View Full Version : When and How did this happen to television?
I never really picked back up on television after I left my parent's house in 1984. We do stream quite a bit of entertainment through Netflix and Amazon. (I have a fondness for Cary Grant movies, but we've long since run out of new ones to watch). We just finished all of The West Wing, which I loved. My wife was watching "Lost" with my daughter, but it involves a little too much screaming for me. As Thich Nhat Hanh says, we have to be careful what we let into our consciousness.
Last night, we thought we would shell out on Amazon for the first episode of "Game of Thrones." The author of the books is a local, and there's been some press about it. My God! What an embarrassing thing to watch with your children! I thought it would be a nice little Arthurian type of saga, but it basically featured a lot of nudity and more or less depicted rape. I don't consider myself a prude by a long shot, but when I rent a television show, I don't expect hard core violent porn.
How the heck did that happen? I know it's HBO and not CBS, but I would think that some standard of taste and good manners would reign even there. And who watches these shows? I don't think that, even as a teenage boy, I would have watched it. The combination of violence and sex was very unsettling in the pit of my stomach. I would not think the Game of Thrones would ever find an audience. I hope it's not indicative of some larger trend in our culture. What happened to television between "The West Wing" and "Game of Thrones"?
Friends and I play a little game called "Ozzie and Harriet in Separate Beds," in which we try to find examples of how television "decency" standards have changed. Recently, I was was flipping between channels and came across a soap opera scene with two attractive young men chatting and then ending their conversation with a lingering kiss. The scene segued to a woman wryly commenting that soon she'd be exchanging vows "'til death do us part" with a man whose father she was sleeping with. Either of these would have raised eyebrows to the hairline with the Ozzie and Harriet generation.
"I don't consider myself a prude" indicates you probably are one by current standards. I've caught myself thinking similarly.
It is indicative of the addition of much more violence, sex, and nudity on regular TV. There is no "family" time now. We watched the Sopranos and it was very hard core. Just the language alone belonged only in a bar and maybe not even there.
You do need to be very selective and, if concerned, research online to see what the shows entail. You all might like Larkrise to Candleford. It is kind of like Little House but set in England just before industrialization. I like a lot of the English mystery shows since they are much more careful with violence and such. Lots more talking and lots fewer car chases. One of the funniest is Doc Martin.
There are a lot of shows I refuse to watch. I don't like bed hopping, car chases, war, and most violence. My husband asks if I am going upstairs to sew and that is when he watches those shows I refuse to have on while I am in the room.
"Game of Thrones" also is a popular video game; I don't know if that helps answer your question. The game is rated M for violence, language, sexual content, and gore. I would think that the Amazon version of the show would have included some sort of rating or disclaimer at the beginning.
There are people out there who believe very strongly that art should imitate life, and that if there is nudity and violence and misogyny in life (which, of course, there is), art should have it, too. In fact, sometimes art is a venue used to explore cultural or societal taboos under the guise of fantasy, so what you see in a movie or video game is a larger-than-life representation of blood and guts or violence.
Then there is the ever-changing tipping point of taste and good manners. Back in the 50s and early 60s, TV thought you could not show a married couple in the same bed. In the 70s, George Carlin did a comedy bit about the "Seven Dirty Words You Can Never Say on Television" and a radio station playing that piece during daytime hours was sued; the suit went all the way to the Supreme Court. I still remember watching "The Odd Couple" and "Hill Street Blues" decades ago and being surprised that they could now say "a--" and "b---h" on broadcast TV without bleeping it. Cable channels like HBO have long promoted that they were not tied by the FCC regulations on terrestrial broadcasters, so they could present movies uncut and uncensored; they had much more latitude in other shows as well.
And then there's my pet sociological theory about people resorting to some form of extremism to make themselves visible. It's why it's no longer enough to have a toothpaste that whitens your teeth; it has to make them Xtreme White. It's why some radio stations pump their average volume way up, to catch your ear as you scan the dial. It's why large population centers see the most dramatic shifts in fashion, with some trends coming and going faster than they can be transmitted to flyoverland. Something that sticks out gets seen. It's no different for video programmers.
paul, TV drama has come up so incredibly much in the past few years and the rise of adult content is part of that. I will not shame it for nudity or violence or especailly bad language. It is adult tv.
I do not mean this to sound smartass, but please--know what you are watching before you turn it on with your children.
Deadwood, in the top 3 tv shows for me of all time (thanks alan!) features the F word just about 200 times per episode. I love that thing. I loved Tony Soprano and all of his violence and deaths and language. And yes, I love Pinter Dinkalge (Tyrian Lannister) and his dallying with wh--res in Games of Thrones. While the violence is too much in that show for me, I just look the other way when I know something is coming.
That tv is no longer pablum spoon fed to us by 3 networks is a good thing, really it is.
...
That tv is no longer pablum spoon fed to us by 3 networks is a good thing, really it is.
I feel the same way. There still is not nearly the variety of programming that I would like to see, and a lot of it seems to target a demographic far removed from mine, but I don't recall having been shocked (Shocked, I tell you!) by anything. Sometimes surprised and amused...
Last night, we thought we would shell out on Amazon for the first episode of "Game of Thrones." The author of the books is a local, and there's been some press about it. My God! What an embarrassing thing to watch with your children! I thought it would be a nice little Arthurian type of saga, but it basically featured a lot of nudity and more or less depicted rape. I don't consider myself a prude by a long shot, but when I rent a television show, I don't expect hard core violent porn.
I'm guessing that despite George R.R. Martin being a local, you've never read his "A Song of Fire and Ice" series of books from which "Game of Thrones" is adapted. HBO has actually toned the sex and violence down a bit.
I loved the books and am anxiously awaiting the next one, and love the HBO series as well, although I'd never give one to my grandson's or plan a TV night for them featuring the series.
I agree that TV has gone downhill over the years, but knowing that, it makes it all the more important for us to monitor what we allow on our screens.
Paul, I agree with Alan. I've read book one and about half of book two of Martin's series. A clean, Lord of the Rings type series, they are not. Far from it.
Iris Lilly -- I do agree that the quality of TV drama has gone up in many cases. I have never read Martin's books, though my daughter may have. She's an avid science fiction and fantasy reader, and I can't keep up with what she's reading. What I didn't like about the pilot was the tone of the sex and violence. If a TV rating said sex and violence, I would think it meant something far more toned down than what showed up in that TV show. My kids are 11 and 13 now. A little sex, a little violence -- OK. But this wasn't violence in defense of good or sex as a result of true love. Maybe the show develops more complex values as it goes along.
I think it was the relative complete lack of ethics that bothered me most.
We did love Doc Martin. I enjoyed a few episodes of Black Books, but then the drinking stopped being humorous and just became sad and not so funny. We love "Once Upon a Time." It's one of the few shows everyone in the family agrees on. My wife and daughter like hospital and crime dramas and comedies -- Gray's Anatomy, Psych, and there was one other hospital comedy whose name I can't remember. I'm not into those, and with the hospital stuff, again, it was just people having sex left and right and talking about it all the time. In my experience, that just doesn't happen. I've never had a friendship where I talked about my sex life with my friends. I don't think that's a good example for my daughter. My wife thinks it's fine. It's probably a gender thing. Maybe men just don't talk about sex as much.
Monk is our all-time favorite television show. Captain Picard's version of Star Trek still rates high with us. We liked "Call the Midwives." We watched Downton Abbey, but I couldn't bring myself to really care about any of the characters. I do like the first couple of seasons of "Madmen". My wife hates it. She's more into out and out violence, and I prefer dramatic tension. My wife can't stand to watch men behaving badly. That pretty much sums up Don Draper. I made it to season three, and then I got really tired of all of them.
We're really running out of shows of the quality of Monk, Doc Martin, Star Trek Next Generation, (and we also liked Voyager, though Deep Space Nine was boring), the West Wing, Once Upon a Time. We're at a point where we end up splitting our time watching the computer, with my wife watching "Lost" and me trying to stomach my way through more of the bad behavior of "Madmen." I just want to know if any of them find any sort of character redemption at the end. Does Don ever learn to drink moderately and become monogamous? There's got to be some more good quality dramas out there that don't depend on shock that get an audience.
...We're really running out of shows of the quality of Monk, Doc Martin, Star Trek Next Generation, (and we also liked Voyager, though Deep Space Nine was boring), the West Wing, Once Upon a Time. We're at a point where we end up splitting our time watching the computer, with my wife watching "Lost" and me trying to stomach my way through more of the bad behavior of "Madmen." I just want to know if any of them find any sort of character redemption at the end. Does Don ever learn to drink moderately and become monogamous? There's got to be some more good quality dramas out there that don't depend on shock that get an audience.
Sadly I haven't seen Don Draper change over several seasons and for that reason it's boring. But still, they manage to have some decent subplots. The season with the English guy and his story arc was pretty interesting, and stuff going on with Sally can be ok, and the sex bomb Joan is always up to something.
I do think that they've run out of steam, but the show has announced its last season.
Sorry, I can't stand Once Upon a Time.
DH and I loved Lost! Even though I did zone out during many of the scenes of running through the jungle, they did that a lot.
I can't think of any dramas that I would watch with kids, but they might like the comedies Modern Family and Big Bang Theory. I also like the comedy Parks and Rec (go, Ron!) but I doubt that kids would like it.
The "family programming" of the past was simply not as much of an escape from the stress of everyday life as today's more edgy, out-there programming is. And be honest: How many Once Upon a Time knock-offs can you watch? (There will be two next year; they're spinning off a Wonderland series.) And is Once Upon a Time really child-friendly? Some folks would say it has too much violence. Heck, one of the heroines killed the mother of the main antagonist on the series, and is wracked with rather sophisticated adult guilt about it. So you'd really have to dull-down the show some more to call it child-friendly. After a while, the networks have to think about how silly it is to constrain the creativity of the producers and writers by forcing them to produce child-friendly programming all the time, when there are other constituencies in the audience who want, and are willing to "pay" for, something else. There is a difference between "good" and "goodness", and there is only some much "goodness" that people can take.
I would really appreciate originality. When you break down many of the new shows, there is the cowboy and Indian story.
I would really appreciate originality. When you break down many of the new shows, there is the cowboy and Indian story. The problem is that most everything you think was original was actually just a derivation of something that simply was presented before you were born or before you were aware or that you simply didn't factor in to your determination of originality. That's going to lead you down a road where as you get older you're going to find less and less joy, because fewer and fewer things will be truly new to you.
Deep Space Nine and Babylon Five did that for me.Neither were really original. Babylon 5 was, at least, the entry point of a new literary device into a new medium (the multi-year series with a definitive objective end-point). There's really very little of DS9 that was truly original, even within the medium (though I'd be hard-pressed, now, so many years later, to recall either the critical aspects of DS9 or the previous television series that showcased them).
If anything, there's been more originality recently than in the past, specifically because of what the OP is complaining about. Vic Mackey ("The Shield") was a very unique character (not just a sympathetic thug, like Tony Soprano - that had been done many times before - but a very complex and conflicted character), and perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I think that could be considered original. Note that Jax Teller ("Sons of Anarchy") is a derivation of Vic Mackey, but he's still one of the best protagonists to watch on television today, IMHO.
I suppose The Americans could be considered original in some ways. It isn't just putting the opposing view on display, but it is presenting it in such a thoroughly sympathetic manner, that you really start rooting for the Soviets, if you allow yourself to - if you can get past the fact that these people were unequivocally working against what you personally believe in.
I loved Farscape when it started due to the characters but at the end it appeared the writers ran out of steam.Farscape was little more than Gulliver's Travels mixed with Alice in Wonderland, eh? :)
I agree that TV has gone downhill over the years, but knowing that, it makes it all the more important for us to monitor what we allow on our screens.
That may be, Alan.. but it's a mine field if you have kids, and it's also a shame because there are some movies that have really great story lines, and even good messages, but it seems that they're simply occasionally punctuated with language or sexual activity or violence that you don't want your kids to see. It's great to have those little codes before every show that says "This movie contains.... blah blah blah" but there may be 10 minutes of objectionable material and the rest of the movie is actually fine.
One time I actually called up a network (back when things aren't nearly as bad as they are now) and asked them if they could simply provide to consumers the same versions they have on airlines--in other words, simply cleaned up. They completely dismissed me, of course.
