We have been informed of this by advertising for a long time that the Channel 5 "Big Brother" was about to open, last night, its eleventh edition. And all
down to quiver of disgust and impatience, all to criticize this program useless, silly, negative educational impact etc etc ...
Too bad "Big Brother", or rather call it the "Great Half-brother," not plagiarism to the original, is broadcast every day of the year on all channels.
was it not a proper anticipation of today's most popular reality show on all TV networks - the case of Sarah Scazzi - the episode of "Chi l'ha visto?" October 7, when live, a video camera placed in the home of relatives of the girl followed the reactions and comments of his family to the news of the discovery of the body and the confession of his uncle?
What are the differences between the camera that captures the foolishness of the sixteen Obtuse the format of Mediaset and the camera that follows, both live and deferred, the protagonists of the tragedy Avetrana?
And tell me that "poor Sarah's mother ..." or "drama that also the daughter of his uncle Michael ..." !
I do not feel sorry, neither. I do not feel sorry for those who agree to appear on TV, not to broadcast an appeal in the hope that someone help her - which would be understandable - but by agreeing to show off their pain or make their feelings on public show .
And not even say that these people are "victims" of a mechanism taking advantage of their weaknesses in order to better "sell" in a battle fought with strokes of shares, which have suffered the tragedy. Disgusting
certainly causing me the troubles sketched teleimbonitori that altruism and programs are built journalistic successes, but an opinion not so different - I personally - I give to those who agree to sell, worse than a prostitute, his conscience by putting in place and thus revealing their emotions, their pains, their intimacy with slobbering teleutente.
Which, in turn, has all the details of morbidly teletragedia with the same curiosity that would raise the vision of a porn show, is the detail that makes the picture - they say - and more the fact that the tragic (the only side that should be shared humanity reflect on the ultimate meaning of our lives and give, that yes, warning about the consequences of our actions and our thoughts) the interest is focused on the details, of course, are gradually doth the greater glory of teleimbonitori and most of lust telecretini: crying uncle, the girl's diaries, the destruction of the corpse, the interviews with "stars" etc etc
A framework, therefore, distressing.
gabelle And all this is as "right and duty of information", an expression of "freedom." But
information, I say, is an expression of "freedom" when it is correct and useful.
The morbid curiosity, drooling is a social fact is protectable?
The "right and duty of information" also includes the obscene spectacle of the details, of human misery, of aspects, which are deep or abyss, of our consciousness?
The answer is no.
and fascism had been given the same response, limiting the publication of the crime only to a minimum.
a good father.
While this democracy is only a "big brother", and pornocrate abbruttente.
