Where normally it should be data and general journalism that brings these issues to light, but we live in a age now where "reporters" take their “emerging and growing problem” list from Netflix?
Who is representing who at this point? Are the public involved at all, or is just media companies and other corps versus each other?
> "reporters" take their “emerging and growing problem” list from
Netflix?
Your point was actually the authors point too. Quite a truculent
critique from Guardian's Martha Gill:
"It probably shouldn’t work like this. Policy decisions would ideally
not hinge on the quality of an actor’s performance (Adolescence had
some spectacular ones, which explains its success), and whether
politicians manage to catch the latest Netflix series. It makes us
look a little emotionally incontinent, as a country, when the
decisions of TV drama commissioners weigh quite so heavily in our
politics. But the fickle spotlight of political attention has landed
here, for now."
However, it's always worked like this since Plato feared the Poets and
Shakespeare shaped Elizabethan England. I think politics by artists is
much preferable to politics by "engineers", though the latter get the
ears of the engine the former speak directly to the hearts of the
people. Both are needed.
Smartphones and social media have destroyed society and TV series
"Adolescence" is only a tepid glimpse of the mental-health and
cultural epidemic that we've been avoiding talking about for decades
now. Whether you trust the "data" or people's "emotions", the picture
looks the same now.
that's quite the reach, and it almost seems like it's trying to paint very valid anti-social media sentiments as some sort of generational hysteria.