So you either completely block all the shows that give you the heads-up in front, or you sit there when your kids watch every show so you can fast-forward through every bad scene (you can't fast-forward through language, though). Or you just throw up your hands and tell yourself they're going to get it all out in the real world anyway and just be prepared to balance their experience through discussion.
We didn't have cable until the kids were teenagers, which helped. However, to your point, there are few standards of decency now on network TV. Now, I think I'd be inclined to skip TV in house altogether if my kids were young. One of the shows that REALLY irked me way back when reality shows started was the show Real World. My kids were teens and the last thing I wanted was for them to think those depraved experiences on TV should be considered "real world." That show was censored in my house.
I think it was Ellen Goodman who said once in an op ed piece that where, at one time society supported families, these days, it does not--and parents are forced to guard their families against society. Having these toxins poisoning the water of some of our common experiences like watching TV just adds to the stress getting your family through the day.
I am not a prude. And I am not a James Dobson Republican. I just believe that TV is like air pollution and you have to be careful about what you're "breathing in."
Since I started watching TV when it was new (Alaska got it later), I appreciate simple escapism and do not appreciate the new violence dressed up as story. The original Hawaii 50 was to me much more interesting than the new one. The original Star Trek was much more original in the 1960s. I just want to enjoy a good story. I do not want to be shocked, horrified, disgusted, etc. Those emotions come from reading about real life in the news. It does not have to be shown to me via a TV show. I especially dislike shows about violence against women and children. Of what benefit?
No one has improved upon the short and scary stories of the original Twilight Zone which gave us all nightmares when originally shown. So much so that my parents banned it for a long time. They even considered Star Trek objectionable but we overcame that one. My parents never cussed and would be horrified by the language shown on TV. I still consider it low class.
It is a generational thing and I would not stop someone from watching whatever they want on TV. However, I will screen my watching and avoid altogether those that to me are objectionable.
I rarely watch TV because the focus seems to be as violent and verbally offensive as possible.
Not a prude but I look at the old movies and they could tell a story that got you involved because you had to imagine some of the actions that were implied. NOw they show it so offensively and graphically, I feel left out so don't watch.
I might add that a lot of literature has done the same switch. If I like a particular story, I can flip the pages and skip the offensive sections, hard to do with the visual media.
try2bfrugal
5-5-13, 10:55am
I also like the comedy Parks and Rec (go, Ron!) but I doubt that kids would like it.
I like that show, too, and Ron is my favorite character. I read that the show's creators based him on a real person they met doing research for the show - a government employee Libertarian who didn't like government so he deliberately didn't get much done.
I try to avoid the majority of network shows and the news. I don't like the violence and cookie cutter plot lines on most TV shows.
I watch sci-fi and documentaries on Netflix and Prime and comedy central shows. Saturday Night Live still has its moments. We also watch a lot of HGTV shows to try to figure out where we eventually might want to retire. I like the HGTV shows where people are able to buy or rent inexpensive homes and apartments in beautiful locations, not the over the top houses in expensive cities.
Since I started watching TV when it was new (Alaska got it later), I appreciate simple escapism and do not appreciate the new violence dressed up as story. The original Hawaii 50 was to me much more interesting than the new one. While at the time I really appreciated the original series, in retrospect I realize how incredibly kitschy and formulaic the original series was, and how superficial the relationships between the characters were. There are more layers to the characters in the new series (remarkably, with the exception of McGarrett) that make them much more believable in my view and make me care about them more than what seems to me to have been the wooden cut-outs that populated the original.
No one has improved upon the short and scary stories of the original Twilight Zone which gave us all nightmares when originally shown.Twilight Zone was quite unique, in that way, but I don't think it is fair to say that there aren't contemporaries today that can compete head-to-head with Twilight Zone with regard to writing. The issue is that there simply aren't any regular anthology series on television right now to compare Twilight Zone to, and (picking up on what I just wrote, above) I believe that's because people are more so looking for series that feature characters that they can come to care more about, over a longer term.
I still consider it low class.This is really a matter of personal preference. With respect, I find a lot of concern about "class" to be superficial. I don't think it is fair to look at the changes as a loss of "class", so much as a rejection of what many consider an element of the overall pretentious nature of "society" in the past.
It is a generational thingI'm not so sure. My spouse is almost eligible for Social Security, and we talk with my father and his spouse about such things, and they will be the first to make the point that The Shield was better than (say) Adam-12; that ER was better than (say) Emergency!; that NCIS is far better than (say) Dragnet; etc.
I think what it really comes down to is the choice between venerating the past or venerating the future - and to be clear, one isn't necessarily better than the other, with regard to entertainment. My cousins and I were brought up separately. They were brought up mostly by our grandparents who were big into nostalgia. Old films; old music; etc. They saw value in the familiar. My mother, by comparison, was eternally optimistic, always looking to the future and what wondrous things it would bring. She taught us to favor moving forward. When I was 17, there was a fire in our family home and we lost just about everything. The only thing my mother told us to grieve was the loss of our family pet - a life isn't a thing. But other than that, she viewed the fire like a fire in the forest, clearing away the underbrush so that the forest can flourish anew. A week before Mother's Day I'm called to remember the gifts my mother left me, and I think this is the most important: The motivation to enjoy the present, to seek out and find the value in today and tomorrow.
I just want to enjoy a good story. I do not want to be shocked, horrified, disgusted, etc. Those emotions come from reading about real life in the news.
My thoughts, too. Suspense is fine and it's not like stories need to be completely devoid of violence, but I don't need to see people shot or raped or tortured. Really, if I want to be shocked and disgusted, I'll pick up a newspaper and read about corporate welfare and (what's left of) the Tea Party. :~)
The issue is that there simply aren't any regular anthology series on television right now to compare Twilight Zone to, and (picking up on what I just wrote, above) I believe that's because people are more so looking for series that feature characters that they can come to care more about, over a longer term.
"Reality" TV series also are far less expensive to produce than scripted series like "Twilight Zone" or "Parks and Rec" or even "Family Guy", so there's even less room on broadcast schedules for shows like those.
"Reality" TV series also are far less expensive to produce than scripted series like "Twilight Zone" or "Parks and Rec" or even "Family Guy", so there's even less room on broadcast schedules for shows like those.Yet there is actually more original drama and comedy on television now than ever before. The volume and variety of choices is unprecendented. I think a lot of people get bogged down in fixating on the choices they don't like and overlook that there is just as much, if not more, of what they do like, today, as compared to the past.
We recently started watching The Vikings. It's an original drama on the History Channel! Netflix offers original dramas now, and Amazon will soon. The staid, tired old over-the-air networks are indeed reducing the hours devoted to original scripted programming, but that's a reflection of how much their new competitors are beating their pants off, with regard to quality. Showtime earned six of the top seven drama awards at last year's Emmy awards, and the seventh winner was from a PBS show, not from one of the five commercial over-the-air networks. And I wonder if we wouldn't have had the same situation on the comedy side, if it wasn't for Modern Family.
This goes back to what we were talking about earlier. The reality is that with the artificial and literally unrealistic boundaries still greatly affecting scripted television on the commercial over-the-air networks, their quality suffers. It is only through the discarding of those unnecessary restrictions that such programs are worthy of honors. I know a lot of folks who don't like the mature subject matter and production/treatment try to disparage the quality because it doesn't play to their preferences, but I feel that they're really just limiting their own enjoyment of what's offered, rather than actually presenting any kind of objective assessment of the quality of today's programming.
flowerseverywhere
5-5-13, 2:57pm
I didn't see any TV for years and one day I was at the YMCA exercise room and there was a show that caught my attention in a horrifying way. It was 8 pm and it was two and a half men. The story was an unmarried man picked up a woman and bought her home where his brother and nephew (young teen) lived. The story evolved to lots of sex going on and a reference to her having "her time of month" in a vulgar way and what she was going to do to satisfy the boyfriend in front of the young man. Eight o'clock at night. Another night one of the CSI shows was on and the death of a young woman and her multiple sex partners (so which one did it) was the focus of the show. All in all horrifying as young kids are often up at that time or have TV in their rooms. Plus as an adult I found it to be vulgar, oversexed, laugh tracks when the young kids are fresh or rude to their elders etc. Nothing I want to watch. So yes, if you haven't watched in a long time and put on the TV it can shock you how much violence, sex and lack of respect there is, even during the early evening hours. So yes, we all know parents need to monitor their kids but the truth of the matter is this false reality of what appropriate behavior in life is can be quite shocking and in my opinion harmful to the wrong audience. and it is hard for me to find ways in which it enriches life in any way or makes the world any more interesting and fulfilling.
I haven't watched much TV since "The Carol Burnett Show" went off the air. Not actually true but I like light-hearted-everybody-in-the-family can watch together programming. I appreciate the learning programs that were not available way back when. If I am considered a prude because I don't like sex, foul language or violence so prevalent on TV today then I guess I am a prude (no offense taken).
we thought to cut downloading at our house, but realized that we really like it, and so we went in with our friend's and share wifi costs. it was effective for us. :D
with DS, we watch process shows: cooking, building, farming, and documentaries about people and animals. It's generally about 40 minutes a night -- every night -- when DH and I are tired/stressed (before DS's story time), and about twice a week when we are relaxed and happy.
in terms of other shows, DH and I watch GoT, Downton Abbey, Big Bang Theory, and Supernatural after DS is in bed. So DH and I probably watch a max of 80 minutes of TV per day at max, and it's more like. . . 1-3x a week at that amount. It's actually quite nice.
We spend a lot of time reading, writing, and talking. DS mostly plays legos while at home. :D
iris lilies
5-5-13, 6:25pm
I didn't see any TV for years and one day I was at the YMCA exercise room and there was a show that caught my attention in a horrifying way. It was 8 pm and it was two and a half men. ..
I think that show is stupid. It is also vulgar, but vulgar and funny I don't mind. It is just stupid.
iris lilies
5-5-13, 6:28pm
I like that show, too, and Ron is my favorite character. I read that the show's creators based him on a real person they met doing research for the show - a government employee Libertarian who didn't like government so he deliberately didn't get much done.
The Ron character is a cult figure. Ron and his wives, all Tammies, are a scream. In real life the actor who plays Ron has a serious wood shop and makes furniture.
I haven't watched much TV since "The Carol Burnett Show" went off the air. Not actually true but I like light-hearted-everybody-in-the-family can watch together programming. I appreciate the learning programs that were not available way back when. If I am considered a prude because I don't like sex, foul language or violence so prevalent on TV today then I guess I am a prude (no offense taken).
+1
Originally Posted by SteveinMN:
"Reality" TV series also are far less expensive to produce than scripted series like "Twilight Zone" or "Parks and Rec" or even "Family Guy", so there's even less room on broadcast schedules for shows like those.
Yet there is actually more original drama and comedy on television now than ever before. The volume and variety of choices is unprecendented. I think a lot of people get bogged down in fixating on the choices they don't like and overlook that there is just as much, if not more, of what they do like, today, as compared to the past.
We recently started watching The Vikings. It's an original drama on the History Channel![/QUOTE]
That's great ... if you get the History Channel. ;) (We don't; we have the very basic cable Comcast must offer its customers.) I was careful to mention "broadcast" in my response because not everyone has cable or cares to pay for HBO and Showtime or whatever tier of cable contains one's own favorite channel -- and not everyone can get or wants to have high-speed Internet access which makes streaming possible. I guess that leaves Netflix DVDs in the mail (we don't do that, either). I would agree that, with more channels, there are more opportunities for scripted series for all interests. But if one is stuck with broadcast, the pickin's lately are a little light.
iris lilies
5-5-13, 11:28pm
That's great ... if you get the History Channel. ;) (We don't; we have the very basic cable Comcast must offer its customers.) I was careful to mention "broadcast" in my response because not everyone has cable or cares to pay for HBO and Showtime or whatever tier of cable contains one's own favorite channel -- and not everyone can get or wants to have high-speed Internet access which makes streaming possible. I guess that leaves Netflix DVDs in the mail (we don't do that, either). I would agree that, with more channels, there are more opportunities for scripted series for all interests. But if one is stuck with broadcast, the pickin's lately are a little light.
