A quarter of a century ago, American academic Neil Postman released a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death, which argued that television was dumbing down society in dangerous ways.

Decades before Kevin Rudd used his folksy appearances on Sunrise as a launching pad to the prime ministership, Postman was warning that in a culture based on visual images, a politician’s policies were becoming far less important than whether they came across well on TV.

Two books released in recent months suggest that Postman’s direst predictions may have come to pass. The first is Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World by American lawyer and television commentator Lisa Bloom.

Bloom’s book explores the paradox of educated, middle-class women, who have long outperformed their male counterparts educationally and are increasingly outshining them in the workforce but are obsessed with reading about celebrities and, what’s more, spending huge amounts of time, money and effort trying to look and live like them.

Bloom’s book is packed with frightening statistics such as “25 per cent of women aged 18 to 34 would rather lose their ability to read than lose their figure”. Conceding this mindset might be a rational response to a society that values beauty over brains, Bloom raises the question of why, after the many triumphs of second-wave feminism, supposedly smart women have gone along with creation of a society with such warped values.

While Bloom’s book hasn’t attracted much attention in Australia, a similar debate was kicked off by the release of Lindsay Tanner’s Sideshow. For those who missed it, Tanner lamented that, “under siege from commercial pressures and technological innovation, the media are retreating into an entertainment frame that has little tolerance for complex social and economic issues. In turn, politicians and parties are adapting their behaviour to suit the new rules of the game… the contest of ideas is being supplanted by the contest for laughs.”

Of course, society has been going to hell in a handbasket for very long time and Bloom and Tanner are merely the latest in a very long line of gloomy cultural critics who’ve argued popular culture is lobotomising the lower orders and democratic politics has descended into vaudeville.

Nonetheless, in a world where Sarah Palin is considered a serious contender for president, one cat-call can dominate political debate for a week and anyone under 40 is much more likely to be able to name three Kardashian sisters than three members of Federal Cabinet, perhaps it’s time to consider if we have crossed some sort of Rubicon and, if so, who is to blame.

Simple-minded folk are wont to point the finger at the meedja, but as my esteemed journalistic colleagues argue whenever the likes of Tanner are impertinent to offer them a performance review, the fourth estate is never anything other than a force for good and any of its regrettable excesses, in the unlikely event such excesses even exist, are entirely the fault of others (felicitously enough, usually whatever group the individual making the criticism belongs to).

The standard ‘bread-and-circuses’ Left line is that the Right relies on the lightweight media to act like a big pile of shiny beads, distracting the masses from their oppression. Simplistic as this analysis is, it’s hard not to believe there’s something in it given that the rise of a celeb-obsessed culture has gone hand-in-hand with the creation of a plutocratic economic order in the US.

Not that progressives don’t have tabloid ink on their hands too. The left-leaning intellectuals given to pointing out the pop-culture circus ramped into overdrive at the same time that 95 per cent of Americans were having their bread ration cut to fatten the loaves of the uber-wealthy are the same left-leaning intellectuals who’ve spent the last couple of decades toeing the postmodern party line that there’s little difference between soap operas and Shakespeare and that Madonna is just as legitimate an object of academic enquiry as Marx.

Whatever the overarching political, economic and technological forces that have combined to generate the dumbocracy, ultimately no-one’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch The Hills while flicking through NW.

As Bloom points outs at the end of her book, if you can wean yourself off the narcotic drip of reality TV shows, gossip mags and TMZ.com, you’ll find you have a surprising number of hours free to log on to substantive news sites, read good books, get involved in your community, make a contribution to local, national or global causes and, who knows, maybe even achieve something that will get your own mug in the paper.

79 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:52am | 17/06/11

      “... the paradox of educated, middle-class women, who have long outperformed their male counterparts educationally ...”

      Women aren’t getting smarter, and men aren’t getting dumber. Fifty years ago, men outperformed their female counterparts by similar margins. The reason was discrimination against women in a male-dominated educational system.

      Feminists successfully agitated for change, and so the education system was altered to be more favourable to women. As a result, the position of the sexes has been reversed, because of current discrimination against men in a female-dominated educational system.

      The same goes for the workplace.

      “...but are obsessed with reading about celebrities and, what’s more, spending huge amounts of time, money and effort trying to look and live like them.”

      Women haven’t changed. They’ve always been obsessed with celebrities and gossip. Just like men have always been obsessed with technology and sports. It’s just human nature.

      “25 per cent of women aged 18 to 34 would rather lose their ability to read than lose their figure”

      Has anyone asked whether men would rather lose their ability to read than lose their virility? I suspect the percentages would be about the same. Statistics like these are dodgy because they only address half the picture.

      I could go on about the whole “dumbing down” debate, but it really boils down to this: People are not dumber, but public intellectuals whinge because most people disagree with their silly ideas.

    • static says:

      07:06am | 17/06/11

      Totally agree,oh and vacuous parents will raise vacuous children

    • Dash says:

      07:47am | 17/06/11

      Yes, primary school in particular in this country is by women for women. Our local school got its first and only male teacher last week! That was cause for celebration amoungst parents.

    • acotrel says:

      08:14am | 17/06/11

      @Erick
      ‘People are not dumber, but public intellectuals whinge because most people disagree with their silly ideas. ‘

      I don’t like it when ‘silly ideas’ are dismissed without consideration because they don’t fit the programmed mindset, or the ideology.

    • Badwolf says:

      08:52am | 17/06/11

      Some things are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them.
      -George Orwell

    • Super D says:

      09:02am | 17/06/11

      @Erick - I reckon you significantly understate the number of men who would give up reading.

    • acotrel says:

      09:36am | 17/06/11

      @SuperD When you get to my age, the decision is not in your own hands.  I love a good biography, or history book.  And it’s just as well, because without them I’d be stuck watching TV, and dreaming of past glories.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:33am | 17/06/11

      A recent article on cracked.com showed that people are not getting dumber. IQs are about the same.

      Although I don’t know if IQ tests have changed.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:48am | 17/06/11

      I.Q. Tests are really good at determining how good people are at I.Q. Tests. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • mike j says:

      12:16pm | 17/06/11

      Tubesteak: “people are not getting dumber. IQs are about the same.”

      Considering IQ tests are standardised to have an average of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, I’d be very suprised if IQs weren’t ‘about the same’. However, standardisation samples do seem to be getting comparatively smarter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect).

    • Anne71 says:

      01:09pm | 17/06/11

      Erick, I for one am most certainly not “obsessed with celebrities and gossip”.  I couldn’t think of anything more boring, to be honest.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:29pm | 17/06/11

      Anne71, you might not be into celebrities but you certainly are a big believer in Female Directive 2: It’s all about me.

    • KH says:

      03:11pm | 17/06/11

      Anne71 - When reading Ericks idea of what women are (supposedly)  I sometimes have to look down and check that I am in fact, a woman, because according to Erick, I am actually a man!!  I would rather have my toenails taken off with some pliers than spend time talking about celebrities and gossip.

    • examinator says:

      10:13am | 18/06/11

      Sorry old bean,
      This response adds weight to the argument that people *appear* to be getting dumber i.e.it’s full of assumptions and stereo types but most of all emotional anti intellectual rhetoric, all of which can be disproved.

      The “dumbing down effect” has more to do with the increasing emotional discomfort we have between what thinking tells us and what our emotions/conditioning expects….
      There is a sales maxim that says it best
      “Emotions determines the WANT thinking justifies it”. Hence sales/ads/politics are always made on the grounds of emotions.
      “Whiter than white?” (is there such a thing?, “big tax on everything”(every thing?),up until recently the details weren’t known (i.e. fear of the unknown) et al., this cereal is 99% fat free( 250% more sugar?).

