Not signed in (Log In)
Random Photo
(changes every 15 minutes)
I know that is Bert, but who is this Ernie bin Laden??
Photo by burn2shine. Caption by MoneyMan.
read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »
Site Supported By Ads
Recent Comments

    Television
    Posted by Ademu on Feb 09, 2001 at 08:13 PM

    Comments

    Ademu's Avatar .
    Ademu spoke on Feb 19, 2001 at 11:56 PM
    In regard to a comment I made about Dale Earnhardt today, I'd like to clarify something, since plenty of misguided folks left nasty messages for me expressing their disapproval.

    It had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Dale Earnhardt dying is 1) newsworthy or 2) a great loss.

    It had to do with the fact that tragedy and death are covered so much in the media without justification. Dale Earnhardt's death wasn't covered because he was a family man, a national hero, or contributor to community foundations and largely educational programs. It was because he has celebrity status. That's how you make the news. Anyone who bothered to read the article I authored above this comment would realise I was trying to reiterate serveral of the points in it.

    As I stumbled thru a few articles about Dale's tragic death I was hardpressed to find any mention of his list of good works. I did find out he was going 185mph when he smashed into a wall, and that a lot of people think he's the greatest stock car driver.

    The Earnhardt crash, tragic as it may be, was not covered for that reason. The deadly mishap landed Earnhardt — and NASCAR — at the top of every Sunday night newscast and on the front page of every Monday morning newspaper. The sport wanted to reach a wider audience, gain a greater legitimacy. And for anyone whose interest in the sport was piqued by the news — and whose wasn't? — the Earnhardt obituary makes a sad-but-perfect introduction to the big time. This may be as good, and as poignant, as sport gets, even if sports fans generally like their life-and-death struggles a little more on the metaphorical side. And by Monday morning everybody in America had gotten a taste. Crashes are at least half of NASCAR's appeal.

    It's dissappointing, that even with celebrity status, good works aren't newsworthy. American life: sensationalised and trivialised.

    It's too bad they squander all sorts of coverage on Dale Earnhardt's death with piddley figures about what he did in a stock car. It's DISTURBING that his death, as far as media coverage and hype is concerned, is nothing more than a tragic catalyst for the sport. It's also ashame that they squander news coverage on Dale Earnhardt compared to the miniscule, or non-existant even, coverage that global infectious diseases that are ravaging Africa, and heading this way in drug resistant form get. People are dying everyday, and it's not because they put their life at risk for 200 laps in an automobile on occasion.
    burn2shine's Avatar .
    burn2shine spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 01:41 PM
    Excellent story, but I feel the need to comment on a few issues touched upon in it, to offer feedback as well as a couple of slight clarifications.

    We give the cable companies monopoly licenses. We give away the public airwaves for no license fee to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission);

    Actually, the FCC is the government, which DOES extrapolate some fees from the broadcasting companies. I'm not sure exactly on the airwaves issue (cables were installed by the companies themselves and thus weren't taken away from the public in that respect), but I believe that the government holds auctions on the right to use the airwaves, as they recently did for the mobile/wireless airwaves, with the money supposedly going to the taxpayers in some form. On top of that, the government charges a fee for an FCC license, which is why you don't see more independant radio stations operated by one or two people. Of course, the richest companies will inevitably win this kind of auction, but there is still somewhat of a (weak) effort being made by the government. The argument that the companies give is that they are "giving" us free entertainment. Of course, would we miss it if it wasn't there? Probably not. So instead of asking for something, we are forced it. In that respect, I can see how it doesn't seem fair.

    We don't have a single cable channel for civic activity, to learn from each other's successes and band together.

    Maybe it's just a local thing, but we have four or five channels on our cable system for public access, as well as a calendar of events and announcements (usually by civic groups). Whether anyone watches these, I don't know...

    There's nothing else on national television about what serious students and faculty are doing in a diverse array of subjects.

    Some of the best research is done by colleges and professors/grad students, and that's how you hear about it inadvertendly in the media. True, you don't hear on the news every night about someone making progress on a cure for cancer, but when an announcement is large enough, it usually gets its share of airtime. They don't get the same precedence as sporting events, but in fairness to sport, all one has to know is the rules of the game to enjoy it. Where as, something like molecular biology, the average person isn't going to know shit about. Now, and since the advent of civilizations, humans rally around and enjoy usually the simplest things. In our society that happens to be sports events.

