Is Celebritism dumbing down humans?

agreed, the main problem is the availability of information, there has always been an obsession with celebrity, but pre internet it was relegated to gossip rags and magazines, now it's hard to avoid it, it creeps into legitimate news, gossip blogs become tv shows (TMZ), reality tv is cheap to produce so it proliferates

i check out one gossip type blog, but he mostly makes fun of celebs (WWTDD), so it's more mean spirited entertainment for me

The 24 hour so-called "news" channels are so guilty of celebritism. I blame it on the editors. Why can't they fill their air time with news around the world instead of sensational blabber? Why they devote so much time to talking heads screaming at each other in beyond me.

My favorite CNN program is Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program on Sunday mornings that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the decisions impacting our lives. PBS is my next favorite daily news programs.

BBB

Celebritism, as you describe it, is nothing new. It is part of human nature and has been since we first started painting on cave walls. It is, and always has been, a driving force behind human achievement.

The Waltz was once considered crass entertainment. Johann Strauss was propelled into fame by writing it. Jonas Salk wanted celebrity. Thomas Edison was driven by it.

The drive for greatness. The call of perfection. The celebration of excellence. Society needs celebrity, there is no progress without it.

I guess you and I have a different description of modern celebrity. The people you cited are not those I would consider celebrities. Today's celebrities are famous for being famous (ala Paris Hilton), not for what they achieve for the benefit of humanity.

Celebrity is projected throughout the world at an amazing speed, very different that in the days before TV and the internet.

BBB

The definition of celebrity is "a famous or celebrated person".

If Jonas Salk wasn't a celebrity, I don't know who is. He was trumpeted as a hero. His name was a household word and his praises were dung by almost all.

Jackie Robinson
The Beatles
Martin Luther King
Neil Armstrong
Albert Einstein
Bill Gates
Steven Hawking

All of these people were celebrities. Is there any distinction you are making other then the question of whether their contributions were worthwhile?

This seems like an awfully subjective judgement.

I don't agree with your description as I laid out in my opening post.

BBB

I am highly skeptical of the idea that what is happening today with regards to "celebrity" is any different then what was happening 25, 50 or 100 years ago. The exploits of the rich and famous have always been trumpeted by the media because humans have always had an appetite for the exceptional.

My point is that this part of human nature that makes football stars, or musicians, so admired today, is the same trait that makes us admire the other celebrities I noted. People have a built in desire for the exceptional.

I get it, you don't think Paris Hilton should get so much attention. It would be very difficult to argue with you that she should get any attention.

But you can't argue with human nature. If you take away our attraction to fame, fortune and excellence, you will lose the very thing that drives our society to produce the exceptional.

I would agree with BBB on who is and who is not a celebrity.
A famous person like Jonas Salk was not treated like Paris Hilton.
We certainly would never have gotten pictures in the news about his new shoes nor his latest tie. There is a great difference between celebrities and famous people.
Nor would famous people show up to every small or big happining to show off their latest cloth and boy/girlfriend. Famous people went with their marriage partner - no matter how the marriage was. And news did not tell about the latest love affair.

Back to my topic, would you agree that teenage fad celebrity not be given the excessive attention they receive from the Media?

BBB

Thank you for understanding my topic. You described it well.

Maxdancona has identified fame, not celebrity, as you say.

BBB

the problem with your scenario is that more people on the street would recognize the situation and snooki than they would jonas salk and marie curie

it goes along with the "hero" label put on sports stars, they're really just some guy doing a job, you might as well call the guy stocking grocery shelves overnight a hero, in fact he's probably a better example than most sports stars, he's performing a needed service for probably crappy wages

I don't think you understand the celebrity of Jonas Salk. He was treated far better then Paris Hilton. In the late 1950s he was a national hero.



And, how would you consider the phenominon of the Beatles. They certainly got press coverage of shoes and girlfriends.

This is not correct.

There are 10s of thousands of young kids who work very hard to be professional athletes. Only a few hundred of them with an exceptionally high level of skill in their sport make it.

I get the point that athletes are doing a job like the rest of us. But, sports is a highly competitive field where only the best of the best can make it. Comparing this to a grocery clerk as far as level of achievement is ridiculous.

Your consistent argument is getting boring as you have not learned anything about the difference between fame and celebrity.

BBB

Of course I know that Jonas Salk was a hero in his days, but not in the same way as the Beatles.
Go into google and pictures and Jonas Salk and almost every single picture shows him in working cloth. That is the difference between a famous person who became famous for what he had done without trying to show off.

I am sorry my arguments are so consistent.

Maybe you could explain better the difference between fame and celebrity. I am quite skeptical that there is a significant difference that doesn't rely on a subjective judgement about whether someone is making a worthwhile contribution to society. Is this the only difference, or could you tell me what I am missing.

Djjd seems to think that athlete don't make any contribution to society (correct me if I am wrong DJ). Do you agree with this? Wouldn't that disparage the contributions of Jackie Robinson, Martina Navrativlova and Muhammed Ali?

Sports is, at its core, entertainment. Don't you agree that entertainment has value? Does Lady Gaga fit into your category of celebrity? What about the Beatles? What about J. S. Bach? How do you distinguish between entertainers?

This seems like a very subjective distinction.

Good Saab, a real answer.

So.... did the Beatles deserve the fame (as entertainers), or were they meaningless celebrities?

The more pertinent question is whether or not things have changed significantly over time. The titular question assumes that human beings are getting "dumber." Therefore, one has to ask if the situation today is any different than it was in the past. Girls screamed and fainted when the young Frank Sinatra sang--it didn't start with the Beatles.

Yes Setanta. It certainly goes back much further. The Romans were said to put on quite a spectacle 2500 years ago.