Quotes About Media

Newspapers abound, and though they have endured decades of decline in readership and influence, they can still form impressive piles if no one takes them out to the trash.

Where are the laughs in massacre, famine and climate change, exactly? What's so funny about the Middle East, North Korea and Afghanistan? Who's going to chuckle when they pick up the London Review of Books and find John Lanchester arguing, convincingly as always, that the banking habits of the British people pose a greater threat to their own security than terrorism?

That everything in the society actually revolves about women, not men. The men are all looking at pictures of women, and the women are all communicating with other women.

I've learned not to trust what I see on television.

Television had elected itself, I figured. It could watch itself too, for all I cared. I read my book.

Broadcasting is being replaced by narrowcasting. The difference is that broadcasting speaks to a mixed public, exposing them to a range of views. Narrowcasting speaks to a targeted public and exposes them only to facts and opinions that support their prejudices. It fragments a public into a set of sects of the like-minded.

Football is one of England's biggest crimes.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.

A city with one newspaper, or with a morning and an evening paper under one ownership, is like a man with one eye, and often the eye is glass.

Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.

People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.

But how many senators, representatives, and justices are on our currency, have monuments on the National Mall, have their names on towns, cities, counties, states, or figure prominently in Hollywood movies, television, or cable series? Congress and the Supreme Court can be in or out of session. The president is the Energizer Bunnyâ"¢ of the American government.

It's an election year. We would prefer that voters didn't use common sense.

sometimes people overdose on the headlines, which is generally not a good idea, we can't do much about the catastrophes of the world, so why be depressed by learning about it all the time ? Check the news every couple of weeks maybe, but there's no point wasting your time learning about some famine in Africa if you're not immediately doing something about it, it just makes you feel dismal. "Medical Benefits of the Sunnah, 1:20:58

A new danger lies in wait for the Arabo-Muslim societies: the ethical void, cretinization through sex, systematic infantilization. The negation of traditional references is certainly a necessary stage in our history, but the negation of those references is still a reference. The great risk is precisely non-reference. The easy models of sexual behaviour, imported from North America or Europe, relentlessly diffused through all the mass media, do not help us to find much meaning in sexuality.

Tell me, why is the media here so negative? Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognise our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?

If Joy Behar or Sherri Shepherd was a dude, they'd be off TV. They're not funny enough for dudes. What if Roseanne Barr was a dude? Think we'd know who she was?

The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I'm just gonna tell her, 'Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they'll have to hire you, they can't really fire you, and you don't have to produce that much. It'll be awesome.'

I never liked the news; it pretends to be all different, every day, when in fact it is all the same.

Alas, a fiction can fly around the world before the truth has managed to pick the sleep from its eyes in the morning. Many

We can't agree definitively on what happened in the last decade. Newspapers record stories with biases firmly in place.

The revolution was not televised; it was livestreamed.

This is a seam that will run throughout this book, confronting and dispelling the culturally ubiquitous idea that genes are fate, and a certain type of any one gene will determine exactly what an individual is like. That this is a fallacy is universally known among geneticists, yet it is still an idea that carries a lot of cultural significance, fueled frequently by the media and an ultra-simplistic understanding of the absurd complexities of human biology.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Especially when it's got a sexy headline.