Started By
Message
re: Is anyone else annoyed with the media's obsession with the royal wedding?
Posted on 5/19/18 at 2:59 pm to Weagle25
Posted on 5/19/18 at 2:59 pm to Weagle25
Anecdotal but this is a pointless argument. The only way to know for sure is to take a sample of Americans, sequester them from all media, then show them a list of stories and ask what they think the media should cover and how much...I would imagine in that scenario that the Royal wedding would be lower than the coverage it's currently receiving...but this is dumb because we can't do studies like this.
I'll just adjust my statement: the Media shouldn't cover it because it's a stupid story about an increasingly irrelevant royal family in a country we don't live in and there are far more important stories that actually affect us to cover...and the only people that like it are vapid housewives living vicariously through the brides.
I'll just adjust my statement: the Media shouldn't cover it because it's a stupid story about an increasingly irrelevant royal family in a country we don't live in and there are far more important stories that actually affect us to cover...and the only people that like it are vapid housewives living vicariously through the brides.
This post was edited on 5/19/18 at 3:00 pm
1
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:05 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
there are far more important stories that actually affect us to cover..
What do they cover when the royals are not getting married?
Pointless stories about meaningless bullshite that they talk about over and over and over. It really baffles me that you think they’re hurting to cover all the stories we need to know about. The main criticism of the 24 hour news cycle is they have to make up bullshite and get us to care about it in order to fill the time.
I’d rather us go back to one news report in th morning. One when people get home from work and that’s it.
This post was edited on 5/19/18 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:10 pm to Weagle25
You're forcing an argument where there isn't one.
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:12 pm to KSGamecock
I’m not forcing anything. What are we missing coverage of?
What’s so important that the media should cover over a story that half the population cares about?
What’s so important that the media should cover over a story that half the population cares about?
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:20 pm to Vols&Shaft83
I dont think Harry is Charles's kid. I think he is the bastard son of the Master of Horse, that was Diana's riding instructor. I think Diana was banging him because Charles was railing Camilla.
Somebody should give Harry a 23 and me kit for his wedding gift!
Somebody should give Harry a 23 and me kit for his wedding gift!
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:27 pm to Weagle25
Any range of issues that aren't a wedding. Syria, Israel, the Iraqi elections, various domestic issues and greater coverage of economic and legislative issues, take your pick. There are a million more important things.
You are forcing an argument. I'm talking about how I'd like the Media to act in my imaginary better world, you're talking about how it is.
You are forcing an argument. I'm talking about how I'd like the Media to act in my imaginary better world, you're talking about how it is.
Posted on 5/19/18 at 3:51 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
They’re an institution that has long outlived their usefulness and they live off of the British taxpayers while being among the richest people in the world.
The amount of money the Royal Family pumps into the British economy is not to be sneered at. Without the "Crown Lands" Britain would be even more bankrupt. We won't talk about the sheer amount of money that Royal Family tourism pumps into the public coffers.
Now, I can see them being useless. I mean... unlike 4 of the last 7 Presidents the Royal family has served during wartime. Including combat operations.
They did not bravely dodge serving in the military like such stalwart heroes as Trump (my feet hurt and I'm a really big pussy), Obama (thank God we didn't have a war because me and Trump are having a slap fight over who is a bigger pussy), Bill Clinton (you are what you eat so I'm a bigger pussy then either of you two), or Ronnie Reagan (watch in amazement as I spend World War II making VD films about eating bad pussy.)
Yes, if only the Brits could have public servants so devoted to the common good as we do. God, can you imagine what the British monarchy would be like if they had two such stalwart warriors as Trump and Obama as their last two monarchs?
Posted on 5/19/18 at 4:26 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
I dont think Harry is Charles's kid. I think he is the bastard son of the Master of Horse, that was Diana's riding instructor. I think Diana was banging him because Charles was railing Camilla.
Somebody should give Harry a 23 and me kit for his wedding gift!
Yeah, I think this is true.
Posted on 5/19/18 at 4:34 pm to kywildcatfanone
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News