The metastasized Quasimoral media

This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

I honestly feel like this is such a profound thought because it points toward how morality is actually rooted deep within a person's own soul, emphasizing sincerity—especially that first step of being honest with oneself—as well as freedom and that heavy sense of personal responsibility we all carry. But I can't help but wonder, if we make this distinction of "true" morality against the way we usually define morality—you know, like that Wikipedia definition describing it as just a collection of unwritten rules and social customs used to judge good from evil—does that mean any moral code becomes "true" simply because it's grounded in an individual's unique personality? Or can we still draw a line even within this framework of "true" morality, distinguishing between what is genuinely moral and what is immoral, which might technically be its own kind of "morality," yet both share the common trait of disregarding the conventional, socially accepted meaning of the word?

Personally, I’d interpret this Pascalian idea by suggesting that for a human being who is inherently a moral creature (looking at you, Immanuel Kant), they don't actually need a handbook of rigid rules and regulations to act ethically; if their very essence is aligned with those universal human values—essentially, ethics—then even if they had never heard the word "morality" in their life, they would still act rightly.

To me, a Quasimoral is nothing more than hypocrisy; it's a mask, and underneath that mask, there's a human face, much like when we are finally alone with ourselves. Sometimes people try so hard to rip those masks away, but they find there's nothing underneath, or worse, some masks are crafted to look so much like real faces that you can't tell the difference, and occasionally, a person only truly finds their own human face through a mask (like a masquerade)🙂 and only then do they become more free and sincere. As Charles Baudelaire put it: Total sincerity is a means of originality.

Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

But listen, Donna Campbell6, what you're calling "aggressive intrusion" is exactly what fuels the entire media existence for them (both the girl and the guy). If they push back too hard, they lose their relevance and slide back into anonymity, and that's the last thing they want.

Pascal hit the nail on the head with this one.

steelridge58 said:I honestly feel like this is such a profound thought because it points toward how morality is actually rooted deep within a person's own soul, emphasizing sincerity—especially that first step of being honest with oneself—as well as freedom and that heavy sense of personal responsibility we all carry. But I can't help but wonder, if we make this distinction of "true" morality against the way we usually define morality—you know, like that Wikipedia definition describing it as just a collection of unwritten rules and social customs used to judge good from evil—does that mean any moral code becomes "true" simply because it's grounded in an individual's unique personality? Or can we still draw a line even within this framework of "true" morality, distinguishing between what is genuinely moral and what is immoral, which might technically be its own kind of "morality," yet both share the common trait of disregarding the conventional, socially accepted meaning of the word?

Personally, I’d interpret this Pascalian idea by suggesting that for a human being who is inherently a moral creature (looking at you, Immanuel Kant), they don't actually need a handbook of rigid rules and regulations to act ethically; if their very essence is aligned with those universal human values—essentially, ethics—then even if they had never heard the word "morality" in their life, they would still act rightly.

To me, a Quasimoral is nothing more than hypocrisy; it's a mask, and underneath that mask, there's a human face, much like when we are finally alone with ourselves. Sometimes people try so hard to rip those masks away, but they find there's nothing underneath, or worse, some masks are crafted to look so much like real faces that you can't tell the difference, and occasionally, a person only truly finds their own human face through a mask (like a masquerade)🙂 and only then do they become more free and sincere. As Charles Baudelaire put it: Total sincerity is a means of originality.

I don't know if it's even possible to show the world the same face we see when we're staring at ourselves in the mirror. Maybe we're just stuck wearing masks. Even before we realize it, subconsciously...
But hey, I think when you're dealing with the tabloid media, you have every right to put on the most fake mask you've got, just to shut them up and get them away from... well, you know.

Brenda Cook4 said:But listen, Donna Campbell6, what you're calling "aggressive intrusion" is exactly what fuels the entire media existence for them (both the girl and the guy). If they push back too hard, they lose their relevance and slide back into anonymity, and that's the last thing they want.

Pascal hit the nail on the head with this one.

You've probably got a point there...

Donna Campbell6 said:You've probably got a point there...

Of course they're right.

The media circus might be "planted," sure, but I wouldn't say it's being "forced" on people. Aside from little kids—who, let's face it, don't really grasp the subtext of what they're watching—most "media victims" are actually just victims of their own egos and ambitions. It's less about being brainwashed and more about chasing the spotlight.

Hey, no harm done. If that's what someone wants, more power to them!

Edward Flores4 said:Of course they're right.

The media circus might be "planted," sure, but I wouldn't say it's being "forced" on people. Aside from little kids—who, let's face it, don't really grasp the subtext of what they're watching—most "media victims" are actually just victims of their own egos and ambitions. It's less about being brainwashed and more about chasing the spotlight.

Hey, no harm done. If that's what someone wants, more power to them!

Not necessarily. Don't you think people sometimes get blindsided by the results of their own ambitions? A bit like Dr. Frankenstein.

I believe it’s entirely possible for some of them to wake up one day and realize this isn't what they actually wanted, even if it seemed like the dream at the time.

For instance, it feels pretty clear to me today that I have zero desire to be 'famous.' LOL—honestly, why would I want a bunch of random nobodies knowing who I am and what I do? 😕 🤷 It's hard to find a single good reason for it.
Looking back to when I was 18... hmm... I wasn't really thinking about it then, but if the opportunity had actually popped up, I wonder what might have looked tempting to me back then.

lonegardener said:Not necessarily. Don't you think people sometimes get blindsided by the results of their own ambitions? A bit like Dr. Frankenstein.

I believe it’s entirely possible for some of them to wake up one day and realize this isn't what they actually wanted, even if it seemed like the dream at the time.

For instance, it feels pretty clear to me today that I have zero desire to be 'famous.' LOL—honestly, why would I want a bunch of random nobodies knowing who I am and what I do? 😕 🤷 It's hard to find a single good reason for it.
Looking back to when I was 18... hmm... I wasn't really thinking about it then, but if the opportunity had actually popped up, I wonder what might have looked tempting to me back then.

Like I said before—unless we're talking about kids!

Sure, an eighteen-year-old might look like an adult on paper, but let's be real—most of their "life experience" is basically just being coddled and looked after by their parents. Very few people actually have any real-world perspective at eighteen, and even if they do, it doesn't exactly carry much weight in the grand scheme of things.

Edward Flores4 said:Like I said before—unless we're talking about kids!

Sure, an eighteen-year-old might look like an adult on paper, but let's be real—most of their "life experience" is basically just being coddled and looked after by their parents. Very few people actually have any real-world perspective at eighteen, and even if they do, it doesn't exactly carry much weight in the grand scheme of things.

From what I can gather, there’s this movement in some places to ban—or at least rein in—the media for basically exploiting kids just to turn a quick buck. You see it all the time with those trashy reality talent shows and stuff like that...
But we're nowhere near seeing any actual laws passed to stop it.
Honestly, I'm starting to think lowering the age of majority to 18 was a total mistake. Especially looking at kids today... you'd probably find that someone their age a century ago was way more mature, just because life forced them to be...

Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.

The journalist in your story acted morally, as she fulfilled her duties according to both professional standards and the morality of her community.

Your example illustrates the distinction between morality and ethics, and how morality itself shifts across different historical eras (time marches on, Donna Campbell6 😁 ), various nations, social groups, and professions.

What you witnessed was "journalistic ethics" at work, which is perfectly acceptable—even desirable. 😁
The masses crave this type of information, and that hunger dictates the guidelines, regulations, and codes of "journalistic ethics."
Like all other facets of social life, journalism is conditioned by the economic structure of society, its level of development, group interests, customs, and habits.

Since morality fundamentally defines a person's social orientation toward others and the shared existence of the individual and the group, we increasingly encounter violations of "medical ethics," such as indiscretions regarding the private health matters of celebrities. This causes me far greater indignation than the lying and concealment of love in your story; it is unforgivable.

"Medical ethics" should never be conflated with "journalistic ethics," as their ethical concepts are built upon opposing foundations.
That represents a much more dangerous metastasis. It is akin to a cancer attacking a vital organ, thereby making an individual's life within the community impossible.

Donna Campbell6 said:From what I can gather, there’s this movement in some places to ban—or at least rein in—the media for basically exploiting kids just to turn a quick buck. You see it all the time with those trashy reality talent shows and stuff like that...
But we're nowhere near seeing any actual laws passed to stop it.
Honestly, I'm starting to think lowering the age of majority to 18 was a total mistake. Especially looking at kids today... you'd probably find that someone their age a century ago was way more mature, just because life forced them to be...

The real kicker is that the very people reaping these massive profits are the ones drafting the laws—which means they hold all the cards when it comes to influence.

Expecting a thief to write a law that limits their own ability to steal... well, that's pretty much wishful thinking.

I’m starting to feel like even setting the age of majority at 18 was a bit of a misstep. Or, at least, if you look at the typical 18-year-old today, their peers a century ago were probably much more mature—mostly just because life forced them to be.

Unfortunately, we're stuck in a massive conflict of interest here. On one hand, if an 18-year-old commits a violent crime, we demand they be held fully accountable for their actions. But on the flip side, we suddenly realize that same 18-year-old might not have the foresight to grasp how a sudden media spotlight could permanently derail their entire future.

But hey, that's what happens whenever we try to use the legal system to spin systemic social failures into isolated "individual incidents"—you know, that whole "few bad apples" excuse.

restlessridge36 said:The journalist in your story acted morally, as she fulfilled her duties according to both professional standards and the morality of her community.

Your example illustrates the distinction between morality and ethics, and how morality itself shifts across different historical eras (time marches on, Donna Campbell6 😁 ), various nations, social groups, and professions.

What you witnessed was "journalistic ethics" at work, which is perfectly acceptable—even desirable. 😁
The masses crave this type of information, and that hunger dictates the guidelines, regulations, and codes of "journalistic ethics."
Like all other facets of social life, journalism is conditioned by the economic structure of society, its level of development, group interests, customs, and habits.

Since morality fundamentally defines a person's social orientation toward others and the shared existence of the individual and the group, we increasingly encounter violations of "medical ethics," such as indiscretions regarding the private health matters of celebrities. This causes me far greater indignation than the lying and concealment of love in your story; it is unforgivable.

"Medical ethics" should never be conflated with "journalistic ethics," as their ethical concepts are built upon opposing foundations.
That represents a much more dangerous metastasis. It is akin to a cancer attacking a vital organ, thereby making an individual's life within the community impossible.

Back when daily newspapers were just starting to take off in Europe, it was actually pretty wild how many writers, philosophers, and big-time intellectuals fought against them. They hated the idea of cheap news.
Take Goethe, for example. He saw it coming from a mile away when he said: "The time is coming when one man's misfortune will become the entertainment of a thousand others. Every single day."
Basically, he called out exactly what you're pointing out here...

Donna Campbell6 said:I don't know if it's even possible to show the world the same face we see when we're staring at ourselves in the mirror. Maybe we're just stuck wearing masks. Even before we realize it, subconsciously...
But hey, I think when you're dealing with the tabloid media, you have every right to put on the most fake mask you've got, just to shut them up and get them away from... well, you know.

What I really wanted to get at was how there is always a way to find a person's true humanity, despite those who love to act "outraged"—like those tabloid outlets you see on every corner in America that thrive on judging the intimate details of someone else's life, essentially feeding into this petty, small-minded need to feel morally superior and righteous through their indignation.

Life has a funny way of throwing things at us that completely flip our worldview upside down, doesn't it? For instance, someone might spend their whole lives condemning homosexuality, only to suddenly find themselves staring into a completely different version of their own soul when they discover their own son is gay. Or it could work the other way around, where someone considers themselves incredibly progressive until they hit a reality check that forces them to face a side of themselves they didn't know existed—maybe it's a teenage daughter getting pregnant after they spent years judging a neighbor's kid or a cousin for the exact same thing, or just any number of those heavy, life-altering moments we all eventually stumble into.

There is also this beautiful piece by Wislawa Szymborska that captures something so profound:

happy love. Is it even normal,
is it serious, is it even useful—
what does the world gain from two people
who don't even see the world around them?

Elevated to greatness without merit,
two souls, one in a million, yet certain
that it had to be so—as a reward for what? Nothing.
Light falls from nowhere—
why specifically on them, and not on others?
Does it not offend justice? It does.
Does it not disturb the carefully ordered rules,
does it not shake morality from its height? It does both.

Just look at those lucky ones:
if only they would hide themselves just a little,
feign some sadness and thus comfort their friends!
Listen to the way they laugh—so provocatively.
And the language they speak—as if it were understandable.
And those ceremonies of theirs, those little rituals,
the way they attend to one another with such care—
it's almost as if they’ve conspired against all of humanity!

It is hard to even imagine what would happen
if others could follow their example.
What would religions or poetry have left to lean on,
what would be thought about, what would be neglected,
who would even want to stay in the game?

happy love. Who actually needs it?
Tact and reason dictate that we should be silent about it,
treating it like a scandal from the higher spheres of Life.
Wonderful children are born without its help.
It could never truly fertilize the earth,
anyway, it rarely happens.

Let those who have never known happy love
peacefully insist that it simply doesn't exist anywhere.

With that conviction, they will find it easier to live, and to die.

🙂

Nice. 🙂
Yeah, the yellow press—and honestly, most of them—basically feed on outrage. It’s their whole thing. They’re forced to constantly dig up this outdated, ultra-conservative brand of moralizing just to scrape together enough scandal to stay relevant... otherwise, they'd have nothing at all.

steelridge58 said:What I really wanted to get at was how there is always a way to find a person's true humanity, despite those who love to act "outraged"—like those tabloid outlets you see on every corner in America that thrive on judging the intimate details of someone else's life, essentially feeding into this petty, small-minded need to feel morally superior and righteous through their indignation.

Life has a funny way of throwing things at us that completely flip our worldview upside down, doesn't it? For instance, someone might spend their whole lives condemning homosexuality, only to suddenly find themselves staring into a completely different version of their own soul when they discover their own son is gay. Or it could work the other way around, where someone considers themselves incredibly progressive until they hit a reality check that forces them to face a side of themselves they didn't know existed—maybe it's a teenage daughter getting pregnant after they spent years judging a neighbor's kid or a cousin for the exact same thing, or just any number of those heavy, life-altering moments we all eventually stumble into.

There is also this beautiful piece by Wislawa Szymborska that captures something so profound:

happy love. Is it even normal,
is it serious, is it even useful—
what does the world gain from two people
who don't even see the world around them?

Elevated to greatness without merit,
two souls, one in a million, yet certain
that it had to be so—as a reward for what? Nothing.
Light falls from nowhere—
why specifically on them, and not on others?
Does it not offend justice? It does.
Does it not disturb the carefully ordered rules,
does it not shake morality from its height? It does both.

Just look at those lucky ones:
if only they would hide themselves just a little,
feign some sadness and thus comfort their friends!
Listen to the way they laugh—so provocatively.
And the language they speak—as if it were understandable.
And those ceremonies of theirs, those little rituals,
the way they attend to one another with such care—
it's almost as if they’ve conspired against all of humanity!

It is hard to even imagine what would happen
if others could follow their example.
What would religions or poetry have left to lean on,
what would be thought about, what would be neglected,
who would even want to stay in the game?

happy love. Who actually needs it?
Tact and reason dictate that we should be silent about it,
treating it like a scandal from the higher spheres of Life.
Wonderful children are born without its help.
It could never truly fertilize the earth,
anyway, it rarely happens.

Let those who have never known happy love
peacefully insist that it simply doesn't exist anywhere.

With that conviction, they will find it easier to live, and to die.

🙂

Honestly, this poem sounds like something our own moderator wrote 😵

I won't say which one 🙂

Donna Campbell6 said:Nice. 🙂
Yeah, the yellow press—and honestly, most of them—basically feed on outrage. It’s their whole thing. They’re forced to constantly dig up this outdated, ultra-conservative brand of moralizing just to scrape together enough scandal to stay relevant... otherwise, they'd have nothing at all.

That is a rather grimly accurate assessment. However, if I may add a layer of nuance, it is perhaps even more accurate to say that the public itself is the primary driver here. People crave scandals; it is the very fuel that keeps these outlets running. I suspect that because so many people feel a certain emptiness in their own daily lives, they develop this compulsive need to consume the experiences of others. It becomes even more enticing when those stories are negative or scandalous, as it allows the reader or viewer to indulge in that fleeting, hollow sense of moral superiority—that feeling of "at least my life isn't that messy." Yet, the criticism usually falls upon the journalists who orchestrate these spectacles rather than the consumers who demand them. As society becomes increasingly desensitized, the media is pushed toward ever more absurd extremes to get a reaction. In my view, prying into someone's private life can be far more immoral than any romantic drama ever could be.

Harold Adams5 said:Honestly, this poem sounds like something our own moderator wrote 😵

I won't say which one 🙂

But hey, at least we know how to read, which really means looking past the literal words to grasp what the poet was actually trying to get across! 🙂

Donna Campbell6 said:Back when daily newspapers were just starting to take off in Europe, it was actually pretty wild how many writers, philosophers, and big-time intellectuals fought against them. They hated the idea of cheap news.
Take Goethe, for example. He saw it coming from a mile away when he said: "The time is coming when one man's misfortune will become the entertainment of a thousand others. Every single day."
Basically, he called out exactly what you're pointing out here...

And now we see that happening in real-time through live TV broadcasts, just like what we're seeing today. But I think there's a deeper layer to what Goethe was getting at here; he wasn't just predicting technology, he was really tapping into certain human traits and inclinations, essentially observing how media would eventually provide a platform for those darker impulses where someone else's tragedy becomes a spectator sport for the masses.
Ultimately, it boils down to whether media editors can accurately identify what people actually crave—what they want to watch, listen to, or read—which really means pinpointing that specific market segment they can target to drive up circulation, ratings, and, of course, their bottom line.

You can't really look at this issue in a vacuum, though, because it’s deeply tied to our own everyday lives, which I suspect is the main anchor that allows the tabloid media to find its footing, stay relevant, and honestly, probably even thrive.

Here is what Paul Bruckner had to say about the nature of the everyday: The everyday is stripped of the very thing that captures our attention most: tension. There is nothing in it to make us wait with bated breath or feel a sense of trembling anticipation, because everything simply repeats itself endlessly. It’s this exhausting cycle of asking "what's new?" only to be met with the answer, "nothing special!" If, according to Baudelaire, ennui is the inability to unravel something, then banality is quite the opposite—it’s the total inability to weave something together, to start something fresh, or to create even a tiny crack in that monotonous dough of identical moments.

In a way, the media acts as a sort of surrogate for the life many people don't actually have—or perhaps even wouldn't want—offering a substitute for reality that feels far more gripping and intense than the supposedly "exciting" scenes of our actual daily existence.

Jessica Scott5 said:That is a rather grimly accurate assessment. However, if I may add a layer of nuance, it is perhaps even more accurate to say that the public itself is the primary driver here. People crave scandals; it is the very fuel that keeps these outlets running. I suspect that because so many people feel a certain emptiness in their own daily lives, they develop this compulsive need to consume the experiences of others. It becomes even more enticing when those stories are negative or scandalous, as it allows the reader or viewer to indulge in that fleeting, hollow sense of moral superiority—that feeling of "at least my life isn't that messy." Yet, the criticism usually falls upon the journalists who orchestrate these spectacles rather than the consumers who demand them. As society becomes increasingly desensitized, the media is pushed toward ever more absurd extremes to get a reaction. In my view, prying into someone's private life can be far more immoral than any romantic drama ever could be.

Well, look who decided to show up...!🙂 Helou Tipsač 🙂
Maybe craving a good old-fashioned scandal is just a basic human instinct, like hunger or thirst?! 🤔

steelridge58 said:And now we see that happening in real-time through live TV broadcasts, just like what we're seeing today. But I think there's a deeper layer to what Goethe was getting at here; he wasn't just predicting technology, he was really tapping into certain human traits and inclinations, essentially observing how media would eventually provide a platform for those darker impulses where someone else's tragedy becomes a spectator sport for the masses.
Ultimately, it boils down to whether media editors can accurately identify what people actually crave—what they want to watch, listen to, or read—which really means pinpointing that specific market segment they can target to drive up circulation, ratings, and, of course, their bottom line.

You can't really look at this issue in a vacuum, though, because it’s deeply tied to our own everyday lives, which I suspect is the main anchor that allows the tabloid media to find its footing, stay relevant, and honestly, probably even thrive.

Here is what Paul Bruckner had to say about the nature of the everyday: The everyday is stripped of the very thing that captures our attention most: tension. There is nothing in it to make us wait with bated breath or feel a sense of trembling anticipation, because everything simply repeats itself endlessly. It’s this exhausting cycle of asking "what's new?" only to be met with the answer, "nothing special!" If, according to Baudelaire, ennui is the inability to unravel something, then banality is quite the opposite—it’s the total inability to weave something together, to start something fresh, or to create even a tiny crack in that monotonous dough of identical moments.

In a way, the media acts as a sort of surrogate for the life many people don't actually have—or perhaps even wouldn't want—offering a substitute for reality that feels far more gripping and intense than the supposedly "exciting" scenes of our actual daily existence.

Or I could just go back to what JWG used to say... "We crave to hear the things we can't even believe!"
(Basically, we're desperate to hear stuff that sounds totally impossible!)
Pure hype and excitement? That's what sells. But you can't sell that unless you first manufacture this idea of "normalcy" at any cost... just so they have something to shock us with later.