
Instagram Killed the Tabloid Star - raleighm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/arts/celebrity-instagram.html
======
spodek
The writer says "we" this and "we" that, as if everyone is enraptured by . . .
I don't know who the Kardashians are beyond their name. I can't name a song by
Justin Bieber.

I can't be the only one who doesn't pay attention or care about this world. I
posted about six pictures to Instagram a few years ago and can't be bothered
to do more.

It looks like a world of craving and dissatisfaction. I see people scrolling
endlessly on the subway and don't see how it improves their lives. Maybe I'll
get it one day and get sucked in.

It looks like all "want more" and no "tastes good," as I described in this old
post: [http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-
flavors](http://joshuaspodek.com/noticed-distinction-flavors)

~~~
SQueeeeeL
This is a big problem with the culture section of the Times. They really don't
think/write for the average consumer. Last week a saw them use the word
"Staning" in an article, it's really baffling editorial decisions. (Staning
refers to the song the character Stan, from a 20 year old Eminem song, whose
an obsessed fan)

~~~
mpalmer
Here's a fun thought - what if you (or the readership you defend) are no
longer the average consumer?

~~~
mantap
Newspapers don't tend to target the average consumer though. They carve out a
readership, because people want to read what they want to read.

~~~
mpalmer
Sure, and when you get down to it, there is no single prototypical average
consumer that it's profitable to market to. Publications create their own
average consumer. Fair to say though that the Times's own 'average' has
definitely shifted over the last decade.

------
rkachowski
I don't like the idea of everything now being centralised under the control of
Instagram/Facebook/Zuckerberg, but the concept of giving the control away from
the paparazzi and their invasive up skirt photography and back to the people
they harass is a pretty nice switch.

There's something to be said about the desire for celebrity news being better
satiated with a direct line to the person rather than a third party tabloid. I
guess fake news and outrage based clickbate is now the modern incarnation of
the tabloid trying to shift copies with celeb photos and gossip.

~~~
zozbot234
I have to assume that the "invasiveness" of paparazzi is greatly overstated -
a game that some tabloid stars and celebrities are willingly signing up for,
in exchange for free publicity of sorts. Because if that weren't the case,
you'd see people being sued for harassment, invasion of privacy etc. all over
the place, and that just doesn't seem to happen.

~~~
toyg
Laws in most countries allow for "public interest", more or less precisely
defined, so even people who want to opt-out of the game are typically unable
to do so. Even the UK royal family, who _do_ often sue, are not always able to
stop the paparazzi. The UK phone-hacking story resulted in a massive trial but
didn't really stop anyone from hammering the likes of Emma Watson.

------
adventured
[https://outline.com/CYg43t](https://outline.com/CYg43t)

------
Hitton
I don't consider this plausible. Although I don't have anyone who would
consume celebrity gossip or tabloids among my acquaintances (or at least they
pretend no to), I doubt that the kind of people who does consume it will be
satisfied with meticulously constructed self-presentation of celebrities when
they can have the "raw reality" brought to them by paparazzis. Tabloids are
here to stay.

------
cowpig
> Instagram is often accused of producing artificial images, but there’s
> something very honest about its commercial system

I think the author has mistaken brazenness for honesty

------
buboard
good.

~~~
kingkongjaffa
not good, replaced with something worse.

~~~
zby
It is shallow as it always was - but at least it is not mean.

~~~
cowpig
I think Instagram is harmful in different ways

------
unraveller
Not well enough, everywhere else just became inescapably tabloidal.

