[ SECRET POST #6466 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6466 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #924.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/sgLT8Hx.png

[meadowphoenix]

idk, i'm kinda happy its influence on the social understanding of celebrities/notorieties has lessened, since it can't pretend there's something interesting about them every day.

Secret OP

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, when it was a monthly publication, it covered media topics in greater depth (not to mention had photography that was actually worthwhile from technical and intent standpoints).

Re: Secret OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think that's the case with a lot of media, regardless of publication schedule, though - there's very few professional photographers and billions of randos with a phone camera. And most journalists now have to do their own photos, which is silly but that's budget cuts.

Re: Secret OP

[(Anonymous)]

US made this decision way before the journalism cuts we see today, though. This happened around the turn of the Millennium. It makes no sense to me that they decided to move from having competitors like Entertainment Weekly to competitors like People Magazine. It was a huge, unnecessary step down.

Re: Secret OP

[meadowphoenix]

You know what, I read your secret incorrectly. I agree with you completely.