*** VENT: media and Royalty ***

PhylPho

Good post, margaretclare. Sadly, media needs to mould a disparate audience into a cohesive one wherever possible otherwise it has no bloody idea if it's going to hit audience target / readership circulation figures or not: you can't please all the people all of the time so it's best to foist onto the people the pretence that yes indeed, all the other people around you are, all of the time, pleased about a single topic.

In this case then, to bombard everyone with that easiest of marketable commodities -- the Royals -- it's necessary to first sustain the pretence that everyone is obsessed by the boogers.

As evidence to the contrary is deliberately suppressed by dint of not being reported, it's then easy to dole out fatuous drivel without fear of being contradicted and, where ad agencies are concerned -- the media buyers upon whose whims national newspapers and commercial TV outfits depend -- without risk of any agency saying, 'hang on, this reportage of yours is total crap and of little interest to anyone, so why do we want to pay for advertising space in it all?'

It's the same with so many 'events'. I've lost track of the number of times I'm supposed to be breathless with admiration, and swollen with national pride, at the true "heroism" of, er, some bloke waving a wooden bat at a ball or kicking a leather orb over some grass -- I mean, we are all are, right?

And because we all are, then that's what we get. . .

:mad: