i'll admit i was being a bit facetious but it does piss me off when im reading a "quality" paper and theres an article on posh's hair in the NEWs section.
surely thats gossip at best. many a time ive bought the indo and its been past page 8 before i get any actual news
more and more journalism has become a poseurs paradise where who you socialise with is more important than doing the job!
And of course the print media is stuffed with pink news, trivilisation. But then, the print media doesn't make its money on the cover price, it does so on the advertisements. And female eyeballs on the ads will always yield higher rates. So feminise they must!Originally Posted by Electro
Yes, absolutely. Some may call the talk of female-focused media being a "conspiracy theory", when of course, it's no conspiracy at all! How could it be a "conspiracy" when it is an accepted reality?said in jest but spot on.
the irish media is now top heavy with women which is why its going down the tiolet. alot of these adds are simply womens attempt at humour and hence... crap.
TV and radio adds are bad enough but look at the state of the broadsheets now. its all slanted with a post feminist angle combined with some of the hacked journalism you'd ever see.
remember with fond regard your news and media of old. its all down here from now on
Women control the media both indirectly, through their consumer spending (85% of high-profit consumer spending done by women), and also directly by controlling the media organisations on a management level. E.g. the top positions at the BBC including Vision and Radio, MTV Networks among others all have female heads.
BBC presenter Sir Patrick Moore spoke out against this female-bias in the media back in May:
Interesting were the comments to that article, where one guy responded to the many women trying to deflect blame from the female execs:“The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn’t have had that in the golden days.
I was in hospital once and I watched a whole episode of EastEnders. I suppose it’s true to life. But so is diarrhoea – and I don’t want to see that on television.”
[quote:67i5qcra]Fascinating ... usually the people in charge who make the decisions are to blame when standards drop , except of course , in this case ! Even though women are in charge of seemingly every department , it can't possibly be their fault . Surely it's the rest of us who have the problem , for not wanting to watch the drivel that is currently being served .
The Irish Independent is a good example of a well-feminised newspaper.
The demand for serious, sober news coverage primarily for men is still there, however since the marketing focus shifted from males to females in recent time, money interested aren't bothered in meeting that demand any more. (There was once a time, as crazy it as it seems now, when men where the prime target for advertising dollars.)
I maintain that in a few decades time newspapers as we know them will no longer exist.[/quote:67i5qcra]
Do you know how 'The Sun' or 'Sky News' achieved their huge market share?
Sports.
The Sun has, by far, the most extensive sports coverage of all the papers - complete with rumour mills about who might transfer to which team and who has fallen out with his teammates and/or manager.
Ditto for Sky. Rupert Murdoch is completely open about this. He uses control of sports through exclusive licensing to gain market share and muscle out competition.
You also might want to look at the amount of money RTE, the Indo, and other TV stations have put into sports coverage. I believe it's quite a lot and it has been increasing over the past few years.
Sports is a trivial subject - does it really matter who runs Newcastle or that yet another crap defender is about to receive ridiculous amounts of money? Yet huge amounts of money are blown it year after year.
Sports coverage and sports sections are not aimed at the female demographic. They are also nothing new. I know lots of guys who can reel off their Top Ten Serie A defenders of the 1990s but have no conception of politics or political parties in their own countries.
So I would dispute your thesis that the media has becoem trivialised by women. Selling to the male demographic trivialised it years ago. Also, the argument that it is overrun with content aimed at females I think is undermined by the fact that the money spent on sports coverage, and the amount of sports coverage, is astronomical and ever-growing.
I accept your point on the money and media space that goes to sport. It is a trivial subject, as far as I'm concerned, just as celebrity and alot of "lifestyle" coverage is. Sports does not interest me at all.So I would dispute your thesis that the media has becoem trivialised by women. Selling to the male demographic trivialised it years ago. Also, the argument that it is overrun with content aimed at females I think is undermined by the fact that the money spent on sports coverage, and the amount of sports coverage, is astronomical and ever-growing.
So what then about the men who are not into sports and cannot bring themselves to watching women's programming either? There's more to male-orientated programming (and journalism) than the sports section, IMO.
The fact remains that there is less and less space devoted to men in the media. Take a look at TV3's schedule: beyond the sports programmes and perhaps the news, there is nothing to appeal to men. Rather, most of the schedule caters fairly directly for females.