    There are plenty of people trying to improve the world, but that's not sexy enough, it's not violent enough, it's not addictive enough.


    Newscasts play to our most basic human instincts. They try to horrify us with vicious violence (fear), and tantalize us (sex and sexy commercials). Why do they choose these things over world improvement? It's because they know that they can draw you in on your deepest level with sex and fear, and they use that to their advantage. Certainly compassion is one of the few traits that seperates animals and humans, but it's pull in our most primitive brain function, the pure animal drive, is not very strong.


    All and all this is a very good and true article. Essentially, the media is manufacturing our culture and lifestyle, so that free thought is no longer possible, unless it's a thought by them. And while all through history people have followed like sheep whatever impressed them, there are always people in a group that don't. It's nice to see that not every person in this society is blind.

    This is a dangerous road we are going down. Polycius, a greek historian, saw the cycle of democracy (since we claim so ardently that we are one) as this: At first it is led by a few nobles trying to look out for the best interests of the people. But slowly over time, it evolves into a society where the "noble few" to become even fewer, and who look out just for what's in their best interests and not society, an attitude that spreads to the ignorant masses they are trying to protect.

    Take a guess at what stage we are at...
    burn2shine's Avatar .
    burn2shine spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 01:45 PM
    Oh yes, and I find it ironic that the photo RickySilk chose to use is of a child watching The Magic School Bus, a supposedly educational show. Whether this is just by accident or an intentional thing, it's subversely funny nonetheless.
    RickySilk's Avatar .
    RickySilk spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 02:12 PM
    I pretty much agree. I can tell you this. When I grew up (late 70's and 80's) there were kid's playing outside all the time, now I rarely see any kid's playing outside. I live in a residential neighborhood and I know there are lot's of kid's around. When I grew up we had Atari and that's about it. Nintendo came out when I was around 13 I guess, but by that time my habits were already established. I guess what I'm saying is that on top of excesive TV being unhealthy I think all these video games are melting kids internationaly. However, I think video games are good for old people because they provide new stimulation to their brain which can keep them from going senile. It's proven that brain deterioration in old people is largely contributed to by a lack of new/different stimulation. Basicly they do the same old shit everyday and their brain decides it doesn't really need itself anymore. Boy, I got way of track. Sorry about that.
    AquaVelvet's Avatar .
    AquaVelvet spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 04:12 PM
    Years ago, Ted Turner premiered a show on CNN called "Good News". The title basically described the content. Ted, being the maverick social tycoon/activist that he was, agreed with a public who felt TV news was becoming too sensationalist and tabloid-trashy. He premiered the program during many people's local news times (6:00p.m. ET). Guess why you can't watch the show anymore? Yes, because no one tuned in. They found they didn't like "good news" after all. It was too boring. TV news and our entertainment as a whole has continued it's downward spiral. I don't think I'm surprising anyone when I say that it's the fault of entertainment programmers and audiences alike that this is occurring. I don't have a simple answer why it's happening, either. Is it because this plethera of information at everyone's fingertips has shaken us from our innocence and revealed a world that isn't a Disney dreamland? Are we simply begging for a more realistic depiction of our world? Or have we become like the ancient Romans -- so fatted and content in their lives that only the most barbarous, inhuman forms of entertainment could satisfy them? You see where I could go with this.

    Ask any network executive why Temptation Island is so popular. Fox isn't forcing people to watch it. At worst, they're simply not providing another choice on their network. There are many good alternatives to schlock like this. I'm a news and info junkie, so I tend to watch channels like Discovery, TLC, the History Channel, and yes, even PBS. I don't feel like I'm wasting my brain watching this stuff. People have many choices around them. Entertainment moguls have not tightened a leash around the public's neck and are leading them against their will. People fill their heads with this kind of shit because they're lazy and don't care. Their entertainment is simply a reward for that. It's a cycle that feeds itself, and it can only be broken by one side. The audience. Media conglomerates will never generate beneficial content for the masses just because it's good for them unless it's good for their bottom line as well.


    It'll only be good for their bottom line if people make it that way.
    Ademu's Avatar .
    Ademu spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 04:31 PM
    I don't think only the media is to blame, or only the audience is to blame for the deterioration of television programming, and this essay wasn't intended to pinpoint either of those groups as the cause.

