[email protected]
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:36:14 -0400
>Don't you mean U2's popularity with the *media* is down.
>The media in general tried to ignore or even put down U2,
>especially in the United States.
J wrote:
Yup, you are right on there Rob. I think what makes U2 "past their
popularity prime" is only relative to what the media portrays.
However, the media play a big role in informing or misinforming the
people, and they have done the latter to America concering U2. It is
sad. But I don't give a damn. No one gives a damn if U2 is popular of
not to the new spice gilrs/hanson generation. Even if U2 only had
one fan left in this world, as long as that fan is me, I'd still be
happy...
-------------
Sorry guys, but it is the other way around. The media almost always follow the public. As you had
mentioned Robbie,
the reviews of Pop were good, the reviews of the first show were even good, considering the mistakes
that occured. But
once Pop started drifting off the charts and the stadium shows weren't sold out -- that showed a
decline in U2's popularity.
For the media, that means it's time to jump off the bandwagon. Considering their almost deity
status in the industry from 86-93,
any slight showing of a decline meant they no longer had to kiss their ass.
There are millions of examples of this -- they occur almost daily. Most obvious in the political
arena. The media tries its best
to figure out what the consenus of the public they serve is, and for the most part follow it. The
problems occur when they are
only partly right about what the people think -- because then they start to drive the "on the fence"
audience. Which is what
I think happened to U2 last year.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 13:43:51 PDT