Negative effect of media on subjects of human comunication?

No, it's you. However, people are spending an inordinate amount of time in front of multiple techno-devices. However, if a storm comes and there's a power failure and no devices can be diddled around with, they rediscover each other and the art of communication.

Why not take a walk, take up a hobby. You have the control.

Well... I walk some 5 miles to school every day and after school, I usually go to a gym; besides I frequently go to a local film institute's cinema to see old movies, so I problably am not such a fat, nerdy no-lifer, stuck in my mama's basement, as my OP might imply.

It is you.
Before misinformation on Internet/TV,/yellow press we had Gossip - which still exists.

So, are you convinced that, let's say, if you went back in time you wouldn't be able to have a meaningful talk to a teenage girl about anything but The Beatles, just as nowadays you can't have a meningful talk with a teenage girl about anything but Bieber; despite The Beatles used to sing about love, peace and stuff and make social, moral and political remarks while Bieber sings about nothing in particular. Right? Or even in times before that, when matrimony was still considered somehow 'sacred', the two people in marriage didn't feel more obliged to care more about others feelings and finding solutions in times of mutual crysis, when they knew they can't simply dump each other. Do you think it's always a matter of biological predisposition rather than culture.
Don't get me the way I'm attacking You, I just want to enhance my viewpoints.

You just make one unwarranted assumption after the other. The Beatles wrote love songs (which is what people do today) and they covered R & B love songs. There was no appreciable difference between what they did and what Justin Bieber does. "Give Peace a Chance" was the only song about peace by a member of the Beatles, and that was by John Lennon, written at the time that the group was breaking up. The body of the work of the Beatles was little different from popular music in any era.

You truly are naïve if you think that marriage vows were any more sacred in years gone by than they are now. Judy Garland was married five times; Elizabeth Taylor beat her into a cocked hat with eight marriages. That's just recent times. Eleanor of Aquitaine needed special permission from the Pope to marry the King of France because they were so closely related. Then she got that marriage annulled because they were so closely related, and got a special dispensation to marry Henry Plantagenet, King of England, to whom she was even more closely related. That took place in the 12th century. Of course, there's Henry VIII of England, who was married six times in the 16th century. Sure, those are special examples, but marriage was no more "sacred" then than it is now.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as the French say: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.. That's usually translated as "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

There has always been serious / superficial/ a mixture of serious and superficial discussions between people in all age groups.
You just have to seek the group you want to be in.

As for The Beatles (and many other singers/groups like Bob Dylan, The Doors, Pink Floyd...) , I can clearly hear and feel huge difference between the scene then and now, in the complexity of emotions expressed through their music and degree of abstracion of their lyrics, which, I believe, helps a listener to sense the world from a different person's perspective and thus develops his skill of empathy. Now I hope that you agree, for Your own sake, that human communication and relationships ARE mainly an issue of people's emotional development and empathy, right?
I don't want to be labeled as an idealist. I know that, i.e., the Stones or Guns 'N Roses were singing of the same weed and blowjobs like Li'l Wayne and 50 Cent. After all, I like weed and sex too. But I think there is still a difference, when you practically produce a functioning advertisement of your "Lollypop" and when you describe to all your teenage fans how you felt during sex with "Sweet Child o' Yours." It's even educative on an emotional level. And this 'advertising culture' applies to Bieber and Lennon aswell. The way I see it, Bieber's songs and music videos have a form of an advertisement of his (seemingly) sweet personality, but on the level of a personal statement of an inner world, they are perfectly empty.
As for the marriage-in-the-history part, surely on one hand You have rulers who might have afforded to act individually (as it is normal today in the western world) and in a rather cold-blooded way in order to preserve their house (Henry the Tudor), wealth (Rothschilds etc.) and social status (all the European nobility), but on the other hand, ordinary people couldn't afford to have disputes amongst each other, because without functioning social welfare system, they were reliant on their affiliation to their group in order to survive. IMHO they had to struggle for emotional bounds with each other. They had to communicate.