prole

At least they got this motherfucker.

Arguing for the internet is not an argument against more diverse, less commercially restrictive television.

Why do I get the feeling that the one person who's going to come out on top in all this is Roman Polanski and the two biggest losers the Los Angeles DA and the victim?

Not quite as radical as a college student living off of loans who's never worked a day in his life nor been self-sufficient, but pontificates endlessly about societal ills and economic systems, but who can be? That's a good one. I worked everyday from age 15 until college and have worked everyday since. Rest assured Kojak, my working class-cred is as solid as yours.

Gotta love your optimism. You should join Kojak's "No, We Can't!" Party. It's just to the right of Jay's "No, We Shouldn'ts". Sorry, but my party is "Fuck off Commie Prole". Now go lick sack (and chode). That party's even more reactionary than the other one. Man, you're EXTREME!

Gotta love your optimism. You should join Kojak's "No, We Can't!" Party. It's just to the right of Jay's "No, We Shouldn'ts".

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed? hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies. For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak. I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe. Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age. "Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...." The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public. Gotta love the trajectory of the argumentation here: First deny that the "public", "common interest", "society", etc. exists. Second, raise the spectre of big government. Then, deny there's a problem, "everything's fine, we're giving them what they want". Next, pull out the boogyman again, this time in East Coast liberal female variant. Finally, when all else fails, matter-of-factly state that the entire parameter of debate is irrelevant anyway: TV is dead. Wash hands, tell everybody you gotta go take a shit. The Conservative Movement: Defending Blind Ignorance for the Masses in the Name of Freedom Since...well, Forever.

"Everything going okay around here? Just checkin'."

Yeah, double retard-clap!!

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment. The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone? Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities. Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift. Might also be worth considering the extent to which your arguments apply to televangelists. How'd they manage to acquire such a massive presence on TV? "Libraries?! Ha, I'm surprised they still exist at all after 30 years of Reaganite assaults. Talk about "moth-ridden mechanisms for social uplift"! Subsidized, parasitical tax drains and potential profit centers for entreprenuers. They should be privatized and pay-per-view! They're meeting places too, hotbeds for "unruly mob" activity. Don't get me started on the internet!"

Did you miss it? [video:youtube]

So the public has clearly been clamoring for crappier shows all this time? Wrong. The vast wasteland of shite that comprises today's "must see TV" landscape is a direct result of chasing advertising dollars, cutting production values to maintain profit margins, and striving to appeal to the lowest common denominator in a context of lowered educational expectations. This creates a climate in which content producers are highly risk-averse and more likely to follow an already established formula than go out on a limb. This sheds light on the proliferation of copycat programming and blows holes in the argument that corporate media provides greater diversity.

Rightwingers: Don't Count Out Coup-Option

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing. That's the point. HBO operates less through ad revenue so is insulated from the lowest common denominator imperative and has more freedom for determine content free from commercial advertisers. Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" don't sell Cocoa-Puffs, yo!

Pure horseshit. The entire history of the television medium can be read as an exercise in sales. Selling people on new programming: the sitcom, the game-show, the police procedural, the reality-show. But more importantly, television as it exists is purely and simply an advertising delivery device. Programming is a secondary consideration, the name of the game is getting someone to the commercial break. In any given hour, somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of programming is dedicated to giving viewers precisely what they don't want: advertising. Providing content is a net loss, the television industry makes money selling ads by delivering the lowest common denominator. (In a context where a large portion of the population can't put Canada on a map, anyone can guess where quality is headed.) Don't even mention the state of journalism in this environment. The crisis in media from Tivo and the internet (both lauded by consumers for their ability to insulate themselves from overbearing commercialism) stems from falling ad revenue, how to make money, not finding content. HBO aside, milking profits in this climate has pushed television to reduce production values and intensify its own sales pitch to advertisers. Product placement is not good enough anymore. Reality TV allows producers to reduce budgets, easily place product, and turn consumption into a main attraction, if not the entire show. Cribs or American Chopper anyone? Again, simply freeing a substantial portion of television bandwidth from the constraints imposed by the profit imperative (no claques, central planning, death panels, etc.) would lead to greater choice, more diversity, higher quality and lead viewers to discover previously unknown outlets for "what they want". It would certainly be possible to minimize politicization in the provision of the space to do and guarantee fair access as with other public utilities.

Corporations and corporate power don't really exist, only free producers and consumers endlessly meeting in a series of mutually beneficial exchanges. Verum est, Amen.

I don't know that I'd give "normals" that much credit either. I do not consider that normal. Sick and twisted definately. And this?

Something about controlling "the mob" aka "the rest of us" while maintaining the basis for profit-taking, I expect.

CLEARLY, THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS LESS ORGANIZING!!! LET THE FAILURES FAIL!!!1

PROOF!!!

i do want to understand your argument - are you just saying you want the goverment to pick up the tab for more cspan/pbs type channels and have some democratic body for determining their content? That could be a key component of media reform, a more rigorous application of anti-trust law to break up media conglomerates could be another. Independent bodies insulated from commercial and political interests charged with maintaining free and fair access to those outlets would be very important, programming and control over content would need to be as decentralized as possible with filmmakers and journalists themselves having the most say. But I don't have a problem with government helping to fund content. The Film Board of Canada and Swedish Television for example, have helped produce many films and programs of lasting significance. The same could be said of PBS. The crucial point to all of this however is that freeing a substantial chunk of the media (and journalism especially) from the pressures imposed by the quest after profit and the lowest common denominator can represent an increase in diversity and higher quality.

Bump.

Use your "consciousness prize" much?

Incredible. That's Hall of Fame-caliber stuff right there.

I expect this kind of asinine hyperbole from FW and Kojak, you can do better.