|
I really dug that Klosterman article, the boxing analogy seems totally on point to me. I'm a fairly big college football fan and watch every Hawkeyes game every season, but if/when I have kids I almost certainly can't see them giving a gently caress about football, especially compared to baseball and soccer because of the stuff Klosterman talks about; it really feels like football is becoming a conservative "thing" like Nascar, and I don't see that trend reversing. Essentially, I can't imagine a world in which a teenager raised in a white liberal house in 2030 doesn't completely roll their eyes at football like current ones do at UFC or boxing or Nascar
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
BWV posted:I think this might be true in terms of playing the game for a few years in high school but I think the health risks and stigmas that come with it will eventually push these people from pursuing it beyond that. Like Chuck said, this will be based on class and region. Yeah I completely agree with this. I think that the lower income demographics will continue to play football, while the middle and upper class folks do away with it, which will create a class component that doesn't exist in the sport at the lower levels right now. I think at this point a rich family and a poor family could have football playing sons in common and that's like, totally fine and a nice "bonding" point. But as more and more dangers are shown and concerned upper class families pull their kids out of the sport, it'll become culturally/class stratified in the same way, like, monster truck racing or some poo poo. Right now you could make movies about football and have the character either be richie rich or from the wrong side of the tracks and it makes perfect sense. Eventually it won't make sense for a football playing protagonist to be wealthy, so to speak. Especially since middle/upper class athletes will have basketball, soccer and baseball (not to mention lacrosse and other sports that are already class stratified) It'll be an interesting few decades, I think
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I feel bad about bringing this back up, but as someone who has spent their career in the publishing/newspaper industry, here's the absolute stone cold reality of the economics of newspapers: there is not a future for publishing of any kind that is only supported by ads. In a decade (or earlier) or so, papers are going to have to essentially be crowdfunded. Oh hey, MidwesternTown, USA, you want a weekly or 3x/week paper (definitely not a daily)? Pony up like you do for NPR. As an industry we're absolutely hosed because ads don't bring in revenue anymore and y'all don't want to pay for content anymore. If the Atlantic is convincing people to pay for its content, then that is good for the industry. People paying for news coverage of any kind is the only thing keeping any sort of publications (online or offline) afloat. In other words, please buy at least a digital only subscription for your local paper if you give even the faintest of fucks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Regarding the hedge fund stuff: (First of all gently caress those hedge funds and what the likes of Tronc and Digital First Media have done to those papers) But is the idea of "don't support local papers who are run by these people" to wait until they end up killing themselves because of how poorly they're corporately governed and then support via subscription any sort of local coverage startup that pops up? I only ask because one of the biggest questions in the industry right now is essentially: if a community papers shuts down, is something going to necessarily pop up to replace it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2018 15:55
|
|