Well, we have only broadcast tv (and I am irritated that PBS is not coming in at the moment) so I watch scads of library dvds and I have a dvd subscription to Netflix for one at a time.
Ah! I forgot that one. DH was able to get it on ITunes. I think they did a great job with the Vikings.
But if one is stuck with broadcast, the pickin's lately are a little light.No question about that. The decision to stick with broadcast television is implicitly a decision to enjoy less variety of options and quality.
We have the full antenna set-up now, but keep hanging on to the cable box because of Food TV and HGTV and other similar stations*. History channel also gets a frequent scan. Other than that its really hit and miss at our house. I am so looking forward to being able to select channels a la carte. Since we no longer have young kids I'm all for the occasional sex, violence, gore viewing and gratuitous nudity never bothered me so Netflix and Amazon fit nicely into our viewing routine. Reality TV is the one thing I can't stomach. I have just never seen a reality show that even remotely interested me with the one exception of the first season or two of The Amazing Race (but now it sucks).
*At one point I even announced to the world that we'd given up cable. The box was packed up and everything, but then a show we both like on Cooking channel was not on Netflix like we thought so back to the box for us. Sigh...
I'm glad I can check in here from time to time and find out what's going on on television :D
The most violent thing I willingly watch is English Premier League soccer.
There are times when we realize our television has been off for an entire week, and my husband makes a joke about how we'd better go in and "start warming the tube up" if we want to watch something soon.
I guess we're fortunate not to have kids, clamoring to watch every popular show, asking for the stuff advertised, needing to have special setups and controls.
I think television has been steadily improving over the years. I attribute a lot of that improvement to increased competition instead of the bland "by the numbers" sameness that was the norm when there were only 3 networks. Regarding today's comedies. I judge them by only one criteria. Did I laugh? The job of a comedy is to make the audience laugh. It might delve into "heavier territory" but usually such messages are far better served by dramas and documentaries. Laughter is an involuntary reaction. I might have a nuanced explanation as to why I like a drama. But a comedy? I judge by whether or not it triggered that involuntary response of laughter. If it did then it's done it's job.
Gardenarian
5-6-13, 3:23pm
We have no cable or streaming or netflix, but do get DVDs from the library. My dd is 13 and I would hate for her to have the images from 'Game of Thrones' in her mind. (Though I liked the books and have seen the first season on DVD. The books are gorier, but it is a little easier to take without the visuals.)
Before we let dd watch anything we check it on Common Sense Media (http://www.commonsensemedia.org/). Their movie and DVD reviews are very helpful, and include realistic age guidelines. ('Game of Thrones' is simply listed as "Not for Kids.")
The Storyteller
5-6-13, 6:42pm
*At one point I even announced to the world that we'd given up cable. The box was packed up and everything, but then a show we both like on Cooking channel was not on Netflix like we thought so back to the box for us. Sigh...
Game of Thrones, ironically, does that for me. But once this season is done, I'm done with Dish. I toyed with the idea of sticking around for the finale of Breaking Bad, but after watching the first half of the this last season, I think I'll wait. Not happy with the turn Walt has taken, but realize it is a necessary evil. And I do mean evil. So, after GOT end its season, bye bye cable, hello 100% steaming.
On Mad Men, Don was monogamous in season 5 with his gorgeous young wife, but alas he is back to the same ol' same old. The only episodes I enjoy any more are the ones that avoid his odd sex life.
To the OP, I'm of the opinion that Game of Thrones is best series on grown up TV, although Downton Abbey (which you also don't like, I noticed) comes close, in my view. If it helps at all, however, even diehard fans over at Westeros (http://www.westeros.org/) objected to the frequent gratuitous sex. Granted, there is a great deal of sex in the books, but it is always to a purpose and not throw away. I'm of the opinion that they were just trying to get the feel for the sex in the books, and using the prostitutes to set up expository scenes where we would likely nod off if not for the sexy bodies on the screen. There is an awful lot of info in the huge novels, and you can't put it all on show. The best they are able to do is hint at things, and do a lot of talking.
Also, HBO pushes series to add a little nudity. My favorite story is about Louis CK. They kept pushing for nudity on his show Louie, apparently wanting the females to disrobe. Finally, he'd had enough of it and added the nudity... of himself.
Not quite what they were looking for.
Gingerella72
5-9-13, 12:32pm
TV in the "Leave it to Beaver" days was family friendly, but it was hardly realistic. I think TV today more accurately portrays real families and all of their quirks, dysfunctions, and dynamics (or lack of dynamics).
I've heard it said that TV programming today is undergoing a sort of renaissance with all of the creative and well written, well produced shows being offered. There truly is a lot of good stuff out there, but if you need to stay to kid friendly viewing, better stick with PBS. Or watch less TV and read more. :)
but if you need to stay to kid friendly viewing, better stick with PBS. You mean like Downton Abbey?
Oops! :)
Gingerella72
5-10-13, 12:29pm
You mean like Downton Abbey?
Oops! :)
I love Downton Abbey, and see nothing objectionable in it that would be inappropriate for an 11 or 13 year old (ages of the OP's kids) to watch. Besides, DA isn't the only program on PBS. :)
I love Downton Abbey, and see nothing objectionable in it that would be inappropriate for an 11 or 13 year old (ages of the OP's kids) to watch.
Okay, I thought stuff like Lady Mary sleeping with a houseguest she barely knew (by today's standards) might raise some eyebrows.
Besides, DA isn't the only program on PBS. :)How I Met Your Mother is not the only program on CBS.
poetry_writer
5-10-13, 2:12pm
TV is garbage in my opinion. I only get a few channels on my bunny ears, no cable. Nothing family friendly comes on. I do like Grimm......but it isnt really for young kids...........If you are on cable, you can get some good things on the History channel, Discovery channel and things like that. (i know lots who love Duck Dynasty ...:) Too bad family values and morals are seen as a bad thing, but that is the society we live in.
Too bad family values and morals are seen as a bad thing, but that is the society we live in.
Hmm ... I guess it all depends on which particular "family values" and "morals" you're referring to.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-13, 7:03pm
Personally, I don't care what kind of behavior is hinted at (affairs, murders!), I just don't particularly want to watch stuff that is actually graphic (and I have to cover my eyes at the sight of blood).
The only shows I've watched for any consistent time that were mentioned in this thread are Downton Abbey and Doc Martin though so yea :) They have been amusing at times (not particularly realistic - that's the whole point). That's ok I can just continue not to pay money for television, not missing much I guess.
smellincoffee
5-12-13, 12:04am
I don't watch television because the plots of everything are so formulaic. I don't like fake drama; if I get into it, the characters or ideas being bandied about have to be stellar, as in Firefly. I don't like getting wrapped up in a sitcom plot just because. The dramas I see are all about murder and sex; I would much rather watch Ozzie and Harriet, and I do. I may be in my 20s, but I adore that show and own the "Essential" collection of a hundred and an odd-score episodes. Sitcoms tend to be "Imbecilic people get into trouble, call each other names, worm their way out of consequences". And reality television, bleeeargh.
I stick to DVDs of shows I've seen online or at friends home and know to be of worth -- like Little Mosque on the Prairie. Though I'm uncomfortable with the conservative Islamic values of some of the characters, it's a "sweet" show in the way that Ozzie and Harriet is 'sweet'...and besides, sometimes Ozzie and Harriet makes me uncomfortable too. :lol:
For me, authenticity is paramount. That's why I like the show Firefly so much. There's violence in it, yes, but the characters' values -- like Cap'n Mal's loyalty to his crew, his refusal to submit to the norm and 'authority' of the Alliance -- are stirring.
I guess I'm the jaded one as I love Game of Thrones and don't find it any more violent or graphic than most of what's on network TV and primetime. Criminal Minds, all the CSI's, Bones, Hannibel, Supernatural, etc... - all are pretty graphic (more so than Game of Thrones IMHO). I am a person who does think art should mirror real life - even gory, aweful real life - I just think it should be late at night and for adult eyes only. Thats where I see a problem (the ability of young people and kids can watch graphic shows with such ease) rather than the shows themselves.
I don't have cable and consider nearly all of antenna TV worthless except PBS, which really has had some decent programming the last couple of years. Oh, and reruns of the Big Valley, my mind numbing weakness. I actually think some of the cable programming that I get on Netflix to be pretty good, including Game of Thrones. It actually has a semblance of plot, good actually excellent scenery, and incredible photography. Mad Men, Treme, The Wire, and a couple of other beat most high budget theater movies in my mind.
.... Mad Men, Treme, The Wire, and a couple of other beat most high budget theater movies in my mind.
I tried but couldn't get into Treme, but I'll agree with your about The Wire, Mad Men, and the other critical darlings (Sopranos, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, Justified, etc.)
The Big Valley. hmmm. Now, that's interesting.
The Big Valley. hmmm. Now, that's interesting.
Well, I'm sort of getting to the end of some interest in westerns. They were actually the most popular genre of TV in the 50's and 60's. Barbara Stanwyck was great. Fortunately, our local TV doesn't show Bonanza re-runs and I'm about over it anyway.
poetry_writer
5-25-13, 1:52pm
Well, I'm sort of getting to the end of some interest in westerns. They were actually the most popular genre of TV in the 50's and 60's. Barbara Stanwyck was great. Fortunately, our local TV doesn't show Bonanza re-runs and I'm about over it anyway.
LOVE The Big Valley, Bonanza and The High Chapparal! They dont make em like that anymore!
I think I mostly watch what I can stream on Netflix. A lot of dark things and not so dark. Doc Martin, Blacks books, Foyles War, Wallander, Call the midwife, Downton Abbey, Top of the lake, Sherlock, The Borgias, The Tudors, Breaking Bad. I'm always looking for new suggestions too.
There's a new show coming soon on regular TV called The Mistresses that is an American version of a British program. Their version was a bit steamy but not bad at all. I saw a few clips on ET of the new version and it's definitely not for family viewing. Alyssa Milano, one of the stars, says that cable shows make them push the envelope a bit further (or words to that effect). Why?? Why is their such a need to show more, shock more, be controversial?
It's not something I'd be comfortable watching with my parents, that's for sure!
Remember the days when a love scene was hinted at with crashing waves? Not saying we should go back to that, but let people use their imaginations.
.... Why?? Why is their such a need to show more, shock more, be controversial?
Recently I saw an actress peel off her top and I wasn't even surprised and frankly can't remember which cable show on dvd I was watching.
It seem like a good trade off to me: actress shows boobies while getting better quality role, one with some interesting dialog and storyline. Otherwise, she works in network stuff that is almost always stupid and unfunny if a comedy. I'd strip for the good role, too!
While I don't think that what pony mom called "controversial" necessary makes the difference between "good" and "bad", avoiding the "controversial" (just to pander to prurient Puritanical sensibilities) is like painting a painting without using any blue shades.
I think a lot of folks focus on the extreme examples (that over-react to the prurient Puritanical sensibilities). Yesterday, we were watching True Blood, and in the first fifteen minutes there was a lot more nudity and sex than probably made sense in context, even in the context of a drama that is deliberately about beings that feed on lasciviousness. By contrast, last week we watched Shameless. It's placement of drug and alcohol abuse, nudity and sex was rather proportionate to reality (at least for some people, such as those portrayed in the program). Shameless, with that material cut out, would project an idealized view, when the intent is to present a grounded, realistic view (i.e., Fiona and Jimmy can never find any alone time that isn't invariably interrupted by Fiona's overbearing responsibilities to her siblings; the use of sex and alcohol abuse to dull the onus of living in abject poverty; etc.)
The reality is that our collective appreciation of drama has changed over the decades, and I believe it has become substantially more discerning and sophisticated. Some people do fill their heads with nonsensical reality programming. By contrast, today's dramas, and to some extent comedies, reflect this more stringent criteria. Take the most "controversial" stuff out of it (i.e., ignore cable for a minute) and you still see this mechanism at work. Starting roughly with Hill Street Blues, television got markedly better (imho), markedly more truthful and vital, markedly more well-developed. Reviewing old 1950s, 1960s and 1970s programs now, it is almost painful to see how much the networks treated their audience almost as if they were children. We all find the time to read fairy tales and feel-good fluff to our children, nieces and nephews, and grandchildren, but we shouldn't be exclusively relegated to having to find interest and satisfaction from such fare, ourselves.