Sure enough then, with similar channels in the UK, % female viewership on ITV is 67%, on Channel 4 60%, on the BBC it is a similar proportion. What does this tell us? I think it tells us that the mainstream media is being made irrelevant to men.
True, RTE's live sport broadcasts rank well in the ratings, but I'd wager that broadcasters are more interested in the huge young female audience that shows such as Desperate Housewives attracts.
And yes, Murdoch is one of the big investors in sport, but have you seen magazine sent out to Sky customers? It's completely female-focused. Incidently, the Sun, while it does provide a lot of coverage to sport, does not shy away from doing misandric, anti-male campaigns such as this one.
The Sun is not what I would regard as a "male orientated" magazine or one that respects its male audience. As you can see, the feminisation process in the Sun is already there. Long term, the plan is probably to convert the Sun brand to being female-centric, and in the process, convert the advertising cash.
Female readers of, say, the Style supplement of Murdoch's Sunday Times wouldn't have to worry about being insulted in the middle of their magazine.
So, in summary. The sports pages/sections are not enough, serious sections are being eroded by trivilisation/lifestyle commentary, and men are being gradually disregarded by the mainstream media.
That's what happens when you're not the target demographic!i'll admit i was being a bit facetious but it does piss me off when im reading a "quality" paper and theres an article on posh's hair in the NEWs section.
surely thats gossip at best. many a time ive bought the indo and its been past page 8 before i get any actual news
From what I can see, there is a lot of stupid shows on tv that are geared towards women, and few of them are aimed at the intellect. This is no surprise.
you know this does bring up an interesting point.
is this why men seem to dominate the web?
in regards to whats been posted about TV and the print media i have to admit i spend more time online than i do watching TV or reading newspapers. mainly because im bored out of my head by how low brow it is. i dont mean to come off pretentious but its a joy to be on sites like this were i can actually be intelectually stimulated and the net allows me to pick and choose from my favourite programs. ive been in heaven the last few weeks streaming old HORIZON episodes (heres hoping we all dont get killed when they turn on the large hadron collider in november !) and what i would call other quality TV shows and documentaries (always amazes me how stuff done in the 50s and 60s is leagues ahead in terms of concepts and innovation than alot of the stuff we get now with all our technological advantages in terms of productions)
ok theres alot of porn and crap out there but its also WAY easier to get the more meaty material up on your screen.
makes me wonder if when advertising is as prevelent on the net will it go the way of TV? hopefully not !
New misandrist ad for Spec Savers on RTÉ. That's a second for Spec Savers. This one involves a woman liberating herself from some man who's holding her back. She winds up alone and happy on a beach where she can wave at young lads. Notice this idea of man as either fool or sex toy.
(The old ad had a woman threatening to disinherit her awkward son in favour of the young stud of a gardener. She leers at him out the window. Now imagine a man threatening to disinherit his daughter in favour of the hot young au pair lying out in the garden. That would be "nasty".)
I wonder if the negative depiction of men in ads is contributing to that large cohort of depressed, disaffected and desperate young men, who have made suicide the leading cause of death for Irish men between the ages of 15-34 ?
Wow, a visitor from planet reality alights upon this thread. Chris you've missed the point, this thread is for bitter idiots to moan about, you know, stuff. Reality is not a welcome guest.
Now, off with you and spend some of that oh-so-reputably sourced 85% of consumer spending on high value items. Oh, and get busy controlling that media too, I want wall to wall men are bastards, please, then get my dinner for me there dear.
You are suggesting that a campaign to high light the plight of battered women is anti-male in general!!!???Incidently, the Sun, while it does provide a lot of coverage to sport, does not shy away from doing misandric, anti-male campaigns such as this one.
I hate to break it to you dude, but most men don't actually go about battering women and, y'know, most of us even think that those people who do go about beating their partners in such a manner are, like, total scum.
If you really do think that the campaign in question is anti-male (or misandric to borrow your fancy sounding term), then you should stop beating your wife and you will quickly realise that it isn't anti-you any longer, it's anti those men who beat their wives, which is okay with most of the sane population (ie, pretty much nobody except chris on this thread).
