Chicken or egg? The decline of our Media.

[Sterling]

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Chicken or egg? The decline off our Media.

Do we have more programing like Jersey Shore, Celebrity rehab etc. because it is really what the public demands or can it be we are being intentionally dumbed down?
There was an interesting thread I visited yesterday that drew a lot of people who just don't think in particular that TV has any value at all. While I understand that 95% of what is available is complete garbage and likely bad for people's minds in general I have been able to find a lot of content that has informed me and inspired me to learn more about a topic. There is even some entertainment content that I can enjoy without feeling like I dropped IQ points in the process.

How do other DU people feel about this? I have a lot of opinions, very specific about certain programs and the influence the have, both positive and negative. Right now I am far more interested in hearing what other people here think about this. Please inform me!

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Creationists believe the Chicken came first, God made them/it.

Evolutionists believe the egg came first since new species evolve from existing species then at some point something that was not quite a chicken must have laid an egg with a slight mutation that would qualify it as the first chicken.



Umm.... what was the question again?

[lunatica]

2. I remember when the news was told to us by credible people we believed in

I have sorely missed Walter Cornkite and all the TV newmen of that time.

It can happen again. Hopefully it will.

I happen to love HBO and AMC (Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, etc.) because I also like to be entertained by people who believe I'm intelligent and I love a good story told well.

I love the internet too. It makes me go wherever I please whenever I please. The world is at my fingertips in a way it was almost impossible to imagine before it came along. And DU makes me smarter.

[benld74]

3. MHOP - Media is going for ratings($$$$) - Period AND

in the process is injuring their ability to put good value in its place AND since there are SO many channels nowadays, JUST how much good stuff can they place AND keep their PROFITS in place?

Oh, and the fact the number of owners have dwindled,,,,

[RedStateLiberal]

4. Intentionally dumbed down?

I highly doubt that. Media ia a business. Business cares only for profits. Of course, if people are dumber they are more likely to watch their horrible programming but I don't see a conspiracy there. Reality TV is cheaper to produce and creates more profit. Bad television in general is cheaper to produce because you don't have to hire very talented people to make it. How does watching a stupid show on TV dumb you down exactly? I'll watch something stupid occasionally just to laugh at how stupid it is.

I believe media is a reflection of a society, not a major influencer. People are pretty dumb on average so the most popular shows are not of high quality or substance. They are also living extremely hectic lifestyles that keep them away from the tv so content changes to reflect that. You don't have to watch every episode of the Kardashians or Dancing With Losers whatever to "enjoy" an episode so there's less episodic shows that require more of an investment from viewers.

I definitely agree there is good content on TV. Not a lot, but for someone to claim it's all worthless is snobbish and just not true. Bottom line is that the corporations who control our media are going to create whatever shows get ratings. If the majority of tv viewers were intelligent and only watched high-quality informative shows then the content would be created to capture that audience. Some networks such as AMC and HBO cash in by catering to this niche market. Most of TV is crap because people are too busy to care, distracted by the internet, and just not very smart.

[Sterling]

5. I think you make a lot of valid points

Reality TV is certainly cheaper than actually developing real original content and producing it at a high level. It is also possible that we as a society a largely just that dumb.

I don't think that both ideas are mutually exclusive though. The benefit of dumbing down content as an agenda has some pretty clear advantages to certain interests In my view. It is a pretty old concept as well. Roman's bread a circuses for example. If you can simply keep people distracted with things that have no barring on issues that the public might have an interest in, find objectionable it allows "leaders" both public and private to operate with less opposition.

Lets compare this idea with what is happening in regards to public education and the efforts to eliminate it by many people. I find the idea of handing out "vouchers" to families to send there kids to private school in place of a public education system to be cynical at the very least. It can be argued that it may be that wealthy people don't want to take part in paying for other people's education? It can also be more sinister than that possibly. Information has always been a source of power. Through out history there are so many examples of people in power attempting to limit less powerful people's access to information as well as outright misinform.

While I agree with a lot of what you pointed out but I think there is more to it than that. The thread that inspired this post had contributions from people that outright believe there is nothing of value to be had from watching TV. Very passionate views were expressed to that end. I took the position that while most TV is god awful there are still people working hard to create content that does appeal to people that are looking to be informed, have their thoughts provoked, one must filter through the garbage to find it most of the time.

I am of the opinion that if there were more of the kind of content like you pointed out as being "niche" it has the capability to spark interest for people to better inform themselves. growing up I had this experience myself. TV turned me on to many ideas and subjects that I had no prior knowledge of. I was lucky enough to have parents that would watch with me and answer questions. They encouraged my interests and made sure I also had books and other sources of information to balance my sources of information.

One thing I did firmly agree with that was posted in the thread I am referencing is that education is a life long pursuit. As much as I study any subject I will never know all there is to know about it. In many ways that is exciting to me and I think that it is possible that a lot of people's minds, especially young ones could benefit from what TV can potentially offer when it is done well.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

6. Yes

Both. TV is market driven, and given the choice, people would rather loose themselves then confront themselves. Its the easy thing to do so the market encourages it and the advertising money follows. Ironically, 2 quotes from a television show pop into my mind:

"Don Draper: People want to be told what to do so badly that they'll listen to anyone."

and substitute the word 'advertising' with television:

"Don Draper: Advertising is based on one thing, happiness. And you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is okay."

[Sterling]

8. Very good example!

Oddly from one of the more interesting shows developed in the last decade. I do think it is some of both as well. It's an easy thing to do and it is subtle compared to many other means of influencing the public.

[senseandsensibility]

7. The dumbed down shows, especially reality shows, are very cheap to produce.

I think that's the main reason.

[Sterling]

9. That is certainly a big part of it.

I wonder if people's interest in such content is now permanent? Some people may find that to be a naive question but given the lengths I see being taken to find a premise for reality shows I wonder. They seem to be willing to make a show about anything these days. The most mundane things now have a show about them.

One thing I dislike in particular about reality driven content is that I see it diluting the concept of what is real talent. With shows like "American Idol" the new idea seems to be that everyone can and should be a celebrity regardless of their actually unique abilities.

I used to debate friends who worked in the music industry that music and artists that remain relevant are becoming fewer all the time. That music that will be passed down through generations like a lot of stuff created during the 50's-90's will be around for a long time to come. So much of what I see now seems disposable or near plagiarized from older music. I don't mean influenced either, just plain lifted.

The reason I see for this is that even before the music industry crash the concept of artist development was being eliminated from industry practice. In the 60's it was often music producers who found talent, brought that talent to the studio and helped the artist grow into unique talent. It is so different today and the consequences are very tangible.

I think for people who used to have good jobs at record labels it is felt in very obvious ways.
I point this next part out to people when the subject of how bad the music business has declined. In Rolling Stone magazine the back pages have for as long as I remember included the billboard sales chart. I don't know exactly when a subtle change occurred but I noticed that as where the used to include the last weeks sales numbers next to every record on the chart, now that information is missing for all but a handful of records that have moved a relatively respectable showing. Even those works numbers are dramatically lower than what was considered a successful showing less than a decade ago.

File sharing aside this is one of the reasons the industry has suffered so badly. TV seems to potentially be facing some similar issue's in the near future and I don't think that much of the poor quality content will survive as well as it does now as this process evolves.