How television fuels class warfare.

[shance]

Television, actually serves two functions in the class war of today.

Television not only fuels the class war - it is also used as a weapon of the rich.

Television (and other forms of mass-market advertising) reaches into nearly every household and business in the modern world. Because TV is such a simplistic medium, its messages are reduced to quick phrases and short 'sound-bites.' Complex ideas are anathema to a medium best suited for brief verbal exchanges, cartoons and constant gunfire. Academic concepts such as freedom, slavery, capitalism and socialism are treated lightly and quickly: freedom = good; slavery = bad; capitalism = good; socialism = bad. Television works to shape conventional wisdom and blur complex ideas into bite-size McNuggets™.


The idealized 1950s

First, it must be noted that television is solely the domain of the rich and powerful. From its inception, ordinary citizens were not granted access. This can be clearly seen today through advertising rates which indicate that a 30-second commercial spot during NBC's The Apprentice costs $163,000; during CBS's CSI: Miami it costs $229,000; and during ABC's Desperate Housewives 30 seconds costs $440,000 (stats from AdAge Factpack 2006). Most political candidates don't have a prayer of winning public office without raising large sums of money to funnel into media advertising. Powerful corporations run media organizations and are monopolizing the industry at a staggering pace (see the essay Big Media 2007: For The Love of Money).

Television's control by the upper class can also be seen through TV news which only covers the thoughts and ideas of powerful politicians or wealthy businessmen. On CNBC's Wall Street Journal Report program in July 2006, billionaire George Soros told the show's host that his opinions only have value on TV because he is rich. "I'm sitting here, you're interviewing me because I made a lot of money. Right? That's why you are interested in my views," said Soros. "So you see if I were some university professor saying the things that I'm saying you probably wouldn't be sitting here . . . We don't care about the truth, sufficiently. If we are mislead by our leaders, we don't really care that much . . . What we care about is success."

Television has tremendous power to define social class expectations.

Two popular 1950s TV shows influenced an entire generation into embracing a "middle class" social status. In The Honeymooners, the families of a bus driver and sewer worker dream of being wealthy.

Nearly every episode involves ideas to 'make it rich.' The show Leave It To Beaver follows a fictional suburban family as they enjoy the idealized middle-class American lifestyle. Though the actual job of the show's patriarch, Ward Cleaver, is never revealed he is portrayed as a successful businessman who works every day "at the salt mines." Through the 1960s and 1970s, TV programming continued to focus on proper societal expectations and desires of the middle and lower classes. Shows such as I Love Lucy, The Bob Newhart Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All In The Family, Sanford and Son, Three's Company, What's Happening and Welcome Back Kotter all idealized the lives of common workers.


In the WB Network's Survival of the Richest, seven "rich kids" who had a combined networth of over $3 billion were forced to work together with 7 "poor kids" who were $150,000 in debt.

In the 1980s and 1990s, however, TV's idealized view of labor began to change.

Popular adult shows such as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest now focused on the lives of the super-rich.

Children's comedy programming also focused on wealth through programs such as Diff'rent Strokes, The Cosby Show, The Nanny and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air whose problems with money all revolve around having too much.

The show Family Ties epitomized the change in TV's view of the middle class.

The main teenage character, played by actor Michael J. Fox, wears a tie in every episode and dreams of making enough money to escape the social constraints of his liberal middle-class family.

More at:

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/classwar/classwar.htm

[mike_c]

1. the widest sensory neural pathway in the human body...

...enters the brain directly from the eyes. Watching TV is the closest we have yet come to tapping directly into human consciousness. Unfortunately, control lies almost exclusively with the television, not with the viewer-- unless we turn it off. TV scares me. I do not watch it.

[Mythsaje]

3. Oh, nonsense.

Control of our brain resides IN our brain. You are only subject to external controls if you allow yourself to be.

[shance]

4. I think you might reread your statement. That's the most simplistic statement

I've read in a while.

You are saying we are not influenced by external sources?

You are omitting essentially all that influences us, by saying control of our brain resides inside our brain?

Tell me the reason for our sensory devices such as ears, eyes and nostrils which mother nature bestowed upon us?

[Mythsaje]

5. We decide what to do with the information our senses

take in. Absent reflexes--trained, untrained, or natural--that lead us to respond physically to certain stimuli. Rock music didn't destroy the world, heavy metal didn't lead to an epidemic of teen suicide, and rap doesn't, in and of itself, lead to roving gun-battles between rival gangs. Playing dungeons and dragons didn't make kids start killing each other and taking their stuff, and so on.

Simplistic? Yeah, maybe. Because it's fucking obvious.

[mike_c]

6. sure you decide-- that's why the expected return on advertising investment...

...is quantifiable BEFORE a television ad campaign begins.

[Mythsaje]

7. I don't buy things because the tv says I need them

Usually it's my house, my car, or my pets that say I need them. I decided a long time ago that commercials were bullshit. I remember sitting around with friends deconstructing them while taking bong hits. It was cheap entertainment sometimes.

About fifty percent of them are just stupid. They want you to believe something ridiculous, just to get you to watch the commercial. Talking, dancing phlegm? WTF? I hate a LOT of Comcast commercials. Their advertisers SUCK. And pretty women don't make me want to buy a certain kind of shampoo, or soap, or deoderant or razors or dishsoap or whatever. I buy the cheapest thing that works.

About fifteen percent of them have nothing to do with my life. Macy's having a sale? Yawn. Some twenty percent is shit I KNOW I don't need. A car? Sooner or later, sure. But not NOW. And I'll probably go to the same guys who gave us a good deal last time. A few commercials are generally funny. But do they convince me of anything?

No.


