HomeUncategorizedDigging In

Comments

Digging In — 8 Comments

  1. Actually, I’d say that the media misogyny, particularly advertising, has INCREASED in the UK in the last 15 years. But in things like working life, with colleagues – the opposite is true. Quite where that leaves any discussion, I’m not sure. I do know that a certain Australian’s stranglehold on much news media has led to a sneering about political correctness which promotes continuing misogyny, stereotyping and entitlement. Where corporations have a stranglehold on US politics, I feel that the media has on UK politics… But, just my opinion.

    • It’s a very good and valid opinion indeed. Though the UK, at least, has the BBC… for now. Still. *hugs it gooood*

      [[radio edit]] I would venture, at a speculation, that while your generation and perhaps mine as well are in good stead, I definitely am still concerned that the brunt of the message upon generations behind us can only be detrimental. And I think that, perhaps, the media here bears a punchier punch because well… it’s all in, isn’t it? There are multiple news sources, sure, but their message isn’t diluted with say… local news. I think that makes sense? It does in my head, but I haven’t quite gotten it worked around to a nice, clear statement. I just know it seems more concentrated, so goes to follow. πŸ™‚

      • I know what you mean in that it’s not so introspective, on the other hand “local news” is UK wide mainly because the UK is only the same size as a single state. Having said that, I’m not sure that a single US state has our density of population – even California only has 37 million against our 62 million. So our newspapers and radio are national rather than serving a limited market… I love the BBC too, but even they have forays into misogyny – Top Gear for example, whilst hilarious, is very much “lads”.

        • And add in the green belt land, and it’s even more atop each other! Mind, I think the green belt is a good idea, but definitely… now I’m curious as to what the actual population density is.

  2. 660 per square mile, as against the US 83 per square mile – obviously, as you said, this doesn’t account for a heterogeneous distribution, as it’s an average, but it does give you some idea. I also looked up rough figures for the area of land and California is roughly three times the area of the UK.

    • Definitely a bit stacked atop each other, then. πŸ™‚ And if that’s average, it must be lower in the bigger states. Though checking, my native Texas is apparently 96.3 per square mile as of 2010 (per Texas almanac: http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/facts-profile), and California is 234.4. I’m surprised – I guess I thought it would be less due to size of states. But then, the populated points are (by American non-New-England standards) well and truly populated…

      • My curiosity continued and I looked up the density for London – it’s an astounding 12,773 per square mile, which pales into insignificance against 27,532 per square mile in New York City!

Leave a Reply to discodoris Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: