Quote:
Originally Posted by collie1228
I'd never want to see anyone die a gruesome death. But by the same token, I object to people conning the public to think what they do is "death defying", when it isn't anything like that at all. I'm not interested in Wallenda whatsoever, but I am interested when the audience is being conned by the networks into thinking what he does is "entertainment". He walked across the falls in no danger whatsoever. How is that different from walking across the Rainbow Bridge?
|
I didn't watch the show, but I think that traversing the falls on a cable less than the thickness of a tennis ball is probably a little more challenging than crossing it on a footbridge, regardless of whether or not a safety harness was necessary?
Why shouldn't someone be able to enjoy watching someone's amazing talent (in this case balance) on TV if they choose? I'm a big believer that if you don't want to waste your time watching something on TV, turn it off or change the channel. If you were unaware that a harness was required and you ended up "wasting" a couple of hours watching the entire TV show, it probably wasn't the first time "wasting" time watching a bad TV show or movie. I know I've wasted more hours than I can count watching crappy movies at the theatre, but I simply move on and forget about it. Shoot, I've wasted plenty of time watching mediocre entertainment in the squares but the bottom line is that it was my choice and at the end of the day it was no big deal.
I do think that these types of shows tend to cater to a certain segment of society that hopes to see blood and gore (the same folks who slow down and stop traffic to "observe" auto accidents, many who watch auto racing hoping to see a crash, etc.). I am not saying that all who watch these types of shows are hoping to see misfortune, but many think that the chance of seeing someone hurt themselves is part of the entertainment.