FOX NEWS: The Network Your Professors Don't Want You To Watch

[GAPeace]

Oh, wow!

I recently acquired Facebook after the intense prodding of many people, and I noticed there was a "FOX News Group." A little flash animation is on the side calling FOX the network "professors don't want you to watch" with little instant message bubbles of a student explaining that a Professor "went off" on him because he "gave both sides" quoting "FOX News."

This stuff is rich. And makes me sad to be on this social network.

[MarkDevin]

1. That kid's professor undoubtedly went off on him because...

...Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda tool for the GOP's Taliban wing. The student may be too young and naive to realize that, but his professor is obviously far more mature and worldly.

[GAPeace]

2. It was an advertisement the conversation..

fabricated.

[marmar]

3. Proof positive that Faux appeals to the low IQ crowd...

In other words, if Sean Hannity wasn't on Faux, he'd definitely be a viewer.

:dunce:

[jobycom]

4. Conservatives value ignorance more than intellect. nt

[YOY]

5. Young Republicans serve one purpose:

To counter Young Progressives (who are usually trying to be proactive on real issues and not play partisan assgames.) The little brownshirts really serve no other purpose.

[mike_c]

6. LOL-- I'm a prof, and I don't want you to watch TV at all....

Turn that shit off. Disconnect the cable. Take the sqawking box to the recyclers. Live life, don't watch it.

I've been visiting friends for the last couple of weeks, and therefore been exposed to cable TV a bit. It's even worse than it used to be, IMO. Terrible journalism no matter what channel you watch-- some worse than others, but it's all crap, all the time.

[YOY]

7. History Channel's not bad (When not on WW2 for the 10,000th time)

Neither is quite a bit of Discovery's programming (granted they have some tripe too).

Travel channel is actually interesting once you get past the 'top ten beaches' and onto the more intersting stuff.

If we could just get those channels we would...but you have to pay for the whole package and that cannot be justified in my pocketbook.

[mike_c]

9. AND all of that info is easily available elsewhere...

...and not dumbed down to extreme levels. Good television programming is quite rare IMO. It's ALWAYS intended to be entertainment first, and informative second, if at all.

[Ms. Clio]

10. Link TV and Free Speech TV

Mosaic and Democracy Now are definitely worth watching.

[mike_c]

12. I listen to DN every day on public radio or online...

...if I miss the local broadcast. There is SO little quality television programming IMO that cannot be be obtained by other means-- it's just not worth it to me. And television is the most insideous behavior control device ever invented. I'm not engaging in hyperbole or tinfoil hat-ism either.

[GAPeace]

14. www.iwtnews.com

It seems like a step in the right direction and is backed by many big people. I agree television is largely lacking, but we still need some honest voices on there.

[Ms. Clio]

17. But Link TV has Mosaic, not available on radio

and both stations have quality, thought-provoking programs on other issues.

And then there's Stephen Colbert! And The Boondocks and American Dad.

I understand and agree with your argument to a large extent, but there are some nuggets of gold in the dung heap.

[niyad]

23. and, of course, foodtv and tmc.

[Karmakaze]

18. I don't mind TV, but you are so right about behaviour control...

Here is a good example - ever watched a TV ad that didnt have a cut every few seconds? Boring eh? They are in fact very rare, and that technique is now moving to normal programming too. Wanna know why?

Studies have been done that found that the contant flashing and "movement" is an attraction. You don't realise it, but it catches your attention even when you are not actively watching the TV. In one study a bar was set up with a TV and the customers secretly watched. When the TV was off, people spent the time engrossed in conversation with their friends, but when the TV was on but the sound turned down, the customers eyes and attention was flicking over to the TV screen constantly, distracting them from their conversations. It was not uncommon for people to end up engrossed in watching the TV rather than actually socialising with their frineds, which one presumes is the reason they actually went to a bar in the first place.

You can actually try this experiment at home - simply turn on the TV but turn the sound down so only the image could be causing a distraction. Then try and hold a conversation with a friend or family member. See how long it takes for them to start watching the TV instead of talking to you - I gaurantee it wont be long.

If you really want to see the effect of the constant cuts, you will need to find something that doesnt do it, like maybe a relaxation video or something like that, then compare that to prime time programming. You will see a major difference between the number of times people are distracted by the steady images as opposed to the flashing ones.

Even more disturbing is the fact that this has become so ingrained in our psyches that even when the TV is off people will still look towards the TV every now and then - we are just used to doing it, and in fact many peoples living area is set up like a shrine with all the furniture etc facing the TV.

It's quite fascinating really.

[YOY]

15. and the BBC programming on that channel in the case of comedy and drama

That is somewhat done well? (Especially when compared to most of what is on American channels.)

Granted I could go to the library and rent a documentary...unless you are adamantly advocating books and magazines over TV...in which case I have to tell you that you can have the best of both worlds. We visit the library twice a week and read every night as well as watching some occasional 'semi-redeaming valued' programming.

and a little 'dumbed down' documentary never hurt anyone. I for one, do not like to feel as though I am sitting in a lecture hall when plopped down to watch a bit about the Chin Dynasty. Granted I would like an occasional more intellegent approach...

