News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Was 2016 especially dangerous for celebrities? An empiric... by monodeldiablo on Saturday January 07, 2017 @03:16AM (#13342962)
The difference is that, as media has fragmented and people find increasingly diverse sources of news and entertainment, there are more niche celebrities and fewer mega celebrities.

Manufacturing a mega celebrity takes a certain degree of monopolization of attention. But the days of three-network-television and two-station radio markets are gone. We don't, as a society, watch and listen to the same stuff anymore. It started with cable in the 90s, but it's accelerated with the internet.

I don't know who Anna Kendrick is, but if she's anything like the rest of the "celebrities" I'm supposed to know, she's a Q-list reality show extra with a hyperactive agent. The internet has globalized and democratized the market for attention, which means greater competition, more niches, shorter shelf lives, and fewer monopolies.

Re:Was 2016 especially dangerous for celebrities? An empiric... by moomin on Saturday January 07, 2017 @08:10AM (#13343961)
Actually, she's quite different from that. For one thing, she can actually sing, and a fair few of her roles involve it.

My 5yo regards her as the definitive Cinderella, for instance.

Edit: Oh yes, and was the star of a movie that took $290m worldwide, from a budget of $29m.

Re:Was 2016 especially dangerous for celebrities? An empiric... by segf4ult on Saturday January 07, 2017 @04:56AM (#13343263)
While I agree that Anna Kendrick might not need a biography at 31, she definitely isn't Q list. Probably A list, maybe B if we're being picky.