    It's really just a series of observations. There isn't decent programming on television, and the people who control statistically more than half the program are 6 giant corporations.

    If anyone wanted to start a small community radio station, or television station, they really wouldn't be able to do so, or it wouldn't be easy, or let's say, it's not really encouraged by the FCC or any of the giant media corporations.

    I think as far as why it deteriorates, both sides contribute to the downfall. There's nothing on television good to watch, so people watch crap. In turn, no one demands less crap and more good stuff.

    Why don't the corporations give us anything good despite the fact that we don't ask? Don't fix what's not broken. They're raking in billions.

    Why don't people ask the corporations to give us better programming? That's not as easy a question to answer. I think it amounts to a general disatisfaction with what life has dealt them. There's 20% child poverty in this country. so 1 in 5 children's parents, let's say, probably aren't doing so well. They've got to worry about serious things all day long like trying to procure a living wage so their kids can eat, and so they can make sure they have a jalapy to drive to work for a few bucks an hour. Why would they want to watch *any* sort of news. They want something entertaining, they want sensationalism. I don't blame them.

    This is an extreme case of people, and I'm not saying only poor people would are responsible for this, but I do think the example I cited is valid, and one of many reasons all tangled up in the downward spiral of television media and programming.
    crazydiamond's Avatar .
    crazydiamond spoke on Feb 20, 2001 at 05:04 PM
    I used to watch the Magic School bus. Thats a cool show. Unless they watch PBS, now kids get to watch stupid war cartoons and stuff. And we're not talking about mamby-pamby Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Life was good when I was little. I had sesame street, the Elephant Show, Mr.Rogers, and later on, a Super Nintendo.
    's Avatar .
    Anonymous Coward spoke on Feb 21, 2001 at 02:47 PM
    Sheesh, kids aren't playing outside enough? Strip the plug off the TV outlet and throw the little buggers outside? My kids'll be lucky if they have a key to the house. They'll _dream_ of being latchkey children.
    "Pick the rocks out of the back 40 and then use them to pave the driveway, and we'll _talk_ about supper."
    Ender's Avatar .
    Ender spoke on Feb 22, 2001 at 01:18 PM
    Fox should have a TV special called 'When networks attack.' They could tie it in with 'Who wants to marry a homoerotic serial killer, and guest star one of the former Brady kids! It would be a ratings bonanza!
    dr-funk's Avatar .
    dr-funk spoke on Mar 10, 2001 at 12:08 AM
    The odd thing about American popular culture is peoples overwhelming desire to buy into it. Being Canadian, it amazes me, on a daily basis, the depths to which American people are willing to sink in order to be apart of this freakish aspect of society. The amount of people who are willing to make fools of themselves day after day on Springer or Jenny Jones is astounding. I have to wonder what it is that makes people want to do that. Maybe it's that people haven't enough self esteem to be proud of what they do in life or that they can't do anything better then to make a mockery of free speech on the air waves. Something about television gives a person the satisfaction that they were there. That was me on television. I stood up and shook my ass for the world to see. It makes them a little less insignificant and makes them important in their own eyes. There was a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip one time that dealt with the same thing. It's Calvin waxing on how fleeting his sled ride, and life in general, is. I'll quote some lines from it and see if it doesn't make think the next time you see 'my daughter is a teenage stripper' week on Springer.

    "In my opinion, television validates existence. Take this sled ride, for instance. The experience is fleeting and elusive. By tomorrow, we'll have forgotten it, and it may as well have not even happened. But if we were on tv now countless vieweres would share in the event and confirm it! This ride would become part of a mass consciousness! And on tv, the impact of an event is determained by the image, not its substance. So with some strong visuals, our sled ride could conceivably make us culutral icons! Instead of being boring ol' Calvin and Hobbes, we'd be 'Calvin and Hobbes - As Seen On TV'!"

    And who says you can't find anything useful in the cartoon section of the Sunday paper?

    ps just as a side not, not really related to what's above, I'd just like to ponder why it is that in American you're so flambouantly patriotic and so fiercly self loathing at the same time. No other country that I can think of hates it's own popular culture (and yet does nothing about it) as much as Americans....

    Post A Comment

    Posting as: Anonymous Coward. Please log in or register.

    You are not logged in so I need to know that you are not a spam bot.
    Type 6 x's into this field: