Posted on 10/04/2007 4:19:09 PM PDT by wagglebee
Just a reminder: the previous century was the 20th. :) And every mass medium in existence then is still with us today: Newspapers, magazines, motion pictures, radio, television, internet. Don't you realize it's telling that you have to consider going back over a hundred years searching in vain for an answer to my question?
On the other hand, history is rife with examples of a product that died because it no longer served its consumer.
If you have thrown out your TV, and have no idea what's going on in the industry, that has ZERO effect on the future of television entertainment if you are the only one doing so. It may make YOU "feel better," but it has no bearing on the continuing tide of filth, which, like it or not, effects the culture around you.
Don't see many buggy whip manufacturers these days.
I can't believe you went to the buggy whip argument, because buggy whip makers faded as the horseless carriage destroyed the market for buggies. But going with your argument, think about it: what medium's existence is being threatened because of new technology? At this moment, newspapers. Why? The internet. And as bad as TV is getting nowadays, there is no more efficient deliverer of cesspool culture than the net, and it's uncontrollable. The World Wide Web is the Wild, Wild West. And yet, you're on it now.
For entertainment, television is infinitely more profitable than the internet (ask Google, which is still taking a red ink bath on YouTube), and it's dependent on a wide audience. The ratings are based on a tiny sampling of viewers, and the only ones that count are the "Nielsen families" (which I have been twice). When the people who aren't or haven't been surveyed stand up to say "I won't watch you should I ever be surveyed," that is a threat to their market share. If you wrote CBS execs to say that you don't watch TV any more rather than demand more decency and responsibility in its programming, they would laugh and toss your letter in the shredder. It's not like you're taking your business elsewhere.
In some respects, the motion picture industry is a success story. After churning out R-rated movies out by the mile in the eighties and early nineties, the studios realized that movies rated PG and PG-13 were more profitable. Directors sometimes chafe at having to cut back on profanity, gore, nudity and bad taste in order to satisfy the studio execs, but they do it because they want to make more money. (For heaven's sake, the fourth Die Hard movie was rated PG-13!) But remember, things didn't change because people abandoned movies completely, they simply went to movies that didn't go too far.
Bottom line is this: Individuals, if they join together and make their voice heard, can have an influence on the decisions that result in TV programming, and thus the culture it influences in turn. When you just abandon the medium and hope it will die completely, you are giving up your only weapon to fight the corruption.
Numerous movie studios have gone out of business because they misjudged their audience. (Think "Heaven's Gate" or "Ishtar.") Newspapers are declining because the product they deliver -- news -- is available in a multitude of other vehicles, far fresher and at least as accurate. Artists who offend the public sensibility have often been ostracized, their works left unsold. (Oscar Wilde, for example). So mass media ARE affected by embargo, just as one would expect.
If you have thrown out your TV, and have no idea what's going on in the industry, that has ZERO effect on the future of television entertainment if you are the only one doing so.
My point exactly. I was urging the other poster to do so, to join what may very well become a groundswell. I can't clean up the whole world, but I can certainly decontaminate my corner of it.
It may make YOU "feel better," but it has no bearing on the continuing tide of filth, which, like it or not, [a]ffects the culture around you.
I'm not trying to stem the "tide of filth." I'm just trying to rid my environment of its pollution. I can't do it all at once, so I took the first step: I unplugged my vomitbox and threw it over the hill.
{T}here is no more efficient deliverer of cesspool culture than the net, and it's uncontrollable.
Then shouldn't you be more fruitfully directing your efforts toward cleaning up the internet? Won't your crusade against naughty TV be a waste if TV reverts back to wasteland?
And yet, you're on it now.
Because the internet is an INTERACTIVE medium. I can "talk back" here. I don't have to just sit on a couch with my mouth open while some elitist stooge shovels feces into it.
If you wrote CBS execs to say that you don't watch TV any more rather than demand more decency and responsibility in its programming, they would laugh and toss your letter in the shredder.
How is my refusing to watch at all any less of a threat to their market than my demanding they change their programming?
It's not like you're taking your business elsewhere.
On the contrary, that is EXACTLY what I've done. I do not watch TV. At all. Ever. Yet I am as well-informed as I ever was, have access to vastly greater amounts of data, and have it INTERACTIVELY to boot! True, I am not taking my "business" elsewhere; the product offered by the internet is so superior to that from TV that the business itself has changed.
When you just abandon the medium and hope it will die completely, you are giving up your only weapon to fight the corruption.
If enough people abandon the medium, it WILL die. It will have no other choice. At that point, it can either be resurrected with a conscience, or it can be buried on the junkpile of history and good riddance. Continuing to watch this filth hardly constitutes as "weapon" of any kind. As long as you show up on a meter -- real or imagined -- nobody at CBS cares what you think of their programming.
Nonsense in the extreme.
How does one explain Ellen DeGenerate? Mathews? Olbermann ad infinitum ad nauseum?
"You vote with your eyes and your wallet."
Maybe that's the way it used to be, but not anymore.
...& therein lies the mystery of our times.
Because as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, there IS a market for such crud. Some people -- a meager, vermin-ridden handful to be sure -- like this stuff. Fine. If they are enough audience for the advertisers to court, then let the market dictate. If the networks are willing to subsidize such pollution just to promote their agenda, then so be that too. The stockholders need to know how their money is being spent and wasted, and that's perfectly acceptable too.
However, I find that wrestling with a pig only gets me dirty and irritates the pig.
Too late, it aired last week.
Standing at the bottom of a leaking dam looking downstream, will not prevent you from being washed away and possibly drowned.
No, but moving to the high ground will.
All of Judeo-Christian history has been spent trying to convince humanity that sin is a bad thing, but from the looks of it, most of the world isn’t listening. Screaming at the networks won’t change their disposition. The only chance at change is to choke off their lifeline, which is money. And the way to do that is to turn off the television and thereby alienate the sponsors. We can write books and articles and Blogs and Podcasts from here until eternity about how we should demand better - but frankly, talk is cheap. These networks have two lifelines: rabid liberalism, and the advertising cash that feeds the monster. We’ll never - I repeat - we’ll never cause them to shed their liberal bias. Won’t happen. Ever. There won’t be any “come to Jesus” moments in the NBC boardroom or on the set of “Good Morning America”. Our best bet is to make them obsolete.
Standing on top of the leaking dam as you are, serves no useful purpose either. You still go down when the dam breaks.
In fact, standing on the leaking dam while realizing it is leaking, and doing nothing is worse.
I see the television networks as electronic drug dealers: With that in mind, this debate seems to offer two choices: 1) Shun the dealer until his business is unprofitable and goes away, or 2) Demand that he dump his lucrative supply of heroine and start selling Pop Tarts instead.
Which strategy do you think will have greater success?
I feel the same way. Beam us up, Scotty!
What do you propose doing, exactly?
“Concentrated Bovine $hit”
Considering that CBS outright lies, I’d change that to:
“Contrived Bovine $hit”
Okay, at the risk of beating this metaphor to death, I'm not standing on the dam. I'm standing on the other side of the hill, on the high ground far, far away. All the people downriver know the dam is leaking too. All of them can flee to higher ground. Then, if the dam breaks, it's academic. The breeches are too severe to be fixed, and standing on the dam throwing spackle into the cracks doesn't do a thing. You go down when it goes too. So I say let the dam break. Just be smart enough to get out of the way before it does.
I've said all I'm going to say on this matter. If you want to wrestle in the hog wallow, go for it. It's nothing to me. I'll spend my time elsewhere.
The great falling away prophecied by the apostle Paul has established itself in spades!
It's a dead draw! - Most of their audience is eating the excrement, and loving it.
Thanks for the post.
The discussion was not about what to do about it, but rather ignoring it (media) versus doing something about it. One poster proposed ignoring the issue believing it would then go away, we could be happier, and the media would somehow lose.
The other poster (me), feels that ignoring the issue is the wrong approach. IMO, it only encourages, and has encouraged the continuation of a liberal/socialist/communist agenda such as gun control, smoking bans, and todays MPLS city council decision to ban toy guns.
Again, TY for the post.
Not to be disagreeable toward your honorable points; but, it isn't, "we".
It's, "them". :^)
"...there IS a market for such crud."
Unfortunately you're correct about that, alright.
*They* know it also; so, there's really nothing to stop 'em from continuing to spew the crap out faster than a *big* ol' honey wagon can pump it.
Still I'd bet no one posting to this thread --hell, to this website-- watches any of their junk, either.
Isn't that (not watching) recourse really the most rational way to deal with the scumsters & their filth?
"Some people -- a meager, vermin-ridden handful to be sure -- like this stuff."
Man I hate to say but it has to be more than a meager, vermin-ridden handful.
You looked into the lifeless faces around you of late?
They look *poisoned* to me.
"Fine. If they are enough audience for the advertisers to court, then let the market dictate."
I couldn't agree more, this deals with the very essence of freedom & our free market economy.
Then again when the free market does speak and the sleeze-balls are rejected?
Notice they only pop-up again down the line, and really IJ, that was my only point.
What's happening, I suspect, is much bigger than any of us realize and whatever the truth, it ain't pretty.
"If the networks are willing to subsidize such pollution just to promote their agenda, then so be that too. The stockholders need to know how their money is being spent and wasted, and that's perfectly acceptable too."
As long as stockholders make money we can expect no support from them. Faceless, "Institutionalized investing" has brought us that reality don'tcha think?
"However, I find that wrestling with a pig only gets me dirty and irritates the pig."
HA!!
True-true, gotta tell ya I'm one guy who'll get in the dirt if I feel it'll be fruitful toward promoting a sincere & good cause.
E-S: "The great falling away prophecied by the apostle Paul has established itself in spades!"
Yea, hopefully. ;^)
OTOH knowin's not controllin', either. ;^)
We all *know*, we all are (at this time, anyway) helpless to stop the buggers.
It pisses many good people off to have to wait around and probably suffer along with the scumbags when St.Paul's prophecies come true, too. Damn.
R4E: "I see the television networks as electronic drug dealers: With that in mind, this debate seems to offer two choices: 1) Shun the dealer until his business is unprofitable and goes away, or 2) Demand that he dump his lucrative supply of heroine and start selling Pop Tarts instead. Which strategy do you think will have greater success?"
Funny analogy; however, let's add a third choice here.
3) The general public will continue swallowing, unabated, Hollyweird's (& Wall Street, can't forget their complicit role) poison until one day they can swallow no more.
On that day the culture as we've known it will be dead.
This can & will happen if and/or when *they* [ever] outnumber *us.
Y'know some would say, R4E, we're damned close to point #3 too.
...& some say the *signs* are everywhere.
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.