Is TV Worth the Transition?
At twelve noon on June 12, 2009, the end of analog television's era was also when I let my set go dark. The last declaration I saw was that there were about three million of us disconnected but, no worry, we can still order the "converter box" to bring all those programs back to our living rooms. Going dark on tv was not that hard-at least for a while. My recent memories had too many "yuks" and too few "harks".
President John F. Kennedy's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Newton Minow, shocked a broadcast industry audience when he called television a "vast wasteland". That was in 1961!
Had he not mellowed as a corporate lawyer with a lucrative practice, what would Newton Minow say today? What is the superlative of "vast wasteland"?
Television today-over the air and cable-with the usual exceptions, could empty the dictionary of disparaging adjectives. Some times slots-such as daily afternoon talk-entertainment shows-are so bad, so sadomasochistic and exploitive, that they escape the media critics. Why would Tom Shales-the insightful Washington Post critic who writes like a dream-want to apply his talented eye to shows that invoke the Latin phrase "res ipsa louitur": the thing speaks for itself?
On weekends, the shows swing from the slick infomercials, pushing cutlery and real estate wealth, to sports that become duller play by play-especially golf-to the Sunday morning news program where evasions of predictable questions run on and on.
Then there are the second-rate movie reruns, the insipid sitcom shows, so dependent on canned laughter, the dramas, so spilt-second violent that they eliminate any kind of memorable suspense.
The early and late local evening news needs psychoanalysts. Repetition may be economical for it requires fewer reporters.
The thirty minutes of the late local news is composed of roughly nine minutes of ads, four minutes of sports, four obsessive minutes of four weather segments, the usual openings with street crimes or fires, the customary animal story and half minute of contrived, spontaneous chit-chat between the anchors and the rest-the abbreviated rest-is what can be called news.
One local DC station once had the temerity to try vainly distinguishing itself from the sameness of its competitors by the slogan "no chit chat, no fluff".
So little time is left for news that most news is not covered-not in the neighborhoods, not in city hall or the courts, not in business, labor, schools, or civic activity or achievement.
Missing so much reality by allocating lots of time for local news and wasting so much of it takes the label of those "Reality Shows" to the level of ironic satire.
How much reality would there be without C-Span-that lonely tribute to the public intellect and engagement? Over ninety percent of television is entertainment or advertisements-mostly low grade even for those willing to inhabit bad taste.
I just saw an auto ad on the news for Kia with hamsters driving and occupying the front seat.
The public air waves belong to the people. They are the owners and the television stations are the tenants. Guess what? Since the beginning of television broadcasting, these lucrative stations have paid no rent. It is a rent free way to mint money under the guidance of a supine Federal Communications Commission and a Congress frightened of the power of the broadcast industry.
Gone are the regulatory expressions of the 1934 statutory standard-namely "the public interest, convenience and necessity"-binding television stations to a level of public responsibility.
Gone is the worthy requirement for each station to ascertain the public's information needs in an annual public report to the FCC. There is no more fairness doctrine or right of reply. FCC station license renewals proceedings are not as frequent as they were thirty years ago.
Some valuable shows manage to get through the "vast wasteland" and make money. Among them are 60 Minutes (CBS) and the Simpsons (FOX). Non-profit public television has the Bill Moyers Journal. The nature and history shows on some cable channels bear occasional attention.
By and large, however, getting through the noise, hoping to find snippets of interest in otherwise flat and formulaic programs, and having to endure the densely-packed relentless advertisements and product placements, and not knowing whether a news segment is canned from an industry consultant, invites a vacation from an already limited resort to my TV.
There are so many other things to do and learn and evoke than watching screens.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
148 Comments so far
Show AllRESPONSE To NADER
---and what does it all mean"
Who is that gloomy carcass in this
frothy black stucco?
--Maybe a monk in a landfill?
---Protruding from our civilized hedgerows are
heads of dung and beaks of herons.
Someone is gargling in the forest (with
sacramental wine) and there are
gigantic old tubs filled with turds and crepe.
---Platonic porcupines wander among them.
The TV news is sluggish--our culture is full of
Tit fiends. The U.N. is an asylum for the
distinguished, and the universe is a
personality, a gravedigger with an amazing
bag of revolving polka dots an
---on each polka dot lie many graves of puff pastry.
Since Ralph took time from his busy diatribe for a "shout-out" to The Simpsons, he should realize how similar he sounds to a snooty, frantic Sideshow Bob exhorting us to "fell the chattering cyclops"!
Mr. Nader may consider the rest of us miserable and lowly -- after all, we are "willing to dwell in bad taste" -- but he sounds like a doddering oldster here, bewildered at the very idea of a commercial that features hamsters *and* automobiles, and utterly failing to recognize that television is like any other sugary snack: too much of it will kill you, but those of us who are adults internalized that lesson long ago. Maybe he should be reading his lectures to tots.
"television is like any other sugary snack: too much of it will kill you,"
For those of us who find a constant stream of propaganda offensive, Television is more like a box of sugary snacks with cockroaches in it. If there is anything redeeming within the box (which some here defend) the rest is so distasteful it turned us off - and we turned IT off.
I recommend C-span, also C-span's Book TV which is on every week-end.
Also, Jeremy Scahill is often on Democracy Now.
See, it's not all bad - just 99% is bad. You have search out the other 1%.
actually, i will miss amy and jon and a few occasional amazing documentaries, but little else....certainly not the adverts and abundance of vapid programming that makes this a culture more interested in american idol than in the hearts of our families and friends, the health of our local community, not to mention the afghans or africans or amazonians --or entire species dying to preserve our precious 'way of life'.... it is no 'life' to be so unaware of our own watersheds that we think nothing of watering vast lawns and sidewalks during a rainstorm, so ignorant of our fellow creatures that our eating habits destroy entire ecosystems, so attached to our suvs that we turn a blind eye to the impoverishment of oil-rich countries held hostage by our military and so flabby in our thinking that sitting in front of a tv (or even a computer.... i didn't say i'm fully recovered.... i am in RECOVERY from this insanity and will be for the duration of my life i'm sure) has any merit beyond filling up time we could be spending with our intimates, learning to be more self-reliant and ALIVE and getting off the consumerist treadmill/trance. we let our set go dark as well and i'm hoping it'll mean leaving behind electronic screens (including this one), going outside and reconnecting with the sun, rain, soil, plants, birds, and other humans who are trying to wean themselves off of the idea that we actually need an overpriced (in oh so many ways) electronic intermediary to communicate with one another.
What is TV??? It sounds alien, does it send invisible rays into your home then inside your mind like viruses? HaHa, JUST kidding, THAT, would be beyond the pale.
And of course then any sane soul would 86, execute, extirpate and eliminate these agents of infection.
But no, "Dad, I'm safe, I won't get anything." Shoot me.
Wow, I didn't know Ralph Nader was a fan of the "Stuff White People Like" blog!
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-tv/
Anyways, it sounds clear to me that Nader has not been watching TV in a very long time if he actually believes "The Simpsons" is one of the few shows on TV worth watching. That show hasn't been worth watching since the end of the '90s!
