The answer was sll too obvious.
Posted on 01/05/2005 8:51:23 AM PST by lindor
"People need food. So there's no point in advertising beef, milk, potatoes, vegetables. Television is paid for by people trying to make sure you buy what rational Christians would not buy. Sure, Beef and Milk have a few memorable ads, but ointments for vaginal yeast infections vastly outnumber both of them.
If you're a responsible father of teenagers, it's worse than that they simply don't care whether you watch their shows. They want to make sure you don't! They want you to be so turned off by their idiocy that you don't see what they are trying to sell to your children."
First, the networks are concerned about ratings and revenue. That's why even immoral shows that don't do well get cancelled. If the networks were only about promoting a worldview, then a show like Whoopi Goldberg's show that mocked conservatives, religious people, and Bush wouldn't have been pulled after only a short time. If no one watches trash, they air something else. But people do watch trash (at least some of it) and that's why a lot stays on. If people don't watch, like they didn't for this WHo's Your Daddy thing, then it doesn't last.
Second, I don't get why vaginal yeast infection cream is an example of something no Christian should buy. It's not an STD and it's something women need so there's a market for such stuff that has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It also seems like most tv ads are for cars, stores, toys, etc.-things that are not, in and of themselves, unchristian.
Ah, I don't think you can draw an absolute line. But I think Murdoch uses sleaze to make money and cares less about corrupting people than his liberal confreres. No doubt they want to make money too, but they seem willing sometimes to risk losing money in order to promote their agendas.
It's a mistake to think that Hollywood makes sleaze ONLY to make money. They have moral and political agendas as well. Money is only one motive.
Murdoch is conservative as long as he has no economic reasons to be otherwise. He supported Al Gore for president, for instance, because he feared more regulatory interference with his satellite transmission plans. And he won't speak ill about China because he has investments there.
But I haven't seen any signs that he uses sex in his publications for political reasons. It's purely economics.
I saw the show and I think it was set up. I dont think reality tv is as real as most people think.
My point is not that networks don't care about revenue. It's to remind you that they don't get revenue by having people watch and enjoy their programs. They get revenue by providing a platform for the promotion of hedonistic comsumerist items, and the cremes needed to cure the resultant rashes.
The problem with "Whoopi" was that it was promoting sexual abstinence: No-one wanted to have sex for weeks after seeing Whoopi.
What is the big friggin deal about this show? The title of the show was dumb but the idea behind the show was kinda neat. I didnt watch it but some people out there are making it out like it was the worst thing since 9-11. Sure the show tanked and it wasnt as interesting as the execs who financed it thought it was but it was FAR from immoral or lowest denominator like Fear Factor is.
I take it that Petra Nemcova will not be judging the SI Swimsuit model search this evening?
Anyone who thought "Joe Millionaire" was a reality show, instead of a scripted mini-series needs to get their head examined.
You are a lot more comfortable, apparently, with speaking of their motives than am I.
Stupid show.....my husband was actually watching it the other night. Sigh.
.
True, Whoopi's show was stupid in ways that went beyond its leftist points. I'm still a little confused about the link between consumerism and yeast infections, but oh well!
>>I'm still a little confused about the link between consumerism and yeast infections, but oh well!<<
Yeast infections are just one ailment associated with the sex-saturated nature of our advertising. True, not all yeast infections are socially transmitted, but I think there's a little purposeful desensitization behind the ads. Maybe I should have picked on Herpecin rather than Monistat-7.
It's the de-flowering of the feminine sexual mystique. I mean, even though guys are much more blunt, can you picture this ad?:
"Hey, Bob. Does your crotch ever itch?" "Why, yes, Phil, that's called crotch rot, or jock itch. Here try this!" "Saniscrotum?" "That's right; when my crotch burns, Saniscrotum gives me confidence I need... and in just seven days!"
The answer was sll too obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.