[GAPeace]

8. I watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!

On the indy news channels I get on satellite at home. I'm going to UGA during the fall and will no longer have TV access to it, have to watch it on the net.

[mike_c]

11. listen to it on the radio, online, or via podcast....

I actually think you'll acquire more information from the broadcast that way-- I've discussed the reasons on DU before so I won't hijack this thread to talk about human sensory information processing, but watching the visual programming is passive information transfer at best.

Good luck at UGA-- I did my doctoral work there. Athens is a great place to live. I was just there visiting a week or so ago. Probably lost 10 lbs in sweat, but that's because I'm acclimatized to NorCal now, LOL. Damn, I miss the 40 Watt....

[Mythsaje]

13. I don't agree...

and the same argument could be made for reading. "Live life, don't read it."

Don't take TV too seriously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. In my opinion. I consider sports in general to be a MUCH bigger waste of time and energy, but that's just me.

Of course, I read or write and watch TV at the same time, so :shrug:

But don't feel too bad. I argued with MY instructors in college too. Won sometimes.

That never turns out well, though. LOL

[Occulus]

19. Is it okay if we DON'T watch news on TV?

I like the Sci-Fi channel, and Discovery.... and the food network, sometimes.... but that's about it...

Oh, and Deadwood on HBO...

Are those okay?

[mike_c]

22. well, I won't judge what's "OK" for you...

...but I just find that sort of passive entertainment not very entertaining, really.

[lutefisk]

20. I disagree. All things available on television are not "shit'

Yes, American cable and network news programming is almost all "shit."

On the other hand, the CBC, the BBC, and PBS and many cable only media outlets, such as Book Television, offer quite a bit of quality programming. There are many 30 or 60 minute programs that are no more a waste of time than than the 30 or 60 minutes of reading that many "profs" assign their students to read. Also, television also makes available many respected motion pictures.

Sure, television is a plug-in drug, but let's teach literacy (especially media literacy), so students aren't manipulated by any forms of communication.

[mike_c]

21. you cannot help but be manipulated by TV programming....

That's the essential problem with television, IMO. It's late, and I'm tired, so here's the condensed version. Seventy-five percent of your body's sensory receptors are in your eyes-- that means that three quarters of the information you receive about the world is via your retinas (and a significant proportion of the rest is routinely filtered out below conscious levels). That retinal sensory pathway feeds into the largest sensory processing centers of your brain. Most of the info is processed BELOW conscious levels, so you cannot help but be manipulated. Television is literally a direct conduit to your subconscious, exploiting pathways that kept your ancestors alive in trees. I can't over state this-- television is DANGEROUS to your self determination. It is the most efficient behavior modification system ever devised.

on edit-- I should point out that reading is different even though it too involves visual processing. The main difference is the form in which printed information is presented requires that it be processed by your language centers-- from a visual context, printed information is just marks against a contrasting background, the information content is processed very differently.

[rman]

24. How is TV more manipulative than looking at the world directly?

I can understand TV can be used to manipulate (more so than other media) - but does it not depend on what images are shown?
How is seeing Amy Goodman's talking face on a screen more dangerous to my self determination then just hearing her voice?

[mike_c]

25. well, in an absolute sense it's not....

The problem is that the information content of television programming is itself manipulated. Remember, advertising is simply behavior modification, designed to sell products. Television is the most effective advertising medium of all time because it taps into that primeval information pathway, which is another way of saying that televison is the most effective behavior modification medium ever invented. "...Looking at the world directly" is not much different in the sense that it has an equivalent effect, it's just that the perspective offered by television programming is utterly filtered and manipulated to either sell you something, convince you to believe something, or pass specific pieces of information under the guise of entertaining you. The latter effect can be as innocuous as reinforcing cultural norms or as dangerous as making extreme perspectives seem mainstream, but in either event the outcome is a form of behavior control/modification that is engineered. Witnessing real events might have the same effect, but it is rarely so blatantly-- and always-- engineered.

Much of that engineering is not especially insidious, of course-- it's just bland entertainment, meant to keep your attention while product advertising is reinforced-- but some of it is, and often for the most basic of propaganda reasons, simply to express the central cultural biases.

edit-- it's also worth noting that many peoples' response to the idea of doing without their televisions-- a viseral negative reaction-- is suggestive of classic addictive response, including both the "it's not really bad" and "I can quit anytime" responses. My recommendation in either case is to give it a try-- go six months without ANY television except movie videos-- people tend to choose movies according to different standards than daily TV doses-- and see whether your quality of life is significantly improved or degraded. I haven't had regular access to television for many years, and my quality of life is vastly improved, IMO.

[bananarepublican]

26. I give you an A+ for this advice...

...but if you can work out the agendas behind the "reporting" you get a better idea of what is really going on.

What's happening today is simply a new version of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" and perhaps a revised version of "Operation Northwoods" being put into practice.

The bozos on FOX, via their inane commentary, are actually revealing the agenda of the neocons and those behind them.

[Initech]

16. Why would any sane person watch cable news networks?

They're all full of shit!

But then again, the College Republicans arent the most sane group of people in the country, are they?

And for the record, outside of sports, I hardly watch any TV at all anymore except for DVDs.