Television is the opium of the people in the 21st century.

[ComradeMan]

Why do I think television, as is, is bad?

Well, most people spend more time watching t.v. than praying or going to Church, synagogue etc. They make heroes out of people on t.v., they believe what's on t.v. as if it were "gospel" truth. TV is like modern "cult" with the a shrine or shrines in every house.

Many people talk more about reality t.v. and soap operas than anything else and what happens on t.v. has now become "reality". TV provided escapism from the "real" world and even in the light of the recent tragedy in Haiti, we've seen it all before with the tsunami, these images are not so shocking as they would have been when I was a kid in the 70's. TV brutalises people in my opinion.

Television is funded by advertising, mostly, and where it isn't it is funded by the state. Both then, for most countries, mean that television is an instrument of capitalism and consumerism.

Television dumbs down things to the lowest common denominator. Chuck Berris knew this when he created the Gong Show, look how successful that was? LOL!!!

Television advertising makes people materialistic and avaricious and also unhappy about who they are and what they have.

Worrying trends, two teenage kids I heard, quotes

"If it isn't true then why was it on TV?"

"I read the book but it wasn't like the film..."
:(

I think you could argue that television is the new opium of the people, at least in the secular west.

Any thoughts?

[Bankotsu]

One-Dimensional Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

[danny bohy]

Tv is the blind fold of the 21st century proletariat

[AK]

Tv is the blind fold of the 21st century proletariat
And about a quarter of the 20th century. We've been subjected to quite alot of bourgeoisie propaganda then.

[Bankotsu]

TV is one of the great tools of the corporate world to drive consumerist behaviour through PR and propaganda campaigns and advertising.

Anti-consumerism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism




In the 1830s the British economist William Nassau Senior began his class in political economy at Cambridge by announcing, ‘I am not here to talk about how to make you happy, but about how to make you rich’. The way to get rich is very simple. All you need is greed, and that is something that can’t be taught. It requires a deprivation of culture and what many societies believe is the social sensitivity that makes us human.

New well-paid graduates are obliged to work between 80 and 120 hours a week. This is how corporations weed out new prospective employees. It was much the same for bankers, accountants and lawyers in the 1960s. The objective was to weed out any new recruits that had a personal life, family, hobbies, intellectual or cultural interests, or anything that might take precedence over the corporate life. Their entire personal horizon was supposed to consist of working in a dedicated way for their employer.

Not everyone wanted to go through this weeding-out process. Bankers used to joke that the best foreign currency traders, for instance, had to come either from the Brooklyn or Hong Kong slums – someone from a poor household, without gentlemanly culture, often from an immigrant family, whose sole personal horizon was to make as much money as possible.

In this sense today’s rentier culture is dehumanizing. As the leadership of corporations has passed from what Thorstein Veblen called the ‘engineers’ to the financial managers, the objective is not to produce more or expand market share, but to increase the price of stocks, other securities and real estate. If executives find their self interest in ‘working for the stockholders’, it is largely be-cause they take more of their remuneration in the form of stock options than in salaries. They use corporate revenue not to fund new direct investment but to buy up their own stock to support its price. They also cut back on low-profit activities so as to increase earnings, and hence to increase the per-share price.

The resulting ‘culture of greed’ has become anti-technological in seeking short-term payoffs. Corporate managers are rotated from one department to another, running them as autonomous profit-centers, regardless of the company’s overall long-term position. One sees in these new managers – Russia’s ‘7 bank barons’ as well as US corporate managers – an adolescent immaturity, a childish, self-centered, narcissistic lifestyle. They tend to view life as a game, which one ‘wins’ by accumulating more toys/money than one’s rivals.

http://www.michael-hudson.com/articles/financial/9803FinanceCapitalism.html

[NecroCommie]

I don't know how big of a threat TV is, but I do agree with you on the fact that people take TV as reality. This is demonstrated by the people who tell me to get a life, yet watch incredible amounts of TV themselves. (such as my GF) I might not "have a life", but at least I don't fool myself about it.

[danyboy27]

tv isnt the problem.

its a medium, just like the radio and the internet.

the problem is education. If you put your kid in front of it you will obviously have a bunch of mindless consumer zombies.

But the same thing could have been said about the radio 60 year ago.

i think that aversion for tv is borderline primitivist.

[AK]

We are talking about TV as a medium, yes. But we also look at the fact that being a medium for Bourgeoisie propaganda is all it's ever been.

[AK]

I think you could argue that television is the new opium of the people, at least in the secular west.

Wait... the west is secular now? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

tv isnt the problem.

its a medium, just like the radio and the internet.

the problem is education. If you put your kid in front of it you will obviously have a bunch of mindless consumer zombies.

But the same thing could have been said about the radio 60 year ago.

i think that aversion for tv is borderline primitivist.

Your right, back in the day the bourgeousie had the radio, now they have TV, but thats like going from a slingshot to a machine gun. I personally don't own a TV (not because I am against it or anything, or because I want to make some rediculous political statement or whatever, I'd just rather spend my money on other stuff).

I enjoy some TV shows, that being said I kind of agree with the others, especially with children, I think parents need to be very careful with their children and TV, American Buisiness markets to children in ways that I consider pretty sick, using essencially sex, violence, materialism, all that stuff, and many children spend more time in front of the TV than with their parents, or playing (aka, learning), and its really a shame.

But then again you can't really blaim the parents too much, most of them both have to work, long hours when they get home they are exausted, and they also just want to relax in front of the TV. So as soon as they are done slaving for the Capitalist the easiest method or relaxation / entertainment is again filled with propeganda from Capitalists. THe easiest way to get information, and the biggest source of information, is also compeatly capitalist controlled.

Theres nothing wrong with TV in itself, and nor is there anything wrong with enjoying TV shows, and even allowing your children to watch some, but you have to keep in mind its the Capitalists machine gun, and you have to keep it in check, especially with children.

TV, is one of the reasons that Capitalism is the number one threat to the family, its more of a threat than all the gay marriages will ever be (they never were a threat).

[mikelepore]

The escapist content on TV is probably the least harmful. If people are watching Hercules slay monsters, at least they don't assume that they are receiving information about the real world. But when people turn on the news broadcasts, that's when their minds are poisoned.

[ComradeMan]

tv isnt the problem.

its a medium, just like the radio and the internet.

the problem is education. If you put your kid in front of it you will obviously have a bunch of mindless consumer zombies.

But the same thing could have been said about the radio 60 year ago.

i think that aversion for tv is borderline primitivist.


I have to disagree with you. I will qualify my statement by saying that I don't think ALL t.v. is bad, just most of it! However, when it comes to radio I think that there is a fundamental difference. Radio forces you to listen and to use your imagination and mind, much like when you read a book- tv. on the other hand is much more of a passive activity.

[Kayser_Soso]

First of all, TV is not the equivalent of religion as an "opium of the masses." When Marx made these comments about religion, he was saying that it provides a sense of heart in a heartless world. From religion, we are told that even if evil people are successful in this world, it is the next world that counts more, and they will have justice done upon them, a comforting thought. And if your own plight is bad, but you are pious, you too will gain a far greater reward in the next life. Religion also teaches various moral precepts that in some ways can be positive in people's lives- and when you don't have the physical means of accessing other positive things in life, religion provides those for free. It is opium in the sense that it dulls the pain of life.

TV doesn't really do this. Yes it entertains, but does it really make people feel better? Look at all those righties who watch Fox news religiously- all TV does for them is piss them off, and tell them why they should be pissed off and at what. It's not numbing their pain, it is actually causing it. TV is a tool of propaganda, not something that numbs pain. It is largely driven by the capitalist market- it is uniquely capitalist, whereas religion transcends several modes of production throughout human history.

Now on this matter of consumerism- I advise comrades to be wary of this idea, which is non-Marxist and idealistic. It is largely a product of the New Left and those who basically turned Marxism on its head in the 50s and 60s. First of all, TV does not make you want to buy things, or buy things. Think about it- does it make YOU buy things? No. The masses are not sheep who cannot evaluate what they see on TV unlike you. People are far more influenced by seeing people on the street wearing something or using some gadget than by billboards or TV. This is especially true when their peers are involved. Even those who argue against consumerism often point to the "co-opting" of "youth culture" or "cool" when corporations go out and hunt the latest trends on high school campuses or inner city basketball courts(as Nike did). This undermines their claim that TV makes people buy these things as these trends tend to develop on their own and TV and marketing merely popularizes them. There was a time when Grunge for example, was a specific trend in the Pacific Northwest; and all MTV did was expose the rest of the country to it. Again though, the key thing here is that if you think that advertising makes people into mindless consumers, ask yourself first- does it make ME into a mindless consumer? And if it doesn't, maybe ask yourself what makes you so special that you aren't affected while the rest of the masses are.

People go out and buy things because they want to distinguish themselves from others. Indeed capitalism as a system shapes the way in which they attempt to distinguish themselves, and marketing can help send the message that, for example, drinking X whiskey makes you suave and sophisticated, but in the end people still exercise their opinion that such an idea is total bullshit. Another thing to consider is that TV popularizes trends, and keeps them popular until they fall out of favor and it is no longer profitable to support this or that style. What tends to happen is that a consumer trend(for clothing or music) starts on its own somewhere, and television and the media pick it up and popularize it. After a while, those originators of the trends and those who joined up early get sick of all the Johnny-come-latelies, many of whom just joined the trend only because it distinguished them from the other kids on the block. In other words, they didn't think they were following some mass trend; they joined up thinking this would distinguish them from the mass.

Next, is there anything opposed to consumer goods in Marxism? Aside from the concept of commodity fetishism- no, quite the opposite. In fact from one point of view, the evil of capitalism is that it deprives workers the fruits of their labor and thus the means to obtain more consumer goods than they otherwise should have- particularly since this class produces the goods in the first place.

Lastly, referring back to TV and advertising, branding, etc. Perhaps a concrete example is necessary, and living in Russia it is very easy. Russia is by definition, extremely consumerist. Far more so than the US I would say and most Western nations. Yet Russians hate TV, quite vocally, and many I know almost never watch it whatsoever. In fact they are right- it totally sucks. Even decent foreign shows like the Simpsons suffer from terrible dubbing that makes it unwatchable even for me. But this is only half of the equation.

Throughout dozens of small shops, sometimes tiny stalls in marketplaces(funny because this is exactly what many "anti-consumerists" see as ideal in contrast to the evil "big box stores") one can find jackets and various items of clothing with price tags exceeding $1000. I was in Ankara recently and I was shocked to see the price on some mens' full suits- I believe I saw one shop offering two suits for about 200 YTL(about 1.4 to the dollar at the time I believe). In Moscow you could not buy ONE decent suit for that amount of money. I have seen HATS, simple and sometimes quite ugly hats for the same price in Moscow.

What's special about all this? A great deal of this hideously overpriced clothing is not from big brand-names. It is basically not advertised whatsoever. This clothing sells because the style is popular(not any brand name) and because the high price impresses people here- it gives them a way to distinguish themselves, though is in reality an incredibly stupid way to do so. So it is easy for someone to claim that Americans went into debt to buy various products out of marketing or branding-inspired consumerism- but how do you explain Muscovites paying upwards of $1000 for a jacket(oftentimes an almost identical jacket can be found for a reasonable price), often times saving up for several months, when there really is no brand to speak of and no specific advertising telling them to go to this or that shop and pay through the nose for a particular product.

Consumerism, branding, and all these new buzzwords of the vague and nebulous "anti-consumerist" or "anti-globalist" movement are nothing but attempts to supplant Marx and his theories for the hipster rants of Naomi Klein and her ilk whose real beef is that capitalism took their fashion trends and styles and popularized them- now that everybody is buying loft style condos, Klein's loft condo isn't so special anymore. The main problem facing humanity, is not consumerism, it is capitalism. It is not branding, it is capitalism. It is not the corporation, it is capitalism. It is not corporate capitalism, it's just capitalism. It's not lassaiz-faire capitailsm, unbridled or unregulated capitalism, or neo-liberal capitailsm, it is capitalism, period.

[ComradeMan]

Keyser, your message was long so I have responded per paragraph by numbering instead of quoting. Hope you don't mind.

1. I think television does in a way have a normative effect on people's lives and can be manipulated into making people follow a determined norm as seen on TV. Life emulates art which emulates life. TV provides company for the lonely, the elderly, the people who are cut off from society- it is a form of escapism from the community and the reality. I am not saying it is identical but I think there are parallels there.
TV doesn't really do this. Yes it entertains, but does it really make people feel better? Look at all those righties who watch Fox news religiously- all TV does for them is piss them off, and tell them why they should be pissed off and at what. It's not numbing their pain, it is actually causing it. TV is a tool of propaganda, not something that numbs pain. It is largely driven by the capitalist market- it is uniquely capitalist, whereas religion transcends several modes of production throughout human history. I am not sure Marx meant that it provided a sense of heart in a heartless world. I took it more to mean an anaesthetic, a drug if you like- hence my parallels with TV.

2. I am going to have to disagree with you here too. TV advertising is only worth the millions that it is worth because the capitalists know it works. People do buy things they have seen on TV and marketers and advertisers invest obscene amounts of money in this. I believe in the 1970's a Coca Cola exec did not see the point in advertising Coke as the world knows what a Coke is- net result was that sales plummeted and it too years for Coke to regain it's position. I will qualify this by stating this was an anecdote told to me by a marketer so I cannot vouch for its validity.

As far as the peer images and youth culture are concerned, the youths buy their "image" from what is presented on TV in programmes marketed at them. Even the youth phenonemon of surfer speak and upseak, have been attributed to the popularity of Scooby Doo and Australian soap operas.

3. I wasn't really arguing from a Marxist point of view here. Nevertheless the fact that TV is a prime tool for state propaganda and capitalist mercantile imperialism as well as international cultural imperialism could all be questioned. TV didn't exist when Marxist theories were first laid down anyway.

"Yet Russians hate TV, quite vocally, and many I know almost never watch it whatsoever. "

4. I am going to have to call your stats on this one. Do you have any concrete evidence for this?

5. I think you take the argument elsewhere with the interesting points you make about clothing etc, but that is moving away from the subject of TV.
Let's not forget that I accuse television of being a capitalist instrument for the most part, but that is not the only qualm I have with TV.

[danyboy27]

Your right, back in the day the bourgeousie had the radio, now they have TV, but thats like going from a slingshot to a machine gun. I personally don't own a TV (not because I am against it or anything, or because I want to make some rediculous political statement or whatever, I'd just rather spend my money on other stuff).

I enjoy some TV shows, that being said I kind of agree with the others, especially with children, I think parents need to be very careful with their children and TV, American Buisiness markets to children in ways that I consider pretty sick, using essencially sex, violence, materialism, all that stuff, and many children spend more time in front of the TV than with their parents, or playing (aka, learning), and its really a shame.

But then again you can't really blaim the parents too much, most of them both have to work, long hours when they get home they are exausted, and they also just want to relax in front of the TV. So as soon as they are done slaving for the Capitalist the easiest method or relaxation / entertainment is again filled with propeganda from Capitalists. THe easiest way to get information, and the biggest source of information, is also compeatly capitalist controlled.

Theres nothing wrong with TV in itself, and nor is there anything wrong with enjoying TV shows, and even allowing your children to watch some, but you have to keep in mind its the Capitalists machine gun, and you have to keep it in check, especially with children.

TV, is one of the reasons that Capitalism is the number one threat to the family, its more of a threat than all the gay marriages will ever be (they never were a threat).

Every communication medium is a machinegun.
The ruwandan genocide have been strongly put foward by the radio.

Hitler smear campaign against jews was widely spread beccause of books and newspaper.

the problem isnt the medium but information itself and the wisdom of those who consume it.

Education is the main issue here, not what displayed on tv or on radio.

In today world, if the parents dont learn to their kids basics principles of justice, respect and humanism, the corporatist society is gonna tear them appart.

lets not fear the media and its stupid contents, but the careless parents who dosnt learn to their children what wrong in it.

[ComradeMan]

Every communication medium is a machinegun.
The ruwandan genocide have been strongly put foward by the radio.


I hear what you are saying.... but then I suppose any medium can be abused, down to paper. The problem with TV is it is just the "perfect" medium, isn't it? Like I said before, my problem is not with ALL t.v. but with what's on it most of the time... :D

Hitler smear campaign against jews was widely spread beccause of books and newspaper.


True, but how many people had t.v.'s in the 1930's Germany? Wasn't the cinema the main source of anti-Semitic propaganda?

the problem isnt the medium but information itself and the wisdom of those who consume it.


I agree, but because t.v. is mainly driven from advertising profits and to a certain extent the state there is always going to be a problem.

Education is the main issue here, not what displayed on tv or on radio.


True- but I think it's a vicious circle too.

In today world, if the parents dont learn to their kids basics principles of justice, respect and humanism, the corporatist society is gonna tear them appart.


Well- that's another issue I think, but I hear what you are saying.

lets not fear the media and its stupid contents, but the careless parents who dosnt learn to their children what wrong in it.[/QUOTE]

[RGacky3]

Education is the main issue here, not what displayed on tv or on radio.

In today world, if the parents dont learn to their kids basics principles of justice, respect and humanism, the corporatist society is gonna tear them appart.

lets not fear the media and its stupid contents, but the careless parents who dosnt learn to their children what wrong in it.

I agree with you, but its a lot harder for parents now than it was 50 years ago, or more, so I would'nt be going around saying they are careless, at least not any more careless than previous generations.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

http://caravanofdreams.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nun_ruler.jpg

Revolutionary nuns, here to save you from yourself.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Why do I think television, as is, is bad?

Do you even understand the context of the quote "opiate of the people.".
Opium did not in any way shape or form have the stigma it has attached to it now.

Calling something the opiate of the people is a compliment, your saying it brings relief, comfort, and happiness to the oppressed.


Television dumbs down things to the lowest common denominator.

The idea that the lowest common denominator is a bad thing is by definition elitist and anti-democratic.


Worrying trends, two teenage kids I heard, quotes

"I read the book but it wasn't like the film..."
:(

100 years ago, books did not have the "good" reputation they do now. They gained such only after television appeared and changed society.

Placing books above newer mediums is thus clearly reactionary.


Any thoughts?

Your just trying to prop yourself up at the expense of others.

[Kayser_Soso]

Saying "the book was better than the film" is something of a cliche. Yes, there are many times when the book is superior in some way because it is easier to show the thought processes of characters, and an author has more leeway and time to tell the story, but these things should be taken into consideration when evaluating films vs. books. For example, I read Lord of the Rings and I saw the movies- and yet frankly I found the films better, because in the first book there is no sense of urgency as there is in the film. Frodo just sits on his ass for a few years, not caring about the ring at all. Fight Club is another example of a book that was much worse than the film. Films are better able to surprise a viewer than books.

[Kayser_Soso]

Every communication medium is a machinegun.
The ruwandan genocide have been strongly put foward by the radio.

But this had little to do with why the genocide took place. Radio was just a medium for a message that has roots in the society established by the Belgian colonialists.




the problem isnt the medium but information itself and the wisdom of those who consume it.

There are extremely intelligent people who believe in idiotic things. Milton Friedman for example.




In today world, if the parents dont learn to their kids basics principles of justice, respect and humanism, the corporatist society is gonna tear them appart.

On the contrary, parents who teach their children idealistic tripe are going to set them up for failure. Capitalism will eat them alive.

[ComradeMan]

Do you even understand the context of the quote "opiate of the people.".
Opium did not in any way shape or form have the stigma it has attached to it now.
Calling something the opiate of the people is a compliment, your saying it brings relief, comfort, and happiness to the oppressed.

Do you even understand the highly ambiguous statement by Marx? As for your other comments- ever read De Quincey? Never heard of Opium Dens or read of the Opium Wars?

From a quick Wiki:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People#Ambiguity_of_.22opiate.22

"Morphine, the principal and most widely known and widely produced opiate of the day—at the time called morphium -- has at its etymology "dream-inducer". In this sense, opium is what someone is given to induce them to experience a "fantasy instead of a reality."

Hence my comments about TV.

The parallels are there......

If Marx were complementing religion, which I don't think he was, you may have to point that out to the atheist sections in Marxism...

What the hell is wrong with criticising TV and valuing books more. Educators, using scientific methods, have shown that TV can have a negative effect on children and prove diseducative, just for one example.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9908/20/kids.tv.effects/


See also
http://www.aap.org/sections/media/toddlerstv.htm various articles through search engine.

By the way, re "lowest-common-denominator"-- what was Marx on about then with the lumpenproletariat?

I appreciate comments, but there is no need to attack ad hominem and no need to dramatise everything so much. :)

[ComradeMan]

On the contrary, parents who teach their children idealistic tripe are going to set them up for failure. Capitalism will eat them alive.

So we should teach our kids to be capitalists then on that basis?

[Robert]

When you commies take over and start banning everything, please do not ban South Park; there's something in SP for everybody, even you guys:

http://the44diaries.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/1south-park-takes-on-glenn-beck-cartman-leads-campaign-against-communist-president-video/

[Belisarius]

you should read Baudrillard. he argues that hyperreality (e.g. the media) has destroyed reality. we don't live in the real world anymore, but in some virtual superreality. (for example: a shark in our mind isn't anymore a real shark, but we think of jaws).

in my opinion, as with every medium, television can be used in both ways. it can be an indoctrination of one-dimensional thought, but it can also be an excellent critique of this way of thinking. there are plenty examples of the first, but for the second we can mention south park, as Robert did. the satire put in this seemingly stupid show is actually quite genius. the makers have a way of showing the absurdity of one-dimensionality. (for example: Cartmans fascism is very typical for contemporary society, but also completely ridiculous)

[ComradeMan]

Well, I wasn't talking about banning TV.... I did say TV as is!
:)
South Park is quite funny too in the way at parodies society in such a scathing, cynical and yet ridiculous way!
:D

[ComradeMan]

oops- wrong post.

[graffic]

I would disagree that Television (in the UK) pumps out pro-bourgeoisie propaganda. I would describe the majority of popular comics and celebrities on television to be left of centre politically. The right-wingers and pro-war types are always taken the piss out of on most shows over here in the UK, anti-American jokes always go down well.

[ComradeMan]

I would disagree that Television (in the UK) pumps out pro-bourgeoisie propaganda. I would describe the majority of popular comics and celebrities on television to be left of centre politically. The right-wingers and pro-war types are always taken the piss out of on most shows over here in the UK, anti-American jokes always go down well.

Good point, but there is still a lot of reality crap, advertising and lcd stuff too. Like I said, not all tv...

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I don't think I agree with all of this, though I can see what you mean. To be honest, lots of it doesn't apply to me as I don't watch TV as much as most people seem to.


Well, most people spend more time watching t.v. than praying or going to Church, synagogue etc. They make heroes out of people on t.v., they believe what's on t.v. as if it were "gospel" truth. TV is like modern "cult" with the a shrine or shrines in every house.

I don't think it can be compared to a cult or to a religion. People don't need to have beliefs or faith to enjoy TV, it's just something they do recreationally. If people make heroes out of people on TV then that's bad, of course but perhaps it says more about society as a whole rather than television? People also believe what's written in gossip magazines and the tabloids.


Many people talk more about reality t.v. and soap operas than anything else and what happens on t.v. has now become "reality". TV provided escapism from the "real" world and even in the light of the recent tragedy in Haiti, we've seen it all before with the tsunami, these images are not so shocking as they would have been when I was a kid in the 70's. TV brutalises people in my opinion.

I think lots of people have an understanding of how TV works and they realize that so-called 'reality' shows have been edited and altered. Reading and music also provide escape. We need escapism and we always will.

I agree with you on the last point. My mum told me about when they first saw footage from the Vietnam war and they hadn't seen anything like it before. I do believe that TV, not brutalises people, but certainly makes them less shocked by violence and tragedy. If you see it all the time you become desensitised.


Television is funded by advertising, mostly, and where it isn't it is funded by the state. Both then, for most countries, mean that television is an instrument of capitalism and consumerism.

Yes, true. But that isn't a reason to get rid of television, it just means we need to get rid of capitalism and getting rid of capitalism also means getting rid of consumerism. Advertising in itself isn't terrible because in a communist society, musicians and authors and people publicising new products will also need a means of drawing attention to their work.


Television dumbs down things to the lowest common denominator. Chuck Berris knew this when he created the Gong Show, look how successful that was? LOL!!!

It often does, but there's a demand for light entertainment and in most cases it provides relief from 'heavier' subject matter. Besides, before television other things were lowest common denominator entertainment. There are some good quality films, documentaries, comedies and dramas on TV even if they make up the minority of programs.


Television advertising makes people materialistic and avaricious and also unhappy about who they are and what they have.

Again, so do glossy magazines. It is possible to ignore ads - I do. But I'm not sure how common this is.


I think you could argue that television is the new opium of the people, at least in the secular west.

When Marx said the opium of the people, he wasn't talking about a distraction - and TV is a distraction. He was talking about people believing in something higher as a source of hope and optimism. Because the proletariat were alienated due to capitalism, they needed ideas such as an afterlife to keep them from despairing. I don't think TV is anything more than cheap, sometimes harmful entertainment.

[ComradeMan]

Re the points above.

Let me clarify.

I am not suggesting banning TV. I see that TV like all other media has its potential for use and abuse, it's the abuse I am talking about.

I do not think that TV is exactly the same as religion but I do think there are parallels. The escapism from reality is like a kind of anaesthetic, the people who spend hours watching Brazilian soap operas because their own lives are so void they have nothing else to do- it alleviates the pain.

Glossy magazines and tabloids are also on my lists.... mwahahaha:cool:

To be fair. Perhaps it does depend on TV where you live. In Italy we have issues with TV largely because of a certain you-know-who and also the fact that Italian TV, in my opion, is ultra-nationalistic and also patronising too. There are adverts everywhere, even on the state television- "Mamma Rai"- "Mother Rai" as it is known.
(RAI- is the official Italian state network).

[Belisarius]

here there's also advertisement on state tv, but it's really not a lot (1 advert per show or nothing).

i think the media are moving towards sensationalism and capitalist "trendism". on the one hand we see reality shows and movies become more sensational and less critical or learnfull and on the other hand we see shows having an impact on society by the way of trends. in belgium for example there have recently been a lot of cooking programs on tv. the result is that everyone is now a masterchef, or at least believes himself to be one.

The main goal of the media used to be to educate the people. so they brought reality on the screen (for example old school journalism, like in the vietnam war). now the medium conquers reality. the medium is no longer a medium of reality, but a medium of control (for example imbedded journalism). Baudrillard is an interesting read on this topic, allthough his views sound sometimes a bit science-fiction. this doens't mean the former journalism is dead, but it's no longer the prominent one.

[ComradeMan]

here there's also advertisement on state tv, but it's really not a lot (1 advert per show or nothing).

i think the media are moving towards sensationalism and capitalist "trendism". on the one hand we see reality shows and movies become more sensational and less critical or learnfull and on the other hand we see shows having an impact on society by the way of trends. in belgium for example there have recently been a lot of cooking programs on tv. the result is that everyone is now a masterchef, or at least believes himself to be one.

The main goal of the media used to be to educate the people. so they brought reality on the screen (for example old school journalism, like in the vietnam war). now the medium conquers reality. the medium is no longer a medium of reality, but a medium of control (for example imbedded journalism). Baudrillard is an interesting read on this topic, allthough his views sound sometimes a bit science-fiction. this doens't mean the former journalism is dead, but it's no longer the prominent one.


Good points....:thumbup1:

[Raúl Duke]

The machine/the medium isn't exactly the problem...but the content.

In a sense, the TV can be seen as a major facet of what the situationists called "the Spectacle."

I mean people form a sort of "social relationship" to TV show casts and people when in reality...we never met them in person. A relationship mediated by images. There also the function of commercials, some imbue or insinuate (usually personal) qualities to their products as if by having it you acquire a certain quality (at least the mere appearence of having it, which is what seems to matter in these times). TV News itself has and the commentator shows that news channels have only seem to cement the idea that these news channels serve the purpose to transmit propaganda.

ETC

[Richard Nixon]

Incidentally fundamentalist Christians also criticize television and for similar reasons as the OP (especially escapism). http://www.wayoflife.org/database/unplug.html

[griffjam]

Society of the Spectacle (http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/)


25 Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle. The institutionalization of the social division of labor in the form of class divisions had given rise to an earlier, religious form of contemplation: the mythical order with which every power has always camouflaged itself. Religion justified the cosmic and ontological order that corresponded to the interests of the masters, expounding and embellishing everything their societies could not deliver. In this sense, all separate power has been spectacular. But this earlier universal devotion to a fixed religious imagery was only a shared acknowledgment of loss, an imaginary compensation for the poverty of a concrete social activity that was still generally experienced as a unitary condition. In contrast, the modern spectacle depicts what society could deliver, but in so doing it rigidly separates what is possible from what is permitted. The spectacle keeps people in a state of unconsciousness as they pass through practical changes in their conditions of existence. Like a factitious god, it engenders itself and makes its own rules. It reveals itself for what it is: an autonomously developing separate power, based on the increasing productivity resulting from an increasingly refined division of labor into parcelized gestures dictated by the independent movement of machines, and working for an ever-expanding market. In the course of this development, all community and all critical awareness have disintegrated; and the forces that were able to grow by separating from each other have not yet been reunited.

