“In a society which finds spoon fed porn on freeview TV along with a 24 hour shopping channel and quiz call and casino TV and routine stylised violence acceptable it (the real world) does not shock or motivate. The REAL world can not compete for our attention amidst all the distractions which are very appealing to our ‘base level powerful animal instincts’ which are a part of us (and the reason why we are in this mess). The trouble is while we are all distracted by all this BS in our lives the real world is doing what it always does”
That is a quote from a post elsewhere in these parts and I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. The staggering amount of media devoted to vapid, vacuous and inconsequential rubbish is blinding people to the real issues in their lives.
Is this really what people want and are interested in. Really? Or is it the fact that this kind of thing has reached such a level of critical mass that people are just steamrollered into submission.
Are people now reaching out from their homes to bind themselves together not as communities or as a society as a whole to express any indignation and anger at their situation but to merely ‘text their vote’? Why can’t that inclusive desire be harnessed to influence something that actually MAKES A DIFFERENCE?
I do not care about celebrity lifestyles or Paris’s New British Buddy or the quest for the new UK supermodel and yes, I can exercise my right to change the channel or not buy certain magazines but I worry about the state of a culture that seems to hold these kind of issues in high esteem and the sedative effect of this kind of saturation. Is this rubbish really What People Want?
Contact your local elected officials - for free
by kooltidings
13 Feb 2009 at 05:28
I think it suits a lot of the establishment to have this rubbish on all the time, it turn all brains into mush and makes it very difficult to put topics into perspectives, what is ‘reality’ and what does not matter.
You probably recall the big scandal over Strictly Come Dancing at Christmas, When watching the news you had Zimbabwe, OK coverage as usual but huge spread to wonder if SCD had been fixed. Don’t get me wrong I love SCD but I don’t care whether it was fixed or not. I can make the difference between what matters or not. but I am an experience grown up adult.
A lot of it do fall down to education too, look at the choice of subjects for GCSE, why are History or Citizenship compulory core subject?
Kids cannot think so cannot analyse, have no social skills, can’t cook, or interact. We must all watch kids in the street at time and wonder ‘ they’re going to run the country in 20 years time…’
It is becoming more difficult to make the difference between facts and reality, right or wrong and the social gaps is become much wider between the have and have not.
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 09:09
I’ve no idea what the answer to this is.
TV is here to stay. That is a good thing, but the quality is not. Controlling that is a can of worms.
I am now so disgusted at how kids are raised in this country I look forward to the day we see parents in court for negelect – refusing them to take risks, stops learning, and with no learning, they will never become capable adults. Let them walk to school, or get the bus. Wrapping them in cotton wool, in a car to the school gates is just awful.
My mum took me to school for the first month. After that, there were no parents near the school. Oh, the shame that would have caused us! The older kids kept an eye on the younger ones.
Aged 13 (2 years ago), my nieces cookery class instructions for her parents were:
Please prepare the salad vegetables for you child.
Please remove the tuna from the tin and place in a plastic container for you child.
We would recommend that you cut the vegeatbles and open the tin, to protect your child from the potential harm represented by dangerous kitchen equipment.
We need to knock this on the head, so anyone with a kid, can I ask you kid to sue for neglect of duty?
I do not see any other way of stopping this.
by Jericoa
15 Feb 2009 at 07:51
I think this ‘media’ forum is probably more important than initially seems.
It really goes right to the root of ‘what we are’ . There is some kind of identity crisis going on in humanity which is reflected in the content of the media.
We really need to understand what we are so that we can use and enjoy the freedom and technology we have with responsibility without the addditional baggage that comes from traditional religious controls, which are in decline / losing credibility generally.
Where there is no vision the people perish’ (Old testament I think).
The lack of a broader vision is causing us to default to our basic instincts. Hence a great deal of the mass media has become focused on titilation of our base line instincts. 24 hour shopping channel, casino TV, online gaming, the explosion in pornography, drug use and alcohol abuse, stylised violence etc.
You can not blame the media as such, they need a vision to sell. they do not have one at the moment, hence they have to become more and more shocking to keep stimulating our base line instincts.
This leads to the primed powder keg situation where technologically we are racing ahead but ‘culturally’ we are bypassing religion and racing back to a pre-civilisation ‘stone age’ as fast as we can.
I am not sure if there is any proceedural control for this anymore, it is probably too late for mass censorship, we just need to ‘grow up’ a bit collectively.
At the moment our technology is way ahead of our understanding of what we are.
Jericoa
by CoralBloom
15 Feb 2009 at 10:26
I sometimes think I would love to see a decent ‘fashion trend’ but that wouldn’t last.
I don’t see away, not without massive taxation on advertising. Every advert for junk food has to pay the equivalent total cost for 5 fruit and veg ads!. But of course the great and the good would balk at being taxed out of business.
Until the guys with the money ‘get it’ then society won’t.