      As for the irrefutability of common sense? (It was once common sense that garlic around one’s neck would protect us from plague etc.)

      The notion that common sense is greater than years of specific training , research and experience? consider brain surgery from a common sense
      person or an qualified/experienced neuro- surgeon ? Are experts fallible? ...absolutely but who is most likely to be the better for the job?
      In essence I’m saying we (some of us ) are overwhelmed by the complexities of real life and feel that we/ our opinions don’t matter…..Without a lecture that all depends on your out look….Personally I’m glad I don’t know everything… because if I did I’d be depressed about humanity’s future..

    • Demoman says:

      04:50pm | 18/06/11

      KH and Anne71, another hallmark of women is their inability to understand statistical statements such as a generalisation.

    • bec says:

      06:08am | 17/06/11

      When it becomes a usual practice for some dude on the street to shout “SHOW US YER FIRST CLASS HONOURS DEGREE, LOVE” at us, rather than the usual subjects for catcalls, then your point might be reasonable. (My favourite catcall has been the guy who leaned out of a car to loudly declare “HEY LADY… UM… YOU HAVE BROWN HAIR AND ARE CARRYING A COMPUTER CASE. YEAH…” I took it as the sincere compliment that it was intended to be.)

      Everyone is stupid and nobody reads enough. The point is clearly made. I asked some students the other day what their favourite book was. Of the five, four said that they’d never read a novel on their own before they’d started in my class at the beginning of the year. These kids were *thirteen*. Parents of both genders aren’t reading enough, especially to their children, and it’s becoming a serious problem with a number of boys in some socioeconomic backgrounds being almost functionally illiterate.

      If you like your damn kids and don’t want them to become pet food taste-testers later in life, read to them. Read in front of them. Talk about books, fiction and non-fiction. Don’t call someone who likes reading a fag or pussy, and if you use words like “academic” or “intellectual” derisively in front of them, don’t be stunningly shocked if they adopt those attitudes and decide to be time-wasting, disruptive seat-warmers at school.

    • acotrel says:

      08:20am | 17/06/11

      @Bec I attended classes until I was 57.  I worked as a scientist for 40 years.  And I still believe I’m dumb.  My kids have only one problem - they’re too conscientious.  And they pay the price for that.  They still need to discover that the system runs on bullshit!  Then they’ll be much happier.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:19pm | 17/06/11

      acotrel. I agree. The more you know, the more you realize that you don’t know. The egg will find its faces but, the rest of will have to wear the BS.

    • Bev says:

      03:25pm | 17/06/11

      Parents of both genders aren’t reading enough, especially to their children, and it’s becoming a serious problem with a number of boys in some socioeconomic backgrounds being almost functionally illiterate.

      Agreed all my children (now grown) have read and still read many books.  Yes we did read to them and encourage them to read. My grandchildren different story but all is not lost.

      As far as boys being illiterate there is a debate about phonics and whole word. I am no expert but there does seem to be merit in the idea that many boys do better with phonics.

    • Jay-ded says:

      04:30pm | 17/06/11

      I am an avid reader and read to my kids when they were young.  My kids on the other hand - do not read at all unless forced to by school.  Why should they read?  Everything they need to know they can download off the computer.  There’ s no more going to the library to research this or that - just google the damn thing.

      Maybe that’s our problem.  Computers. 
      We should get back to basics with pen and paper?

    • Tim says:

      07:06am | 17/06/11

      I read lots of books, of all genres, when I was at school but I don’t think they were substantively different from some of the crap that is on TV today. It’s simply another format.
      People aren’t any dumber today, they just have far greater ability to express their dumbness to the world due to technology.

    • MattC says:

      07:58am | 17/06/11

      Agree, the proliferation of reality television and social networking websites hasn’t increased the number of idiots in the world, merely highlighted just how many of them there are out there.

    • iansand says:

      09:41am | 17/06/11

      There is far less information in visual media compared to written.  A film script is around 130 12 point double spaced pages.  The novel from which the film is derived might be 400 8 or 10 point pages.