In all seriousness though, the television is just one more medium (alongside radio, newspapers, the Internet, movies, books, etc.) that has its benefits and drawbacks. Yeah, a lot of what's on TV is full of crap, but then again there's also a lots of mind-numbing things on the Internet, the movie theater, your local radio station, books, you name it. It's not the medium, it's all in how you use it. Singling out TV as more "toxic" than other forms of media is disingenuous, unfair, and short-sighted. I notice that some of the comments here are full of the "Kill Your TV!" rhetoric but then seems to dial it down with a qualifier like: "Well, except for maybe HBO and Animal Planet and History Channel and PBS and..." I'm surprised no one has caught on to this irony. I guess it's cool to throw away your television until you're faced with the prospect of not watching Jon Stewart anymore...
TV along with substandard education is very important in keeping the public ignorant. An intelligent and well informed populace is a threat to the government.
I can't believe some people pay up the butt to have a gizillion worthless channels, just to say after searching, scrolling and bleeping their way through, "there's nothing on."
This latest episode of TV "transition" is just one more proof of the level of lying and deception foisted upon us.
Just COUNT the hours of the nation being told the importance of being "prepared" for disasters and spending untold millions on police and military to that supposed end. How many times have you heard and seen the "emergency broadcast system" being tested?
NOW, these idiots have made it impossible in times of hurricane, flood, or other disaster when the electricity is off, to tune in to news and information with a battery-powered tv.
They are nuts, and by accepting their turning off a 60+ year old system without a whimper, we are, too.
Sure, very little of relevance has graced the airwaves in decades. I'm with you on that. But it can have it's place, and now the potential for a better use in the future has been severely diminished.
They lie through their teeth. They don't want us safer or more secure ... they want us more SECURED.
"NOW, these idiots have made it impossible in times of hurricane, flood, or other disaster when the electricity is off, to tune in to news and information with a battery-powered tv."
Radio is still available and future portable monitors will just tune to the new transmission signals. Plus with cell phones, blackberrys, netbooks and scores of other technologies that keep us informed, I don't think the population has been compromised in any way when it comes to emergency information.
TV is the coporate-funded and state-sanctioned WEAPON OF MASS DECEPTION - is it any wonder they made such a big deal of reminding us how important it was to "stay in tune"?
Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" has become a half vast wasteland.
I have been preparing myself for this historic moment for more than a year now when I unpluged the propaganda box.
No more '10 minutes of hate' and 20 minutes of insulting lies twice an hour. No more Faux News and myth information. I find that I feel better and stronger every day. Life goes better without TV!
The best on tv is Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
I'd include Free Speech TV and our local community programming and worthy broadcasts like City Hall mtgs. But you need a cable TV subscription to get it!
EuroDan
I used to think that was true until I discovered that Amy Goodman, like Noam Chomsky, [of all people], has practically no interest in challenging the Bush administration's explanations regarding the events of 9/11, which have so many holes in it that one could drive a Mack truck through them. The frustrating thing about Ms. Goodman is that she has repeatedly said, with justification, that one must turn to alternative media such as Democracy Now! because only programs such as DN! will hold the feet to the fire of those people who are in positions of power. By abnegating her responsibility Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and other gatekeepers on the left become just as complicit as those on the right in condoning the myth of 9/11 that has been perpetrated upon the American people by the mainstream media.
What aspects of the Bush Administrations explanations of the events of 11/9/2001 are you challenging? That airliners were flown into the buildings, and that the buildings suffered progressive collapse as a result of the severe damage and fire? These aren't explanations of the Bush Administration, they are the explanations of thousands of eyewitnesses and many independent engineers informally or formally in reports, reviewing the evidence, including myself.
Yes YUNZER, we do question the collapse of the buildings due to fire and damage, as alank, errol and seditious pointed out, for good reason. Furthermore . . . yes, we did see airplanes flown into the buildings. But what NONE of us (you or us) saw was WHO was flying those planes. The official story named 19 Arab "terrorists" who supposedly flew those planes. No less than 7 of those men have been proven to be still alive. That was confirmed by many newspapers around the world. Any police force and prosecuting attorney has to deliver evidence of means and motive to prove someone is behind any crime. So far, the government and the Keane-Hamilton Commission have not done a very good job of that whatsoever.
Seditious and Seventhson
Intelligently and persuasively well said. It is simply beyond belief how anyone, especially someone who claims to be an "intelligent engineer", can objectively look at the evidence and not come away with doubts concerning the official explanation concerning 9/11. As I may have mentioned earlier, is one supposed to simply dismiss not simply one or two but the over one hundred people, such as the firemen and those who were trapped in both towers, who said that they heard what to them sounded very much like explosions? As Seditious correctly notes, those buildings were specifically built to withstand a crash from a 707 which is quite similar to a 737 airplane. As I stated also, I believe, there has been no high-rise building in history which has ever totally collapsed due to fire.
Seventhson bring out the extremely relevant point that six or seven of the alleged terrorists have been found alive and well. Why in the world is the mainstream media, especially on television, not trumpeting this fact? This alone should have been a reason to indict the Bush administration for malfeasance concerning the crime that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
yunzer -
If you're an 'independent engineer' and still believe the official gov't version of events, then I'd say you are a lousy engineer, AND/OR have chosen to believe what is convenient for you to believe.
Yes, airliners were flown into the buildings. No, they did not collapse as a result of the "severe" damage and fire, because the fires and damage was not severe enough. No steel-framed building has ever collapsed like that from fire damage, even those that burned much longer and more intensely than the WTC's.
In fact, the original architects of the WTC's have said that they they were designed to withstand exactly the kind of damage that was inflicted on 9/11, i.e. a direct hit by a 707, similar to a pencil being poked through a screen door. Were you aware of that?
Why was no forensic investigation done? Instead, the debris was scooped up and disappeared as quick as could be. Doesn't that strike you as odd, and conspiratorial on the government's part? Those are simple facts that apparently you have failed to look at in your "reviewing [of] the evidence".
There are literally dozens of other unanswered questions such as these that would equally indict the official gov't version of events that you espouse. Have you examined those unanswered questions in an unbiased fashion? If not, don't come in claiming some engineering skill or methodology that you clearly have not applied to this topic.
The towers were tube-in-a-tube design, inherently susceptible to warping by heat, unlike the Empire State of B-25 fame. It's dishonest to call them all 'steel-framed'; they were strikingly different. Yes, they stood up to the impact, as intended. But the architect said on public TV that fire never crossed his mind. They fell because of thermal expansion, as I have explained several times already, to 2 decimal places. The coefficient of thermal expansion in steel is usually given as .000012. With that, you can easily calculate the expansion of various structural members. Please do that, for your own information.
I strongly suspect that the Arabs did not fly the jets into the towers, but rather were themselves hijacked remotely from the ground, having been led to expect a classic hijacking where hostages get traded for something. This also explains why as student pilots they could say they didn't need to know how to land, which is otherwise incomprehensible.
True, we still need an investigation, but don't suspend respiration for the nonce; we still haven't had a good one re JFK and Dallas.
When Arabs get blamed, it was a false flag operation by Mossad.
Not all the evidence disappeared; many tons of it are in New Jersey.
Seditious,
Your analysis of yunzer as a "lousy engineer" seems odd. Are you an engineer?
"In fact, the original architects of the WTC's have said that they they were designed to withstand exactly the kind of damage that was inflicted on 9/11, i.e. a direct hit by a 707, similar to a pencil being poked through a screen door. Were you aware of that?"
