Posted on 10/26/2005 11:34:00 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
That has helped create the circumstances that are driving some of the broader reconsiderations of the business. Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman who made the switch to Mr. McManus, had stirred the pot most aggressively by stating last January that he was looking for something radical and even revolutionary to replace Mr. Rather - a move away from what he called the "voice of God" anchor. At one point Mr. Moonves was quoted suggesting that he would like to blow up CBS News entirely.
Yesterday, Mr. Moonves said that comment was never serious and he had made it "out of frustration." That he wants changes at CBS News is still true; but with Mr. McManus, the longtime head of the CBS sports division, he has installed a solid, highly respected mainstream broadcast executive, not a revolutionary.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Actually, it's more a case of not wanting to have the camera on guy who's picking his nose while somebody else is making the point. And the host screaming for everybody to shut up, since "We just missed a break!"
It's a fantasy world they've created where everything's choreographed, things rarely go wrong(on camera at least), and the players mostly look like All Americans. Maybe they feel they could run the country the same way. Or more likely, would like us to believe they could. Maybe they have attempted to sell the unwashed on the notion of their infallability? I recall similar thoughts of a cbs "Camelot" expressed by Dan Rather(remember him?). IOW, I suspect most of these media types, at least the high rollers, live only in their media world. The rest of us are unenlightened heathens who need their guidance.
Even "suits" have to pick their noses now and then ;^)
FGS
The Hollywood types have to show enough profit, obviously, that they can brag about it and pay for their Porsches. On the other hand, most would gladly sacrifice another $10 mil. at the box office for "critical accalaim." After all, it's not "their money," it's the money of the producers, and producers rarely get involved in the marketing (for a good book on this, see "Final Cut," about the "Heaven's Gate" fiasco). On the other hand, if someone says, "Our pic won an Academy Award nomination, the producer immediately forgets about the potential $$ he might have made and is the toast of the town for having "courage."
I think on a rational basis, most of these people don't even THINK in terms of "what will red-state American say?" They assume that if their Hollywood buddies like it, we can be made to like it. Same with newspapers. I live in Dayton, OH, which has one of the most blatantly left-wing papers in the world. (When Dick Cheney came here in 2004, the headline was "Cheney Ties Up Traffic!" and when Kerry came here the headline was "Kerry Draws Big Crowd!") We get requests from the publisher/editor at DDN all the time for "input" and suggestions, but when I suggest to them that their papers is biased, they go "hmmm, really?" then do nothing.
So bottom line, I think both the news media and Hollywood, so long as they can show ANY profit to justify that they are "doing a good job" for the stockholders, will consistently be more affected by their culture and beliefs than by their wallets.
Welllll never *ever* forget the medium's use, today.
As a primary vehicle to/for influencing the Republic's population.
When seeking answer(s) to questions concerning the MSM one starts by defining the miscreants in charge, right?
Hence we're seeing exactly what "Mr. Jensen" wants us to see and in that sense the MSM hasn't changed.
But the similarity stops *there*.
When this all began, those in charge were of the WWII generation, and look at the type of programming we watched in our youth: "Leave It To Beaver", "Ozzie and Harriet", "*Combat*"??
With the late 60s-70s the brainstems began delivering a message quite different into the living rooms of America & as they did they (deliberately) "pushed the envelope".
They were just beginning to understand the immense power wielded by the image makers of Hollyweird & the "News" divisions at the alphabets. ~eh?
The more they pushed the repercussions became less & less, with far & few exceptions. Feedback American youth were actually emulating their lunacy as some sort of "reality" or "trend" must've been something else for the soon to be out-of-control egos. The end game was rapidly becoming one of pissing-off "Mom & Pop America" & that meant no holds would be barred, A 1st Amendment would protect their tack the entire way, too.
And so it was.
"Anyway, point taken."
Still think so? {g}
"For some reason it brings to mind an old Dan Seals(?) song; 'Everything That Glitters is Not Gold'."
Yea but what's happened is nothing's "gold" anymore with no chance of "gold" being discovered. The proof's everywhere & the gage isn't just entertainment, either. The lack of "value" is found in every aspect of our culture be it politics, academia, anything.
Things for the image makers has never been so easy. We've a public today that'll eat any shit put in front of 'em automatically and without question.
How couldn't they?
The condition's been pretty thorough.
"The patina that was the MSM is fading to black; or at least to dark grey. Everywhere we look nowadays there's bad news for the MSM."
MSM isn't the giant it was while we grew up, that's a given. Rush has addressed the topic of how it's not that big a deal [anymore] to appear on TV, nowhere near the novelty of our day even if *they* don't realize it.
In any event let's have a close(r) look at the brainstems/writers we *do* see today in the MSM, shall we?
Hollyweird employs the lowest possible denominator just as the NitWitNets do their newsreaders. I'll paint with the broadest of brushes because really, I can't possibly go wrong, OK?
Looking at each of today's *personalities and/or "actors" then?
What's the ethnicity?
How about sexuality?
Race?
Religion.
Get the picture, answer those questions for each individual and a "mosaic" forms.
Compare the action(s) & the mosaic becomes a *picture* & quite complete.
What the nation gets -- in the way of entertainment via television, motion pictures and/or "news" today -- is merely a reflection of the producers/writer's ethnicity, sexuality, race, and religion (if there is one) all wrapped-up in what they *produce*, what we see.
Sounds obvious, huh.
It is.
Painfully obvious if you one finds themselves critical of the *product* they're being exposed to?
And if you think about it they've done the same thing with the MSM as happened with newspapers.
Our choice has been totally eliminated. :o)
"News" aside most of us once enjoyed motion pictures & television programming of the past. But have you noticed the "quality" of yesterday is completely gone?
Just consider *who* it is producing.
Think about the *baggage* hardwired into these imbeciles, how [it] manifests in the *product*.
The reason(s) why "quality", "good taste", "genius" etc are no more can easily be understood after it's accepted the sources, standards & expectations are absent, today.
When was the last time you sat down to be entertained & noticed the theme of the story you watched was a [rather poor] mimic of an old story you'd seen long ago?
I have & the clown Chris Carter of "The X Files" fame leaps to mind, immediately.
I can honestly say todays writers don't have an original thought in their empty heads so what're they to do but *copy*, emulate something they'd once seen in their youth, growing up?
Only *their* inspiration wasn't from some novel, historical event, it was from the very medium they find themselves engaged in, now.
"New" to them maybe, but certainly old to us.
It takes some semblance of intelligence and creativity to *produce* fresh, new & entertaining story-lines in any medium.
Unfortunately such qualities are totally absent and as it turns out completely unnecessary for delivering the message(s) the medium's calling for, today.
And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it?
Bottom line is can't make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Can ya?
"A shift is in the works?"
Yea.
A down-shift.
"Humor me, awright"
HA!!
You got my best shot, friend.
...ya laughin'? ;^)
And it has worked for several decades? Correct me if I'm wrong but seems like I've read/heard that ALL media(save radio?) are experiencing difficulties retaining an audience. That is, their market penetration has been more or less steadily declining for, say, the last ten years or so? Rumblings are already coming from the innards of "newspapers" and the networks. I haven't heard much(with the exception of Disney) from Hollywood except to say that I believe movie attendance is down dramatically from a decade ago. And STILL they continue to fling their poo at flyover country.
So bottom line, I think both the news media and Hollywood, so long as they can show ANY profit to justify that they are "doing a good job" for the stockholders, will consistently be more affected by their culture and beliefs than by their wallets.
So, WHAT have they done? Shoot for the quickest, cheapest, easiest buck by catering to the dimmest bulbs amongst us? Filth sells......to some. And it's cheap to produce? Bottom line survives. The dimwits that continue to patronize this rubbish are what keeps Hollywood in business and the sewage flowing. Can Hollywood et al survive long term with this business plan? Will the fluff become self perpetuating; that is, will the MSM be able to skew cultural values downward simply by maintaining their position? God I hope not! And I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other....given what I know of human nature.
FGS
And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it?
It would seem. The more I hear first hand accounts of what really happened vs what makes the "news" is vastly different in many cases; it somehow morphed. And this on stories that are nothing more than puff pieces. Made from whole cloth in some shining examples most of us are aware of. The "good" ones make it up as they go along apparently. And that's the way it is™.
...ya laughin'?
Beats cryin' ;^)
FGS
2) Movies are different: for the last five years, there has been a growing concern about the lack of plots, and rehashing used TV shows or even computer games ("Doom," "Resident Evil," "Mortal Kombat.") Now, for 90% of the movies that's true, and I think one of the big problems is that Hollywood has completely EXCLUDED ITSELF from ANY "conservative" themes. So it is always stuck preaching to only half the choir. I have a novel/screenplay for a 9/11 movie that is very "conservative" in its themes, etc., and which (so far) NO editor has said was not well written---yet no one will touch it because of the slant/subject matter (i.e., Americans are heroes, the jihadists are evil).
There are a FEW brilliant movies out there. For ex, I just watched "11:14" which takes a body falling on a car at 11:14 and then goes backwards to tie in the lives of four or five individuals as they came to that point. There have been some others like that---Johnny Depp was in one whose title escapes me. What is generally lacking, though, is the ability to tie these sophisticated screenplays/concepts to CONSERVATIVE themes.
How about someone who tells the truth and doesn't have a political agenda? Barring that, how about someone who just admits they have an agenda. I know, probably a little too radical and revolutionary.
Follow the money. As advertisers leave TV networks and newspapers and go to where the eyeballs are (the web) the MSM as we have known it will inexorably die.
I had once hoped it would be a big boom, and they'd be gone, but it won't be that way.
But it WILL happen. Read here our local Gannettoid editor's take on the web.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/OPINION02/510300342/1014/OPINION
And then read her blog here - http://www.kathyspurlock.blogspot.com/
What a maroon...
The problem with the "follow the money" thesis is that Hollywood for YEARS has had overhwleming evidence that a "G" rated movie on average makes a lot more money than a PG or R. Yet Hollywood does not want to make "G" rated movies. This is the point of Medved's book, "Hollywood vs. America." It't not just about money. It's about being perceived as "hip," liberal, and "with it."
I agree with Medved. But movies aren't as advertiser driven as networks and newspapers. Once the advertising dollars leave, newspapers have no means of support.
Hollywood has managed to make enough money to stay solvent, even with their production of tripe. But you have to agree it's getting harder and harder for them to stay afloat.
Interesting, and also yields a not-so-obvious scenario I hadn't thought of before; can you say balkanized teevee? It's already here isn't it? And not just teevee; it's everywhere in the form of multiculturalism. Roll that around in your capable mind for a while to see what you come up with.
I think one of the big problems is that Hollywood has completely EXCLUDED ITSELF from ANY "conservative" themes.
Their insular existence, just like those of the NY and DC media contributes in large part. "Elitism" is a mental illness that might best be cured by schmoozing with the unwashed. But then they might end up like Petah Jennings on one of his man-on-the-street interviews with a Dallas Cowboys fan some years ago. In one of those rare UNchoreographed events, the Texan gave Petah a virtual shot in the chops. Wasn't pretty....for Petah. Doncha know they are REAL uncomfortable with the unenlightened, teeming masses? Loose cannons we are ;^)
So it is always stuck preaching to only half the choir.
Stuck on stupid™(Thank you gen. Honore("That John Wayne dude"))
FGS
See HERE.
Interestingly, though, newspapers did not ORIGINATE as "advertiser-driven." Originally, they were political party organs, and as such were honest about their "news."
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.