      I have read, but not independently verified, that the number of words in a half hour news bulletin is fewer than the number of words on the first page of a broadsheet newspaper.

      The other failing of visual media is that the imagination is stultified.  There is no need to create your own mental world within which the action occurs.  It is presented to you.  About the only film I have seen that matches the original novel in power is Clockwork Orange.  Dr Zhivago goes close, but that is because the film has sheer visual impact - the film does not have the emotional or narrative complexity of the book.

    • LeonT says:

      11:52am | 17/06/11

      @iansand

      Movies derived from books are often terrible because the story was not designed for that medium. Film certainly has a place in our literature as there are some films that do things text alone cannot.

    • iansand says:

      12:25pm | 17/06/11

      LeonT - Well yes.  I should have mentioned that most egregious form of “literature” - the book of the film.  Perhaps the true rule is whatever medium came first tends to be better than the derivative version.

    • Max Redlands says:

      01:06pm | 17/06/11

      @ iansand - “Perhaps the true rule is whatever medium came first tends to be better than the derivative version.”

      Agree - ’ tho the exception to that rule would be The Godfather. A “B” grade pot-boiler of a book - The Godfather I and II are rightfully held to be classics. Godfather III not so much.

    • acotrel says:

      09:08pm | 17/06/11

      I love seeing movies based on books, after I’ve actually read the book.  I sometimes think ‘so that’s what that looked like’ - silly isn’t it?

    • deb says:

      07:38am | 17/06/11

      I read The Gulag Archipelago many years ago when i was still a kid,fourteen i believe.A powerful book,didnt understand much of it.Never forgot it though.Some books are meant to be read again.If i can find it on a library shelf i intend to delve back into it again.
      Tim you are so wrong about books,imagination is the main part of books.Have you ever seen a TV show made from a book you enjoyed? All wrong isnt it? the people and places dont fit the way you imagined them.
      As for magazines i never buy them,trash.

    • TChong says:

      09:51am | 17/06/11

      deb
      The TV shows not as good as the book?
      Maybe correct for fiction , but for reference works , maybe not.
      one example- Carl Sagans “Cosmos” , an outstanding book, and when I first saw the TV show as a young lad ( late 70s?, very early 80s ?), it was got me interested in science.
      A book and TV series that promoted use of the imagination.A classic.
      Too bad such wisdom, and encoragement of learning and enlightenment is now considered a non event when compared to the staged events of Snooki and Pals, or Tyra and her models.

    • Bev says:

      03:41pm | 17/06/11

      Must admit I’m a real Tolkien fan.  Every time I read Lord of the rings I get more out of it.  The Hobbit great read also.  Other stuff he wrote is also good like The Silmarillion and The children of Hurin. The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun (a whole tale written in poetic form) is interesting small bits at a time though.

    • gman says:

      08:15am | 17/06/11

      Everything Bad Is Good For You by Steven Johnson. Interesting read for a counter argument to Postman.

    • LeonT says:

      08:21am | 17/06/11

      “Simple-minded folk are wont to point the finger at the meedja, but as my esteemed journalistic colleagues argue whenever the likes of Tanner are impertinent to offer them a performance review, the fourth estate is never anything other than a force for good and any of its regrettable excesses, in the unlikely event such excesses even exist, are entirely the fault of others (felicitously enough, usually whatever group the individual making the criticism belongs to).”

      And here lies much of the problem. Modern media is largely unwilling to turn the dirty mirror back on itself.

    • ibast says:

      08:49am | 17/06/11

      When I get the odd day off I’m astounded at how lowbrow the level of television is during the day.  A fair portion of the population is exposed to this drivel.

      With 3 channels at it’s fingertips ABC should be raising the bar instead of just having kids shows on during the day.

    • martinX says:

      09:46am | 17/06/11

      >>>When I get the odd day off I’m astounded at how lowbrow the level of television is during the day.

