Join | Log in

Channel Button
Debate_icon

Entertainment   >

Entertainment (Other)

Get a Widget for this title

Modern society has become obsessed by media-driven entertainment

Results so far:

Agree
92% 981 votes Total: 1067 votes
Disagree
8% 86 votes
Agree

Human beings have a natural and healthy desire to be entertained. The power of performance and spectacle is illustrated through the annals of history, proving that however much society has changed with the introduction and growth of technology our basic psychological make-up has remained the same. Entertainment has grown and developed through the ages, from the medieval court jester to the lions of the Coliseum.

One could argue that there is nothing questionable about this, that as it is an established and accepted custom our thirst for it must be quenched by any means possible. But entertainment comes at a price. If there were not stakes to be raised, emotions to be roused, conflict to be resolved, the audience, by which I mean us all, would be disengaged.

It is this thirst for entertainment that is so rewarding and yet so damaging. As our technology becomes more sophisticated, our tastes become more crude. Base, dehumanising entertainment such as home videos uploaded onto media sharing sites have multiplied in popularity at an astounding rate. The picture and sound quality is poor, the performers unheard of, the content devoid of artistic merit, but because of its ease of access, technology has taken control of the entertainment world.

The media is a fine example of an entertainment powerhouse. The media is dangerous because it represents real people and reports real events and the format of its representation is in the creative control of people that want money and lots of it. They. Will. Tell. You. Anything. And you'll believe it because it looks real, or other people believe it, or you'll like the design of the program and this will make you feel secure and trusting.

Closely linked to media-driven entertainment is media-driven communication. It is widely regarded that people like to have contact with other people, indeed, much of our home grown entertainment comes from engaging with others. No business is wiser to this than the mobile phone business. Horrifically clever advertising accurately portrays groups of young and attractive people overjoyed with the concept of interaction (a concept these companies would wrongfully have you believe they invented) to a rigorously sourced indie soundtrack. Don't put up with this! They are teaching you nothing! They are giving you nothing! All that is happening is a whirl of innovative design broadcasting into your living room, thinking it knows how you live.

Leaving aside the patronising approach these companies have, the real sting in the corporate tail is that it doesn't even work. We are led to believe that owning a device that will call, text, email and share music with people you know and like will increase your chances of seeing them. Although actively encouraged to do these things, with a view to actually meeting up with your friends once in a while, this high-level accessibility only makes one's time more expendable.

Ten or perhaps fifteen years ago if you wanted to see someone dear to you that lived far away-ish this is what would happen. You would ring the person up on an old fashioned, landline telephone. They wouldn't be in. They may or may not have an answering machine, either way, you'd skip back and forth a bit trying to get in touch with each other, and how lovely it would be when it finally happened. After a catch up of the last six months events since the last call or letter, it would be agreed that one or other of you would book a train or a plane to visit.

You would pick them up at the station. They would be late. You would wait in the car or on the platform, reading a book. You may learn an interesting fact about pasta, or trees, or Bruges. The moment of their arrival, when it finally came, would be exciting and joyous and full of gushing explanations regarding their delay. You would really see each other and really talk to each other and the introduction of these self-important little boxes has eliminated all of that.

The modern reality consists of watching television until you get a text saying the arrangement is cancelled, ten minutes before its due to happen. Where is the joy in that? Furthermore where is the entertainment? If the media is going to control everything (it certainly wants to and it's getting there) why can't it deliver what it promises?

Happiness is borne of having love and having work. For this one could read, being appreciated and having a bit to do. Simple desires that are easily achievable regardless of our technological ascent. What is the danger of being given the opportunity to consume and purchase a load of stuff that you don't need? Heightened expectations that are then quashed when the gadget doesn't work? Inability to appreciate or enjoy low-level entertainment that is more organically created? We are in the middle of an obesity epidemic.

The prescience of portable media devices, digital media and gaming toys that encourage you to play sports on a screen (why don't they just get out there? Why?) are making it extremely difficult to get modern children motivated about being outdoors, learning traditional skills, climbing hills, sharing ideas and being active. Media-driven entertainment has two flat feet planted firmly in our society and it isn't going anywhere. If it continues to reach every generation so effectively, our dependency will grow as much as our waistlines.

Learn more about this author, Mazz Brown.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Disagree

Media-driven entertainment is the last-ditch effort of a flagging medium. Consistent budget-cutting by the networks in order to keep them competitive on the emerging on-line medium has foisted this dreck, dregs, and ineffective form of least-common-denomin ator unidirectional communication on the audiences. Like the Romans at the Coliseum, the American viewers are staring slack-jawed at the available programming, flipping from channel to channel looking for anything that can keep their attention drawn away from the problems they face. It is not that the viewers obsess over the offerings; it is that the fodder for conversation at the office the next day will of a certainty the horrid stuff on the idiot box the previous day, and the conversational pressures of "fitting in" that drove us to smoke cigarettes in the high school restrooms and to take that first drink of alcohol out behind the barn continue to weigh down our individuality, compelling us to keep tabs on the characters and (non)actors of the movies, television, and even now on-line resources.

The dilution of the collective viewer audience by the emerging media also refutes the assessment that media-driven entertainment is the basis for any obsession. One could argue that the media-resources are obsessed with self-driven entertainment as a vehicle for attempting to entertain. The positioning of individuals almost in the same vein as product branding (Madonna, Spears, Lohan, and Miley Cyrus) are similar to the roars of the crowds in Rome for the particular Gladiator of their fancy. The primary difference, however, is that in the case of the gladiators, the masses were interested. In the case of the Hollywood set, the audience is what is being contrived to placate THEM, not the reverse. Evidence that this is the case is the drop-off in sales for entertainment-type magazines and the shift from these kinds of stories to those based on political characters (Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber)

Media-driven entertainment has none of the requisite components by which one might be obsessed, and thus is not the source or target of obsession. Obsession is the unintentional and uncontrollable reaction to a stimulus. Since Media-driven entertainment seeks to feed an audience on contrived stories and manipulated events to continue sales, the very objects to which one might be obsessed shift and change like newspaper headlines; The obsession to stay in front of the viewers is not directly correlated to the desire for the viewers to see the particular story. If Society was truly obsessed, for example, there would be constant 24 hour coverage of each and every celebrity at all times, and the news would be only a continuous stream of it. Instead, the networks scramble to decide what will capture the attention of Society, and what works today will most likely not work tomorrow. That continuous shifting of focus is more akin to Attention Deficit Disorder, not Obsession.

Media obsess on how to entertain; Society flits from resource to resource, looking for substance and succor, and finds Entertainment as it can. No, modern society is not obsessed by media-driven entertainment. It accepts this format only because it is better than nothing at all.

Learn more about this author, Jonathan Albin.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA