In Reply to: Re: This is NOT about intelligence posted by Victor Khomenko on July 10, 2000 at 05:48:14:
...Jim Carrie fan eh? I never would have guessed ;-) Actually, I'm not either.I dont think its fair to single out this type of entertainment and read to much into its achieving mass distribution compared to the past because thats a technology issue, not an art or societal issue. With the internet, cable, satellite communications and the myraid of other communication channels spewing information forth EVERY form of expression has increased exponentially. We've got 24/7 religous cable TV channels, Consevative (as well as liberal) talk radio hosts with national syndication, 24/7 coverage of congress on TV (2 channels), and a half doxen 24/7 domesitc and international news channels - we didnt have that in the '50s. And lots more people watch TV than go to movies. A movie in in 1950 was true mass comunication when it came to visual imagery - people didnt have TV. What portion of available viewing time and audience reach does a movie like this have in the TV era of today in comparison? I think one could argue that this is still the fringe and that the number of people it reaches in proportion to other media is no greater than it ever was...
joe
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- So you're not the worlds biggest.... - Joe S 07:03:36 07/10/00 (4)
- Ah, but... - Victor Khomenko 07:55:37 07/10/00 (3)
- True to an extent... - Joe S 08:41:39 07/10/00 (2)
- Why is cable bundled? - Shane 12:49:17 07/10/00 (1)
- Not that way - Victor Khomenko 12:57:59 07/10/00 (0)