Design theory and reality are sometimes at odds. They did say that the Titanic was unsinkable, didn't they?
dolphin63 -
I am not a building or architectural engineer, but that is not required to see the fallaciousness of yunzer's assertions. Why don't you try acknowledging the FACTS as they are known, instead of peddling the DISTORTIONS and personal attacks of the denier crowd?
Meanwhile, Errol has factually rebuffed your ridiculous "design theory" and "Titanic" canards.
No, he didn't.
Only in your delusional mind. Reality however, is different.
LOL! This has been fun guys (or girls)! Can I count on finding you on this site later on? Getting a dose of (delusional)reality from you has been more fun than watching TV.
You have a nice day. Really. I mean it. It's no fun going through life upset ;)
Dolphin63
What is odd is that you neglected to note that not one high-rise building has ever fallen to the ground because of fire the way the WTC towers did in the history of this planet. As Barrie Zwicker points out in his invaluable book Towers of Deception: the Media Cover-up of 9/11:
* "In 1988, a blaze in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for three and a half hours and gutted four and a half of the building's 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage." [Ch. 2, exhibit J, p. 71]
* "In 2004, a fire in a 50-story building in Caracas, Venezuela raged for more than 17 hours, gutting the building's top floors, yet the building did not collapse." [Ch.2, exhibit J, p. 71]
* "In 2005, another spectacular high rise fire occurred when the Edificio Windsor in Madrid turned into a raging inferno for 16 hours on Feb. 12 with only the top floors partially collapsing. The building is only partially comparable to the WTC towers in that it was built of reinforced concrete. But, by the same token, the WTC towers, being steel-framed, were even stronger." [Ch.2, exhibit J, p. 71]
The most recent example should put aside your specious example of the Titanic as it was proved many years later that the builders of the Titanic tried to cut corners by using inferior steel in their hull which caused the water to rush in much quicker than if better materials had been used when building the ship. Compare that to the fact that the Twin Towers were built not with reinforced concrete but with a steel-framed structure, thus making them even stronger than a conventional high rise frame.
The above examples are not "design theory" but rather fact.
You wish to dismiss as being simply "design theory." Are you attempting to say that Leslie Robertson, who was a member of the firm that designed the Twin Towers, was lying when he stated that they were "designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which at the time, 1966, was the largest airliner in commercial operation, and about the size of a Boeing 767"? [Ch. 2, exhibit I, p. 67]
You may also wish to pay particular attention to what Thomas Eager, an MIT professor of materials engineering who, by the way, supports the official theory, says as Zwicker has Eager saying that "the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because" 'the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.'" [C.2, exhibit I, p. 67]
As Zwicker points out, "in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. There was never any indication this accident would cause the building to collapse."
Kevin Ryan, as Zwicker writes, was the site manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories [and also a chemist by profession] which certified the steel components used in construction of the WTC buildings. Ryan wrote an open letter to the NIST which "pointed out hat the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standards and so would easily withstand temperatures caused by burning jet fuel." For his trouble Ryan was fired by his employer.
One has to wonder if Ryan was fired because the EHL was concerned that the official version of events was being challenged even though that person was most qualified to do so. Perhaps they were also fearful that the truth might actually overcome the fable put forth concerning the events of 9/11.
"The most recent example should put aside your specious example of the Titanic as it was proved many years later that the builders of the Titanic tried to cut corners by using inferior steel in their hull which caused the water to rush in much quicker than if better materials had been used when building the ship."
Actually the rate of water coming in to the hull was not the issue. It was the fact that multiple compartments were vented to sea with inadequate bulkheads to deal with it. Better materials would have meant that she would have just taken longer to sink.
You need to check your data again.
And no, Leslie Robertson was not lying. But that does not change the fact that the Towers did collapse due to structural failure.
[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it"
... are you an engineer?
Dolphin63
You ask again "are you an engineer"? No I am not. But over 670 engineers and architects have stated that they do not believe that the Twin Towers plus Building 7 could have come down in its own footprints in 10 seconds. They also seriously challenge your specious contention that those buildings, which were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, would have collapsed when a similar airplane, a 737, hit both Twin Towers. You offer no explanation as to how Building 7 collapsed. As many of the professionals have stated it is extremely suspicious for a building that never hit by an airplane and which never suffered severe structural damage to have come down in that matter. Many of the engineers and architects have said that the only way these buildings could have come down was through the use of controlled demolitions. Or perhaps you are under the belief that all these professionals are "terrorists" who are intent upon creating fear and havoc in the United States. The point is that I will take the word and professional experience of these people over you. Are you an engineer?
There have been over a hundred people, including fireman, medical personnel and people who were trapped in those buildings, who have said that they heard what to them sounded like explosions going off in those buildings. Are you attempting to say that all these people are lying or that they are delusional or that they are all "foreign terrorists?"
Your attempt to conceal the fact that there are huge holes in the government's official story is pitiful. Have you been watching too much of Fox "News" or are you in denial for being unable to see the forest for the trees?
My aren't you an eloquent speaker? (not convincing, but your multiple use of "specious" was clever) sigh.... oh well. I was polite about it.
Let's be accurate, shall we dolphin63? Erroll used the word 'specious' ONCE in his last post, and ONCE in a prior post. So you call twice "multiple"? Weak try at using semantics to derail the main issues.
spe⋅cious [spee-shuhs]
–adjective
1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.
...and Erroll's points ARE convincing, because they're FACTUAL and ACCURATE -- unlike the disingenuous blather you have posted.
I'm waiting for the real truth here.......
Dolphin63
Your comments are certainly worth reading for the amount of hyperbole that they contain as evidenced by your being thunderstruck by my [alleged] overuse of the word specious. In the comments that I directed at you at June 14 at 5: 25 pm I used that word one time. In the other comments sent your way at June 15 at 10:09 am I used the word specious one time also for a grand total of two times. One of the dictionaries that we have states the meaning of specious thusly:
"Having a false look of truth or genuineness."
That would certainly merit the definition of the many claims that you have laid out and which also, ironically, backs up what you had unjustifiably accused me of and that is that your assertions which support the official government conspiracy theory are not convincing as they contain so many holes that one can drive the proverbial Mack truck through them. You certainly are entitled to live in your world of fantasy [which apparently means believing that 19 supposed crazed Arabs from the Middle East were able to overpower not only the flight crews but also the passengers of three out of four airplanes, not with Uzi sub machine guns or pistols or machetes or flamethrowers, but with, of all things, box cutters. Furthermore, we are then supposed to believe that these terrorists were able to somehow outwit the combined resources of the most heavily sophisticated and expensive defense systems on the planet such as NORAD, the FAA and the United States Air Force. Not only that, these masterminds somehow knew that an airplane would be able to penetrate the most heavily guarded building in the world-the Pentagon-without having a jet fighter sent in the air to greet it or having a surface-to-air missile shoot it down] but I and many others know that the US government is more than willing to lie in order to achieve their less than admirable goals as witnessed in the Project for the New American Century's document which called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to happen in order for them to implement their scheme to invade and occupy countries in the Middle East for the control and profit of their oil. And we are then supposed to believe that this "new Pearl Harbor" which then did happen and was envisioned by PNAC to occur was simply a gigantic coincidence. While you may be gullible enough to believe that, I and many others are not.
Your comments are certainly worth reading for the amount of hyperbole that they contain as evidenced by your being thunderstruck by my [alleged] overuse of the word specious. In the comments that I directed at you at June 14 at 5: 25 pm I used that word one time. In the other comments sent your way at June 15 at 10:09 am I used the word specious one time also for a grand total of two times.
Hmmmm.....
1mul·ti·ple Listen to the pronunciation of 1multiple
Pronunciation:
\ˈməl-tə-pəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French, from Latin multiplex, from multi- + -plex -fold — more at -fold
Date:
1647
1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one
Oh my god! I was right! Do I get a brownie?
This is just too rich. Please, by all means tell me more.
Oh, please......
Expand your explanation to include Building 7.
There's ONE aspect.
Then ask yourself this:
Why did officials in all three sites (NYC, D.C., and Pa.) have any and all debris removed and or covered up within days? Who gave the orders and who signed the papers, paid the workers and so on? I've never heard anyone in the media or in the "commission (omission?) even bring up that nasty little detail.
I for one am curious to know how (and why) that transpired. Last I heard, tampering with evidence was a crime.... SOMEBODY made it impossible to investigate. ... there's another aspect for you....
You must have one giant gullet to swallow all that stuff without some lingering doubts.
Alank
Well said. Ynuez states that there many independent Engineers who support the Bush government's claims of how the buildings came down while neglecting to note that there are over 670 Engineers and Architects as well as over 200 Pilots and Aviation Professionals who have strong reservations concerning the government's extremely weak explanations of what transpired on Sept. 11, 2001.
Not to mention the couple hundred former intelligence officers (the most famous of which is Ray McGovern) who ALSO question the official story. And many of them have PhDs. I'm sure YUNZER sees them all as just a bunch of kooky conspiracy nuts, though.
Perhaps Yunzer also believes that the more than one hundred people who were in the two WTC buildings both during and before they had collapsed [such as the firemen and those who had been inside those buildings] and who had said that they heard explosions going off in those two buildings, were supposed to be terrorists. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the Kane-Hamilton-Zelikow commission chose not to put what those people had heard in their report as it would establish that those buildings very well may have come down as a result of only one thing and that would have been controlled demolitions.
The commission also omitted the critical information about mischievous Neptune being ascendant, and how all this interplays with the thermite/Mayan calendar confluence, which was foreordained and plain to see if one has spent many years studying all the signs and buying all the tracts.
My secret fantasy is to gather all of CD's resident "truthers" and astrologers into an abandoned warehouse in Portland, Maine, and make them go at each other in a free-style cage fight. No doubt TV violence has been an ill influence in this.
Sioux Rose
YOHO: One day you are going to crash full speed ahead into your own narrow- mindedness and recognize how your own bigoted context has limited your life while you threw stones at others who already did the work of expanding their world views on the basis of both research and experience. Good luck with that.
And as for 911, it's imperative that we believe the "official story" because:
1. Our leaders can be counted on to tell the truth
2. Our media never lies to us
3. There was never anything in modern American history to suggest that a group of powerful insiders might twist events to suit their own bidding... or profit
4. Authority figures must be granted respect
5. Other (as in the many solid points made by those who have studied the matter)
Cute response, yohocoma. At what point do you engage the brain?
Perhaps you didn't properly process the comments above:
1- open mind
2- read the words
Then you can debate, check or dismiss all you want, one by one.
For example you blithely skip over the fact that witnesses DID indeed report hearing explosions before the plane strike. I've seen the interviews. Were they "truthers" before the tower collapse? Credible witnesses that saw the damage done (and at least one burned person fleeing) by explosions in the basement -- again, BEFORE the plane hit.
What planet or star configuration would you use to explain the collapse of building 7, or are you simply content to believe ... whatever you are told. A forty-story steel building that was not hit fell, too. That minor fact was left out of the official report.
To all those whose eyes glaze over when hearing "conspiracy theorists":
1- it WAS a conspiracy (no matter who did it)
2- a theory is merely an attempt to explain using the available information
The "official explanation" -- 19 guys with box cutters coordinating the hijacking at least four airliners, simultaneously targeting major installations, while dribbling the entire security apparatus of the United States -- is ... REALLY nuts!
So is THAT the one YOU believe, yohocoma??? There's a warehouse waiting for you in Portland if you fulfill your fantasy!
You guys are hilarious! This is much more fun than watching TV.
The number one way to increase your intelligence is to minimize television watching because the two are inversely related.
I've travelled the world and was initially surprised to find that the 'vast wasteland' is commonplace over the whole globe. Now I realize it's part of "globalization", industry friendly agendas to keep us ignorant and apathetic.
It's funny, now that I can buy a 60" HD plasma TV for a weeks pay, I find that I have lost complete interest in television except when researching TVs audiences to find out why they're so entranced by this low grade garbage.
Unless the public can somehow seize back their rightful ownership of the airwaves, corporate misinformation and fluff will continue to lull us into a false sense of security associated with pro-corporate consumerism.
The majority of the people will still believe that drinking Budweiser and shopping at the GAP makes you cool, that McDonald's sells 'healthy choices', that we need to spend a trillion dollars a year on the military to keep us safe and that public healthcare is a secret plot to turn us into a Stalinist state.
TV also suggests what's 'relevant' to us by spending endless hours creating mass interest in stories that have no appeal to any individual. Instead we are told that everyone is really interested in O.J. Simpson's trial or the latests daily struggles of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
We hear about all of the possible threats to us emerging on the other side of planet while ignoring the distrust, poverty and pain of our citizens at home.
We're told by 'financial experts' that the crisis is almost over and that all we need to do is to borrow and spend more.
The media exagerrates the differences between gay and straight, black and white, American and foreign, Muslim and Christian while ignoring the the similarities and shared interests.
We watch the glorification of mental illness in shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. Their mega-corporation networks entice thousands of ghetto denizens with only a few hundred dollars to appear on national TV for 15 minutes of national ridicule.
Then there's the violence. God forbid that we ever hear a bad word like 'shit' uttered on the TV set or that we are exposed to a 'naked person', but no problem showing the benefits of vengeance and mass murder against anyone who stands in our way. Bullet to the head, severing body parts, beating people into submission or slaughtering tons of dark colored skin types because your government told you to do it, is perfectly acceptable Sunday afternoon television fare.
Everyday our children are reinforced by television programming that violence is endemic, that society's preferred choice to conflict resolution is to fight it out. We're also led to believe that most of this violence is perpetrated by armies of 'madmen' who just roam our neighborhoods, hell bent on murder and mayhem for no other reason except that they're evil. (or "hate our freedom!"?)
Fear, consumerism, artificially created special interest stories and corporate allegiance. What's not to like about T.V?
There's a lot of invective here. Let's try to remember some achievements:
Before "wireless" communication, it was darn near impossible to learn of the world beyond stories told in sailor's bars and train stations, save for the papers and pamphlets of the time, access to which was intermittent and random, save for anything produced locally. In a small town, one probably had difficulty gaining access to a wide swath of books as well.
Radio and TV introduced mass communication. Place yourself in the 1850s in a small farm town in the midwest and you wouldn't have even known to give a crap about the rainforest, human rights abuses as they happened or advances in technology.
People in broadcasting quickly learned to apply older forms of art into wholly new forms of art. The theatrical play turned into a radio drama, with emphasis on voice acting, sound manipulation and timing. Photography started to move--the stills came to life, a sweeping shot or a pull from a close-up could dramatically alter one's emotions in a second. A new form of art indeed.
Thousands of people became engaged as a new class of artists whose medium solely depends on the use of technology. They have shaped advancements in multiple fields electronics and industry.
When we moan about TV we are wont assail the idiotic ads, the horrible formats and the general feeling that a brain sucker is sitting on top of one's head when the box is on. But let's not forget that even though it was perhaps conceived in a corporate meeting room, Hamsters driving cars is very creative. Two dozen people went to art school to make that ad. They now have a livelihood in arts, whereto before there was not much work for artists. Even a news cameraman uses art in his(/usually not her) photography of a cop car or a crying woman.
That said, there is no obligation for TV to be the gold standard of intellectualism, altruism or even high art. It's all commercially funded, whether the public owns the airwaves or no. Socializing all media would mean bad things for the people who work in the industry.
There are still avenues for the public to get on the airwaves themselves, without this industry. But to people who decry TV ask yourselves this: how often do you watch public access and what do you think when you watch it? It's horribly produced to the point of being unwatchable, and while you might get a feed from Democracy Now, it still comes off as a bunch of random crap from crazies. People should have access to cameras, editing systems and the airwaves. But damn, people who study it are best at producing it--and what they produce is of great value to our society.
Dropping the feed is one thing. But everybody loves a good movie or an excellently made documentary. Campy TV or movies are like campfire stories. We can even learn from Jerry Springer. Nobody makes anybody watch anything they don't want. You can find anything on the web--even Iraqi Public Access if you so desire.
It's all about choice, folks. Nobody is standing over you with a cudgel demanding that you watch the Deadliest Catch.
We learn about our own culture and those of others through the moving pictures on the box. Don't discount it all because Chevron provides some money for the production of a PBS show. That, in itself, is something we learn from as well.
I think your first point is the only halfway reasonable one. It's true that we need global communication in today's complex world, and that word of mouth won't cut it anymore to solve the big problems. The internet, despite its issues, can be viewed as the positive aspect of this. But TV? The argument is about who produces and controls the message, not so much the technology. TV is for the most part a perverting force of the elites; if we could skip it and rely instead on the somewhat more content-ful and democratic internet, we'd be a lot better off.
Then you argue hilariously that TV is good because it gives creatives more jobs. "Hamsters driving cars is very creative." Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Art school grads and hipsters flock to TV and advertising because they dominate our culture; get rid of the domination, and they'll apply their talents more usefully in another medium.
Finally, you offer another version of the "more choice is always better" dictum which we hear so often from free-marketeers. Nobody is forcing you to make any particular choice, so let all the crap roll and let the consumer sort it out. The easy refutation of this is observation of how the crap cascade has perverted our society. Wise guidance of a society through limiting choices made by collective will as exercised by good government is far more often the better course.
I'll be chuckling all day over the hamsters comment.
Ligten-up.
Can you draw a hamster? Now animate it using Maya. Laugh all day on that one. Or go make a living playing drums.
All I was saying is it's okay to like an ad or a show and that to discount everything as being vile is lacking in perspective.
Gyro,
You are expecting folks to have a perspective and a historical understanding of the potentials of mass media. After so many years of commercial BS and MISuse of these media, to still see the potential and understand the power which the people rightfully could exert using them with some measure of wisdom, is a rare feat, but an important one.
I agree. Find the good in the bad ... and aim to use and expand it.
"The Plug in Drug" or "Why do you think they call it Programming?"
I've pulled the plug on this media completely. There are worthwhile programs occasionally if you are willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. The most insidious thing about it is the god awful advertising, especially the Big Pharma propaganda. Most countries don't allow this "ask your doctor" crap. It is to the shame of Amerika that a high percentage of media time is devoted to pill pushers. These are the same people who brought you Vioxx remember.
I can "stay tuned" to the spirit of the masses by watching the occasional clip of a few shows on the internet tubes. Overall, I would rather watch my plants grow than be tube fed sophomoric drivel by the media elites. At least the plants are contributing oxygen to my environment!!!
for over a year, or is it two, the tv stations have been breathlessly warning all of the change--and even then they had to push back the deadline from february to june. imagine if these warnings were of actually something important--like say, perhaps, impending climate disaster. but no, must keep the sheeple molified and sedated....
im with ralph--kill your TV
climate change does not promote or support the illusion of the 'unending growth needed to sustain a healthy economy' ECONOMY ECONOMY say it again with us, "ECONOMY" is the only thing that matters....
>>>imagine if these warnings were of actually something important--like say, perhaps, impending climate disaster.
Good point, Hileeskeptical.
Over the last 5 years or so I've made a decent effort to at least get rid of most advertising from my life, which is the most pernicious aspect of TV and other media, in my opinion.
On the web I use ad blockers. Yes, this disrupts the income stream of some web sites and may help cause them to fail, but I decided that my right to not view toxic advertising trumps those concerns. I played that game for 40 years already.
On the TV I record many programs now and FF through the commercials. Same rationale as above. And a high percentage of the programs I watch now are on PBS, HBO, or other channels with no commercial breaks.
On the radio I have 4 or 5 stations on presets, and flip when commercials come on.
Some DVDs have unskippable commercials. Ah, but not so if you copy the DVD first using certain software.
If a video on the web has an embedded "premercial", I either won't watch the video, or, if it's important to me, I'll flip to another web page tab for a minute while the video plays.
Billboard advertising is always there, but you get exposed to it less if you drive less. Staying away from family- and shopping-oriented parts of town cuts down on it too.
Ads in magazines are hard to defeat, but they're also some of the most passive, and sometimes fun to deconstruct.
Some of the worst increase in advertising is at movie theaters. But I very infrequently go to theater chains now; indie houses often have no commercials, and then there're DVDs. One can also avoid getting into the theater before the sequence of previews starts.
The main problem with T.V is that it's advertiser-supported. Apart from that, the problem lies with the audience. The medium itself is basically the same as film. I have enjoyed "The Simpsons,""Futurama,""Twin Peaks,""The Colbert Report" and a bunch of other cool shows.
Every tool must be kept out of elite hands.
I like Gay USA on Free Speech TV, Amy Goodman, reruns of Nash Bridges, some of Animal Planet, The History Channel. Disappointments: PBS, Bravo, most of Animal Planet. I used to get the Sundance Channel but now that I have options, I don't pay for that. Most of TV is hideous. It makes me physically ill. Even having to get through the commercials on Animal Planet and the History Channel is difficult. TV is so obviously a tool to sell things. They should be paying us for TV sets and Cable and dish.
Thank God for Netflix! Oh, and my local Library, which has a comprehensive DVD collection.
Did someone mention slime?
I am gross and perverted
obsessed and deranged
I have existed for years
but very little has changed
I am the tool of the government
and industry too
for I am destined to rule
and regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
but you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
with the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
have you guessed me yet
I'm the slime oozing out
from your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
with the garbage that I feed you
until the day that we don't need you
don't go for help no one will heed you
your mind is totally controlled
it has been stuffed into my mold
and you will do as you are told
until the rights to you are sold
that's right, folks
don't touch that dial
well, I am the slime from your video
oozing along on your living room floor
i am the slime from your video
can't stop the slime, people, look at me go
Very prescient huh? Written about 35 years ago.
