The Lazy Masses are Doing Schadenfreudetastic!

In Soren Kierkegaard’s “The Present Age”, he discusses that information exists solely for people’s amusement and that the tool the public uses to receive and distribute that information is the media. He describes the media as a dog that can be sicked upon a person for the fun of those watching.

I get what Kierkegaard is saying, although if he was my friend I would probably say to him, “Soren, can you not temper your distain for the public at large even a little? “Lazy masses...?” Harsh.” (Note to self - this sounds very Randian... was she influenced by Kierkegaard? (Google pause) Nope, their philosophies are VERY different, except for the lazy masses part anyway.) I think one of the important things Kierkegaard is saying is that certain information presented by the media starts to meld with less important spectacle style of information; an example being that an article on homelessness might be presented in a newspaper alongside an article about Paris Hilton flashing her down-theres while drunkenly exiting her car. I think people do confuse trivial matters with complex ones because of the way the media disperses information and in some ways the more complex issues start to follow suit and become more exploitive, dirtier and glossier - more entertaining.

Because we have become so interested in the minutia of the daily lives of celebrities, politicians and the uber-rich, and media coverage of such things has become so popular, we have attached heightened importance to the same details of our own lives. People now attach importance to their own personal information, or at least interesting, maybe even a little glamourous when polished up and displayed. People are more interesting, smarter, quirkier, more successful and prettier than you may have previously thought - especially on Facebook. I guess this is where Kierkegaard is right in some respect. Why would Facebook exist if it were not for the ability to judge people on what they have published on their assigned pages? I personally am guilty of it, as sometimes I take great pleasure in finding out that an old coworker, while successful in his or her career and family, has obviously gained fourty pounds or that a kid I went to school with is twice-divorced with six children. If they don’t have a profile picture I just assume something horrible has happened to their faces (hard drugs, badger attack, botched plastic surgery).

OK, so I guess Kierkegaard was right, he was probably referring to people just like me. It almost makes me want to shut down my own Facebook account. Unfortunately Facebook is the topic of my blog, so I guess I will have to continue to use it for academic blogging purposes (plus I just was requested friendship status from an ex-boyfriend who I haven’t seen in years, and I’m sure a quick peek around his page wouldn’t hurt anybody).

PS: Do you think that when philosophers are right about a negative aspect of society they are happy because they are right and can say I told you so or are they sad because humanity sort of sucks.

Hello, my name is Jordan and I from Vancouver, BC. I am in the first year of the CultureNet program at Capilano University. I am taking Communications 253, Society and New Media, simply because I enjoyed the last communications course I took (it also worked out that this is a mandatory course next semester for CultureNet). I think I will like this class but I am worried about its "writing intensive" designation.

I have chosen to examine social networking sites in this blog, Facebook in particular just because I actually use it.

Here is a good 60 Minutes episode about Facebook:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cEySyEnxvU

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CGF00VIxB8&feature=related

And I know its not Facebook, but here is Tom Anderson of MySpace on The Hour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=related