      I couldn’t agree more. More channels certainly hasn’t meant there’s something decent to watch and daytime is the pits. 57 channels and nothin’ on…

      There’s always Angry Birds to play grin

    • Seanr says:

      10:05am | 17/06/11

      As a parent of toddlers ibast I will say that an hour or so of ABCforKids can be a godsend sometimes, so I appreciate the kids shows

      What’s scary is that I now have my favourites….

    • ibast says:

      10:52am | 17/06/11

      Seanr, yep agree.  Been there. It’s just last time I looked ABC had large periods during the day where all 3 channels had kids shows on at the same time.  With most people now having set-top boxes this isn’t necessary.  Although I do believe it has/is changing.  Lets hope they put some stimulating viewing on for daytime viewers

    • Harquebus says:

      12:23pm | 17/06/11

      Says a lot when, the best of the worst is The Loveboat. I don’t watch much TV but, I do sometimes like to watch the early morning evangelists. They are a great laugh.

    • acotrel says:

      09:18pm | 17/06/11

      @Martin X
      I agree.  I suggest that TV script writers must all be unimaginative retards.  I particularly hate TV shows about middle America.  Who really cares about Fonsie or Howard Cunningham or even the Simpsons?  It’s simply inane bullshit.  And what about ‘Sex in the City’ WHO CARES who is stuffing whom?  I certainly don’t!  I don’t mind watching The Bill, but that’s been done to death.  My favourite shows are MIdsomer Murders, because of the sets, Antiques Roads Show - same reason, Bargain Hunt, and Q&A.

    • Seanr says:

      10:12am | 17/06/11

      I don’t think tv is making us dumber, I think it is just getting easier to express our stupidity through mediums like twitter, blogs, reality tv shows etc. Plus as a society we are getting more sensitive to any implied criticism.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:07am | 17/06/11

      what are you trying to say, huh?

      wink

    • Seanr says:

      11:57am | 17/06/11

      I refer you to my last sentence ff, you sensitive flower you, I did say ‘our’, we’re all in this together!
      Separate issue, how do I get emoticons? (yes showing my computer ignorance)

    • fairsfair says:

      12:42pm | 17/06/11

      hahaha.

      Righto gramps:

      Colon followed by closing bracket =    smile
      Semicolon followed by closing bracket =    wink

      I’ve seen Erick and Elphaba wheel out some containing large smiling faces and even eyewear…. I have no idea on those. In real life though my mood usually looks like this angry

    • Seanr says:

      02:34pm | 17/06/11

      Don’t get lippy youngsta I’m only 10ish years older…..
      :() ;() ... :? :D let’s see if this works

    • Seanr says:

      02:51pm | 17/06/11

      ....dammitt!!!

    • fairsfair says:

      03:11pm | 17/06/11

      Oh no.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      10:41am | 17/06/11

      Your getting better Mr. Bowmen. Few less generelisations about people and it would have been a stellar piece

    • Harquebus says:

      10:49am | 17/06/11

      Nigel Bowen is dumb enough to use that Flash crap.

    • Damo says:

      11:41am | 17/06/11

      I hope you’re talking about the flv video format and not Flash in general.
      Flash is still cool for making vactor cartoons and stuff, but I agree the flv format sux.

    • mike j says:

      11:00am | 17/06/11

      “Bloom’s book explores the paradox of educated, middle-class women, who have long outperformed their male counterparts educationally and are increasingly outshining them in the workforce”

      So… it’s fiction, then.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:26pm | 17/06/11

      Women do very well at university…but are less likely to become business owners. My pharmacy friend suggested to me that 90 percent of pharmacy students are women…90 per cent of pharmacy owners are men.

      Women are significantly less successful in convincing their life partners to sign as guarantors for their businesses.

      Another important, and fairly unaddressed issue for women in the workforce is their significantly lower productivity (relative to men) once they graduate. I know very many women graduates who drop out completely from their professions. I am one of them.