Zappa was cool, it's a shame he was a "Practical Conservative." He did some great things for anti-censorship and pitched his own late-night show which would've been terrific. Everyone should know about his history with Tipper Gore's "P.M.R.C."
Television is a tool that is used now from infancy on to cultivate consumers. Advertising lore is that if you hook a little one on a particular brand of cereal, Cheerios, for example, early on, he/she will remain loyal to that brand just about forever.
Chilton Pierce, in his marvelous book, "The Magic Child, describes how the developing brain networks itself from the free imagination, trial-and-error learning to success or failure, increasing communication, reasoning, and social skills, handling emotions in the kind of interactive play that most children who are not plunked in front of a TV develop automatically.
The time of The Magic Child is a short time frame when all life ... for most ... is viewed with wonder; when the sight of the flight of birds or leaves falling from a tree, or the sounds and smells of crunching through leaf piles in the fall or making mud pies or sand castles that are tactile, reasoning, creative activities ... all of these things ... heighten and hone sensitivies and leave impressions that eventually are part of and translate into deep thinking. Add other children to the mix and there is a sense of community, sharing life, sharing the world's offerings, and so much more.
Since the 1950's when TVs became available and affordable, families now stayed at home to watch various programs together, and the frequency and quality of direct communication ceased within the household and with friends and neighbors outside the household. "Gee, that was a great show/story." "Yeah, I really liked it." ... "Shhh ... look at that /or/ what's on now?" Dial turns and settles on the new offering. End of conversation.
Gone were the interactions with neighbors, with other kids playing all kinds of games in the street after supper [city kids such as myself at the time], biking with friends to the local library, and going to all kinds of activities connected with churches/temples, local schools, local organizations or just hanging out together.
TELEVISION is a TOOL. Once it was considered wonderful for educational purposes, and a few shows still fullfill that purpose. But over-all, TELEVISION has been hi-jacked. People live their lives by it and its featured products, and which particular celebrity or newscaster says or reports this or that.
Interesting that quite a few people just on this post have already given this DRUG up.
My TV broke four years ago, and that's fine with me. When I visit particular friends, the TV is always on, and I am in culture shock. In four years, the speed of changing images in commercials, the number of breaks, the noise, the insipidness have increased. It is total bedlam. Thinking is shut off, emotions are jerked around, and because I know what I know, when news analyses on CNN or other "news" programs by the hyper, talking heads begins, I freak out because these people are blowing smoke, have no depth, and don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Bill Moyers is one of the last who tries to tell it where it is, but most folks are not watching or listening to Bill Moyers.
Mostly, however, I am appalled by the apathy and the ignorance of those I encounter when I go to town ... [from the city kid to rural community from mid-life on] or talk with distant friends on the telephone. Mostly, they are ten or more years younger than I am, and for most of them, it is apparent, that they became the true TV generation and that crucial time of "The Magic Child" ... 2, 3, 4, maybe 5 ... was fragmented or completely missed.
Instead of Nature and the vibrancy of LIFE as teacher, instead of direct and frequent interactions with grown-ups and kids as the stimuli for increased brain networkings, and the same for even the silent moments curled up in a corner with a picture book or story book with time to dream and imagine, the TOOL OF TELEVISION, with its black-and-white screen and then dazzling colors, and pictures coming and going controlled by others, LIFE ... the WORLD became framed within a box and distracted one from thinking, feeling, reasoning, deciding, developing ... mind and soul force.
Such people remain in their little ego mind, their little, local selves and are easily propagandized and manipulated, and their own visions are framed within a box and are boxed in. Thus they are comfortable with AUTHORITY ... churches, schools, government ... telling them where it's at and what it's all about ... and they believe it. The curiosity of the Magic Child died just shortly after birth.
Stringent conditioning of whatever kind early on is a form of soul murder and magic-child murder.
So many of the dull TOOLS who now lead us reflect this. They do not seem to be able to understand the consequences of their actions, not only for themselves, but for the rest of us out here and for the whole earth itself, but if they do at all, it is likely they don't care because they have opted for their own instant gratification ($$$$/re-election).
Their current ages tell the story, as above.
The good news is there are always the Mavericks [not the Sarah Palin variety], but true Mavericks who lived the Magic Child time and their mind and soul force are intact. And with them lies the hope and possibilities of all kinds.
If you are one, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
peace, cm
Sioux Rose
CEE MIRACLES: I referenced "Magical Child" in this forum months ago, but mostly to speak about the rapid development of infants in those native cultures that don't break the mother-infant bond upon birth.
Excellent post, by the way. I think you just psycho-analyzed one of my daughters. I've often felt traits skip a generation, and my daughter identifies with the materialism of the l980's since she grew up as a child of the Reagan years. I believe that conservation is going to be foisted on all of us as our economy begins to evidence the chasm between its illusory worth and the actual reality. I hope that the mandatory ecology turns these youngsters back in the direction of parents like me who have not been respected for our "hippie" values all along.
SiouxR, It was either Satchmo or Duke Ellington who when talking about mother/infant and child/mother/aunties regarding love, joy, laughter, bonding and creativity said, "My feet never touched the ground until I was two." Just imagine that.
Re your last sentence, I think that life in the not-too-distant future is going to bring amazing revelations to our children who've done it all quite well, but have distanced themselves from "hippie" values. Hippie-time! ... and I left my 50's generation behind and discovered my real generation. That does make for a disconnect with children whose fathers were in the more conservative mainstream and when life-styles turned Ray-gun conservative again with a vengeance.
But we know that there are going to be a hellava' lot of changes coming ... they are just around the corner, and for some folks those changes are here now. The jolts may be enough to flip wide the eyes, the mind and the heart, and then, yes, there likely will be awakenings and turning toward those old "hippie" values and finally getting it about THE ESTABLISHMENT.
And our children and the generations who are so used to having what they want when they want it will have to recalculate everything they were sure of.
Frankly, it's the best and only thing that can happen so that the current patterns of apathy and disinterest in the midst of a world being destroyed will have to change if people are to survive. It will be a time of life-style refashioning and all kinds of discoveries or rediscoveries about one's abilities and capabilities, and hopefully there will be the major discovery that everyone and every thing on this earth counts too.
That's the ideal scenario. Other people may just turn on the television set, zone out, and start drinking more beer.
We'll find out.
best, cm
Sioux Rose
CEE MIRACLES: I hope you're right!
POET: Thanks for the nod.
SEVENTH SON: Gracias.
Well said Cee. After reading what you wrote, I still think I have some kinks to work out on in life. Snapping out of a bad addiction begun as a kid is no easy task but there's no crime in trying and hoping out.
Oregoncharles
We have a tv but never cable, so for us, it was PBS and one crappy commercial station, fuzzy and hard to watch. So when traveling and staying in a hotel, we were excited to finally be able to see all that we were missing .... the first time, hmmm, must be a bad night for tv. But again and again, the same thing happened. We said to ourselves, "So that's it? That's what people watch day in and day out." OMG!
I will miss Bill Moyers and NOW but can't we get these on the internet?
Public Broadcasting is a shadow of what it was in the 1970s. The difference between what is and what could have been is very sad indeed.
They have time for this, but no time to end our role as world cop.
I got over the TV a few years ago and haven't bothered watching much if at all ever since. I'm afraid the public has been getting hooked onto TV since the 1970s. Analog or digital, none of it matters. If people had quit relying on the TV to tell them who to vote for, Nader would have had no problem making it to whatever office he chooses to run for, presidency or any other. I already have enough to do most days at work getting couped up and having to watch the screens all day. I'd much rather continue to enjoy quality time with my wife without the TV. Why watch a lousy sitcom or another toxic hour of political stupidity when one can go out for a walk and talk to one another. When my wife made me take my blood pressure, weight, and a blood test, after the disasterous results one of the culprits she thought was my watching and shouting at the stupid political shenanigans and even turning to war and action movies in anger thinking I'd make myself strong. I cannot tell you how much less terrible I felt after at least going for a walk or at least working out at the gym for an hour after getting back from work.
TV? What's that?
I know this is a green site and I agree with Nader's policies but progressive strategies are important. It's OK to be wrong-some don't vote at all and think they're making a stand.
Not all Obama voters were gullible. Naomi Klein was just censored because she is a reformer, like Chomsky and Zinn. If Dennis Kucinich was clearly out-polling other democrats and yet still being excluded I'd support a third party.
If however the electorate was conservative and the dems were simply reflecting that; a third party would not help.
So the question becomes how to convert conservatives.
The way to convert conservatives is to get your butt out there amongst them. All of the answers flow out of that. You will find the conservatives are already doing many of the right things such as beezublech. So you commend them on that and suggest extending beezublech into further realms until it connects into the progressive realm and a bridge is established where the elites had previously divided/conquered the people. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" have to give up the stupid issues that currently divide them, and their pathetic index funds and Lexus SUVs. Now get out there and discover for yourself what beezublech is. I'm not telling you.
Some of my friends and family were conservatives until they realized how much technology had been developed in the public sector, some had never even heard of Chomsky. I often start political conversations with strangers, but few try to convert me to Beezublech. I'm sure that people visiting this site for the first time would like to know your opinion of Beezublech.
>>>Po Thead wrote: If Dennis Kucinich was clearly out-polling other democrats and yet still being excluded I'd support a third party. If however the electorate was conservative and the dems were simply reflecting that; a third party would not help. So the question becomes how to convert conservatives.
That's a good point. No one stopped anyone from voting for Nader or Kucinich. Or the Green Party. It's all too easy to blame the politicians, corporations and the media.
I beg to differ. People were prevented from voting for Nader and Kucinich because they were excluded from the debates! How can people vote for someone when they have never heard their message?
See, that's the problem with relying on the MSM - "they" decide who you're allowed to see and hear. But people concerned about democracy shouldn't rely on corporate media alone. I know it's not easy for everyone to use the internet to get their information. But Ralph Nader has been around for a long time, and he has proven himself through his work. And yet, if people fail to see the merits of his arguments, I'm not sure whose fault it is. And you can still find some dem's who blame Nader for Al Gore's 'defeat' in 2000. So it's not like people don't know about him. But of course, the obstacles to getting his name on the ballot - they are something else. And then there's human nature to expect someone to give you hope - and Obama did it best, I guess. The bottom line is that Americans love someone who's flashy and flamboyant - far more than someone who has a clear vision and a clean record.
What took you so long Ralph? My TV - and commercial Radio, for that matter - have been "dark" for 30 years. THe only way to beat corporatism is to NOT support it in any way - don't Buy, don't Watch, don't Work for... just say No!
Both VeniVidivici and Siouxrose have hit on the important points anyone should consider before allowing any TV or radio station to run whether actively watching and listening or keeping it on in the background.
1. The purpose of the broadcast media licensed by the FCC (commercial or non-commercial) mostly is to sell the products, services, or ideas of the patron sponsers to the audience.
2. This "selling"involves behavior modification on a level of sophisticfation that uses such devices as hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestion to sensory overload (constantly changing juxtaposition of sound and visual imagery designed to function on a much milder but more persistent and pervasive basis like the shock therapy described by Naomi Klein in Shock Doctrine.
The easiest way to test these contentions is to eliminate all broadcasting from your life for 30 days. Then notice how much easier it is to not go shopping, buy fast food, or clutter up your mind with the minituae of everyday existence.
After thirty days, turn on either TV or radio for thirty minutes and watch/listen to something pretty conventional like either the morning or evening news programs and see if it isn't the silliest and most ridiculous thing you ever encountered.
If more of us deny broadcasters their audience watch how quickly they will vanish--and that's a good thing.
Poet
Of course localism works too. So you tune into local content only. By local we mean content that supports the local economy, the better interests of the locals, what keeps the local community in healthy exchange relations with other communities, i.e. worlld and local news both but in universalist/socialist framing. Although locals can be abusive, this behavior is more easily ostracized. The local interests are the best alternative focus because they serve the people best, they engage the people, they are easy for the people to relate to, they are ebnabling to the positive side of human nature, and they deter elite racketeering. The media should be the local voice, the neighborhood DJ, bringing the news, responsively. So if the local mediacaster doesn't respond to feedback, demand another who does. This is the process of societal repair - it's ground-up and may involve media. The ingredient to omit is the elite element. When someone gets too big for his britches, ostracize the punk. This reqires first ditching the liberal ideology.
Sioux Rose
VENI: You, me and Nader may have "just said no," but we are sharing the destiny of a nation where millions are still saying yes, and they vote in elections based on this disinformation. Plus they also vote with their pocketbooks, generally obliging the advertisers who have helped them arrive at their "choices" through a variety of overt and covert modes of behavior modification, media assisted.
The content of television programming is controlled by the corporate owners who own the licenses. They in turn are largely controlled by the advertisers.
The cultural and political biases of television thus promote the cultural, political and profit interests common to network owners and advertisers.
Thus there is never any programming to reflect the perspectives of the labor movement or of the economic interests of working people in general.
Even the so-called "Public Broadcasting System" PBS has degenerated under a similar corporate and capitalist control. PBS should now stand for Privatized B*** S***!
Through the corporate funding and supplying talking head experts for panel shows, the bias of public affairs programming is forever controlled by interests such as the Wall Street Journal and the American Enterprise Institute.
There are no guests seen with the level of critical expertise and speaking ability to counter the unending stream of corporate and capitalist propaganda.
What to do?
For PBS, ban corporate money and intersts from controlling PBS. Increase their budget sufficiently to add programming, locally and nationally, that reflects the economic, cultural and political needs and expressions of the people.
PBS programs, often aimed at middle class and college educated viewers, who have an absolute "need to know" in a supposedly "democratic" country, but are kept forever in ignorance. Why we are always at war? Why don't we have affordable and universal health care? Why is public education being destroyed? What aren't the polluters and destroyers of the environment forced to stop? Critical discourse is forever "framed" to favor corporate and capitalist interests.
The decline and collapse of U.S. capitalism since the 1970s has created the many human crises today. The "vast wasteland" of capitalist controlled television has been around for generations. Capitalist control of mass media has meant not only lousy entertainment. It has created a totalitarian system of continuous political indoctrination of the people.
The television "wasteland" is a reflection of the economic, social and political wasteland and destruction ultimately caused by this decline in U.S. capitalism. Read the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org daily for an alternative perspective. Socialism is now essential for the survival of humanity.
Jerry Wells: "Even the so-called "Public Broadcasting System" PBS has degenerated under a similar corporate and capitalist control. PBS should now stand for Privatized B*** S***!"
What you and Nader say applies especially to PBS, which for reasons you outline can be considered more dangerous than the total idiot TV on the "private" networks.
To sum up:
"This PBS program was made possible by:
Chevron
The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation
Lockheed Martin
Exxon Mobil
And by: gullible viewers like you
Thank you"
I anxiously await an episode of the shlocky, low-brow "Secrets of the Dead" that focuses on PBS itself.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
JERRY: Excellent post. The worst thing about it, apart from the important points you mentioned, is that those who ARE indoctrinated not only don't realize it, they argue they are not! They believe that on account of all the networks, (the appearance of diversity) they are getting informed! Because so few seek out the outlets that genuinely keep score of our banking mess, the military's lies, the government's deceit, the health care debacle, the state of nature across the globe... they BELIEVE what the corporate sponsors are telling them. When they watch a TV debate, they truly think it depicts both sides of the issue! Many have lost the capacity to DISCERN truth.
I would like to relate an astrological item here. The 12 sign arrangement, a brilliant metaphor for how our world operates, grants to the sign of Aquarius, the power of Truth. However, Neptune, the planet that rules Pisces and is linked with duality and deception, has been crossing Aquarius since l998. (It changes signs, entering its own Pisces, in 2012 to signal the end of the Piscean Age. Right now we are in the transition between Pisces and Aquarius.) Over the past few weeks Jupiter, the planet associated with Sagittarius, the sign of law, religion, publishing, and foreign relations has "met" with Neptune. I had hoped to see more truth exposed, but what I realize is instead happening is how much more truth is getting co-opted by those agents that insist upon the status quo however perverted, polluted, mired in waste, arrogance, and depraved indifference to life it is.
Jupiter is the largest planet, and according to the ancients, he (a/k/a Zeus) ruled our earth plane. Jupiter can bring abundance, but he is also the gambler. His hubris results from his insistence that all things work for good, that there is never a bad or negative outcome. So this hyper-confidence characteristic of Jupiter is now coupled with the deception-orientation of Neptune. Instead of truth, all of the driving agendas that have brought the world to the brink of escalating war/violence, intensified resource depletion/fossil fuel profligate usage, and monetary insanity (the "business" given greatest status is that of gambling using the public's money as its private chip, insured-by-the-public without any limit!)are being put into over-drive. Hyper-confidence coupled with outright dishonesty is a recipe for Disaster. Enter the deep pocket devotees of Disaster Capitalism. Yet there are certain catastrophes no one (or very few) can escape from... Truth as understood by those who still retain the capacity to note it, is fading from this nation's landscape, and conversation. Can the awakened souls create a critical mass, a perception permutation in time? There are prophecies that our planet was seeded with life from other constellations thousands of years ago. If anyone is checking in on us, maybe it's time to send a readable S.O.S.
Sioux Rose:
Are you saying you know when we are finally in the age of Aquarious? I know we have been in Pisces for a couple of millenia, but is the age of Aquarious finnally coming in a particular year?
I know this is off subject, but it is a question that has been bothering me for a while. Thanks.
Doll
Sioux Rose
DOLL: It's not as discernible as a glass of water with a specific edge, height and length. Uranus rules Aquarius and is now transiting Pisces, its orbit being 84 years. Meanwhile Neptune rules Pisces and is transiting Aquarius, its orbit being 165 years. The fact that the two rulers that resonate with the cosmic version of "the changing of the guard" are occupying each other's signs is a pretty clear omen of the transition. Uranus enters Aries in 2010 while Neptune enters Pisces (its own sign) in 2012, curiously the year that corresponds with the Mayan Calendar's version of "End Times." I take the synchronous nature of these distinctively different variables as evidence that the transition is now underway.
Just as it took a mind like Edison's to recognize the existence of an invisible power like electricity before other minds awakened to that prospect, I would say some are already living the Aquarian Age ethos--particularly those who participate in the World Social Forum. The age onset is not like releasing all the horses from the corral at the same instant... it takes the consciousness of those first to awaken to seed the field for the rest. THAT process IS now underway. (Vedic astrologers, i.e. those who practice the old Indian method would see things differently; and there is a siderealist who occasionally posts in this forum who might have a different interpretation than I do. This lack of consensus convinces astrology's foes that the field is not scientific or precise; but I believe that every predictive system relies upon its own constructs and since Divine Order is omnipresent, each system will reflect data that reinforces its thesis. I can't explain why tarot cards can be so prescient but I have had MANY people tell me things predicted with this mercurial oracle indeed pan out. Just as there are authoritarian Christians (and similar from other religious ilks), I have found some astrologers to be very letter of the law, and a few resent me for coming up with new hybrids and trying to find correspondences between Tarot, Numerology, the I ching, Astrology and other oracles. My new book MOON DANCE is going to create some major ripples in the astrological community, where favoritism and plenty of ego-based corruption is also at play! Every new truth emerges first as a heresy to those invested in the old ways, shapes, means, and norms!
Love the horses analogy, Sioux. : )
There is a gadget called "TV-Be-Gone" - a small key-fob sized universal infrared remote control on-off that will discreetly turn any TV off (or on) with the push of a button.
We have turned off annoying TV's in completely inappropriate restaurant locations and no one notices.
Go here: http://www.tvbgone.com/
yunzer, that's hilarious to visualize! Hope you don't get caught.
Go to their website and buy one!
And what if I do get caught? I'm not breaking any law! The most that can do is ask me to leave the restaurant or bar, in which case I also don't pay for the meal or drinks.
It is the timidly expressed in your post (and Siouxrose's) that keeps us from getting anything done.
But thanks for the suggestion. Turning the TV's off at airport waiting areas sound's like a splendid idea!
Just Try that little trick in a sports bar during the last few minutes of game 7 of a playoff game and you will see all he'll break loose!
While I choose to not watch tv myself, I think it is obnoxious to make choices for others against their will...
I usually ASK the bartender or waitress if anyone else is watching the game or news, and if not, if they can mute it or turn it off...
There are many people who don't own a tv at home and go into public for the expressed purpose of watching the big game or political speeches... Including myself...
I gave up TV when I was 18... and only had cable for six months starting last September so my roommate could watch her favorite program on Showtime... I began to watch the daily show & colbert, then added olbermann and maddow for campaign & election news...
After the election, I found myself addicted to cable news, tried to wean myself, but couldn't as long as it was there... I stopped playing the banjo & guitar, and began to unconsciously prioritize my TV time... As soon as my roommates program ended, we agreed to cancel our cable... Perhaps after 16 years of no tv at home, I didn't have the defense mechanisms sharpened to filter out the tv... Perhaps I am just like everyone else, and will follow the path of least effort to fill my mind...
It takes a conscious effort to design one's behavior and home environment to honor one's own sacred space...
it is difficult to do this with energy sinks like TV & commercial radio blaring all the time...
Some people view TV as a friend to keep them company, like the elderly ladies I used to do home care for, who's families rarely visited...
>>>yunzer wrote: It is the timidly expressed in your post (and Siouxrose's) that keeps us from getting anything done.
Well yunzer, you know so little about me to characterize me as timid. Besides, I might have my own list of things to take on - I don't have to go turning TVs off in public places to make my point. All the same, it's an amusing thought - and nothing more - for me at present.