When did Americans decide that the glowing rectangular box in all their rooms and now everywhere

[Fred Sanders]

Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

on mobile apps, was the Holy Grail of Knowledge? When did folks stop questioning and just resign themselves to acceptance? Isn't that the hallmark of a well educated democratic society, to question all authority and all unproven claims of those in authority? When did the TV substitute for personal reason and reasoning?

It is very frustrating to have to admit that no amount of shouting from a soap box in Central Park, the equivalent of what I am doing just now, I know, will make any more difference to the political and voting pool than a $500, 30 second ad buy at 3 a.m. on the lowest rated TV show in Kalamazoo.

So when I hear, as Senator Warren researched and said, 3.7 million folks tried to play the game by the newly minted Citizens United rules of the game and made individual donations to buy TV ads, donations of 1 to 400 dollars, they contributed to this collective free speech pool to the sum of over 300 million dollars. Meanwhile, 32 other folks donated more than them. Giving you and me the same voice and influence of 1/100,000th of one rick folk. A ratio equivalent, I have noticed, that is the ballpark of the average worker wage to the average CEO wage ratio.

If I have a soapbox then rich folk have Mount Everest to shout atop from.

Meanwhile this windfall mana from heaven cash flow to the TV stations from sea to shining sea is corrupting the political coverage by these very same TV stations and also benefit, thank you very much, from the mountains of green. How obvious does this massive conflict of interest have to be before someone reports on it on the TV stations?............Never mind.

The whole system has been thoroughly corrupted by money, as intended, and siting atop this carefully constructed Bullshit Mountain are five Supreme Buddhas of Corruption, dispensing legal rulings that make Bullshit Mountain impervious from attack.

Short of revolution, what more can be done? Short of getting folks to turn off the TV or at least question it's endless propaganda and deceit? Short of journalists seizing back their profession from the charlatans and grifters that have eased their way into the corrupt rotting morass, short of the Free Press taking back their democratic role as guardians of democracy, revolution it is.

End of tirade.

[hlthe2b]

1. Ptahhhh.. I have long found the very essence--the essential answers to all life's questions..

lies in watching the



































GOLDEN GIRLS!

[corkhead]

17. yes, the purity of essence

[madokie]

2. Hey Fred

we've been outbid. the rich have won
Doesn't mean I give up or I will shut up though. I'll go to my grave kicking and scratching against this shit the whole way

[cali]

3. what have you got against Buddha?

I have a book rec for you though. Just as germane now as it was nearly 40 years ago.

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (1978) is a book by Jerry Mander, who argues that many of the problems with television are inherent in the medium and technology itself, and thus cannot be reformed.

Mander spent 15 years in the advertising business, including five as president and partner of Freeman, Mander & Gossage, San Francisco, a nationally-known advertising agency.[1]


n an interview with Nancho.net's W. David Kubiak,[2] Mander summarizes his book:

Well, one of the points of the book is that you really can't summarize complex information. And that television is a medium of summary or reductionism - it reduces everything to slogans. And that's one criticism of it, that it requires everything to be packaged and reduced and announced in a slogan-type form.

But let me say this: the book is not really four arguments, it's really hundreds of arguments broken down into four categories. And the categories have to do with a variety of effects that are not normally discussed. Most criticisms of television have to do with the television program content. People say if there is less violence on television or less sexism on television, or less this or less that, television would be better. If there were more programs about this or more programs about that, then we'd have "good television".

My own feeling is that that is true - that it's very important to improve the program content - but that television has effects, very important effects, aside from the content, and they may be more important. They organize society in a certain way. They give power to a very small number of people to speak into the brains of everyone else in the system night after night after night with images that make people turn out in a certain kind of way. It affects the psychology of people who watch. It increases the passivity of people who watch. It changes family relationships. It changes understandings of nature. It flattens perception so that information, which you need a fair amount of complexity to understand it as you would get from reading, this information is flattened down to a very reduced form on television. And the medium has inherent qualities which cause it to be that way.

And the book is really about television considered from a holistic point of view, from a biological point of view - perceptual, environmental, political, social, experiential, as well as the concrete problems of whether a program is silly or not. But other people deal with that very well. My job was to talk about television from many of these other dimensions which are not usually discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Television

[BlancheSplanchnik]

5. "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman

Another must read.

(And I'm bookmarking your post to read later.)

[Nay]

15. I've had a copy of the "Four Arguments" for 30 years, and I read it every

couple of years or so to remind myself of how prescient this guy was. Everything, absolutely everything, he said in that book is true and has remained true. In my mind, it's one of the seminal books of the 20th century and should have had more influence.

[corkhead]

18. I have that book! I didn't know anyone else had even heard of it. Yes, it is almost as timeless as

the movie Network, also ahead of it's time

[logosoco]

4. Stay on that soap box, because somebody could hear you!

Even before I got away from TV, I never understood how people would be persuaded to buy products, much less politicians from the crap they shove in commercials.

