Do You Know What Prolefeed Is?

Nice post!!

I'm all for the effort to wake up the comfortable complacent do-nothing public at large...

What you are more referring to in comparing the benefits and costs to society is the idea of external benefits and costs of the products' entry into the public. External benefits are positive effects on society unforeseen or unintended by the producer of the good or service; external costs are merely negative forms of these. The possible external benefits of your more "logical" publications could be the spreading of information in perpetuation of knowledge to those potentially advancing upon such reported advancements in different fields, inspiration for new ideas in various fields, and familiarity with important fields essential to society's progress such as science, philosophy, and government. The possible external benefits from your idea of "prolefeed" are probably more indirect and personal such as a stress-relieving and entertaining activity which to enjoy, a source of inspiration for artistic development (fashion, film, and music), and familiarity with topics enabling people to share common interests around which to be sociable with each other, thus spurring social interaction and togetherness. The benefits of both can arguably be considered of greater worth to each other, however, regardless of their perceived importance or worth, they both benefit society in a variety of ways - this is true because they continue to exist and thrive as society has. Both are equally beneficial to society because if they weren't, a conceivably social natural selection would have by now through the evolutionary development of human society eliminated such activities.

Please don't twist Orwell's intentions, for his words had much meaning and power that can only be tarnished with misconstruing.

I agree with many here - this isn't news, it's an opinion and mildly a rant.

This to me comes off as ridiculously elitist. First, you claiming that those consumers of said prolefeed are inherently proles and of lesser class, or at least those with its consumption subject themselves to lower status. What you are saying is that the fact that some are less interested in "intelligent" sources as the news publications you mentioned makes it so that these people should automatically be considered as lesser to their intelligent-topic-concerned counterparts. How one's interest in entertainment sources acts as a direct reflection of either one' ability, intelligence, class, or contribution to society is beyond me. You make it seem that a 40-year-old firefighter reading his weekly Sports Illustrated is lesser to a 20-year-old college student reading TIME. To decide who is more or less able or more or less contributory to society merely along the lines of personal preferences in reference to entertainment is not only unfounded but ignorant. It takes no other factors or outside variables into account in its determination of class and prestige. Criticizing those you find emotionally immature merely by what magazines or TV shows they watch is immature in itself.

Second, your malignant understanding of what you consider to be prolefeed, celebrity entertainment, is idealistic and essentially incorrect. What should be understood here is the effect produced by such prolefeed as you mentioned - especially due to the fact that such material is considered prolefeed because of its enfeebling effects upon the lower classes. Although entertainment magazines and media don't concentrate on material such as politics, medicine, or any other supposedly higher level material, they still produce a product consumed by consumers who provide a demand for such products. These consumers hold no difference to consumers demanding sources such as news, political commentary, and other "higher" publications. They provide no different of a demand to an equal product which creates profit in no different dollars than any other product. The industry employs millions, adds to the GDP, and acts as creative businesses competing to meet demand and therefore must themselves evolve and innovate as other companies do. So considering one product as better to another cannot be determined far outside of the efficiency of their productions and their contributions to the GDP, which for both are generally on par (other than the fact that the entertainment industry is much larger than many of the publications you mentioned).

Also Morgan, I find your description of celebrities a bit off. You claim that "these celebrities, the upper class, would not likely care about them, the proletariat, the lower classes" They may not care about us in a personal way (I'm not getting any Christmas Cards from Angelina Jolie) but the "masses" are the reason they make money. Of course they care about us, of course they want publicity, because that's how you make the loot.

Then you say "And most of all, the chances of one of us lowerclasspeople rising to the higher ranks in society is very low." What kind of defeatist sentiment is that? First of all, a lot of celebrities themselves were once "lower class", whether it's Madonna who used to eat popcorn and ramen in her NYC apartment or Jay-Z selling crack in his neighborhood (and then rapping about it.) There are some "debutants" who were born into money and fame (like Paris Hilton), but I'd say a majority of famous and rich people had to work REALLY hard for what they had and still do.

Don't hate 'cause they stack paper to the ceiling.

This post is confusing two issues: so called "prolefeed" and "celebrity obsession". I'll start with the latter since I consider it easier: If you are obsessed with celebrities, you need some help. You shouldn't really be "obsessed" with anything, and if caring about celebrities is interfering with your life or has replaced your life, it's therapist time.

However, there are other reasons to read trashy magazines. Sometimes you are interested in an actor you like, sometimes you need an escape from all of the politics and disaster in the world, sometimes you want to see what the new fashion is before it hits the streets, sometimes you want something to laugh at with your girlfriends on a lazy night. Who cares? Read what you want. At least you are reading!

I'll close with my personal take on "prolefeed"- The Bible. It's still the best selling book in the world, and it sure as hell affects the actions of a lot more people than a dumb chick mag!

Regardless of your opinion, this isn't news.
This is your opinion and feelings on a subject which is entirely subjective, just as much as the much disdained Bill O'Reilly. Which is to say it has no merit claiming to be news on a news network, or in this case news site.

Down voted.

I find it ludicrous that you can be so critical when you wish to be a game designer which is to have the very same effect as the prolefeed. Dumbing down America, OH COME ON

Prolefeed helps to pass the time while you are waiting to see the dentist, otherwise?

I find it 'entertaining' that we sit around and argue about whether Time is better than People or CNN compared to FOX when, in reality, there are only a handful of corporations that run the whole gamut; radio, literature, television, movies... you name it, it's controlled - all aimed at disinformation for a dumbed down population...

If anyone wants to know who Edward Bernays was,please see the video clip on youtube about this man, this monster was the nephew of Sigmund Freud and was hired by the corporations to brain wash the US.
He is also call the father of public relations , thats why we have the kind of TV in this planet, just to keep people dumb.
See the video on yoube please!

