Harper's Weekly was a political magazine focused on what today would be called Hard News. When circus freak 'General' Tom Thumb got married in 1863 it made the front-page. It trumped their ongoing coverage of the American Civil War.
Posted on 08/11/2014 5:31:35 PM PDT by Biggirl
RIP Robin Williams.
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxnews.com ...
You mean like in post 38.
By the way, that post was accurate as well, news and reporting, and the audience was a man’s world, so what exactly are you complaining about?
Sorry but you’re just plain making crap up with that. Men were just as tied to celebrity culture as women. It was men that spent the money to make somebody a celebrity. And participated in other aspects of it. My mother-in-law was named after an opera singer, you think that was a female only decision? I’m betting daddy had a voice in that.
Ask yourself where that news was going before before the 1890s, hint it was there. Just mixed in with the regular news. Also notice your quote there does NOT include celebrity news as part of the women’s section.
” and that network news became something for females to watch as they talked about health and celebrities and entertainment?”
—
We’ve all known women who love trash TV,just as we all know men that only read the sports pages.
Generalizing just doesn’t cut it for me.
.
That is a silly claim, men still are bored with your celebrity nonsense and what does you knowing someone named after an Opera star have to do with anything?
William F. Buckley knowing who his favorite operatic singer is, is a lot different from him not being able to avoid knowing who Justin Bieber is.
Female interests and male interests are different, people used to know that until the radical leftists of the 1970s and feminism.
And really, I fundamentally agree with the lack of priorities in news reporting. It’s blatant in sports reporting. If a local team wins a championship most newspapers will splash it across the front page (instead of a sidebar directing those who want to read about it to the sports section).
I don’t read the sports section personally, just as you might be a female who is actually interested in the current capabilities of Army parachutes, but I sure know that men love it and are it’s biggest audience.
Just as we all know that females are almost universally bored with the dry, non-human sensitive aspects of military and foreign policy.
In what way are these people "pieces of shit"?
The sports section is a separate section that can be ignored, like the want ads, although almost all men from Generals to Presidents, to paratroopers and farmers seem to love it, just like the female section was separate, so that it could be ignored.
If men are bored with celebrity nonsense then you’ll need to explain why modern sports succeed. What my MIL’s name has to do with things is that it shows the cult of celebrity in this country dates back to at least 1932 with male participation.
It’s not just knowing who your favorite singer is, naming your kid after them is beyond “knowing” it’s celebrity worship, it’s part of the cult of celebrity.
Female interests and male interests have a lot more overlap than people like you are willing to admit. If they were that cut and dry different we’d have nothing to talk about, which would make dating even more awkward. The fact that a series of men and women got to know each other well enough to decide to have families together in a chain that resulted in you existing shows that clearly men and women have a lot of common ground dating back a long way.
You aren’t making sense, Opera and sports?
I don’t know if you’re aware but there was a time when Opera was hugely popular and mainstream here. The singers were massive celebs. Jenny Lind’s tour of the U.S. was a huge news story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Lind_tour_of_America,_1850%E2%80%9352
both makers of celebrities. Make perfectly good sense if you actually know what the word “celebrity” means, which you really should given how much you’re whining about them.
Yep, they were the rock stars of their world ;)
I like Opera and it’s place in the arts, that doesn’t rewrite the history of this creating of celebrity culture in America and the destruction of our news media.
Something else you are doing, is mentioning things that were in the news, but not comparing how they were covered and in which publications, and how much they were covered, and in which part of various publications and to what degree.
Instead, you are simply saying, people learned about this 60 years ago, so it is exactly like today, you seem totally ignorant that there has been a vast and destructive change in American media since the 1960s.
Sports and men and war have always gone together, and Opera is not a problem for me nor anyone else, we are not saturated with it in place of hard news, why do you want to bring opera into the trash of women’s TV, and women’s destruction of newspapers, and what used to be news magazines, and of the network news?
Read that article about Lind’s tour. If tens of thousands gather to greet someone it was almost certainly front page news in major daily newspapers.
There have been destructive changes all over the American cultural landscape in the last 50 years or so. I just don’t think this particular event is indicative of that.
Harper's Weekly was a political magazine focused on what today would be called Hard News. When circus freak 'General' Tom Thumb got married in 1863 it made the front-page. It trumped their ongoing coverage of the American Civil War.
Including concert pianists and Stephen Hawking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.