      There has been much hand-wringing about medical grads not wanting to work traditional medical hours…I wonder how much of this changing culture is influenced by the increasing feminisation of medicine?

    • mike j says:

      01:59pm | 17/06/11

      Response by paragraph:

      1. Being a pharmacist is a vocation, being a pharmacy owner is a business decision.

      2. Because their ‘businesses’ usually involve trying to force shoddy cosmetic services, Tupperware or home-made fascinators into an already overcrowded marketplace, rather than trying to meet an existing need. Also, men are less gullible.

      3. The lack of women’s productivity in the workforce is a problem for everyone. Women are capable of working as hard as men, but they choose not to, and no-one holds them accountable for this.

      4. It’s probably the major influence. Modern women have been brought up to believe that they are entitled to receive whatever it is that they want, so it is only natural that they don’t want to work the long hours that male doctors have been working for centuries.

      Didn’t really get where you were going with this, however.

    • Hmmmm says:

      03:43pm | 19/06/11

      Mike, go back under your rock mate.  What a total and utter pile of crap.

    • Shenanigans says:

      11:16am | 17/06/11

      The problem is most of my generation (gen y) are a bunch of single minded, easily distracted, unintelligent, sex driven, idiots. baring the few who may actually make something of themselves the generation I’m from probably wont amount to much. This is what’s driving our society deeper into the hole that is this dumbocracy
      My solution is piss the ‘celebrities off’, stop with the whole bullshit inspired tv shows that do nothing other then glorify the stupid. Make children read a book or two, and (shock, horror) force your kids who are older then 15 to get a job and make them stay in school instead of being ‘cool’ and ditching it cos thats what all the ‘rebels’ (f@#kwits) do, so they can learn to be intelligent and how to contribute to society later in life.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:29pm | 17/06/11

      Nigel writes: ‘The standard ‘bread-and-circuses’ Left line is that the Right relies on the lightweight media to act like a big pile of shiny beads, distracting the masses from their oppression. Simplistic as this analysis is,...’

      Yes, Nigel, it is very simplistic. Do you honestly think that rich individuals have the power to ‘make’ people choose stupidity over substance?
      Wow.

    • Anubis says:

      01:04pm | 17/06/11

      But Lisa H - do you really ..... Oooh look, shiny things

    • ooooh shiny says:

      04:25pm | 17/06/11

      Mine mine mine mine !

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      01:35pm | 17/06/11

      Women are generally interested in frivolity. Hence their rather conspicuous absence in the hall of genius.

      Look around your home. Anything that makes your life easier was invented by a man. The fact that we pretend the sexes are equal when there is such an enormous gap between our achievements is sad. But that’s reality.

    • marley says:

      02:28pm | 17/06/11

      I do hope you keep your Nobel nicely polished, and your list of patents properly framed.  Or are you just trying to bask in reflected glory?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      03:13pm | 17/06/11

      I’m not going to ignore reality, that’s for sure. Nor the fact that I’ve never met a woman even approaching the highest peaks of perception and creativity.

    • HappyCynic says:

      04:22pm | 17/06/11

      @SSR

      Marie Curie, Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth (the first and second), Susan B Anthony, Amelia Earhart, Indira Ghandi, Grace Hopper, Margaret Mead, Rosa Parks…

      There are heaps more, but not only is this list of women more perceptive, more intelligent and more creative than you but of almost every other man as well.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:45pm | 17/06/11

      Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      More creative and perceptive? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      Wow thanks. I needed to finish Friday with a little light humour.

      Marie Curie? That chick that rode her husband’s coat tails all the way to a Nobel Prize? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    • mafrley says:

      04:46pm | 17/06/11

      SSR - err, exactly how many men have you met even approaching the highest peaks of perception and creativity?  I personally have never met anyone of either sex who fits that description. 

      I’ve read about such people, perhaps watched a few on TV, had indirect dealings with one, but I’ve never met one.  Have you?