Media is the key, but can the media take on their own bosses? No
Can younger, newer media orgs win the battle for dominance?
by kooltidings
15 Feb 2009 at 10:55
“At the moment our technology is way ahead of our understanding of what we are”
I think that the issue with this is actually the speed at which information/misinformation is spread and this is where some of the danger may lie
It can be seen I think when looking at RP’s blogs, the posts look like arguments (as in having an argument not trying to argue a point) Over the HBOS situation, news items replayed RP ‘extraordinary scoop’ over and over again. Realistically the follow up to the story, bad results etc whilst nad, is not entirely surprising. However reactions were like if it came out or the blue. The manipulation when conveying the messages across is the most dangerous thing to my mind
by Jericoa
15 Feb 2009 at 14:04
The news should not be ‘sensationalised’. I think the BBC have lost their way, they seem to feel duty bound to ‘compete’ with commercial channels, which is totally backwards really.
They shouyld be the standard bearere of quality, popular or not, but they are too afriad of losing thioer monopoly if they do not have the audience figures.
Not good.
by kooltidings
16 Feb 2009 at 03:38
BBC certainly seem to have lost it I agree.
When it all settles down they will need to take a long hard look as to how they have handled the whole situation
by bobajob
16 Feb 2009 at 08:22
I feel we need to air debating programs like “The Big Questions” that is broadcast at 10am on Sundays, more in weekday slots like 8pm. The people speaking on these shows are mostly not politicians, but experts or people with hard experience of the issues.
It would be interesting as well if viewers could vote one way or the other by phone, and the results analysed and presented 1hr later for 5 mins. This would give an idea of the balance of opinion after the arguments on something, around the country. It would get more people talking about these things.
It would also help people feel they have been involved in expressing their views on serious matters. This is similar to a blog but not everyone blogs, and it would give more people a bit of extra say, like a series of mini referenda. It could be very interesting. The privacy policy would have to ensure that peoples’ votes were only stored aggregated and not traceable to an individual.
by CoralBloom
16 Feb 2009 at 08:54
bobajob
My immediate response is: well there goes my vote! How much the price of a phonecall = democracy=profit making.
That means folk like me will be disenfranchised. I have no pennies for phonecalls. Every phonecall I make is relatively expensive. £60 a week only stretches so far.
And it would be fixed, ala Blue Peter!
by OldNick666
16 Feb 2009 at 10:17
Maybe we should move away from everything being aimed at the lowest common denominator. Television and radio should be structured.
Channel 1 aimed at IQ 0-60
Ch 2 60-90
Ch 3 90-110
Ch 4 110-130
Ch 5 130-150
Ch 6 150 +
I am not suggesting that we test the audience but rather we should be influencing the program makers.
I am sure that this would help the advertisers as well so they could target their adverts!
by CoralBloom
16 Feb 2009 at 11:11
Was that the aim of Channel 4 when it was first around? There is also a bit of a myth about intellect and income.
I would love to have decent stats on education level/IQ vs income and employment.
by CoralBloom
16 Feb 2009 at 11:12
Jericoa,
Genius!
by OldNick666
16 Feb 2009 at 13:42
Post removed by a blog administrator!
Jericoa please send it to me by email. Click on my name to find the email address.
CoralBloom
Did the level/IQ mean divided by? What is the myth about intellect and income? Part of the curve seems to show an inverse relationship. My theories are probably off topic but I would be happy to discuss by email.
by OldNick666
16 Feb 2009 at 13:54
I am addicted to television so like a reformed alcoholic who has no alcohol in the house, I have no television.
Television brainwashes so effectively that I continue to watch it despite the low and infuriating content. In fact, using a remote, I can watch several programmes at once because the information rate is so low. If I can be addicted, I can imagine how it happens to so many other people.
Brainwashing of prisoners to reform their behaviour is illegal because it infringes their human rights. Maybe brainwashing by television should be banned for the same reason.
by CoralBloom
16 Feb 2009 at 14:17
Life on Earth
The Blue Planet
The Private Life of Plants
The First Eden
etc etc
Couldn’t live without them myself!
In a few weeks I’ll tell you about my own adventures ala David!
by Jericoa
17 Feb 2009 at 13:50
Tv is definately heroin for the eyes. It encourages dis-engagement.
I have banned Tv from the home several times (not at the moment I might add). Whenever I have done it life has become richer once a short phase of withdrawel is over. Tv is ok in short doses but the great race for ‘choice’ as apositive thing now manifests itself as 100s of channels all competing to get our attension 24/7.
Personally I think choice is overrated as a virtue.
Jericoa
by OldNick666
20 Feb 2009 at 15:36
Jericoa, you are not alone in your view of choice. See:-
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
by CoralBloom
20 Feb 2009 at 16:13
I went to the states in the late ’90s to work for a couple of years.
I had cable (the first month was free). At the end of the month I cancelled it because I didn’t like it. The operator was stunned. The only thing worth watching was the (very educational) weather channel. I kid you not.
Oh, and the adverts during the Superbowl. They are an annual event, the anticipation of the public is something to relish, but not to be sneered at once you know just how awful their standard TV acting and script writing is even for drama.