Why?? Why is their such a need to show more, shock more, be controversial?
While I agree with a lot of what buu said above, my own, very unpopular take on television is that its basically a drug. I don't think escapism is an uncommon reason to watch TV and that is quite similar to why many people drink or take drugs. It helps people "relax" after a hard day. And just like drugs it becomes a habit that can be hard to shake.
My BIL clicks on the tube the second he comes in the door. I've never been in their house without a TV, and usually multiple TVs, blazing away. He constantly fidgets at our house because we have music going when everyone comes over for dinner. He's always missing "the big game". At some point in the future I fully expect him to stay home from a family dinner because his show is on at the same time. How would that be different than a smoker staying home because he couldn't smoke in our house?
If I'm right then the reason for continually turning up the shock value is simple. Think about a party where everyone is drinking, it gets louder and louder as the night goes on. As people become more and more intoxicated it becomes harder and harder to grab their attention. It was easy for TV to grab attention in the 1950s when it was new and sparkling and the audience was only split between a couple networks. Now the audience is intoxicated by hundreds of specialized channels, all targeting a very narrow range of interests. How do any of them increase market share? How much sex, nudity, violence, gore, etc. would it take to lure Downton Abbey viewers (sorry IL, couldn't resist) back to network primetime? And let's be real, all those taboos and very little else are what draw large numbers of people in our society to watch.
ApatheticNoMore
5-31-13, 11:20am
It's just that the stuff isn't enjoyable (if someone gets enjoyment out of it that is their thing I guess) but graphic violence is more the type of stuff that makes me feel really off balance afterward (anxiety, fear, overwhelm, etc.). There are traumas aplenty in the real world people would be better off facing, but fictional stuff? It's not necessary to take your extra added optional doses of anxiety and trauma, you won't develop a nutritional deficiency.
I agree with the ever more distracting nature of television (including the really bad programs and including the ads), probably to distract us from anything real. I'm really starting to suspect so.
While I agree with a lot of what buu said above, my own, very unpopular take on television is that its basically a drug. I don't think escapism is an uncommon reason to watch TV and that is quite similar to why many people drink or take drugs. It helps people "relax" after a hard day. And just like drugs it becomes a habit that can be hard to shake.
I agree with this 100%. I don't need or want escapism, not unless I have a terminal cancer diagnosis or unless my life is in complete shambles and there's nothing I can do to fix it. And whenever I sit down in front of the TV, I start thinking about Fahrenheit 451, "Let's sit and watch the wall tonight." I feel my metabolism slowing down and making new fat. I feel my arteries constricting. In other words it's got to be something DARNED good to lure me in front of it. And if I ever feel I need a drug to unwind after a hard day (and seriously, neanderthals had hard days, stonemasons have hard days, we have days doing things we'd just rather not) I'll drink two shots of Chamucos and get it over with.
ApatheticNoMore
5-31-13, 12:18pm
I'm fine with escapism, the thing is Downton Abbey is escapism, Doc Martin is escapism, even a good detective show with no blood is pure escapism (yes I guess I'm a fuddy duddy who mostly likes PBS dramas). The graphic stuff is just shocking one's emotional regulation is all that is.
The cavemen and stonemasons used drugs I'm sure, all human beings always have (they also probably had lives in which many of their emotional needs were much better met than many modern humans have, but they were very hard on the physical body). If your only drug is chocolate chip cookies or dark chocolate or a glass fo wine still. Human beings have never been completely emotionally self-regulating without relying on crutches (life is bigger than their coping powers ocassionally - if it is bigger than one's coping powers 24/7 get help, if ocassionally then uh you are human). But graphic stuff makes me feel worse not better. It's like if pot makes you paranoid. Then you may be ok with legalization as a principled stance, but you don't sing the praises of how wonderful pot is! Cause not to you it's not ... Graphic t.v. makes me paranoid.
Animals use mind-altering substances (and likely behaviors) on a regular basis, too. No biggie, IMO.
I must not want to escape, because I'm currently watching/listening to a Current TV documentary on drug mills in Florida. Now that's scary!
While I agree with a lot of what buu said above, my own, very unpopular take on television is that its basically a drug.As much as reading, or singing, or jogging is.
I don't think escapism is an uncommon reason to watch TV and that is quite similar to why many people drink or take drugs.And why they read novels, sing in choirs, and run through the woods.
As much as reading, or singing, or jogging is.
And why they read novels, sing in choirs, and run through the woods.
And far worse than running through Nature, you can see the hardcore addicts--sweating, stoic-faced--churning their way along highways mile after mile, oblivious to the impact of their drug of choice on lungs, joints, and cardiovascular system. Pity.
And far worse than running through Nature, you can see the hardcore addicts--sweating, stoic-faced--churning their way along highways mile after mile, oblivious to the impact of their drug of choice on lungs, joints, and cardiovascular system. Pity.
Not to mention the poor souls who over and over again lift their voices to the heavens/stars/audience/shower ceiling.
Yes, reading, singing and running can be used to escape. Difference is you can't read or sing without engaging the mind. I'm not a runner, but I'm told it can be very meditative which would also engage the mind. Mental engagement is not a requirement to watch TV. Oh sure, there are some shows that challenge you to come up with answers, but if you're just not feeling that ambitious the answers will be provided. Of course those answers are based on someone else's conclusions, but I'm sure they work very hard to be fair and unbiased.
Mental engagement is not a requirement to watch TV.Mental engagement is not a requirement to read books either.
It simply is a matter of which television and which books.
Not to mention the poor souls who over and over again lift their voices to the heavens/stars/audience/shower ceiling.
Yes, reading, singing and running can be used to escape. Difference is you can't read or sing without engaging the mind. ...
No danger of my mind disengaging anytime soon; it's a veritable clown car of activity. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/rpg/jester.gif http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/rpg/jester.gif
And far worse than running through Nature, you can see the hardcore addicts--sweating, stoic-faced--churning their way along highways mile after mile, oblivious to the impact of their drug of choice on lungs, joints, and cardiovascular system. Pity.
Hey now - we hard core runners often have a much loftier purpose than just an endorphin high. We run to eat - and eat a lot she says as lacing up the running shoes for a run to the donut store :-). And running is cost free too. No having to pay your local pusher-person for your drug of choice... or your cable company for that matter. And of course running and mental engagement go hand in hand. There's nothing else going on to distract you from your thoughts and nothing else to do but think and breathe.
Hey now - we hard core runners often have a much loftier purpose than just an endorphin high. We run to eat - and eat a lot she says as lacing up the running shoes for a run to the donut store :-). ...
Donuts, eh? That's the best rationale I've heard for running so far.
Mental engagement is not a requirement to read books either.
It simply is a matter of which television and which books.
I guess there is no reason to engage in endless banter so, yes, technically it is possible to read books without a cognizant thought process. Especially the ones with lots and lots of pictures. Like TV.
I guess there is no reason to engage in endless banter so, yes, technically it is possible to read books without a cognizant thought process. Especially the ones with lots and lots of pictures. Like TV.
What's wrong with pictures, anyway? Although I admit I often listen to TV while doing other things, one reason I enjoy video in general is that I'm very visually oriented. I deeply appreciate how much publishing has improved in my lifetime, so that books on nature and the arts, for example, are full of full-color photographs and graphics, rich in detail. When I was little, even the best books might have had a few illustrative plates tucked in the center--low resolution, often black and white. And there were engravings. I remember being fascinated as a child by a tiny engraving of the mummy of the head of Ramses the Great. Yesterday I watched shows on one of the Discovery channels investigating Ramses and his descendants, complete with MRIs, facial reconstructions, analyses of disease processes found, long lingering shots from every angle of his mummy...It was glorious. I've loved books since before I was able to hold one, and I equally love visual media--especially when they are doing what they do best: combining stunning pictures with thought-provoking content.
Nothing wrong with pictures, Jane. They're worth a thousand words, after all. I'm not down on TV, or at least not on the possibilities for TV. We've had a chance to collectively witness some incredible moments in human history thanks to TV. It is a game changer in so many ways. So was morphine. When used selectively either has the capacity to be immensely positive. When used indiscriminately or habitually either can harm the user. It just seems that there is a lot of indiscriminate use in our culture. That's all.
To another point (and trying to avoid going all conspiracy theory here) there is a man behind the curtain. Shows are produced to get us to watch the commercials. Shows on TV often promote lifestyles that closely relate to the products advertised during those shows. I'm guessing the mix of "sponsors" during Game of Thrones is a lot different than during 60 Minutes. It's a brilliant concept for target marketing that can be used to push a political agenda just as easily as shampoo or beer. That takes nothing away from the quality of some offerings on TV and does not imply that the producer's intent is consistently evil, but a lot of folks seem to forget that the business of a network is to sell their customer's products in a way that is entertaining enough to make us want to come back and watch again and again.
I guess there is no reason to engage in endless banter so, yes, technically it is possible to read books without a cognizant thought process. Especially the ones with lots and lots of pictures. Like TV.
What's wrong with pictures, anyway?What's bothering me now, about Gregg's comments in this regard, is that they are unnecessarily, and to a great extent vacuously, disparaging of what other people value, as if to elevate only what Gregg values above that which other people value.
To another point (and trying to avoid going all conspiracy theory here) there is a man behind the curtain. Shows are produced to get us to watch the commercials.Most books and music people engage with are also produced and sold for profit. Even newspapers and college educations reek of profit-motive.
I tried to figure out just how many of those highly-advertised products I've actually purchased through the years and came to the conclusion they weren't getting their money's worth out of me. Maybe I'll buy a Kia and make it worth their while... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/gamer4.gif I admit I do love our local Pemco ads, so maybe I'll change insurance providers some day and reward their choice of ad agencies.
You're much smarter than your average bear, Jane.
But whether you fall for the game or not, what Gregg has been saying is just common sense. TV exists to sell products. The popular addiction to television (globally) funds the livelihood of millions of people worldwide, a gazillion dollar industry dominated by a half-dozen media giants who control millions of lives by showing them certain images and perspectives. And it's not just their advertising dollars; their lobbying efforts drive everything, including public policy, specifically who gets elected in this country and others.
Of course there's nothing wrong with making a living. But I'm not interested in buying into that system any more than I absolutely have to. Funding Rupert Murdoch's efforts to control the planet is not simple living to me. Nor does it amuse me to watch it -- there is too much real life out there for me to waste time sitting on my a$$ in front of an expensive box blaring the mindless dreck often passed off as entertainment.
I find the attempts to equate watching lots of TV with exercise, reading or interacting with others really amusing. I've had conversations with heroin addicts that sound similar. "Oh yeah? Well you drink coffee! It's the same thing!" :)
I personally don't care who watches how much TV or when or why. Really, no time to waste on caring about what others choose (and for all my blathering, nobody should care what I choose either) But there is another perspective out there {shrug}
I like the part "and nobody should care what I choose either." If only.
I find the dogged insistence on disparaging what others find value in, while claiming primacy for one's own personal preferences, to be unnecessary and antagonistic. Some of you don't like television; message received. Why re-emphasize the preference in such a manner and with such an elite tone such that the contrary preference is denigrated? We're chatting about pastime, not religion.
I find the dogged insistence on disparaging what others find value in, while claiming primacy for one's own personal preferences, to be unnecessary and antagonistic. Some of you don't like television; message received. Why re-emphasize the preference in such a manner and with such an elite tone such that the contrary preference is denigrated? We're chatting about pastime, not religion.
Some folks just like to "bicker" as if every variation in opinion is a personal affront. Sometimes you just gotta shrug and move on to the next subject.
Unless, of course, the disparaging remark is directed at something you value, is that it? It seems almost if elementary school playground logic at play. I hope there is a chance of eventually getting back to an adult conversation where people can agree and disagree without it leading to scornfully disparaging self-serving remarks about what other people prefer for entertainment.
Well, I don't know. Do you agree that there are some people who enjoy TV as part of their media consumption, and others who personally find TV watching a useless pastime, perhaps against their own personal belief set? And can you LET them, without trying to argue its merits and be "right" on the issue? Or the non-issue, which is what it really seems to be.
I see people here who are explaining quite articulately what they value about TV, and what it brings to their lives. (I went to look up the Discovery program Jane mentioned......hmmmmm)
I see others who are explaining why they don't get anything out of it, and why they choose not to consume.
Where does this "elitist" nonsense come from? You've made clear your choice; others have made clear theirs. Am I missing something? For some reason I keep hearing Dana Carvey's imitation of John McLaughlin in my head: "Well I think that..." "WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" :D
The Egypt thing was part of a mini-marathon in which researchers tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut from among a group of three female mummies, and removed DNA for comparison among potential relatives of Ramses. One interesting feature they found was a skin condition common to members of his family. It was an example of what TV does best, IMO.
I'm waiting for someone to weigh in on Game of Thrones. I read the last episode was stunning. Literally.
The Egypt thing was part of a mini-marathon in which researchers tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut from among a group of three female mummies, and removed DNA for comparison among potential relatives of Ramses. One interesting feature they found was a skin condition common to members of his family. It was an example of what TV does best, IMO.
I agree. I love that sort of thing.
My beautiful, accomplished, smarter than me, wife currently has a fixation with the Say Yes to the Dress fare currently populating way too many channels IMHO. That allows me to catch up on my reading.
ApatheticNoMore
6-3-13, 2:07pm
Well the thing is I see t.v. as mostly being non-positive for society because I'm not a fan of the overall culture I think it contributes to (uh we don't have a control experiment society here where the only difference is lack of t.v. do we? So there's a necessary tentativeness). But it doesn't mean I'm trying to ban the darn thing, or think it can never for any conceivable individual have any positive results. It's like something that is known: is sugar generally good for health? No. In some cases with individuals is using sugar to deal with extreme stress better than abstaining and trying to tough out the stress? I suspect so, doubt it's ever been tested. Do I have any interest in banning sugar? no (I'd need a dealer for chocolate bars!).
Am I allowed to have opinions on what and what is not socially positive (and that includes what type of society I'd like to see)? Why not? Seems such a basic human attribute to take up a battle with. Are they sometimes speculative? Sure. Do I belive that the number of individual differences in human beings (and maybe in television shows too) outstrips my capacity to account for every one-off? Of course. Still I just dont' believe the overall effect of t.v. is positive.
Does television exist to sell products that are advertised. Of course. But I personally like Jane am extremely unswayed by advertising. Of course I learned to scoff hard at ads as a little little kid from my daddy so if everyone was so raised, maybe everyone would. Could it have a larger agenda to promote consumerism in general. Of course. That is the system it exists within that there can be a barely conscious adoption of the values of the system sure.
Most books and music people engage with are also produced and sold for profit.
Book and music sales are generally just selling the book or music itself though, mostly. Television draws people in by shows yet exists to sell something *entirely* different that the show itself (which is whatever the commercials are for). There's an additional level of indirection there.
TV exists to sell products. The popular addiction to television (globally) funds the livelihood of millions of people worldwide, a gazillion dollar industry dominated by a half-dozen media giants who control millions of lives by showing them certain images and perspectives.
yes pretty much
The Egypt thing was part of a mini-marathon in which researchers tried to identify Queen Hatshepsut from among a group of three female mummies, and removed DNA for comparison among potential relatives of Ramses. One interesting feature they found was a skin condition common to members of his family. It was an example of what TV does best, IMO.
Sweet.
And I agree.
I remember being completely, utterly thrilled by Ken Burns' documentary Prohibition when it was on TV. And the Civil War one as well. I thought I knew so much about both, and truly I didn't know jack. I wish those kinds of things were the rule rather than the exception, but I guess that's the upside of 500 channels......we can choose our niche and avoid...well....Say Yes to the Dress :D
I wasn't always so down on the medium. I think it's when they replaced everything on Food Network, Animal Planet, and others nearly 100% with reality TV that I really went over the edge. I guess, in specific, it's the farce of reality TV that's really turned me against it. I know others find it lighthearted entertainment, but I just find most of it a really sick and sad commentary on what society values these days. Oh seriously margaret, shut up already willya?
The Civil War was sublime--Ken Burns' version, not the real thing. I should really re-watch that, as I know I missed a lot the first time around. Yeah, Hillbilly Hand Fishing I can do without and I agree most of the "reality" stuff isn't. Including the news, on most channels. It could be lots, lots better. But I remember the fifties, so I know it could be lots worse, too--vaudeville in black and white with lousy production quality. George Jessel, anyone?
I find the dogged insistence on disparaging what others find value in, while claiming primacy for one's own personal preferences, to be unnecessary and antagonistic. Some of you don't like television; message received. Why re-emphasize the preference in such a manner and with such an elite tone such that the contrary preference is denigrated?
*Snort* Guess I missed the part where the beat down happened.
We're chatting about pastime, not religion.
Au contrair, mon ami! When it came up at a dinner party that we had dropped cable (not TV, just cable) the reaction was quite religious. Half the crowd was sure we had committed blasphemy and the other half was ready to take up a collection because we had obviously fallen on hard times and needed help. I know more than a few people who's devotion to tube watching is just as fanatic as the acts of a fundamentalist in whatever religion du jour you care to choose. Don't believe it? Try taking ESPN down for a night. There's a new alter in town and it glows in the dark.
iris lilies
6-3-13, 9:04pm
...I remember being completely, utterly thrilled by Ken Burns' documentary Prohibition when it was on TV. And the Civil War one as well. I thought I knew so much about both, and truly I didn't know jack. I wish those kinds of things were the rule rather than the exception, but I guess that's the upside of 500 channels......we can choose our niche and avoid...well....Say Yes to the Dress :D...
And then there are the rest of us who enjoy balance. I watched Prohibition (this is a beer town, after all. The Brewery (Anheuser-Busch) is a couple blocks from my property. My close friend is from three generations of beer making and her dad, an ex-brew master, has the treasured family photo of the first beer truck making deliveries after Prohibition was lifted.)
I also like wedding dress fashions, so sue me! I watch Say Yes...on You Tube. It's a ridiculous show but oh those dresses!
And BUU, I agree with Gregg that tv is not a great thing for society, overall, but I am also confident enough in my life choices to not be threatened with what he has to say about it.
It's a ridiculous show but oh those dresses!
This made me smile for some reason. Maybe I've lost touch with the simple enjoyment of looking at pictures of beautiful objects :laff:
Apropos of absolutely nothing, I trimmed up a huge tree today and found a sizeable patch of long-neglected iris, not even looking like they will bloom this year. I'll make them a nice new home somewhere.
This made me smile for some reason. Maybe I've lost touch with the simple enjoyment of looking at pictures of beautiful objects :laff: ... .
Oh, I have piles of books and thousands of discrete images of beautiful objects; I look at them all the time. And I'm surrounded by natural beauty. Life's a feast.
iris lilies
6-4-13, 1:22am
:laff:
Apropos of absolutely nothing, I trimmed up a huge tree today and found a sizeable patch of long-neglected iris, not even looking like they will bloom this year. I'll make them a nice new home somewhere.
Oh yes, remove them from the nasty tree area and put them in sunshine where they will thrive!
*Snort* Guess I missed the part where the beat down happened.There is a difference between finding a practice useless for one's self and casting aspersions on the practice itself. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference.
Au contrair, mon ami! When it came up at a dinner party that we had dropped cable (not TV, just cable) the reaction was quite religious. Half the crowd was sure we had committed blasphemy and the other half was ready to take up a collection because we had obviously fallen on hard times and needed help.Their response would have been just as offensive if it wasn't an expression of concern rather than scorn.
I know more than a few people who's devotion to tube watching is just as fanatic as the acts of a fundamentalist in whatever religion du jour you care to choose. Don't believe it? Try taking ESPN down for a night. There's a new alter in town and it glows in the dark.I cannot account for sports fans. They bewilder me as well. However, their excessive zeal isn't really about television - it is really about sports - so I am not qualified to speak on their behalf. Regardless, it is their choice. Something they find of value. As long as they aren't questioning your choices then they're not doing as you've done. Again, it's not religion. It's just pastime. So such reactions aren't warranted.
And BUU, I agree with Gregg that tv is not a great thing for society, overall, but I am also confident enough in my life choices to not be threatened with what he has to say about it.I don't buy into the whole "ignore the offense" nonsense. One can be confident in life choices and still object to callousness.
I cannot account for sports fans. They bewilder me as well. However, their excessive zeal isn't really about television - it is really about sports...[/FONT]
While it may sound like a technicality to some, sports fans are zealous about watching sports, not participating in sports. There are myriad studies that show significant differences between watching and playing from brain function to metabolism to societal interaction... It just isn't the same thing. For the most part I could not care less what others choose to do with their "free time" and will not disparage anyone for their choices. That does not mean taking a totally passive stance if an activity is, IMO, detrimental. My first comment stated that my position was unpopular. My thanks for the confirmation, but to complete the circle I still think there are more cons than pros in the current state of television (even as my wife tries to seduce me with Downton Abbey).
I still think there are more cons than pros in the current state of televisionThere have always been those who held such a position, starting with those who favored how much radio dramas forced you, the listener, to paint the picture yourself. What's interesting, now, is that even if there really are more cons than pros, there are almost surely more pros, today, then there were pros, thirty years ago. The proliferation of options has, predictably, expanded the number of options that one could find themselves desiring to disparage, but it has also invariably expanded the number of options that all but the most dogged curmudgeons would consider worthy.
iris lilies
6-4-13, 9:59am
There have always been those who held such a position, starting with those who favored how much radio dramas forced you, the listener, to paint the picture yourself. What's interesting, now, is that even if there really are more cons than pros, there are almost surely more pros, today, then there were pros, thirty years ago. The proliferation of options has, predictably, expanded the number of options that one could find themselves desiring to disparage, but it has also invariably expanded the number of options that all but the most dogged curmudgeons would consider worthy.
You know, that's a good point. I like that idea. Whle I agree with Gregg that the overview of tv is more con than pro, you are so right that the number of choices of programming out there allows more high quality experiences than 50 years ago.
I can also participate in the scorning and can direct that to Gregg because buddy, I don't have cable and never have had it. What's the deal with you, hey? You actually PAID for television for 25 years?
hahahaha
This old curmudgeon doesn't pay for TV either, although full disclosure does reveal streaming Netflix. I also agree that there are vastly more options and also some higher quality options compared to the early days of TV. I don't think there is any great percentage of what is available that is high quality, but that is purely subjective. What does interest me is that the average American back in the early days spent 2.4 hours per week watching TV and they now spend "34 hours per week (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285) watching live television and another 3 to 6 hours watching taped programs". Over those years it has morphed from a pastime to a full-time second job (career?). That is significant. If I were running Johnson and Johnson or Anheuser Busch or Toyota I'd be inclined to say "mission accomplished".
What does interest me is that the average American back in the early days spent 2.4 hours per week watching TVIt is important to consider what the average American did with those other 31.6 hours, especially before you implicitly endorse going back.
ApatheticNoMore
6-4-13, 12:58pm
It is important to consider what the average American did with those other 31.6 hours, especially before you implicitly endorse going back.
Oh probably hanging out in opium dens .... :laff:
Oh probably hanging out in opium dens .... :laff:
Or hanging out laundry ;-)! Those time consuming chores of yesteryear didn't leave a lot of free time for entertainment. Thank God I have a washer and dryer so now I can spend my free time watching mind numbing TV :-)! OK so I don't do that (too much but do like some TV - crappy as well as good sometimes) but thank God for washers and dryers so i can be out door playing instead of doing (blech) chores.
I guess there is no reason to engage in endless banter so, yes, technically it is possible to read books without a cognizant thought process. Especially the ones with lots and lots of pictures. Like TV.I read Mad Magazine. 'nuf said :-)!
It is important to consider what the average American did with those other 31.6 hours, especially before you implicitly endorse going back.
Yes, Gregg, it's very obvious that what you're recommending is going back to that drudgery >8)
I don't see that it's important to consider that at all. Just because we've freed up 31.6 hours in our week doesn't mean it's a positive thing to sit around watching 16 and Pregnant.
