[MBTI General] Newspapers, Sensation, and Freethinking

[Provoker]

Newspapers, like fashionable shirts and sweet-smelling colognes, are carefully crafted to appeal to the sensational needs of its readers. Often, this is accomplished by constructing a paper that is presentable, uses large splashy fonts that get the reader's attention, has sensationally-luring headings, and pictures that are emotionally provocative. The content (if we can call it that) is also sensationally-rigged, riddled with catchphrases rather than careful critical analysis in plain English. This mastery of excitation, which is pursued by newspapers and critical for stimulating popular demand and consumption of its stories, is especially effective when catering to sensors who comprise 70 percent of the population. With the technological innovations afforded by the communications revolution, the shrinking of spacetime from globalization, and with sensors comprising the majority, the way in which ideas and stories are presented becomes more important than the ideas themselves, given that the newspaper is driven by the bottom line. Yet, at a more sophisticated level of society, a strata which is more cerebral and skeptical in nature, these adornments, with their appeal to passion, the senses, and emotion, become comparatively more superfluous, though by no means forgotten. What becomes increasingly important is the capacity to tickle the reader's intellect in a way that puts the newspaper ahead of its competitors who are targetting the same group. Here the sensation takes new form. The sensation may be in the way a pundit glues all the details together into a coherent whole that makes the thinker think: Aha! Still there is arousal and excitation, not in the form of an appeal to the senses and emotion, but to the intellect. But what about to the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction? Does such a god-like person exist? If so, what would be the newspapers' tools for getting this person to buy their papers?

P

 

[PeaceBaby]

But what about to the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction? Does such a god-like person exist?

No. If my type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does yours.

If so, what would be the newspapers' tools for getting this person to buy their papers?

Sex.

Last time I checked, N's and smart people like it too. (I love putting the hug smilie in the NT forum ...)

Or maybe lots of crossword puzzles ...

 

[Provoker]

PeaceBaby,

That was a valiant effort. Unfortunately, it hardly makes it past first base (sensation), let alone to some of the higher appeals such as intellectualism and beyond. More sex appeal? I am less likely to buy Peoples Magazine or a Pornographic Magazine than I am The Economist, thus this directly contradicts your thesis that more sex appeal will be more effective for getting freethinkers to buy their papers. Crosswords? Not necessarily, the freethinker is likely to be indifferent to facts he deems not worth knowing, and crosswords are typically filled with such frivolous drivel.

If my type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does yours.

This is a thoughtless assumption. Different things exist for different people. Unfortunately, those who can't see past their own noses are slow to understand the perception of the other side, but such perceptions do exist. To put it bluntly, if I'm using a hockey stick and someone asks, "how do you like the curve on that stick?" I say, "it's perfect," meaning that it completely meets my standards of how a curve on a hockey stick ought to be, who are you to say this "perfection" doesn't exist? Maybe not for you, maybe you've never experienced it, but it does not follow that because you haven't experienced this perfection that it can't exist for others.

Smiles. Incidentally, I was hoping from the original post that someone would make the argument that for the god-like thinker nothing would be new and thus news would be irrelevant.

 

[Sniffles]

You know just yesterday and earlier today I was pondering upon similar issues in regards to the effects of TV on in-depth public discourse; in wake of my light readings from The Daily Show and Philosophy.

 

[nightning]

The newspapers? They do target marketing...

In other words, they don't try to appeal directly to the intellect, instead they tailor to our other needs.

Imagine yourself opening a paper... which sections do you read? It should require no thinking... something that you can tell me in 2 sec because those are the sections you read... and the ONLY sections you read unless you're bored out of your minds and got nothing else better to do but read the rest.

e.g. You buy the newspaper to get world news... you don't buy to "educate" you. The intellect doesn't feed on newspapers... you're better off with books or perhaps specialized magazines but not newspapers.

Sensationalism for newspapers are very on the surface. Enough in the headlines to get you to buy. End of purpose.

It's been so taken for granted that's what newspapers are that you wouldn't even know what is "a bad paper" unless the thing is full of mistakes, typos etc. Much like how conventional telephone services can be crappy as hell but nobody switches companies.

Things need to start changing now though... because online free sources are taking over. Sensationalism isn't going to save papers.

 

[Blank]

I'm pretty sure there is a naked news program.

Or we could have political pornographic cartoons. Instead of "OH GOD!" inject "OH SCIENCE!" or some such.

