Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the decline & fall of another iconic magazine?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
    I wasnt comparing us with anyone or anything beyond our lifetime.
    Are you sure you are not cherry picking the past?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mighty Favog
      There were two things driving the magazine, both of which are passe. One was the style of photography, but the other was an image of a (decidedly male) upper-class "nothing but the best" lifestyle of good scotch, hi-fis and fine Corinthian leather. It's a testament to their business acumen that they've hung on as long as they have. Besides the internet, Maxim and its imitators stole their niche market among males under age 40.

      Print journalism had its online competition, but many of the big players helped do themselves in. See Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspendent's Dinner three years ago to see what I mean.
      Playboy actually started to do itself in by being too graphic. Even though they didn't get more graphic. Huh?!

      Can't recall when it was, but it was close to 10 years back, when the e-world was still just a threat to come, not a real competitor of any sort, and Playboy's ad revenues started to plummet. It made news because one month they were unable to sell--or so said the radio analysis I was listening to--a single full-page advertisement. Why? Too much skin.

      The conservative big hitters like all the car companies, soft drinks, etc., felt much more comfortable with the softer approach that Maxim and others had started to bring to the table. The seeds of death were sown back then, for reasons having nothing to do with "better" porn being available elsewhere.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
        . . . just like online journalism is decimating print journalism.
        The vast majority of useful online journalism is print journalism . . .

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by bad hammy
          Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
          . . . just like online journalism is decimating print journalism.
          The vast majority of useful online journalism is print journalism . . .
          The key is free vs not. My guess is we'll pay for the online version in the future and have the option of paper version. Just like we have the option to have hard copies of utility bills even though they have moved everything to a paperless format.

          The real question is what will the free news look like?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Daisy
            Originally posted by TrackDaddy
            I wasnt comparing us with anyone or anything beyond our lifetime.
            Are you sure you are not cherry picking the past?
            I may be to some extent.

            But personally I don't believe that some of the things that are reportedly :wink: legal in porn today were legal 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

            That's why it isn't hard to deduce than porn is more graphic and violent than in years past (our lifetime).

            Because a lot of what goes on I'm assuming (not irrationally) was illegal.
            The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TrackDaddy
              That's why it isn't hard to deduce than porn is more graphic and violent than in years past (our lifetime).
              The only thing that's changed is what we consider porn. Much of what we consider porn in the USA is not in Denmark. Bitch and bastard were taboo on network TV 30 years ago. Not now. I think we are desensitizing ourselves to what is 'unacceptable' and many would argue that is a step in the right direction, censorship-wise. Snuff flicks (even the bogus ones, which virtually all are), S/M and child porn are still over-the-line and need to stay there. Pictures of naked people have been featured since the dawn of time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Marlow
                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                That's why it isn't hard to deduce than porn is more graphic and violent than in years past (our lifetime).
                The only thing that's changed is what we consider porn. Much of what we consider porn in the USA is not in Denmark. Bitch and bastard were taboo on network TV 30 years ago. Not now. I think we are desensitizing ourselves to what is 'unacceptable' and many would argue that is a step in the right direction, censorship-wise. Snuff flicks (even the bogus ones, which virtually all are), S/M and child porn are still over-the-line and need to stay there. Pictures of naked people have been featured since the dawn of time.
                I agree (but not that it is a step in the right direction) and that was the point I was trying to make.

                As we desensitized over time we made things legal that once weren't.

                And I've heard (*sticks tongue out at AthleticinBritian* ) that these things have become "mainstream porn" if you will.

                I remember when it was all over the news that the porn industry was being charged by police/DA as prostitution and there was this huge interpretive legal battle. No one would argue that today. Things have changed in our lifetime because now, for example, it's not as big of a deal for a porn actress to get a mainstream role in a movie.

                I remember when Tyra Banks (or Oprah?) recently interviewed a young porn actress and some of what was revealed that she allowed to be done to herself was remarkable; older porn actresses said they wouldnt do it but it is now considered almost routine. She said if you dont do those things today that you have trouble finding work.

                And these things were truly deplorable, IMO.

                Porn has clearly changed and as you said what is considered acceptable has because we have been desensitized to an extent.
                The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                Comment

                Working...
                X