FWIW, our own publicly funded media tends to get criticised equally from fruitcakes at both ends of the political spectrum, so they are clearly doing something right!
At least from observations in my country, our publicly funded media news is right wing, but get called out by right wingers as not being right wing enough and (falsely claimed to be centrist/left wing because they mention a right wing politician being a pervert).
After enough complaints they manage to move the overton window and the news is slightly more right wing. Repeat.
No, I live in Sweden where coalition governments are pretty common and people tend to vote for the party they agree with.
Same is true in the EU elections, since their system is more democratic than the UK one.
I’m intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the election system in the UK as I am British, but I’ve experienced other formulations and I can see that this line of thinking enables the abuse you claim to be dispelling by allowing it to continue..?
>just like hundreds of other companies offering products with "Office" in their name
There may be hundreds of other companies selling products with the noun "office" in their names, but there only is one producing a productivity suite called simply "Office". I would expect launching another productivity suite called "Office" would be trademark infringement. Just like I can't release a car called "Beetle" or "Golf".
That’s because Hollywood makes movies, not videogames. You also spent a few hours driving but Hollywood hasn’t done anything about it because they are not in the business of making cars.
They're entertainment, yes, but really not the same. I'll look for a specific game to play, I'll look for a specific movie to watch, and I won't play a game when I want to watch a movie.
No, they're not the same, but the amount of time people have for entertainment is generally fixed. In the old days, they spent it reading books or socializing or doing a hobby like playing music or painting. Then radios were invented and people spent some time doing that. Then movies were invented and people spent some of their time going to those. With each new type of entertainment, people spent less time per-capita on the previous forms of entertainment (generally; radio was probably a bit unique because it can be done simultaneously as other activities such as driving, but in the old days it was a family activity).
Video games are doing the same thing. You can't watch a movie (easily) if you're playing a video game.
Yes, and yet by the counts, Westerners watch more televised content than ever.
If anything the substitute has been TV. Gaming is big, sure, but that doesn't appear to crowd out time reserved for watching media. I expect that the marathoner gamer who plays for hours daily is a comparatively smaller demographic.
> That’s because Hollywood makes movies, not videogames
Not true. Most media conglomerates own both video game and movie production. The big players like Disney, Sony, Comcast, Universal, etc all have ownership stakes in video game companies and most TMT funds invest in both as a same bucket.
Yes. Those conglomerates also do TV. But Hollywood makes movies, and not talk shows. Many of those conglomerates also have internet access businesses. But Hollywood doesn’t lay fibre.
"Hollywood" is a metonym/catch-all term for the media industry just like how "Silicon Valley" is for the tech industry and "Wall Street" is for finance.
As more high-tech companies were established across San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley, and then north towards the Bay Area's two other major cities, San Francisco and Oakland, the term "Silicon Valley" came to have two definitions: a narrower geographic one, referring to Santa Clara County and southeastern San Mateo County, and a metonymical definition referring to high-tech businesses in the entire Bay Area.[citation needed] The name also became a global synonym for leading high-tech research and enterprises, and thus inspired similarly named locations, as well as research parks and technology centers with comparable structures all around the world.
It’s funny in tech it’s generally understood that that attention economy apps are in competition even though they ostensibly are not direct competitors. But when it comes to entertainment (the original attention economy) we don’t think of it in the same way.
NFL and related sport are, at least putatively, unscripted.
Which might be raised in relation to gaming as well, but I'd argue that gaming elements share much more in common with cinema, particularly in the contexts of world design, character development, backstory, and of course, CGI.
But when it’s time for entertainment, someone only has so much time in the day to watch a movie, play a game, watch sports, or scroll TikTok. They are all in competition with each other for that little slice of time each day
Yeah I think millionaires should be able to do their shady business in private too, propagating this knowledge is nearly defamation, definitely gossip. Remembering these things and acting with your wallet based on your values and principles goes against everything capitalism stands for.
reply