The only thing worse than a dystopia is a narrow eutopia.

It is a good post Morgan and there is too much emphasis on celebrities, gossip columns, etc....however...I find your glee in going to the entertainment section of Current and voting it all down to be snobbery of the ultimate level. You can't force people to like what YOU like or don't like. I give my sister a hard time about soaps..but I sure as hell would not take it upon myself to tell her she can or could not watch them.

I have put articles on here about medical research that has done remarkable things, scientific research, political items, historical articles and many things get voted down and I have often wondered why. Especially when it is about promoting something GOOD or, in some cases, remembering history so we don't repeat ourselves. Censorship, which is what you are doing, based solely upon your likes or dislikes is just that, censorship. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Put down that People Magazine, and pick up something intelligent, like TIME or Reason Magazine."

I like that this post focused on the reader, not the publisher. They're capitalists, and they'll produce whatever we consume. If we raise the bar, they'll be forced to reach that high. As long as we watch the news channels and read tabloids, they'll be scraping asphalt.

Excellent post FallenMorgan. I enjoyed it.

What people should realize is that these celebrities, the upper class, would not likely care about them, the proletariat, the lower classes. Some may care, but others are just selfish crude jerks. People need to realize that they're probably never going to get a celebrity in bed, let alone have a five minute conversation with them. And most of all, the chances of one of us lowerclasspeople rising to the higher ranks in society is very low.

I'm not a Communist, but I must give Marx some credit. He was right about the class struggle. The upper class controls almost everything, but if the lower class were to control everything, those in control would become the upper class. Look at the Soviet Union - how many Soviet leaders lived under the same conditions as the average worker?

This is another reason for discussion of the difference of social classes, intelligence, mob mentality, high brow versus low brow, crude humor versus humor providing social commentary...the list goes on. Actually, I could even talk about it for hours, but I won't do that.

There is definitely a HUGE divide in pop culture in general as far as "good" media and "bad" media. But, as long as we have people who find tabloids and trashy magazines entertaining or useful, it's not going to go away.

It's Damocles sword, I read most of the "true" news stories, but when i hit news overload, I will sometimes read some stupid pop piece to take the serious edge off (I take it with a grain of salt though). I'd say moderation in celebrity adoration (all things really) would be a good idea, but we live in an era of over consumption and gluttony, and its common place to overdo everything now.

word brother

I've always thought the idea of Prolefeed that Orwell described wasn't just something to "enfeeble the masses" per se, but to give them only one choice, that of Big Brother through multiple sources, in order for them to lead a happy, fulfilled, and socially acceptable existence under the watchful eyes of their betters.

Now, while I agree that certain aspects of the "Infotainment-Industrial Complex" have the power to distract large numbers of people from otherwise important issues that effect our everyday lives, I don't think it is strong, or coordinated, enough to make us all start bowing down in front of our duly elected leaders and give them our complete and unquestioning loyalty...

I read your entire blog. I think you make some good points, and yet you miss the mark on a couple of important issues.

First, the picture you refer to of Kristen Stewart smoking pot is not mindless prolefeed. Smoking pot for many is a subversive act layered with meaning and real risk. A picture of a celebrity smoking weed is another small step in normalizing marijuana consumption.

Second, be careful about judging others. You advocate reading sensible material like "Time" and "Reason" and eschew celebrity tabloids. The fallacy is that you assume the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. It is possible for the same person to consume great literature, the Sunday Times, Time magazine and a collection of supermarket tabloids.

Orwell's vision of the future was dark and cold. I think he would be pleasantly surprised with the internet and sites like "Current".

.

Has anybody taken the time to read the entire blog?

I had no idea there was an objective behind the mindless magazines, or tabloids. Then again, I was never attracted to them as reading material.

Thanks for posting this. You find some dark stuff Morgan... (she smiles).

The media promotes nothing but more negativeness and hate, just look what they did to Sarah Palin, she was bound to get into the media.....Celebrites doesn't care about any of the middle-class or lower-class, they are unrelated to what affects us on a daily basis, they are useless, futile...it distracts people from the real problem....the media should be destroyed, if we didn't have the media around, there would surely be more free-thinkers around and more people to work to together to solve most, or even all of our problems today...the obsession...people would do ANYTHING to look like those darn celebrites, being way too skinny is not healthy at all.....religion surrounds it all, as it devours the gay marriages...the media;THIS is not our religion, THIS is not our fate nor our desire, THIS is not the way it was suppose to be....the influence is growing even more, can you see that the media is what we have been trying to delete? The media has caused so much over the years, that it seems to have stripped away all the common sense we used to have, it threw away the very fabric of thinking or doing what we want to do...this is part of how we became what China has become today, unstable and hypocrite..the media has soiled the part of America that we used to be proud of, it killed what we can believe in and what not to, it controlled us like mind zombies, to obey its every command, its sick, its wrong, therefore, we have to stop it, before it completely takes away this whole generation of humanity...the media is evil and shall always be evil..

Thank you for posting this..FallenMorgan.

Entertainment for the great, unwashed masses is nothing new. Since man climbed down from the trees, lit a fire, and gathered around it, homo sapiens has sought meaning in both the meaningful and meaningless. Who am I to judge?

Welcome to the dystopian, cyberpunk future of the year 2008.

We are definately inundated with rediculous media/TV coverage of these celebrities lives..... I think the main problem is the fact that these tabloids sell more than time or newsweek. I loathe the mags in the supermarket line, could there be anything less crude to look at? People are just too bored or dissatisfied with their own lives, they have to put others on some kind of pedestal.