There are only five media stories
fallows.substack.com
fallows.substack.com
7 plots, there are 7 media stories.
Jaws, overcoming the boogyman/shark.
Cinderella, good personality poor becomes rich and deserves it.
LOTR, you need to bring widget somewhere wierd to save the world.
Hobbit, you adventure to strange lands and come back.
Annie Hall, comedic character has to overcome adversity to get happy ending
Sweeny Todd, flawed main character who fails, then ultimately learns to overcome their flaw and become good and happy.
Groundhog day, time travel forces bad main character to become better.
All these are aligned in the news as discovered by the author. Realistically just following 'hate inc' by matt taibi. Which really the article/author and matt just comes from Hunter Thompson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_journalism
You can imagine, over and over in the election system the characters of democracy play out exactly this way. Once you realize this, it forces you to personally answer the obvious question. Are they doing it intentionally or is this all fake like these fictional movies?
Ha! I'm not sure that final sentence works for Sweeney Todd. Not a lot of redemption in that story. But the rest of your point is good - although I would think that the "flawed main character" bit covers Groundhog day just fine, and I don't know that Groundhog day deserves its own archetype, as great as it is.
(Not to mention Groundhog Day is 100% flawed character, the "time travel" part is redundant).
Caught that did you? I love johnny depp. Quite possibly the only known musical I like.
>although I would think that the "flawed main character" bit covers Groundhog day just fine, and I don't know that Groundhog day deserves its own archetype, as great as it is.
Ya its hard to find another example, perhaps the grinch? It's not my personal cup of tea, but women typically like these. Downtown abbey maybe? Bridgerton? I'm not sure.
The story is basically, "Jerk becomes better person through experiencing why they are a jerk."
It would seem I'm back to not being able to post on HN. Dropped quite negative in my posts, not sure why people dislike this post. Haven't posted in an hour, still going too fast.
edit/ wow 3 hours i couldn't post. impressive brigading this time.
Oh, and Sasha Baron Cohen as Pirelli the barber is pretty great too!
Could Ye and Elon be Ahab?
This in terms of modern news. "Clinton/Biden are Ahab." They were overcoming the monster which is trump.
In corrolary if looking at the other political spectrum. It's trump overcoming "the swamp"
Both of which are ridiculous but that's the story being spun for either side. When in reality neither is true.
That era ended a long time ago; nobody on a percentage basis watches legacy media any more, almost everyone clicked off. The microscopic fraction of the population who still watch, actually LIKE the five permitted media stories. So changing what's produced would be very risky; might lose the very last few viewers, might not gain any return viewers.
The author is trying to do "startup strategy" in an industry that's in "shutdown mode", that's a tough one.
You know, we just might give it a try - I was amazed at how much my kids enjoy the occasional print magazine, and how little comparable there is in any other medium. I am guessing this will play out with some scale since we're a pretty ordinary family.
I believe we're going to see a resurgence in "traditional" print media as the novelty of it is picked up by generations who maybe weren't exposed to it much growing up. Like older millennials(35-40) and lower maybe?
I do hope print media makes a comeback! It's so relaxing to read something that's not interactive and isn't constantly bombarding you with embedded video players and notifications. I have given away my kindle and returned to reading print books because I felt that I didn't absorb or properly remember the books I read on it - it felt like my brain didn't process the information the same way it does when I read a physical book.
(Shapes: Man in Hole, Boy Gets Girl, Cinderella)
There's nothing particularly natural about having two sides.
I think there are two sides because of the fight itself. There may be many points of view, but people choose the side closest to their point of view.
After the fighting starts, all the nuance about those points of view disappears.
After the fighting starts, it is disloyal to acknowledge any weakness in the arguments or proposals of your own side.
After the fighting starts, the two main camps will subsume any smaller groups.
----
I think it's interesting to think about times when there were more than two sides: China during and shortly after WWII - think about Japan vs China and KMT vs Communists.
During the Japanese invasion and occupation, the Chinese forces mainly cooperated, or at least tried to appear cooperative. Once the pressure of that fight ended, the Chinese groups were free to fight each other
---
Another: US vs Communism until the end of the Cold War and then Red vs Blue.
---
Do you have any examples?
Back before Margaret Sullivan became public editor at the Washington Post, there was a reporter--name forgotten--who wrote about the media. It was possible now and then to read a Post story about the NY Times's reaction to a story in the Post. That sort of thing made you wonder why you were reading it.
In fact, you're just dawning the special filters the author has in mind, a super-skeptical narrow-minded distorted view. The story says it will help you understand, but it is a very biased very particular set of frames it wants to limit you to. To sow distrust, to foster incredulity. This is pure meta-disinformation.