But it's Christmas! What about gifts?

I work in a temple of modern commercial culture. Target.

I don't buy my wife jewelry. She makes her own. We get each other little things, mostly. She likes penguins. If it's got penguins or is the slightest bit witchy, she likes it. I didn't even want anything for my birthday. I think we went out to dinner on a two-for-one coupon from the entertainment book. We went to a restaurant I like.

My kids, under the influence of someone other than myself, get money sent over on a visa for their mom to buy what they want. Video games and ipods, I guess. My eldest is no fool, though. Last year he was looking at a toy he wanted, checked the price, gave it another look, and said "I'm not paying that for this." He's 13.

I buy clothes and the like when I need them, and I don't give a rat's ass what brand they are. Unless I'm buying jeans and then I prefer Levi's. Long-standing preference based on fit. Otherwise I pretty much wear cargo pants. I like pockets. A couple of hoodies, some t-shirts, underwear and socks.

We have memberships to netflix and audible.com. My wife reviews and thus gets books for free.

Buy something? Nah, I'm good.

It's a little like a jedi mind trick.

If I ever break the big time, I'll buy a small three-room cottage in an undisclosed location and upgrade my equipment when necessary and be quite content for the rest of my life.

My oldest son wants to be a astronomer and my youngest wants to be a wild-animal vet. I'd love to be able to help send them to college.

And I like TV. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than it was when I was growing up. Reality shows generally suck, but, hey... I don't watch 'em.

I see a lot of good dramas. And dramadies. Boston Legal, Life, House. Sci-fi does some good stuff. I don't watch sitcoms. Hate 'em. Some are funny occasionally, but how long can the same tired jokes entertain people? And constant bickering is as funny as stubbing my toe.


And, frankly, I don't even watch many commercials since the DVR. Commercials? Oh...Yeah. The FF button. Back to the action.

[grahamhgreen]

14. External stimuli is the cause of most psychosis.

Sensory deprivation leads to insanity.

Brainwashing via TV works.

[Mythsaje]

18. I thought it was brain chemistry. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

21. It's both. Stimuli can alter brain chemistry....

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. At what age does that start?

"You are only subject to external controls if you allow yourself to be."

Does that hold true for say a 3 year old?

Should the toddler not allow itself to be subjected to any external influences?

How would that work?

As a parent I'm having a hard time imagining this.

Please explain and give examples.

[Mythsaje]

17. Who was talking about toddlers?

I was talking about adults.

And I answered it already with regards to adults. Or myself, anyway.

[grahamhgreen]

15. If advertising, PR, and propoganda did not work, no one would do it.

[acmavm]

16. You know what, I agree with you. I watch t.v. and I think almost all of what

I see is bullshit. I don't accept anything that I see on the boob tube anymore, except Countdown and Bill Maher. Otherwise I know I'm being lied to.

The representation of American life on t.v. is basically a fantasy. The news is pure fiction.

I do think that offering kids sex and violence for entertainment from birth is a seriously damaging think, but that's not just t.v. It's music and video games as well. But there are other factors as well. Entertainment just says its okay to use violence as a way to cure every hurt, harm, or slight. And it also says indiscriminate sex is just okey dokey. But this is different and I'm talking about the young.

[Mythsaje]

19. Oh, right, because humans were so loving and peaceful

before the invention of television, broadcast music, and video games.

Oh, wait...

[mitchum]

22. Exactly...television (and, of course, now the computer screen...

we are both staring at) is a visual medium where we are looking at the actual light source rather than reflected light. It is certainly trance inducing.

[glowing]

2. Which is why each candidate should have free airwave time...

or make a channel just for them... It our airwaves.. We are supposed to control them..

[Mythsaje]

8. I absolutely agree with this. n/t

[glowing]

11. It only makes sense... It would get rid of stupid commercials that

only attack and people could tune in to really know where the candidates stand on issues.. shoot Dennis would be the front runner if we had real accurate access to the politicians... At times I'm a C-span junky just to check in on our reps... And really, I have to question how in the hell did they ever get there... the statements are stupid and false and ridiculous.. I cant watch too long, I start swearing.

[NashVegas]

9. This Is So True

IMO, one of the single biggest reasons Reality TV became so huge is because it did what creative-tv has failed to: put people on the screen who look like us.

[Johonny]

12. I guess Reality TV fixes this

Now you can find out the deepest most uninteresting things thought by people with little education or contemplation. Woot reality TV that turns ordinary citizens into stars.

[shance]

13. LOL!

Thanks for posting.

[Swamp Rat]

20. I Dream of Jeannie

Actually, it's her raven sister who I really miss. :loveya:

[Lorien]

23. When I watched "Family Ties" as a teenager, we LAUGHED at the Michael

J. Fox character. He was all the things we DIDN'T want to be; shallow, greedy, and he worshipped Nixon, which made it obvious that the writers and the producers of the show (well known liberals themselves) were laughing at him too. The role models were the rest of the family (there was no "main character").

I don't recall any of the problems of the family in the "The Cosby Show" revolving around having "too much". I think that the idea of setting that show in the home of upper middle class professionals was to highlight the fact that African Americans in this country are no longer limited by the social constraints that once kept them in blue collar positions. It was a sharp contrast to "Sanford and Son".

One show the article fails to mention: "Rosanne". It was a program that celebrated the blue collar working class family. The sad fact is, though, that it's hard to imagine a blue collar family living as comfortably as the Conners did today; it a solidly built old home, with space for everyone and a garage-and without the constant threat of foreclosure because of medical bills or a thousand other things...

[KillCapitalism]

24. Good post, the article definitely makes sense.

Think about it, who controls the TV networks? It's surely not the poor.