively invite this attention when they start out, it’s only when they’ve achieved some level of “fame” that they start & decry it.

It’s sad when anyone takes there own life, obviously, but without the media no one would have heard of them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but surely anyone these days wanting a certain level of fame will also be aware of the tragedies that have gone before chasing the dream.


I don’t think you can equate being a silly attention seeking celebrity with malicious tabloids who will literally do anything to sell a story. Yes these people do invite a lot of attention and I do find it all rather pointless but that doesn’t mean they deserve half of the stuff tabloids throw at them. It is truly disgusting and another embarrassment to the country.
User avatar
By Phil Pascoe
#1336623
ColeyS1 wrote:Hearing Jeremy Kyle's tv programme getting finally axed was a good day. Making entertainment about other people's misery didn't sit right.


I had little sympathy with the "victims" - they were there by choice. They deserved some kind of mini Darwin Award.
User avatar
By ColeyS1
#1336627
phil.p wrote:
ColeyS1 wrote:Hearing Jeremy Kyle's tv programme getting finally axed was a good day. Making entertainment about other people's misery didn't sit right.


I had little sympathy with the "victims" - they were there by choice. They deserved some kind of mini Darwin Award.
Yeah, it was almost like they selected the vulnerable [WINKING FACE]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
By Blackswanwood
#1336635
phil.p wrote:They may well have been bribed - but they weren't forced. We're not their keepers.


Maybe we are not their keepers but the argument of they should have known better doesn’t really cut it when the most vulnerable in society are being exploited for so called entertainment.
By sunnybob
#1336644
This subject is very emotive, but heres the point nobody ever considers. Newspaper (and facebook and "social media") would not publish such twaddle without the MILLIONS of people who WANT to see and hear about "famous" people.

If the general public stopped buying newspapers whenever a sleazy story was published, the practice would cease overnight.
Paparazzi are part of the system, earning wages by supplying a need just like everybody else.
Disclaimer;
No, I dont buy newspapers, no I am not on facebook, No, I am not a photographer.
By Andy Kev.
#1336668
Some people seek celebrity, some have it thrust upon them.

I have a lot of sympathy for those of the latter group who are subject to intrusive press coverage and little for the former group. Those who seek celebrity are in my opinion like politicians, artists and criminals i.e. they're all volunteers, nobody forced them into it and if a leading practitioner leaves the scene, hundreds queue up to fill his/her boots.

It would appear that some of the seekers are mentally/emotionally unstable enough to the point where they top themselves when they don't like the attention they're getting. It is, of course, regrettable but I do find it hard to generate much sympathy.
User avatar
By Doug B
#1336681
El Barto wrote:

I don’t think you can equate being a silly attention seeking celebrity with malicious tabloids who will literally do anything to sell a story. Yes these people do invite a lot of attention and I do find it all rather pointless but that doesn’t mean they deserve half of the stuff tabloids throw at them. It is truly disgusting and another embarrassment to the country.


I don’t disagree with your last sentiments but the problem particularly with the sun isn’t a new one & has been like it for donkeys years, even I’m aware of it & I don’t read newspapers.

My point is unless you have lived under a rock everyone knows what to expect from the tabloids if your desire is celebrity & as has already been said if there wasn’t a market for this tripe they wouldn’t exist.

Plus I don’t think these people are silly, they see the vast rewards that even minor celebrity can bring & are happy to degrade themselves to achieve it, they want it because they watch it so I’m sure they are aware of the pitfalls that has happened to others better than I do who doesn’t actively follow along.

As I see it non of it is new it just seems more degrading these days :shock: going back to the Sun I remember a joke in my childhood favourite Porridge when fletcher is asked if he wants something from the shop he replies “the Sun...........oh & something to read” must be 40 years old that one.