[griffjam]

The machine/the medium isn't exactly the problem...but the content.


The medium is the message.

[Kaze no Kae]

Television is the opium of the people in the 21st centuryIn a way I agree, but not in the way Marx meant it about religion - TV doesn't promise people a utopia after they exhaust themselves to death working for the boss...

[ComradeMan]

In a way I agree, but not in the way Marx meant it about religion - TV doesn't promise people a utopia after they exhaust themselves to death working for the boss...


No but TV does present utiopian models of existence that are promoted subliminally through advertising, network shows and so on.

Also, I'm not sure religion does promise people a utopia. Utopia fundamentally means that which does not exist. Religions are very adamant that they do present a reality. There is also the fact that religion in the 19th century such as Christianity was also full of hell, fire and brimstone.

I know this is a bit off-topic and more religion focused, but ask youself this.

What is the most important part of the Christian faith?

The Resurrection of Jesus. No?

Why do the churches have images of Jesus on the Cross then? Why not images of his rising from the tomb? His resurrection?

Because Jesus on the cross symbolises the suffering and if Jesus suffered
like this then you mere mortal can suffer too and shut up and accept it. That is one of the problems I have with the established churches.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please curb the moral crusades comrades. If find nothing wrong or problematic about workers wanting a little escapism weather that is watching a movie, going to a concert, following sports, smoking a joint or drinking now and then.

For all the BS and shallow corporate profit-driven crap they try and pass off as "entertainment", modern TV is still more subversive, more diverse, and more sophisticated than code-era Hollywood movies... and low and behold, "The Glitter-dancer Underwater Review of 1935" by MGM did not prevent a massive strike wave by US workers in 1936.

As much as television is used by the ruling class to promote pro-status-quo ideas and even direct propaganda about things like the wars in the middle east, most workers are very cynical about what they hear from the mass media. Obviously the right thinks that everything is "liberal" but most left-leaning workers also reject the ideas from the press and TV that don't fit their experience.

Television does nothing more to hold back radical consciousness than anything else in capitalist society that reflects establishment ideas - education, newspapers, most churches, political parties, literature and so on. As long as the capitalists rule society, most things of that society are going to reflect their ideas, accepted assumptions, and values.

Workers will accept or reject these ideas depending on how relevant they seem. To use war as an example again, most workers are just going to initially accept ruling class lies about the conflict or about the people in other countries because most workers in the US have very little knowledge of the history of US foreign policy let alone the history of the middle east or Iraq in particular. However, workers began rejecting this propaganda as things began to make less sense - Saddam was gone, no WMDs were found, yet troops remained and Iraqis were obviously not treating US troops as "liberators". It's the same with the economy, workers generally accept reformist or capitalist ideas about the economy during boom times - but when the politicians and media are saying the economy is great but factories and offices are laying off people's neighbors and no one is hiring, then workers know that this is a BS line they are being fed. This doesn't guarantee that they will turn to radical answers - with a small left, many people simply turn to cynicism right now and others look to libertarian or conspiratorial answers.

[Kayser_Soso]

No but TV does present utiopian models of existence that are promoted subliminally through advertising, network shows and so on.

Subliminal messaging is largely bunk. And how exactly does TV create utopian models of existence? Granted, they often present things in easy-to-understand stories which always wrap up well, but most people are more than aware that things don't work that way in real life.



Also, I'm not sure religion does promise people a utopia. Utopia fundamentally means that which does not exist. Religions are very adamant that they do present a reality. There is also the fact that religion in the 19th century such as Christianity was also full of hell, fire and brimstone.

His choice of wording was wrong- it's not utopia, it's eternal bliss and everlasting life.



I know this is a bit off-topic and more religion focused, but ask youself this.

What is the most important part of the Christian faith?

The Resurrection of Jesus. No?

Why do the churches have images of Jesus on the Cross then? Why not images of his rising from the tomb? His resurrection?

Because Jesus on the cross symbolises the suffering and if Jesus suffered
like this then you mere mortal can suffer too and shut up and accept it. That is one of the problems I have with the established churches.

Actually the Protestant churches often don't display Jesus on the cross for just that reason- they say he has risen. The point of highlighting Jesus' suffering is a message to believers that is supposed to prove how much God loves them. Look at it this way- why does John 3:16 say that God gave up his "only begotten son"? Think about it- this is for millions of Christians THE defining verse of Christianity, the verse that explains in simple terms that Jesus is the intercessor, through which people can gain salvation despite their sins and enter the kingdom of God. And yet few people make a big deal of that "only begotten son" part. After all(yes, I'm cribbing from Avakian here), God can have as many "sons" as he wants right? There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't have another son- it's not like he's too old and his wife died or something.

The point is that in those days, and indeed for a great deal of human existence, a son was a most valuable asset. He carried on the family name, he did the most important work, he was a blessing to a family whereas a daughter was something of a burden that needed to be married off as soon as possible. So the idea of sacrificing one's only son was a serious thing. In order to get people to appreciate this idea of Christ, people had to think of God almost as a human father who has one son, and gives him up despite the fact that he cannot have another(for some unknown reason). So it is with Christ's suffering. Torture and a slow death by crucifixion is something that people fear more than anything. Anyone who would willingly endure that as Christ did must, ipso facto, REALLY care about your salvation.

[ComradeMan]

Subliminal messaging is largely bunk. And how exactly does TV create utopian models of existence? Granted, they often present things in easy-to-understand stories which always wrap up well, but most people are more than aware that things don't work that way in real life.

Again, I'm not sure about that. I studied the psychology of advertising and it does reveal how manipulative they are.

His choice of wording was wrong- it's not utopia, it's eternal bliss and everlasting life.

Fair point.

Actually the Protestant churches often don't display Jesus on the cross for just that reason....etc

Well, I live in the most "Catholic" country in the world so perhaps that's why I perceive it differently. Here at Easter they make a bigger deal about the Madonna Adolorata on Good Friday and the Crucifixion than Easter Sunday. Perhaps it depends on what brand of Christianity you are used to. Here the churches are very medieval and grim in many senses with ossuaries and martyrs all over the place.

I thought the Protestants didn't display images because of strict adherence to the Old Testament commandments about making graven images....

[Belisarius]

comrademan is right about the psychology of advertisement (i think it's even a university level course in some places). as i understood it, it's a system of symbols and identifications. like this:" if you're an (e.g.) upperclass man, you need to have (e.g.) this car, otherwise you won't be a part of that group. this doesn't only count for the ones who really are upperclass, but also for the ones who aspire to it. the promise is that when they buy this car, they will be a part of the group with which they identify as some kind of "mission accomplished".

another problem i think is the deterioration of meaning in advertisements. when all products are called "the best product in the world", the sentence loses its significance. i heard a german advertisement on the radio last week where a guy pronounces his love to some supermarket or something like that. but the words used to describe his love are trivialized. when i would for example pronounce my love to someone with these words, she would connect it to the advert in stead of my love. the result is some pretty fucked up sentences in adverts, like for example (this one is belgian): "pizza from the refrigerator like mommy used to make them".:confused:

[Kayser_Soso]

comrademan is right about the psychology of advertisement (i think it's even a university level course in some places). as i understood it, it's a system of symbols and identifications. like this:" if you're an (e.g.) upperclass man, you need to have (e.g.) this car, otherwise you won't be a part of that group. this doesn't only count for the ones who really are upperclass, but also for the ones who aspire to it. the promise is that when they buy this car, they will be a part of the group with which they identify as some kind of "mission accomplished".

another problem i think is the deterioration of meaning in advertisements. when all products are called "the best product in the world", the sentence loses its significance. i heard a german advertisement on the radio last week where a guy pronounces his love to some supermarket or something like that. but the words used to describe his love are trivialized. when i would for example pronounce my love to someone with these words, she would connect it to the advert in stead of my love. the result is some pretty fucked up sentences in adverts, like for example (this one is belgian): "pizza from the refrigerator like mommy used to make them".:confused:

Right but advertising can't make you buy anything. Let me ask you this- is it successful on you? Do you go out and buy things because the TV told you to? If not, it's safe to say that it doesn't work on others either. People will attempt to buy things that differentiate them from the crowd. After something gets picked up by marketing teams, they make it more popular, and a trend is born. After a while, people get sick of it, and look for the next best thing- that's when marketing picks up where it left off.

[ComradeMan]

Right but advertising can't make you buy anything. Let me ask you this- is it successful on you? Do you go out and buy things because the TV told you to? If not, it's safe to say that it doesn't work on others either. People will attempt to buy things that differentiate them from the crowd. After something gets picked up by marketing teams, they make it more popular, and a trend is born. After a while, people get sick of it, and look for the next best thing- that's when marketing picks up where it left off.

Kayser. I remember this from the course. We all thought that we weren't influenced by advertising and then we did some thought experiments.

Try this one..


Write a list of 10 products you regularly buy.
Write a list of labels you like and labels you wouldn't be seen dead in....
Your car...?
Your techware....? etc
Next, write down any words or associations you have with the said products...

Then ask yourself why you bought them...

Then think about how you identify yourself...

Then think about the way these products are marketed and advertised.

Even if it's not 100% you may be surprised at the links and associations.

This sort of experiment is best done when you aren't thinking too hard about the answers- perhaps it would be flawed now because you know the idea, try it on some of your friends unknowingly and see what comes up.:D

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser. I remember this from the course. We all thought that we weren't influenced by advertising and then we did some thought experiments.
[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1652951]
Try this one..


Write a list of 10 products you regularly buy.
Write a list of labels you like and labels you wouldn't be seen dead in....
Your car...?
Your techware....? etc
Next, write down any words or associations you have with the said products...

Then ask yourself why you bought them...

I honestly couldn't answer those questions. I mean I just never paid that much attention to labels. Maybe it was due to my impoverished upbringing but I always believed that generic brands and knock-offs are just as good. Take cereal for example(something that is extensively marketed towards kids in the US). Once in a blue moon my mom might have broken down and bought me a name-brand cereal, but more often than not we bought the larger Malt-o-Meal generic knock offs. This was true of many food products we bought- and as a result to this day I still support the view that many American generic products are more or less as good as the name brand ones.

Clothing was the same deal. I always bought clothes that I thought suited me, or I looked at the price. Comfort and durability were the main things I looked for, especially when I used to work in construction and it was a given that at the end of the day, my pants and even my shirt would be covered in a mix of dirt and concrete.

Having moved out of the country this is even more true because there are many brands in Europe/Russia which I had never heard of(hell, in America I had never heard of United Colors of Benetton until I moved to Prague). Clothes are overpriced here in an astronomical way, so I shop for price as well as style(though for me style means the pants are long enough).



Then think about how you identify yourself...

Then think about the way these products are marketed and advertised.

Even if it's not 100% you may be surprised at the links and associations.

Again, you can see why this is a problem. It's an interesting test, I'll give you that, and I'll definitely ask around and see what people say, but it just honestly doesn't apply to me.

This is a story that more accurately describes the model of why people follow trends. Since I lived in Moscow I have noticed the fashion of wearing what are similar to navy-style peacoats. They come in different patterns, colors, and styles, but they are generally blazer-length, have four front pockets, and epaulets of various sorts. They are actually sold in a number of stores including small shops- but when it finally came time that I had an excuse to buy one recently(my normal winter jacket was too warm and long for traveling in Turkey), I was having a hell of a time finding one at a reasonable price. As it turned out, only one store had the style close enough to what I wanted, in the right size, and for a price that is reasonable by Moscow standards. The shop turned out to be Zara. So what did we learn from this? Yes, I followed a fashion trend of some sort, but the tastes here are pretty diverse and that particular jacket appealed to me. All the advertising in Zara's budget couldn't make me shop there- I saw something I liked and they happened to have it in the right color, style, size, and price when I wanted it.

I should also point out that one year my winter hat was a Caucasian papakha- you can be damn sure nobody is advertising those.

[ComradeMan]

Some might argue that your anti-fashion is in itself a response to what we are talking about here and this in a way a negative example of responding to norms created by the media.:)

No Benetton in the US? LOL!!! I have issues with Benetton and I don't like their colours... but I am surprised they aren't in the US.

Of course, here in Italy the culture of the "look" is fundamental. Hell I no people who would literally eat pasta and tomatoes every night and drink shit wine from a carton so they can buy the "in" jacket and look for the month.... The Devil wears Prada eh? LOL!!!

Clothing was the same deal. I always bought clothes that I thought suited me!

Why do you think they suited you? Tell me more...

[Kayser_Soso]

Some might argue that your anti-fashion is in itself a response to what we are talking about here and this in a way a negative example of responding to norms created by the media.:)

No Benetton in the US? LOL!!! I have issues with Benetton and I don't like their colours... but I am surprised they aren't in the US.

Of course, here in Italy the culture of the "look" is fundamental. Hell I no people who would literally eat pasta and tomatoes every night and drink shit wine from a carton so they can buy the "in" jacket and look for the month.... The Devil wears Prada eh? LOL!!!

Clothing was the same deal. I always bought clothes that I thought suited me!

Why do you think they suited you? Tell me more...

I was not "anti-fashion", I just never developed a sense of fashion, most likely due largely in part to my low economic status. As for United Colors, I'm pretty sure they were in the US for a while, I just never saw them. Most likely they were more popular on the East and West coasts at the time. I also never noticed Dolce and Gabana until I moved to Europe.


When I say suited me I mean they were not particularly flashy, and comfortable. But this brings up another story from earlier in my life that again speaks against the claims about the powers of advertising. In grade school nobody really thought much about fashion. I went to gradeschool in a Barrio type area and there the most fashionable thing was usually some sports jersey, a Raiders jacket, something like that. Nobody gave a damn about the brand, the team was what was important. How many people buy sports clothing these days and don't give a damn about whether it was made by Adiddas or Nike? Anyway, I began Junior High in a new neighborhood where the district included some of the cruelest kids imaginable- affluent white kids. Suddenly you had to listen to the right music, wear the right labels, etc.

There were as I remember two main types of clothing these kids wore- shirts with alternative band names on them(at the time, Nine-Inch-Nails, Marylyn Manson, White Zombie, and Green Day- yes, I'm definitely revealing my age now), and the other shirts were usually from Mossimo. Now the thing is, I never saw advertisements for Mossimo on TV. And bands of course, are marketed in different ways but they certainly aren't plastered all over billboards(at least where I lived) and they don't have commercials on TV. So here was a whole world of fashion that wasn't connected so much with advertising, much less TV commercials.

Did the peer pressure work- absolutely; I eventually got mom to break down and buy me one NIN shirt(no, it didn't help improve my coolness factor). But TV and advertising had nothing to do with it- fitting in with others did, and distinguishing myself from the other nerds who weren't wearing NIN shirts.

[ComradeMan]

Nobody gave a damn about the brand, the team was what was important. How many people buy sports clothing these days and don't give a damn about whether it was made by Adiddas or Nike?

And sports teams are not brand names too? Not big merchandising and corporate outfits based around the theme of sport? :D

[brigadista]

dont you mean the internet? no need to watch tv when you can see everything online...

[Kayser_Soso]

And sports teams are not brand names too? Not big merchandising and corporate outfits based around the theme of sport? :D

Technically but if the sports team were truly a brand it would have to be made by Nike, Starter, or whatever. Brand has a specific definition. If you stretch that too far, we might start saying that individual names of streets are also "brands" of some sort, for example.

[Plagueround]

There were as I remember two main types of clothing these kids wore- shirts with alternative band names on them(at the time, Nine-Inch-Nails, Marylyn Manson, White Zombie, and Green Day- yes, I'm definitely revealing my age now)

I don't feel the need to comment on the rest of your posts because they're excellent and I would just be repeating what you say...however, if these bands expose you as old...thanks for making me feel old too! :lol:

[ComradeMan]

I don't feel the need to comment on the rest of your posts because they're excellent and I would just be repeating what you say...however, if these bands expose you as old...thanks for making me feel old too! :lol:

LOL!!! I hadn't picked up on that! Now, I feel even older! :blushing:

I used to laugh at my younger sister for listening to Green Day, how old does that make me?:D

[Dr Mindbender]

...this thread is stupid...

television isnt the problem any more than books or music.

The problem is the people who control the airwaves.

[Bud Struggle]

...this thread is stupid...

television isnt the problem any more than books or music.

The problem is the people who control the airwaves.

Hmmm. Maybe the OP meant "television" as something of a metaphor for the people that control the airwaves. It could be the case--I'd think about it if I were you. :)

[Dr Mindbender]

Hmmm. Maybe the OP meant "television" as something of a metaphor for the people that control the airwaves. It could be the case--I'd think about it if I were you. :)

the opening post gave no insinuation that he thinks television has any redeeming potential.

[Kayser_Soso]

I don't feel the need to comment on the rest of your posts because they're excellent and I would just be repeating what you say...however, if these bands expose you as old...thanks for making me feel old too! :lol:

I can't remember the exact thing it was that made me come to that conclusion, but I know it had something to do with the fact that there is this program on Russia's Muz TV on either Saturday or Friday night called Muz TV "Classic", where they play the "classic" videos. Almost all of them are from the 90s.

[ComradeMan]

...this thread is stupid...

television isnt the problem any more than books or music.

The problem is the people who control the airwaves.


Take a chill pill dude.:lol:

Perhaps it wasn't clear but in later posts on this thread it became clear. I said television "as is", i.e. as it is used now. I am obviously not talking literally about the gadget most of us have in our houses, but the medium and how it is used.