There may be some hope. Those little glowing boxes that everyone has in their pockets now connects to everywhere, even right here where we have connected. With just a little stretching, people can find out what they need to know about candidates and issues.

I, and i bet many people on here on DU, raised my kids with the philosophy "pay attention" and question things. With social media, the generations now can influence each other without having big money. It's small, but it is something and it could get big. I am following some young man on Twitter that I found through watching the events in Ferguson. He is trying and he cares.

It is hard to be this optimistic sometimes, when I see how big money corrupts, but somedays it is all I have!

[surrealAmerican]

6. When? ...

...probably around 1960 - that's when more than 50% of households in this country had tv sets. Before that, people trusted their newspapers to tell them what to think.

The majority of Americans are like the majority of people anywhere else. They have their own lives, and have little or no inclination to think about anything outside of their immediate concerns.

[forthemiddle]

7. Here in Wisconsin

Outside groups for Mary Burke (D) have way outspent Scott Walker throughout the summer, yet he is still ahead in the polls.
I am not sure that $$$$ is the major problem when it comes to the big tickets (Senate, Gov, etc). I think the problem comes in when every day people (without money) try to enter the race to begin with, and that often times starts with the primary.
In Wisconsin we had more progressive candidates, more appealing possible candidates (Kathleen Vineout, Peter Barca) yet because Mary Burke was a multi millionaire (and theoretically would self fund part of her campaign) the big wigs in the Dem Party anointed her. In the end it came down to $$$$ (which, ironically, she has almost refused loan her campaign).
One of the side effects of the John Doe investigations into Scott Walker is that outside groups are very gun shy about spending this election cycle for him (their spending in the recall election is the subject of the latest John Doe), so Mary Burke is way ahead in outside spending.

[merrily]

26. blah blah blah electible blahblahblah

[leeroysphitz]

8. said a faceless stranger on MY glowing rectangle...

[brooklynite]

9. I seriously doubt that the AVERAGE voter has ever been that informed and discerning

[randome]

10. Something in our evolution has made our eyes the primary sense of interaction with the world.

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not just TV. Look at PCs and the Internet. Have you ever listed directory contents in a DOS window? The results are instantaneous. Now try to look at a folder in Windows explorer and notice how the results simply crawl into view.

That's because Windows opens each file, discovers a meaningless icon to display, then locates the icon and prints it on the screen.

We have given up so much by wedding ourselves to visuals. The Information Age has become saturated with bright, colorful graphics that, for the most part, mean absolutely nothing at all.

Take a look at the icons on Microsoft Word, for instance. (Never mind the absolutely ludicrous and counter-intuitive Ribbon interface. How the hell does the word 'ribbon' factor into a menu system, anyways?)

Except for perhaps half a dozen icons, like for Cut, Copy, Paste, etc., the rest have absolutely no meaning. They are splashes of color that convey no information. Try to explain to yourself what those icons stand for and you will more often come up empty.

Our Information Age potential has been held back because of commercial over-reliance on pretty colors and flashy graphics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[adirondacker]

23. +1000. I was thinking along the same lines recently. Glad I'm not the only curmudgeon. nt

[KoKo]

11. Even the small effort of checking off box on Tax Return Form to Public Fund

the Presidential Elections that we managed to get put in place years ago has been eliminated. Since neither the Repub or Dem Candidates decided to use those funds because it restricted them from using the Big Donors Cash, particularly after "Citizens United" decision by the Supremes it wasn't felt to be necessary.

Maybe many of our younger people will turn off the TV and so never see the ads the big money buys. There are so many other ways to get content we want without subscribing to 500 channels we never watch...that a big change might be coming in whether these ad buys work anymore. As land line use drops off it's harder for the Robo Calls to get through. New technology might make the Koch Bros., Petersen Foundation, ALEC, COC and Think Tanks big money just a waste of time. People won't be so available to manipulate because they can choose their own media and block out ads and commercials they don't want to bother with. And small screen portable devices really make it hard to deal with that kind of clutter.

We aren't sitting in front of the TUBE or Desktop as much these days because of the portability of the other devices. Maybe a good thing....but, a bit alienating when we all into our own media. Where is the commonality of discussion? But, I'd take that diversity over having to deal with what MSM on TV has Become with cable dominating.

[brooklynite]

12. No - it's still there (right of the personal information section)

However, given new developments in Court rulings and political strategy, I would concur with most people that it's no longer applicable.

[KoKo]

13. I think this is the last year for it, though.

[brooklynite]

14. No - only public funding for conventions has been discontinued

[KoKo]

19. This Bill passed in May states "Ends Tax payer Contributions to PECF" Though..

It says both to PECF and the Convention Funding.

------------

Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriella_Miller_Kids_First_Research_Act

The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act (H.R. 2019; Pub.L. 113–94) is a law that ends taxpayer contributions to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and diverts the money in that fund to pay for research into pediatric cancer through the National Institutes of Health.[1][2] The total funding for research would come to $126 million over 10 years.[1][2] Currently the national conventions get about 23% of their funding from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.[3]

It became law during the 113th United States Congress.


Full title To eliminate taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions and reprogram savings to provide for a 10-year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund administered by the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.
Introduced in 113th United States Congress
Introduced on May 16, 2013
Sponsored by Rep. Gregg Harper (R, MS-3)
Number of Co-Sponsors 15
Citations
Public Law Pub.L. 113–94
Effects and Codifications
Act(s) affected Public Health Service Act, Internal Revenue Code of 1986
U.S.C. section(s) affected 42 U.S.C. § 282
Agencies affected National Institutes of Health
Legislative history

Introduced in the House as H.R. 2019 by Rep. Gregg Harper (R, MS-3) on May 16, 2013
Committee consideration by: United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House Committee on House Administration, United States House Committee on Ways and Means, United States House Energy Subcommittee on Health
Passed the House on December 11, 2013 (Roll Call Vote 632: 295-103)
Passed the Senate on March 11, 2014 (Unanimous consent)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 3, 2014

[merrily]

28. McCain kept his word to use it in 2008, tho' he cheated some.

2008 was only one presidential election ago.

Lack of use may have been the stated reason for elimination of the box, but it was not the actual reason for elimination of the box.

[juajen]

16. Thanks,

and a wonderful tirade it was!

[cali]

27. personally, I find it shallow and sophomoric

and tediously like all of the poster's other supercilious posts.

[freshwest]

20. Ground game, face to face, outside the house. It worked for Obama in 2012 and MSM was horrified.

The invisible people to MSM are the ones we see everyday, so that's the only source we have to rely on.

Electronic communications are very addictive. They fire all the right neurons, sight, sound, tone, words, graphics. It uses the best psychological techniques and technology to get the desired effect for the worst of reasons.

It's about people, we have to talk to them and develop relationships all year long, not just every four years or when an election is coming up.

That is the strenght of both sides of the aisle, but it's used in different ways. The RW does not bring people together for ideals but for money. They promise a personal return for privatized jobs. You can't get through to someone whose vote means a paycheck with altruistic idealism or calls for unity. It's everyman for themselves.

Democrats locally have problems getting elected because of media, often no matter how good their ideas are, as too many who have had their lives improved take it for granted. Or expect someone else to make it happen for them.

The GOP does not, they take a pro-active approach and tell their voters how much better their lives will be if they are elected. And for some of them, it is.

The mantra that they vote against their own best interests is the silliest thing have ever heard. Scratch the surface of the GOP voter and you will find a person who agrees with:

Nepotism = job for them with the EEOC taking it away for others and any kind of regulation; private schools = job for them; ending public services = job for them; selling off parks = job and a chance at owning land; closing the Commons (libraries, etc.) = job or chance to get a building cheap for their business; close down fire and police systems even if they are doing well = job for them in the private sector; public emergency services and clinics = job for them; privatized roads and other public things = jobs for them and tolls for them to get later; the list goes on and on.

The hypocrisy of this for the time being is that they will be paid by the evil government, until they have finished termiting the entire country. Then they'll simply be well off enough to make it; or they'll join the ranks of the underserved, as the purpose of privatization is economic apartheid. Those who needed the Commons for mobility, won't have it. Then the measures taken against them will be harsher.

There will be some who will keep on burning the light of public service, but it's getting damned hard to be inspired to put one's neck out to be chopped off with a voting population of apathetic and complacent people, who won't even show up to vote in sufficient numbers to allow them to do what they ran on.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Who gets most of their news from television, anymore? Old people, that's who.

71% of those 18-29 cite the internet as a main news source, more than the percentage that cites television (55%). Among those 30-49, 63% say the internet is where they go to get most of their news, matching the percentage who say television is their top news source for the first time.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/16/12-trends-shaping-digital-news/

[Fred Sanders]

25. Yes, nice to know, not sure what the conclusion would be as the news feeds are all propaganda and

they feed the internet as well as television.

The internet watchers also watch the TV I bet, and it is not just about ratings, it is about influence.

[merrily]

29. People on the internet mostly rehash or re-publish news from traditional sources.

Plenty of original commentary on the internet, but very little original news.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Which are more often than not newspapers and not TV.

The medium makes a difference. People who *read* the news are generally better-informed than people who *watch* it.

[nationalize the fed]

22. Black Mirror

Named for the ubiquitous thing everyone is looking at. Black Mirror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_(TV_series)

You owe it to yourself to seek out this outstanding British tv series. It's on (or was) Direct TV - and you can find it in the other usual places. 6 unrelated episodes about the future and tech. It's a legend. Perfect TV- the kind that makes you think long after the hour is over. It's the Twilight Zone for the 21st century.

By Charlie Brooker. A new episode is due around Christmas.

"The Future is Broken"

[Fred Sanders]

30. Thanks, I will, but I think I see what the film will tell me, around me everyday.....blissfully not

wanting to know, and therefore in uninformed bliss.....are they all wrong.....maybe it is me that is not quite right.

[LawDeeDah]

24. making people dumb, selfish and ignorant has been a plan for a long while now

kill the questions