Now, my dear husband was tuned into something last night called How It's Made. I could get into that from time to time. When I'm not running my skivvies through the wringer washer. :devil:
People "watch" TV while doing other things, like folding laundry or making dinner. Just as we used to listen to the radio except that you can look up once in awhile if something sounds interesting.
Yes, Gregg, it's very obvious that what you're recommending is going back to that drudgery Or rather ignoring the drudgery, vainly trying to make it seem like people switched to television from some lofty intellectual pursuit.
I don't see that it's important to consider that at all. Just because we've freed up 31.6 hours in our week doesn't mean it's a positive thing to sit around watching 16 and Pregnant. Why assume that anyone, much less everyone who is not giving offensively scornful comments about watching television get an unrebutted soapbox, watches that specific kind of programming? Seems like you're really stretching to rationalize disparagement.
The "television is for cretins and establishment dupes" dogma is strong here. Threads devolve with regularity--It's like salad spinners with extra judgment. We used to have a dead horse forum for just this purpose. I agree with Iris Lily in that I know who I am and what I'm about, but I can still be drawn in.
ApatheticNoMore
6-4-13, 3:49pm
Much of the drudgery seems more enjoyable than television though, and I'm sure you'll find many here that agree (haha Mrs M could lead that conversation! But I hang my clothes up to dry now sometimes too - it's really just saving energy). Personally I'll keep the washing machine though. Plenty of time is spent on drudgery nowdays of course, commute time has almost certainly increased and that is pretty pure drudgery and work hours have been increasing as well. So I'm not so sure net drudgery time is down all that much, but I'll still keep the washing machine!!! (actually a shared apt washing machine).
Much of the drudgery seems more enjoyable than television though, and I'm sure you'll find many here that agreeAnd many who would disagree. That's the point. From what you've written, I'm pretty confident that I'd find 90% of what you pass your time doing to be quite unappealing. We're different people with different sets of preferences. It is bewildering (along with offensive) to see folks in this thread trying to insinuate that there is some objectively qualitatively distinction between preferences about pastimes.
Plenty of time is spent on drudgery nowdays of course, commute time has almost certainly increased and that is pretty pure drudgery and work hours have been increasing as well.I'll take two hours on the Southeast Expressway over leading oxen back and forth over the south field during harvest.
The wonderful thing about television is that it offers something for everyone. Lowbrows like myself can watch the century-long tragicomedy of the Chicago Cubs continue to unfold, get an answer to the question of whether George Washington could beat Napoleon Bonaparte in a stand-up fight on Spike or find out why Pluto isn’t a planet anymore on Discovery Science.
Those more inclined to snobbery have a whole range of British imports to enthuse over and compare to our lousy, rotten American culture. Or better yet, they can claim to watch no television at all (well, maybe just a whiff of PBS or the Independent Film Channel if they happen to be stuck at home with the flu) and let the rest of us knuckle-draggers know how much we’re wasting our time in great detail.
And honestly, what’s the harm of “Honey Boo Boo”, “America’s Stupidest Criminals” or “Spartacus: War of the Damned”? It’s not like their audience would be forming chamber music groups and book clubs if they were gone tomorrow. The Globe Theater co-existed with bear-baiting and gladiators fought on the other side of town during Terence’s productions. To each his own.
Well said, LDAHL. And you can bet there were plenty who decried the Globe Theater for pandering to the sweaty masses and distracting them from more pressing issues of the day. Which of course was the point.
I remember being around 19 or 20 and criticizing TV to my aunt, who was 92, and who had lived through those many years when drudgery sapped the day of the woman's life. She countered with, "well, TV may not be great, but I'm happy to have it." She was older, alone, in a small apartment without a lot of housework or other things to occupy her mind, and it was a comfort to her.
As for me, I can do without TV, but when I travel on business, interestingly enough, the first thing I do when I get into my hotel room is turn on the TV. It is comforting. I can watch Anderson Cooper at home, and I get to see the same familiar Anderson Cooper when I'm in Atlanta or Dallas or Denver.
So, as my son likes to say, it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. In other words, it's a tool. It's our responsibility to keep it in its place.
I remember being around 19 or 20 and criticizing TV to my aunt, who was 92, and who had lived through those many years when drudgery sapped the day of the woman's life. She countered with, "well, TV may not be great, but I'm happy to have it." She was older, alone, in a small apartment without a lot of housework or other things to occupy her mind, and it was a comfort to her.
As for me, I can do without TV, but when I travel on business, interestingly enough, the first thing I do when I get into my hotel room is turn on the TV. It is comforting. I can watch Anderson Cooper at home, and I get to see the same familiar Anderson Cooper when I'm in Atlanta or Dallas or Denver.
So, as my son likes to say, it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. In other words, it's a tool. It's our responsibility to keep it in its place.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't have to be a pitiful old woman alone and bereft of housework http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/mother_goose/MG_118.gif and in need of comfort http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_35.gif to celebrate modern entertainment options.
I'll take two hours on the Southeast Expressway over leading oxen back and forth over the south field during harvest.
Especially if you've got "Real Jazz" on Sirius playing.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't have to be a pitiful old woman alone and bereft of housework http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/mother_goose/MG_118.gif and in need of comfort http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_35.gif to celebrate modern entertainment options.
Absolutely. You can be a pitiful middle-aged middle manager who likes Bob Newhart reruns more than washing dishes by hand or baking bread from scratch.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't have to be a pitiful old woman alone and bereft of housework http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/mother_goose/MG_118.gif and in need of comfort http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_35.gif to celebrate modern entertainment options.
haha, Jane, but a) my greataunt wasn't pitiful and b) I'm not that pitiful but I do find comfort in TV on the road, and I am more than happy to admit that I am a wreck now that American Idol, Celebrity Apprentice, and Dancing with the Stars is over. And I'm certainly not bereft of housework. Bottom line, I agree with you.
I was pretty sure your g-aunt wasn't pitiful. It sounds to me like she had good sense.
It is bewildering (along with offensive) to see folks in this thread trying to insinuate that there is some objectively qualitatively distinction between preferences about pastimes.
Ah yes, the world is a magical place filled with people waiting to be offended by something. Modern TV is a compilation of very slick sales pitches collectively designed to serve the needs of the biggest corporations in the world. And just like finding that perfect combination of fat, carbs, msg, salt and sugar that keeps people coming back through the golden arches it is designed to keep the audience in one place so the messages can be repeated over and over. Speaking of McDonalds, how many people here can sing the Big Mac jingle? I can. That was from 1975 if ya get what I mean. All that makes no judgment call concerning anyone who watches regardless of whether they weekly watch 1 hour of 60 Minutes of 80 hours of MTV. As previously stated, I don't care, but I do think it is important to realize what it is so you can make an informed decision about how to use it.
And hey Spartana, the world would be a darker place without Spy vs. Spy.
...
And hey Spartana, the world would be a darker place without Spy vs. Spy.
Or Don Martin feet.
(Is there anyone left who doesn't know how advertising works? Caveat emptor is ancient wisdom, after all.)
Much of the drudgery seems more enjoyable than television though, and I'm sure you'll find many here that agree (haha Mrs M could lead that conversation! But I hang my clothes up to dry now sometimes too - it's really just saving energy). Personally I'll keep the washing machine though. Plenty of time is spent on drudgery nowdays of course, commute time has almost certainly increased and that is pretty pure drudgery and work hours have been increasing as well. So I'm not so sure net drudgery time is down all that much, but I'll still keep the washing machine!!! (actually a shared apt washing machine).
Ahh the drudgery of a long - even a short - SoCal commute. How I miss that (insert sarcasm :-) )! Of course now you can watch TV while commuting so you can Bea productive multi tasked :-) . My personal issue with TV isn't the programming but just the ease that my weak willed brain gets sucked in and I watch stuff I really don't want to watch or watch longer than I want. It is an addiction for me and like any addiction I function best without it in my life,
. Same goes for video games and the internet. Thank God I absolutely hate my new tablet computer so don't want to use it ever.
I remember being around 19 or 20 and criticizing TV to my aunt, who was 92, and who had lived through those many years when drudgery sapped the day of the woman's life. She countered with, "well, TV may not be great, but I'm happy to have it." She was older, alone, in a small apartment without a lot of housework or other things to occupy her mind, and it was a comfort to her.
As for me, I can do without TV, but when I travel on business, interestingly enough, the first thing I do when I get into my hotel room is turn on the TV. It is comforting. I can watch Anderson Cooper at home, and I get to see the same familiar Anderson Cooper when I'm in Atlanta or Dallas or Denver.
So, as my son likes to say, it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. In other words, it's a tool. It's our responsibility to keep it in its place.
I turn on the TV as soon as I get in my hotel room too. Even watched that bridal dress show Alan mentioned last week and loved it. It was a change from the more sophisticated TV fare I watch at home - South park and Family Guy :-)
Or Don Martin feet.
(Is there anyone left who doesn't know how advertising works? Caveat emptor is ancient wisdom, after all.)
I learned Poe's "Raven" by heart as a kid when Mad used it in a satire with Don Martin as the narrator. I can still "quote" the entire thing. So who says Mad magazine isn't educational :-)
I loved Mad. Remember the diagnosis "recalcitrant plebney?" Clearly, I've never been one for high-falootin' amusements. And I loathe housework, too.
As previously stated, I don't careIf that were true, you wouldn't be doubling-down on the offensive comments.
And I loathe housework, too.After cleaning house, I sometimes feel that I come out of it a little bit less sharp. I have to do something complicated, like research investments, to fix what housework breaks.
I learned Poe's "Raven" by heart as a kid when Mad used it in a satire with Don Martin as the narrator. I can still "quote" the entire thing. So who says Mad magazine isn't educational :-)
Yeah, if I didn't grow up with the old cartoons, I wouldn't know much classical music. (i.e., The William Tell Overture, Tales from Vienna Woods, Morning from Peer Gynt.)
(Is there anyone left who doesn't know how advertising works? Caveat emptor is ancient wisdom, after all.)
Unfortunately yes, quite a few. Most of the population of the US for starters. Its an extremely sophisticated business and I'm not at all convinced most people have any clue how things are really marketed to them.
If that were true, you wouldn't be doubling-down on the offensive comments.
Dude, you crack me up. In context it reads that I don't care what you do, but whatever, jolly fun. If you choose to ignore the sensory barrage (not that anyone really can) then bully for you. If you want to have your TV blaring 168 hours a week its no skin off my nose. If your of the opinion that television is actually not part of a (much) larger industry with the single goal of triggering Pavlovian responses to get you to consume then carry on. If you think spending as much time in front of the telly as you do at a full time job is normal and healthy then it is simply a point at which we will disagree. But stop with the cherry pick quoting trying to make it sound like anyone here is condemning anyone else here for their choices. It does not advance the conversation.
But stop with the cherry pick quoting trying to make it sound like anyone here is condemning anyone else here for their choices. It does not advance the conversation.Now you suddenly start getting concerned about what does and does not advance the conversation?
Given how you're now trying to hang your hat on "Pavlovian responses" to commercial television, I'm dying to see you weave a story around why watching television dramas on DVD is not just something you personally don't like, but is, in fact, bad.
Strawmen usually don't help much either. I've stated my opinion pretty clearly. Maybe it would be more 'conversational' if you did the same rather than simply trying to bounce quarters off mine.
As tragic as it may be, bUU, nobody really cares what you do. There have been some great opinions expressed on this thread (from lots of viewpoints, brilliant) and you seem to be the only one getting your back up about it. Thread summary imho: Some people don't care for TV much. Some are very discerning about what they watch. Some cherry-pick based on their mood and needs. Some find it so important they feel compelled to defend it. All very human-sized and normal.
Unfortunately yes, quite a few. Most of the population of the US for starters. Its an extremely sophisticated business and I'm not at all convinced most people have any clue how things are really marketed to them. ...
I read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders back in the sixties when subliminal messaging was in the news and television was in its ascendancy, so I'm certainly familiar with the concept that the public is kept in thrall to clever ad men. Popular culture seeps into your pores in many ways, and I'm sure advertising contributes to that--though it's a chicken and egg kind of thing. If advertising were as powerful as some fear, wouldn't we all have Geico insurance? I've never been tempted to visit a doctor to find out if Toxitor was right for me, so maybe I'm immune. I appreciated those clever E-trade baby commercials for years before I had any idea what company they were promoting, and finding out didn't make me a compulsive day trader. People buying stuff certainly drives the economy, which I understand has mixed results. People have jobs, but at an environmental cost. None of that makes mummy programming any less fascinating to me.
I’ve never understood the thinking behind the belief that we are all in thrall to advertisers. It seems to me that those wicked corporations are desperate to find out what we want and produce it for us. If McDonald’s could us sell billions of units of boiled cabbage because we suddenly developed a taste for it, you’d start seeing McCabbage ads. We don’t prefer cheeseburgers to cabbage because Mad Ave decreed it be so. We prefer cheeseburgers because we prefer cheeseburgers.
I’ve never understood the thinking behind the belief that we are all in thrall to advertisers.
Me neither. I can't recall ever being influenced by advertising I've seen or heard on TV, radio or print. Although I do recall my late mother-in-law who was eventually banned from the Home Shopping Network because she continually bought everything she saw and liked, then returned it once it arrived at her door.
People are funny.
Thanks pug.
I read Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders back in the sixties when subliminal messaging was in the news and television was in its ascendancy, so I'm certainly familiar with the concept that the public is kept in thrall to clever ad men. Popular culture seeps into your pores in many ways, and I'm sure advertising contributes to that--though it's a chicken and egg kind of thing. If advertising were as powerful as some fear, wouldn't we all have Geico insurance? I've never been tempted to visit a doctor to find out if Toxitor was right for me, so maybe I'm immune. I appreciated those clever E-trade baby commercials for years before I had any idea what company they were promoting, and finding out didn't make me a compulsive day trader. People buying stuff certainly drives the economy, which I understand has mixed results. People have jobs, but at an environmental cost. None of that makes mummy programming any less fascinating to me.
The subliminal stuff was absolutely fascinating as far as gaining a little insight into how the mind works. Beyond that I don't think there are many messages designed to induce spontaneous spending, even though admen would probably love it if they worked that way. I've always understood most advertising to be a cumulative effect so that when you are in a position to make a choice you will be more inclined to select that one special product. Its not good or bad and certainly not evil, its just how things are sold and it works. Next time your auto insurance goes up maybe you really will check to see if 15 minutes really will save you 15%.
To me, the real chicken/egg paradox is whether TV was developed as a medium for advertising or advertisers flocked to the new medium. I suspect the prior, but it really doesn't matter at this point. In those little dark, conspiratorial places that are sometimes fun to go I also fantasize that the Brahmans behind the curtain are quite content with American's viewing habits. Using some averages (http://money.questionsthatmatter.info/topics/karvsacp.htm), once you spend 46 hours a week working, 9 commuting/driving, 6 shopping, 5 doing domestic chores and 56 in bed you only have 46 hours left over. Fill 40 or so of that with TV and there isn't much time left to plan revolutions, organize unions or do any of those other nasty little subversive things that repressed people used to do. But that's just extreme, conspiracy theory fantasy, right?
We don’t prefer cheeseburgers to cabbage because Mad Ave decreed it be so. We prefer cheeseburgers because we prefer cheeseburgers.
I think that's true, but the real question might be, why do we prefer McDonalds cheeseburgers?
I’ve never understood the thinking behind the belief that we are all in thrall to advertisers. It seems to me that those wicked corporations are desperate to find out what we want and produce it for us. If McDonald’s could us sell billions of units of boiled cabbage because we suddenly developed a taste for it, you’d start seeing McCabbage ads. We don’t prefer cheeseburgers to cabbage because Mad Ave decreed it be so. We prefer cheeseburgers because we prefer cheeseburgers.
It may be that you are above the messaging created by advertisers, but you are most likely simply ignorant of the marketers' well-oiled ability to get to your emotional and rational hot buttons. It's kind of like air pollution. You think you're breathing fresh air, simply because you can't see the invisible toxic particles.
I could tell you stories about how the pharmaceutical industry has shaped our thoughts about our health. And that's not a "soft" consumer good, like McDonald's vs. Burger King. It's feels like marketing healthcare products should be objective and rational, but that's what makes the propaganda so much more insidious.
I think that's true, but the real question might be, why do we prefer McDonalds cheeseburgers?
Personally, I prefer the Triple Baconator at Wendy's, but I see your point.
I think though, that ads steering us toward McD's are only a small part of their success. I think the biggest part is their ubiquity. If I decide I'm hungry, I never seem to be more than forty feet away from one. But even that wouldn't be enough if they tasted lousy or cost too much. Marketers are the heralds of capitalism, not the puppet masters.
But that's just extreme, conspiracy theory fantasy, right?
Um, possibly. But what's a Wednesday without a good conspiracy theory?
I think that's true, but the real question might be, why do we prefer McDonalds cheeseburgers?
Exactly, Gregg. McDonald's has spent a ton of money on segmentation research in order to find the subsegment of the population that will be most likely to be receptive to specific messages. Then they build their marketing strategy around it, like the "I'm lovin' it" campaign, which was designed for a specific demographic.
The "You deserve a break today" was designed for a different demographic, but again LOTS of money was spent to figure that out. And marketing isn't just advertising in commercials or print ads. It's connecting with influencers, and being "silent" in product placement in movies, and being visible in community service programs and on and on.
And regarding direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceutical products, DTC advertising was responsible for 12% of the increase in prescription drug sales, which totaled to an additional $2.6 billion dollars in 2012. Now, if drugs are either needed or not needed, objectively speaking, and it's your doctor prescribing them, it seems to me that advertising must be pretty effective at making consumers think they need these drugs enough to jump through the hoops to get them. It's not like they can just run to CVS and buy them.
I’ve never understood the thinking behind the belief that we are all in thrall to advertisers.
Then you have never worked in marketing, or market research. (An experience that has scarred me for life) Or you believe the entire population sees the world as you do, or should. Oh, that it were so.
We are not all in thrall to advertisers. Just most of the people on the planet.
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-13, 12:11pm
We don’t prefer cheeseburgers to cabbage because Mad Ave decreed it be so. We prefer cheeseburgers because we prefer cheeseburgers.
The belief that health must always be opposed to taste is itself almost a *pure* Madison Ave belief system in my view. It's a false conflict people believe is somehow a real conflict - that takes a certain amount of propaganda! (oh well might as well eat a big Mac - mmm yummy chemicals, the alternative is boiled cabbage and healthy food doesn't taste good!). Poison your mind and you will poison your body.* Of course some nutrition theories haven't helped (harder to achieve good tasting food if you believe all fat must be banned from the diet).
The belief advertising influences people is just an answer to the question of why do firms engage in advertising:
1) they are entirely economically irrational - it doesn't pay off but they just keep buying it in the entirely false view it does
2) they want to poach from competitors having similar products, still that is advertising influencing people
3) they need to inform people a product is out there - there are specific types of advertising that do this - in marketing lingo they have terms - it's still consumeristic
4) they want to push people on the fence into a buy decision
5) they just want to sell a product without any prior prompting on the consumers part
6) they want to create familiarity and positive association with the brand
7) they want to create a culture of consumerism - well actually I don't think anyone sets out to do that, but that may be the end result.
8) they want to create a culture of consumerism that lacks critical thinking and is emotionally manipulatable - well no I don't think anyone sets out to do that either - or at any rate the ad men don't. But if advertising works on less conscious means it is training people to be manipulatable that way - don't be surprised if some vote based on the same type of propaganda (no - a vote for x by itself doesn't indicate anything - it's about the *reasons* you vote for them - factual or just propaganda).
* sorry the poison your mind and you will poison your body catchphrase was taken from Charles Hugh Smith who is a moralist. I am not a moralist, just think t.v. and junk food are linked. Saying a person is "bad" is not something I do easily - worldview way too liberal (or is that libertine?) and forgiving and excuse making or something really, I don't know. When I rage morally it's against those who I think are destroying a decent life (possibly all life) on earth for the rest of us! Which is something they have no right to do and provokes a flame of rage, I don't go around throwing the "bad" epithet at those who just do weird stuff on their free time, whatever it is.
It may be that you are above the messaging created by advertisers, but you are most likely simply ignorant of the marketers' well-oiled ability to get to your emotional and rational hot buttons. It's kind of like air pollution. You think you're breathing fresh air, simply because you can't see the invisible toxic particles. However, a similar logic applies to folks who deliberately avoid advertising: The options available to them in the marketplace are shaped by those who don't avoid advertising. Carrying the analogy forward, instead of those advertising avoiders breathing toxic air of their own device, they are breathing the toxic air of that majority, second-hand. The only way to avoid breathing in the "invisible toxic particles" is to not buy a car, not buy cereal, not buy laundry detergent, etc.
Then you have never worked in marketing, or market research. (An experience that has scarred me for life) Or you believe the entire population sees the world as you do, or should. Oh, that it were so.
We are not all in thrall to advertisers. Just most of the people on the planet.
One group in thrall to advertisers that often does not get mentioned much are the businesses who are "sold" the idea that all this advertising is going to increase their sales. I wonder how many commercials are not so much there selling you something but something the advertising business has sold to businesses.
I think that's true, but the real question might be, why do we prefer McDonalds cheeseburgers?
That's because of they have 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, pickles, onions, cheese on a sesame seed bun. No...ads never sink into the brain and influence us at all - at least not without a jaunty song. Gotta have a jaunty song or it won't sell ;-).
Actually a jaunty song will sell a burger but you need some hard rock and people doing fun outdoorsy things to sell an SUV. Those SUV ads are what made me quit my job. After watching so many of them - with those fun, good looking, athletic people kayaking and mountain biking and camping in the wilds all because they were smart enought to buy a $50K SUV and listen to Lenny Kravitz "Fly Away" at full blast - I realized I wanted that life the advertizers were "selling". However, I realized that if I bought that $50K SUV I'd be stuck working another 5 years or more and wouldn't actually have time to do any of those fun things. So instead I decided to keep my old truck and quit my job and do those fun things - all without that $50K SUV (although I do listen to Lenny Kravitz at full blast). Backlash to TV ads? Not so youthful rebellian against "The Machine"? Maybe all those things? Don't know but it worked!
Personally, I prefer the Triple Baconator at Wendy's, but I see your point.
I think though, that ads steering us toward McD's are only a small part of their success. I think the biggest part is their ubiquity. If I decide I'm hungry, I never seem to be more than forty feet away from one. But even that wouldn't be enough if they tasted lousy or cost too much. Marketers are the heralds of capitalism, not the puppet masters.
mmmmmmmm...bacon.
No argument that its a package deal and that no advertising is good enough to sell much of a product that offers no value or that nobody wants. I do think it tips the scales in favor of the product with the most familiar message...as in the one most often drilled into your skull. I also think advertising does a great job of steering us toward the products the marketers want us to want, if not exactly convincing us to buy them every time. A Big Mac is probably the most heavily promoted sandwich in history and also one of the biggest sellers. Its a decent burger at a fair price so it does have something to offer consumers, but why all the propaganda? Its a huge profit center for McDonalds because it now has a premium branding, but is so cheap to produce (remember, its 2/3 white bread). The admen want to sell us Big Macs because the people who hire them figured out they make more money selling Big Macs than almost anything else. They all want us to want to buy Big Macs. Untold billions of dollars have gone into trying to make us believe we want to buy Big Macs. By all indication that effort has been very successful because the Big Mac has been the McDonalds headliner for what, 45 years now?
I also agree that the marketers are not the puppet masters. I think they are hired by the puppet masters.
The only way to avoid breathing in the "invisible toxic particles" is to not buy a car, not buy cereal, not buy laundry detergent, etc.
Maybe move to a tin foil yurt in central Idaho?
Maybe move to a tin foil yurt in central Idaho?
That might do it! But if we all did it, Tin Foil Yurt Company would be vying for our business against the Pacific Yurt Company and the Colorado Yurt Company. Then we'd see things like,
Appeal to desire for sex: "Come flirt in our yurt"
Appeal to desire for popularity: "We may be round, but at least we're not square."
Appeal to fears: "Buy our tin foil yurt and those villainous advertisers will say, 'Curses! Foiled again!"
It may be that you are above the messaging created by advertisers, but you are most likely simply ignorant of the marketers' well-oiled ability to get to your emotional and rational hot buttons. It's kind of like air pollution. You think you're breathing fresh air, simply because you can't see the invisible toxic particles.
It's probably just my ignorance talking, but if we really are such empty vessels waiting to be filled by marketing, what hope is there for us? That we will at best be programmed by a more compassionate elite? Or that our freedom depends on censorship of these insidious messages by the Ministry of Truth?
It's probably just my ignorance talking, but if we really are such empty vessels waiting to be filled by marketing, what hope is there for us? That we will at best be programmed by a more compassionate elite? Or that our freedom depends on censorship of these insidious messages by the Ministry of Truth?
I think it's all about awareness and education. For a while I was involved in ACME (Action Coalition for Media Education) whose mission is was to bring that kind of awareness to the public. I especially think it's important to get to the children/teens--it would be great to have guest teachers who are trained in teaching about what's behind advertising and how to buck the tide.
The other organization I was part of was Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood. To ApatheticNoMore's point--there is definitely a correlation between advertising and the amount of junk kids eat.
We are not all in thrall to advertisers. Just most of the people on the planet.
And to think we used to make fun of marketing majors in school!
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-13, 2:04pm
I think it's all about awareness and education. For a while I was involved in ACME (Action Coalition for Media Education) whose mission is was to bring that kind of awareness to the public. I especially think it's important to get to the children/teens--it would be great to have guest teachers who are trained in teaching about what's behind advertising and how to buck the tide.
There's a case to be made for a ban on ads (maybe for children?) but the most obvious answer is: it's just about critical thinking. Teaching people to analyze ads and the techniques they may be using - to literally break them down into techniques, to be profoundly skeptical of them, to ask themselves 1) if they will actually get what they anticipate from the product and 2) what other more objective ways there may be to evaluate products (reviews on consumer reports etc. - even crowdsourced reviews could be used but they are hackable), to even be able to ask questions in the larger context: who really benefits from this product etc., is it even the consumer?
To ApatheticNoMore's point--there is definitely a correlation between advertising and the amount of junk kids eat.
I think for adults too. Or I think it's kind of a default belief system promoted by t.v. (mostly the advertising I guess). I mean sure if one is otherwise educated about nutrition or food politics or cooking or cultural food traditions it overrides the default. Then they aren't magically going to be programmed seeing an ad. "I watch 20 hours of t.v. every week, and read every Michael Pollan book as soon as it comes out". Fine you aren't who Micky D's is targeting. It's only a vacuum of ignorance about food in any sense (health or preparation) that can create beliefs like: "healthy food can't taste good", but if you get all your info from t.v. (perhaps with the exception of the food channel), I think it's what you will come to believe. I mostly base this on: well I've seen it :\
That might do it! But if we all did it, Tin Foil Yurt Company would be vying for our business against the Pacific Yurt Company and the Colorado Yurt Company. Then we'd see things like,
Appeal to desire for sex: "Come flirt in our yurt"
Appeal to desire for popularity: "We may be round, but at least we're not square."
Appeal to fears: "Buy our tin foil yurt and those villainous advertisers will say, 'Curses! Foiled again!"
Ha! And don't leave out the appeal for the wacko gun toting bunker dwelling waiting for end times crowd (of which l'm one :-) ). "Why settle for wearing a tin foil hat when you can be safe from the G-Men, space aliens, and zombies alike in our tin foil yurt bunker!"
Appeal to desire for sex: "Come flirt in our yurt"
Lol catherine. This one would do it for me, but then we all know sex sells.
And to think we used to make fun of marketing majors in school!
And nerds.
I don't like to be talked down to by Michael Pollan any more than I like being talked down to by advertisers, frankly.
I remember years ago Ms. magazine went ad-free, explaining that advertisers drive content in the publishing business. It's not just TV, but all print media, radio, and now the Internet too. TV is just a popular scapegoat, IMO.
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-13, 2:42pm
I don't like to be talked down to by Michael Pollan any more than I like being talked down to by advertisers, frankly.
Well I've really only read the Ominovore's Dilemma and I think Food Rules (and no I have not seen him talk - even on t.v.!), and I don't get that impression from Pollan's writings - maybe because we probably would hit it off as friends (nor did I personally know beforehand everything in the OD - so it wasn't "dumbed down" as far as this dummy is concerned). But hey if one personally hates the guy, they are entitled to that personal opinion too :) Desire for a healthier food system != must love everything about MP.
poetry_writer
6-5-13, 3:18pm
well shoot we just used to turn on the tv for fun....Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Andy Griffith, Startrek with amazingly handsome Capt Kirk........those that remain popular to this day all have a theme running through them......good always won, there was an all wise figure who could handle any emergency, peaceful family settings when the emergency was over.....:o).........My mother wouldnt let us watch MASH at first because she thought it was too racy...lol....those were the days!...........(thanks Edith...rip...;o)
I don't like to be talked down to by Michael Pollan any more than I like being talked down to by advertisers, frankly.
I remember years ago Ms. magazine went ad-free, explaining that advertisers drive content in the publishing business. It's not just TV, but all print media, radio, and now the Internet too. TV is just a popular scapegoat, IMO.
I'm inclined to agree with you. Anyone with a DVR can screen out the ads anyway.
Well, I can tell you for a fact, the writers, producers and actors on TV shows don't give a rip if you buy soap, a car, or 'male enhancement' pills. If there is a vast conspiracy totally organized to sell you crap, these folks are out of the loop. They want to make a show. And they want it to be popular, so many will watch their show and the networks (cable) will keep it going. For them, it is what they love and do. If they are successful, the advertizers will flock to their show, and this will ensure their show will continue, but this isn't their initial goal. It is a result of their (successful) goal.
Advertizing pays the bills. So what? Personally, I believe in product placement in shows, if it meant we wern't subjected to 5 minutes of comercials in a block. If a character is eating breakfast, let him eat the advertizers cerial. If he drives a car, it has to be SOME brand of car, doesn't it? That doesn't mean I'll buy that cerial. When I see a McDonalds ad it might make me hungry for a burger, but for my husbands grilled masterpiece, and not the salty fast food one.
We eat burgers. We do laundry. We drive cars. The fact that the businesses who prduce these products advertize doesn't bother me. I pretty much tune them out.
As far as TV goes....there is this wonderful little thing called a TVio. Record your program, then zip through the commercials.
You can tune them out, ff them, skip them for a bathroom or snack break, change the channel, or--if you're like me--enjoy those that are well done and analyze the ones that aren't for target market and message. Almost all commercials aimed at women are offensive to me for one reason or other. This one seems to emulate porn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7fz0jpuLkM Not that there's anything wrong with that...
The Storyteller
6-5-13, 7:14pm
It's probably just my ignorance talking, but if we really are such empty vessels waiting to be filled by marketing, what hope is there for us?
Oh, we'll be fine. Marketing really has no effect on what we want, do, think, or buy. We are totally rational beings, completely in charge of our urges.
That's why companies pour billions into marketing annually. They enjoy wasting their money.
You can tune them out, ff them, skip them for a bathroom or snack break, change the channel, or--if you're like me--enjoy those that are well done and analyze the ones that aren't for target market and message. Almost all commercials aimed at women are offensive to me for one reason or other. This one seems to emulate porn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7fz0jpuLkM Not that there's anything wrong with that...
But it's not just commericials. Of course we can TiVO our way through commercials, but it's the cumulative effect of all the many forms of marketing (not just TV ads) that seep into our culture, and infects us all--even we "above-it-all" folks. As bUU alluded to, it's like second hand smoke--you breathe it in whether you like it or not. You have to be very aware and very conscious in order to avoid it.
Now, where can I find a tin foil yurt?
ETA: no, where can I find those plumbers in Jane's commercial?
Oh, we'll be fine. Marketing really has no effect on what we want, do, think, or buy. We are totally rational beings, completely in charge of our urges.
That's why companies pour billions into marketing annually. They enjoy wasting their money.
Maybe they do; it's all a write-off, after all. I make it a point to watch commercials, as I noted above, and I had to look that drain cleaner commercial up by its tag line since I had no clue what the brand was. Just like E-trade. I've watched uncountable commercials for teeny containers of flavored no- or low-fat yogurts, and I still buy giant containers of the plain, full-fat kind. I should go get some raw milk and make my own, so maybe the "bad guys" won that round, eh?
Am I teeny bit loyal to AT&T because I love the little werewolf girl and the girl who wants a changing machine so she can show her puppy-brother to her class at show and tell?
Hmmmm.. don't know the answer to that one, but I love watching those commercials.
PS. Come on, Jane, it's Liquid Plumr Snake and Gel..duh!
Am I teeny bit loyal to AT&T because I love the little werewolf girl and the girl who wants a changing machine so she can show her puppy-brother to her class at show and tell? ...
See, that ad campaign is completely lost on me. Apparently I'm not the target demographic. Or they missed their target. I'd rather see a major telecommunications provider tout their excellent customer service. Waiting...
I'd rather see a major telecommunications provider tout their excellent customer service. Waiting...
I'd rather see that little girl talk about her puppy-brother. Who cares about AT&T? I'm much more entertained by the kids. I already have a phone. But that's just me. I LOVE that campaign.
I'd rather see that little girl talk about her puppy-brother. Who cares about AT&T? I'm much more entertained by the kids. I already have a phone. But that's just me. I LOVE that campaign.
I love how different our takes on all these issues are, personally. This has been a very satisfying thread, even as it ranges far afield.
Maybe they do; it's all a write-off, after all.
You won't see ads for companies who take that approach for long. Organizations who spend $1 to save $.35 have a way of going out of business pretty quickly.
Well, I can tell you for a fact, the writers, producers and actors on TV shows don't give a rip if you buy soap, a car, or 'male enhancement' pills. If there is a vast conspiracy totally organized to sell you crap, these folks are out of the loop. They want to make a show. And they want it to be popular, so many will watch their show and the networks (cable) will keep it going. For them, it is what they love and do. If they are successful, the advertizers will flock to their show, and this will ensure their show will continue, but this isn't their initial goal. It is a result of their (successful) goal.
Advertizing pays the bills. So what? Personally, I believe in product placement in shows, if it meant we wern't subjected to 5 minutes of comercials in a block. If a character is eating breakfast, let him eat the advertizers cerial. If he drives a car, it has to be SOME brand of car, doesn't it?
No doubt product placement is a huge piece of the puzzle, but I do think the creative players also do, or should, care about consumption patterns. I bet they're smart enough to realize that is how they get paid. Jerry was offered $5M per show to do one more season of Seinfeld because NBC knew the advertisers would cover it*. It doesn't take anything away from the creative process to also be cognizant of who is ultimately footing the bill. That said, I'm sure the networks also have whole teams of folks who's job it is to make sure you can see the Frosted Flakes box in the cupboard and to do minor re-writes to make sure Mom says she is going to pick up Tide instead of detergent.
*I always thought it was very cool that Jerry Seinfeld had the integrity to turn down that kind of money because he thought they were out of good ideas. By all indication he's a sharp businessman in addition to his artistic talents which demonstrates that one does not preclude the other.
I love how different our takes on all these issues are, personally. This has been a very satisfying thread, even as it ranges far afield.
I was just thinking the same thing Jane.
I'd rather see that little girl talk about her puppy-brother. Who cares about AT&T? I'm much more entertained by the kids. I already have a phone. But that's just me. I LOVE that campaign.I love those commercials too - especially the "do 2 things at once" boy and the "werewolf" girl (who but a kid would think of those kind of negatives to being a werewolf :-)!) but I actually never paid attention to what the product in the ad was. I knew it was for a phone but was so engrossed in watching the kids, and the guys reaction to them, that I never paid attention to the actual product. I find that to be a common thing for most ads I watch. Maybe having TOO interesting ads actually distracts from the product line then a more boring mundane ad would. I don't have Tivo or cable so can't watch TV without ads there, but I am a channel surfer so usually move on to another station if there are commercials. Kind of backfires on the advertizers if many folks are moving on to different stations during commercials.
My husband still gets weepy whenever he sees the Anheuser Busch commercial from the 2013 Super Bowl. He tries to hide it; it's cute. I get choked up too .....but I STILL won't buy their ick beer, not for all the cute foals in the world.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.