 

[INTJ123]

I don't think such a person would bring in enough business for the paper company to care. If they lose 1% in sales for not catering to this type of consumer it's not a big deal. The main priority in the business should be geared toward appealing to the sensors.

 

[PeaceBaby]

That was a valiant effort. Unfortunately, it hardly makes it past first base (sensation), let alone to some of the higher appeals such as intellectualism and beyond. More sex appeal? I am less likely to buy Peoples Magazine or a Pornographic Magazine than I am The Economist, thus this directly contradicts your thesis that more sex appeal will be more effective for getting freethinkers to buy their papers. Crosswords? Not necessarily, the freethinker is likely to be indifferent to facts he deems not worth knowing, and crosswords are typically filled with such frivolous drivel.

I was being somewhat facetious with my original reply. (Plus I was attempting cheekiness as NT's seem wont to do.) You took me too literally my friend!

Let's assume your god-like person does exist - "the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction". Our current news machines feed off of the fears and desires of the masses and indeed rely upon it. And without a foundation of "seduction", your freethinker would be impelled by no outer force to participate in the dialogue of any news source. Since there would be nothing for them as an individual that needs satisfying, gratifying or placating. No motivation.

But such a person does not really exist, and since intellectualism is not divorced from sensory seduction, we see all the Lexus and BMW adverts in the supposedly "higher thinking" newspapers ... clearly appealing to a certain elitism or income bracket.

This is a thoughtless assumption. Different things exist for different people. Unfortunately, those who can't see past their own noses are slow to understand the perception of the other side, but such perceptions do exist. To put it bluntly, if I'm using a hockey stick and someone asks, "how do you like the curve on that stick?" I say, "it's perfect," meaning that it completely meets my standards of how a curve on a hockey stick ought to be, who are you to say this "perfection" doesn't exist? Maybe not for you, maybe you've never experienced it, but it does not follow that because you haven't experienced this perfection that it can't exist for others.

My assumption is not thoughtless as you assert nor is your explanation necessary.

The gist of my comment, the essence, was that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world. Regardless of your "perception". Unless you want to argue we live in a perfect world ... I'm game if you are.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Newspapers, like fashionable shirts and sweet-smelling colognes, are carefully crafted to appeal to the sensational needs of its readers. Often, this is accomplished by constructing a paper that is presentable, uses large splashy fonts that get the reader's attention, has sensationally-luring headings, and pictures that are emotionally provocative. The content (if we can call it that) is also sensationally-rigged, riddled with catchphrases rather than careful critical analysis in plain English. This mastery of excitation, which is pursued by newspapers and critical for stimulating popular demand and consumption of its stories, is especially effective when catering to sensors who comprise 70 percent of the population. With the technological innovations afforded by the communications revolution, the shrinking of spacetime from globalization, and with sensors comprising the majority, the way in which ideas and stories are presented becomes more important than the ideas themselves, given that the newspaper is driven by the bottom line. Yet, at a more sophisticated level of society, a strata which is more cerebral and skeptical in nature, these adornments, with their appeal to passion, the senses, and emotion, become comparatively more superfluous, though by no means forgotten. What becomes increasingly important is the capacity to tickle the reader's intellect in a way that puts the newspaper ahead of its competitors who are targetting the same group. Here the sensation takes new form. The sensation may be in the way a pundit glues all the details together into a coherent whole that makes the thinker think: Aha! Still there is arousal and excitation, not in the form of an appeal to the senses and emotion, but to the intellect. But what about to the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction? Does such a god-like person exist? If so, what would be the newspapers' tools for getting this person to buy their papers?

P

Oh, you mean like life? Or maybe the opposite of this place. Unless we get robots to tell the news there will always be a level of subjectivity and emotion. There are no decisions made without emotion. People would be so bored with robot newcasters/reporters that nobody would even bother to pay attention.

 

[Provoker]

The gist of my comment, the essence, was that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world. Regardless of your "perception". Unless you want to argue we live in a perfect world ... I'm game if you are.

I disagree. Perfection and imperfection are both perception-based. Thus, the world is neither perfect nor imperfect indepedent of human interpretation and evaluation. The world just is. As a result, inadvertantly your declarative statement, that the world is 'imperfect', is as much perception-based as the statement that the world is 'perfect,' since both imply that man is the measure of the world we live in. Therefore, my saying "the hockey stick is perfect in that it completely meets my standards for how a stick ought to be" is as dependent on perception as another's statement "that that hockey stick is imperfect because we live in an imperfect world." In this vein, perfection is comparable to other abstract ideals such as happiness. If you say, "I'm happy", am I in a position to say that this happiness cannot exist because I think the world is imperfect? That's about what your argument adds up to.

 

[Kangirl]

The hockey stick is imperfect from my perspective because it hasnt been used to beat the people who start threads like this.

What is this even about? Are you proposing something Provoker? And if so, can you propose it in one sentence, just for interest's sake?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I disagree. Perfection and imperfection are both perception-based. Thus, the world is neither perfect nor imperfect indepedent of human interpretation and evaluation. The world just is. As a result, inadvertantly your declarative statement, that the world is 'imperfect', is as much perception-based as the statement that the world is 'perfect,' since both imply that man is the measure of the world we live in. Therefore, my saying "the hockey stick is perfect in that it completely meets my standards for how a stick ought to be" is as dependent on perception as another's statement "that that hockey stick is imperfect because we live in an imperfect world." In this vein, perfection is comparable to other abstract ideals such as happiness. If you say, "I'm happy", am I in a position to say that this happiness cannot exist because I think the world is imperfect? That's about what your argument adds up to.

Since the world is only constituted of your perception of it, and there is no measure to see the world just as it "is" you cannot assign it neutrality. The world equally "is not" but again there is no way to objectively determine the polarity or fluidity of that. Reality based only on your own personal interpretation is subjective, since it revolves around YOU and not the summative experience of all individuals, and is thus imperfect. Therefore the world could be extrapolated as imperfect as well.

It would have been more entertaining for you to declare that the world must be perfect because cumulative subjective experiences shape it towards perfection.

The hockey stick is imperfect from my perspective because it hasnt been used to beat the people who start threads like this.

What is this even about? Are you proposing something Provoker? And if so, can you propose it in one sentence, just for interest's sake?

LOL!

Please do share with us all, since I am curious too.

 

[Provoker]

Since the world is only constituted of your perception of it.

No. I never stated this or implied it. Saying that perfection, imperfection, happiness, and unhappiness are perception-based is very different from saying that "the world is only constituted of your perception of it." How you've conflated the two is beyond me. Reality, as in that which exists, includes, but extends beyond, perceptions (for one, it also includes the furniture of the universe. And so on). With that said, please note that you are the one who brought perfection into this (I'd prefer if it was left out since I don't find it terribly relevant to the original post nor did I state that the freethinker is tantamount to perfection which you incorrectly assumed). In responding, I merely wanted to correct your logic, not launch a discussion on metaphysics.

LOL!

Please do share with us all, since I am curious too.

I'm afraid I cannot help you and Kantgirl. Maybe the two of you inherited bad genes, low IQs and whatnot, though I wouldn't want to make that statement before I've considered all the evidence. What is clear however is that the two of you seem to be the only ones who don't know what this thread is about.

 

[PeaceBaby]

No. I never stated this or implied it. Saying that perfection, imperfection, happiness, and unhappiness are perception-based is very different from saying that "the world is only constituted of your perception of it." How you've conflated the two is beyond me. Reality, as in that which exists, includes, but extends beyond, perceptions (for one, it also includes the furniture of the universe. And so on). With that said, please note that you are the one who brought perfection into this (I'd prefer if it was left out since I don't find it terribly relevant to the original post nor did I state that the freethinker is tantamount to perfection which you incorrectly assumed). In responding, I merely wanted to correct your logic, not launch a discussion on metaphysics.

"Reality, as in that which exists, includes, but extends beyond, perceptions (for one, it also includes the furniture of the universe. And so on)."

Prove it. Good luck.

Now, it's true I made an assumption that because you stated your person was "god-like" that this was near some sort of impervious-to-desire perfection as you see it in your mind. I hear you saying that was not your intent, but surely I can be forgiven based on your own choice of verbiage.

And really, surely you can see that the obvious answer to your OP is that such a person would not even have the faintest interest in any newspaper at all. They would be immune to desires of all kinds. Nothing would compel them to participate in the dialogue a newspaper invites one to. So what is the intent of any further discourse or dissection of the topic?

I'm afraid I cannot help you and Kantgirl. Maybe the two of you inherited bad genes, low IQs and whatnot, though I wouldn't want to make that statement before I've considered all the evidence. What is clear however is that the two of you seem to be the only ones who don't know what this thread is about.

I think the low response (and general spirit of responses) to your thread indicate that no one else knows what point you are trying to make either.

AND, I find it fascinating that the only way you can dis' me is to attempt a classic, stereotypical and immature IQ-bash / lack of logic "argument". Clearly evidence of your own deficiencies.

(And since your username is Provoker, I am assuming you can handle a little rough-housing, but keep your intellectual sparring above the belt and land your punches in fair play.) Else, this whole thread is just a bore and you shall have to be assigned time-out in the corner.

But thanks for your gracious attempt to correct my logic. What would I do without you?

 

[Provoker]

"Reality, as in that which exists, includes, but extends beyond, perceptions (for one, it also includes the furniture of the universe. And so on)." Prove it. Good luck.

As I implied in my previous post, metaphysics as it's own topic is beyond the scope of this thread. However, if you're genuinely interested in the nature of reality then start a topic in the philosophy section of the forum and I'd gladly demonstrate that reality extends beyond perceptions.

AND, I find it fascinating that the only way you can dis' me is to attempt a classic, stereotypical and immature IQ-bash / lack of logic "argument". Clearly evidence of your own deficiencies. But thanks for your gracious attempt to correct my logic. What would I do without you?

My intention was never to hurt your feelings, in fact I care very little about those compared to truth. But based on your responses and their various shortcomings including logical contradictions (and a sense of pride which befogs your judgment so that you don't see these inconsistencies when pointed out), rash assumptions (that you've conceded to making), the inability to stay on track (discussing perfection rather than marketing to freethinkers), and finally identifying with Kangirl's own fogginess, one is compelled to question your intelligence. That said, genes and IQ were merely two possibilities I explored (there are others to be sure), and I noted that I'd need more evidence before I'm in a position to propound on your intelligence with any authority. Thus, it's merely an educated guess based on circumstantial evidence.

 

[yowhatup]

SRSLY guys, f*ck the [mainstream] media (especially fox)
they are *very* good at what they do
in this day in age, corporations don't work for the people, they work for themselves

is the toshiba laptop that much different from the hp laptop? not by that much
largely, they have the same variation of parts and features to select from
but they wouldn't tell you that, now would they?

is the democratic party really that different from the republican party (in the USA)??? not as the mainstream media would have us all believe, as they split the majority of us half-and-half over hot-button issues and we majority become too emotionally charged to notice
2008 Election Political Compass
there are differences between each candidate, to be sure, but (referencing bottom chart) there are only two candidates for the democratic nomination (Kucinich, Gravel) that popular political culture would consider radical; all the other candidates, besides good ol' Nader, are in the top right quadrant, the Authoritarian Right
Click Here to read more about the Political Compass

Point: Figure it out yourselves, and don't trust the mainstream media

Disclaimer: I don't know too much about Gravel, but I am quite certain that a lot of people would call Kucinich radical. Also, I indicated in the political example that the majority of us are affected so by the media. I would expect most NTs and either some or most NFs to constitute most of the exception, with some intelligent sensors too.

Apart from all of this hoopla, it is my opinion that popular american culture is abundantly superficial, and the majority of the american public is immoderately stupid

 

[sculpting]

Newspapers, like fashionable shirts and sweet-smelling colognes, are carefully crafted to appeal to the sensational needs of its readers. Often, this is accomplished by constructing a paper that is presentable, uses large splashy fonts that get the reader's attention, has sensationally-luring headings, and pictures that are emotionally provocative. The content (if we can call it that) is also sensationally-rigged, riddled with catchphrases rather than careful critical analysis in plain English. This mastery of excitation, which is pursued by newspapers and critical for stimulating popular demand and consumption of its stories, is especially effective when catering to sensors who comprise 70 percent of the population. With the technological innovations afforded by the communications revolution, the shrinking of spacetime from globalization, and with sensors comprising the majority, the way in which ideas and stories are presented becomes more important than the ideas themselves, given that the newspaper is driven by the bottom line. Yet, at a more sophisticated level of society, a strata which is more cerebral and skeptical in nature, these adornments, with their appeal to passion, the senses, and emotion, become comparatively more superfluous, though by no means forgotten. What becomes increasingly important is the capacity to tickle the reader's intellect in a way that puts the newspaper ahead of its competitors who are targetting the same group. Here the sensation takes new form. The sensation may be in the way a pundit glues all the details together into a coherent whole that makes the thinker think: Aha! Still there is arousal and excitation, not in the form of an appeal to the senses and emotion, but to the intellect. But what about to the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction? Does such a god-like person exist? If so, what would be the newspapers' tools for getting this person to buy their papers?

P

provoker the vast majority of the general audiance can be segmented pretty easily. I would approach this backwards-go look at the types of periodicals actually sold. Likely the successful ones have found formulas that work for the audiance they are targeting. Trust me, in that they spend hndreds of millions each year tweaking subtle things to catch the right customer.

You identified above the catering to SPs-the flashiness, the People magazines of the world.

SJs can be easily taregted as well-if you have built in buying a paper as part of a daily routine or can tap into "knowing world events" as being a sign of respectibility and responsibility in the community.

My gandmother was an INFJ and she loved to buy the national enquirer and read stories about aleines and babies with pig heads (not that that would apply to all INFJs....)

I think there are a variety of publications that appeal to NTs and are much more rigourous in thier content.

For your god like person, you could approach the problem in two ways.

first identify one and find out what he reads.
Second I dont think there is a person like that who is immune to seduction in some way or form. Our brains are hardwired to be entranced-by pleasure, my beauty, by ideas, by pushing boundaries in society. Without that we would stagnate.

Once you identify that underlying drive you can find a way to market to that audiance.

 

[PeaceBaby]

PeaceBaby: Since the world is only constituted of your perception of it.
Provoker: No. I never stated this or implied it.

That's right. I stated it, it's my argument. I didn't say you did.

As I implied in my previous post, metaphysics as it's own topic is beyond the scope of this thread. However, if you're genuinely interested in the nature of reality then start a topic in the philosophy section of the forum and I'd gladly demonstrate that reality extends beyond perceptions.

Your smug sense of self-importance and inability to view the issue in an explorative way would take the pleasure out of it, so no thanks.

My intention was never to hurt your feelings

You haven't. Who's making "rash assumptions" now? I was pointing out that if the only tool you have to point out another's argumentative weakness is to bash their IQ, then who is the one lacking intelligence here? Certainly not me. That leaves ... you.

But based on your responses and their various shortcomings including logical contradictions (and a sense of pride which befogs your judgment so that you don't see these inconsistencies when pointed out)

I am interested to see this list of my logical contradictions. And I am certainly not so "proud" that I am not open to having them pointed out. The only person who smacks of a certain arrogance and pride is yourself.

rash assumptions (that you've conceded to making)

I only made one assumption, and then not really - I was trying to make an initial point that your god-like freethinker wouldn't exist. It's a shame you couldn't make that leap to hear the real message. But I take responsibility for that.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have made several assumptions yourself. You latched on to and expanded on the word perfection from my OP, I did not. My feelings are not hurt. Not even a little bit. And I am fully equipped with sufficient intelligence despite your attempt to diminish it.

the inability to stay on track (discussing perfection rather than marketing to freethinkers)

You latched on to "perfection" - you are the one who derailed your own thread as pointed out above. And since the thread consensus is that god-like free-thinkers don't exist, what is the point of discussing it anyway?

and finally identifying with Kangirl's own fogginess, one is compelled to question your intelligence.

I thought that post was hilarious because she clearly can see your fogginess while you cannot.

------

And, since this thread could now expand into perpetuity with Provoker countering all of my points with ones of his own and conceding nothing in the process, I shall bow out of any continued posting in this thread. I certainly won't waste any more time "casting pearls before swine".

 

[SubjectA]

There is no such being. Humans will always be subjective to some kind of seduction to a certain extent, unless you're trying to sell a paper to a robot. However, if such a thing does exist, you'd have to market towards whatever they like to read about. You'd find this out by asking them...or spying.



Also, I'm curious as to why you open a thread regarding all of our opinions if you are going to shoot them down and call the poster dumb? If you need a perfect answer maybe you should just stick to answering your own questions.

 

[ajblaise]

Provoker, I think you're a couple decades too late with this. These days, the real sensationalism takes place on TV media and in magazines, not in The New York Times.

40% of people read one book or less per year, so as I see it, we should just be happy that some people are still reading newspapers.