I've found that the meanest, most selfish, jealous and small minded people I've come across are the small town, working class joes who've nothing better to do and who've no other interesting things going on in their lives than causing intrigue and gossiping about each other.

The stuff he complains about is stuff that I'm hardly ever exposed to, except maybe in satirical references on the daily show. TV is old hat. Celebrity gossip is the lowest sort of entertainment for idiots. There are plenty of alternatives.

@kymbos a little gossip isn't so bad now and again. In fact, it's likely programmed into our genes to be gossipy. That said, there's nothing I find particularly wrong with a curiosity about what motivates certain individuals.

Sure we'll never know with absolute certainty all of the inner workings of Steve Jobs' mind (as you pointed out), but analyzing his life and behavior will surely grant some insights about what kind of person he was and in turn how said personality reflects humanity as a whole.

I don't appreciate your "I will never know" approach here. I doubt you'd have much support among people who study Shakespeare for that idea. And as much as it makes me twitch to admit it, even studying the life of someone as lavishly ignorant as 'Snooki' would bear fruits of wisdom in the right intellectual climate. I'm not saying you have to care about him or his life, but there is always something to be gained by studying and discussion.

"An unexamined life is not worth living" as Socrates would say. Are there reasons you didn't mention for why you are suggesting the discussion should end?

Doesn't matter if this is set up or not. This would only be "news" in a gossip column.>> ^Boise_Lib:

This could easily be a set-up.
She doesn't have to be a great actress for the "producer" of the "reality show" to have set this up. That's why no news channel.
I didn't know she was going to have her own show--now I do.

Gun report fail???

re·port   [ri-pawrt, -pohrt]
noun
1.
an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.: a report on the peace conference; a medical report on the patient.
2.
a statement or announcement.
3.
a widely circulated statement or item of news; rumor; gossip.
4.
an account of a speech, debate, meeting, etc., especially as taken down for publication.
5.
a loud noise, as from an explosion: the report of a distant gun.

Gun report WIN!

Tracklist

Alphabeat - Boyfriend
Alphabeat - Fascination
Bag Raiders - Shooting Stars
Black Eyed Peas - Gotta Feeling
Britney Spears - ...Baby One More Time
Capsule - Can I Have A Word
Chromeo - Mamma's Boy
Coldplay - Viva La Vida
Daft Punk - Aerodynamic
Daft Punk - Around The World
Deadmau5 - Raise Your Weapon (Madeon Remix)
Deadmau5 - Right This Second
Ellie Goulding - Starry Eyed
ELO - Mr. Blue Sky
Girls Aloud - Biology
Gorillaz - Dare
Gossip - Heavy Cross (Fred Falke Remix)
Gwen Stefani - What You Waitin For (Jacques Lu Cont Mix)
Housse de Racket - Oh Yeah
Justice - DVNO
Justice - Phantom Part II
Katy Perry - One Of The Boys
Ke$ha - Take It Off
Kylie Minogue - Wow
Lady Gaga - Alejandro
Linkin Park - Crawling
Madonna - Hung Up
Martin Solveig ft. Dragonette - Boys and Girls
Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
Nero - Me and You
One Republic - All The Right Moves (Danger Remix)
One-T - Magic Key
Ratatat - Shempi
Solange - I Decided (Freemasons Remix)
Stardust - Music Sounds Better With You
The Buggles - Video Killed The Radio Star
The Killers - Losing Touch
The Who - Baba O'Riley (SebastiAn Remix)
Yelle - Que Veux Tu (Madeon Remix)

I don't see how regulation will do anything. Prosecute for the crimes committed, and let it go. Celebrity gossip is the price we pay for free press. And a total lack of privacy (within the bounds set by law) is the price famous people pay for their chosen careers (with the occasional exception for accidental celebrities who don't want it).

This was a bad interview due to Paul McMullen talking over everyone. Badly controlled interview. Tabloids are not journalistic, they are pop-culture trash gossip.

Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.


In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.

I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

"Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?"


I asked you the same question above. "What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?" Clearly you think the broadcasters are most culpable for the problem we both agree exists.


But why would you blame the network? It's not their job to educate or inform people. They are not a community service. They are a corporation driven by profits. Apparently, they've run the numbers and garbage is what sells. You may think it wouldn't cause a significant drop in ratings to avoid hype, but that's because you would appreciate more substantial fare. Many people would. Unfortunately the vast majority doesn't and the proof is all over every form of media available. Is that shitty news for "news"? Sure is. But to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you.

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

I shouldn't have used the word "stupid". I'm not out their clubbing mentally challenged people like baby seals. It was a catch all phrase for what I tried to clarify as "a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less." Those are the people I blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.
I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.
The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"
Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?
>> ^burdturgler:
We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.

I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.

The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"

Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?

>> ^burdturgler:

We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

We all see things through the deforming prism of our own minds. To some, bullying is the deconstruction of political philosophy. To others it's ball busting. To others it's the use of invective like libertard or statist. To others it's gossip and shit talk. To others it's the casual use of sexist or racist humor.

I like the idea, especially @Deano's channel theme tip. If you ever get to the jazz channel, I'll put myself up for participation.

I'm only afraid that there will be too little subject material. The activity on the sift comes and goes, and I have a hard time imagining what interesting could come out of discussing the discussion on the latest cat video. The majority of what "happens" on the Sift over a week revolves around the top 15 videos, and while the quality of the comments are usually above youtube level, I have to admit that they are not always newsworthy. And I hate to say it, but when you say "talking about what's happened on the Sift over the past week" I visualize @dag and @kronosposeidon gossiping about the latest Sift drama / Siftquisition and what it means for the future of the community. As entertaining as that might be, such dramas are best left untouched after they have fizzled out, in my opinion.

What I'm trying to get at with all these unnecessary words is that it would be good to hear a little more precise what you think to fill the time spot with. I'm sure you have some ideas, since you have come so far as to propose starting a podcast. I'd just hate to see a good initiative fizzle out because of unrealistic expectations.


Wow, I'm such a spoilsport. I promise that my next comment will be more positive.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

larger societal issues
OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.
Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"
The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?
Church.
Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.
I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.
I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?


it is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution.
do as we say not as we do.
you pointed this out so lets try a different exercise.
lets change "church" to "community".
and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

i know many amazing christians who live by their religious faith.they teach by example and judge noone and then you have the people you mentioned hiding behind cherry picked scripture in order to admonish and judge those they disagree with and is a huuuuge reason why many ignore some of the great teachings.
hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

i believe it all starts with parenting.
the way i see my job as a father is to instill in my boys integrity,character.
to have the courage to stand by their convictions and the humility to accept when they are wrong.
to realize the world does not revolve around them.
that choices have consequences and if they choose wrongly to accept those consequences without whining.

the question you seek to tackle is a societal one and will take far more than a comment thread to address but if you are refering to "church" as a community which could be a positive force in not only a growing childs development but also as a benefit for families in general.then i would tend to agree with you.
but many walked away from the religion due to the hypocrisy and in doing so lost that very vital part of raising a family.

thats my take on your comment...though it may appear off topic i agree with you that it is a vital component.