    • Baal says:

      04:49pm | 17/06/11

      @SSR,
      Reality is subjective. You have a filter with which you view and then shape reality in your head. You should change you handle to “sad sad perception” or maybe “sad sad bastard” but stop trying claim that you know what “reality” really is.

    • Dave says:

      04:53pm | 17/06/11

      Hmmmm, where to start with this one? Well Sad Reality, here’s a kids’ page to give you the basics of womens’ contributions to the world of science for a start. http://www.women-scientists-in-history.com/historia.html . By the way, there are plenty of women mathematicians and scinetiets without whom most of those things in your house wouldnt exist. They are not absent from the hall of genius - they are just absent from your knowledge of the halls of genius; and your knowledge seems to be pretty much close to zero. You obviously are a man of very very little learning or basic knowledge. I think we should just correct what you say so that other readers arent tempted to be as dumb as you and then just ignore you.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:56pm | 17/06/11

      I’ve met a few. They were all men. Just like me.

    • Fiona says:

      06:52pm | 17/06/11

      Yes raising the next generation is rather frivolous isn’t it? Despite our modern “conveniences”, apparently we still do much the same amount of housework today as years ago.
      Btw, do you use those sort of statements as pick up lines?

    • Fiona says:

      07:13pm | 17/06/11

      SSR, and she (curie) got the 2nd Nobel prize after her husband’s death for???

    • mike j says:

      05:57pm | 18/06/11

      Do you really want me to make this out to ‘mafrley’?

    • Hmmmm says:

      03:51pm | 19/06/11

      This is a joke surely?  This person is doing this for a laugh.  Surely no-one can be that stupid.  Surely?  Definitely sad, sad….But quite funny to think that he hasn’t been weeded out of the gene pool…....

    • polly p says:

      12:06pm | 12/07/11

      now i know why ‘sad, sad’ - because no sane women would go near him…!

    • James1 says:

      02:26pm | 17/06/11

      It’s not all bad.  Keep in mind, for every Jersey Shore there is a Deadwood.  Likewise, for every Daily Telegraph there is an Economist.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      03:16pm | 17/06/11

      The Economist is for pseudo-intellectual tossers. Paint by numbers MSM view of the world. Deadwood on the other hand rocks.

    • ausspud says:

      02:37pm | 17/06/11

      ey lefte skool at thi end off yeer10 and eye onle do r bit off reiding and wach a bit off teve and eye doent tink im dum.

    • Dave says:

      04:48pm | 17/06/11

      Uh, Sarah Palin has a 21% approval rating in the US. She’s NOT a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president. I think you are probably paying far too much attention to all the idiocy and mistaking it for the truth. Its simple: DONT PANIC!

    • stephen says:

      12:00am | 18/06/11

      Fancy Lisa Bloom writing another silly book about how women should stay smart in a dumbed-down world.
      May I suggest the reason why we are so despised by the East is because of these half-witted books, thus ?

    • Kyle says:

      08:47am | 18/06/11

      I think this guy is confusing the medium with content. I wouldn’t compare Soap Operas to Shakespeare either, however, there are plenty of good television shows and films. You can’t blame the TV itself. When the novel first came out, that had just as low a cultural status as many give television today.

    • BundyGil says:

      08:22pm | 18/06/11

      I’m totally surprised that an article like this even got a run on News Ltd seeing they are the major purveyors of the dumbed down media. You only have to read the howling comments here and the way they’re phrased to know without a doubt that this is the website the dumbed down population gravitates to..
      I’m no academic, but I do have one or two thoughts to rub together, which seems to be quite a rarity for most the News Ltd reader population.
      The most popular rant here is against interlectuels shoving ideas of global warming and plain cigarette cartons down their throat.

    • the observant citizen says:

      07:51am | 19/06/11

      ...media are designed to dumb the average, proverbial Joe ..and that is their purpose intended by those who own them…

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter