Blinking, prodding, whispering, yelling

[serai]

.

Over HERE, at PBS.org, you can view a fascinating Frontline documentary called The Persuaders, about the advertising industry and the immense changes it has wrought in our culture. It talks about how advertisers are no longer content to just sell you stuff; they are now aiming at recreating the world, enveloping all of us in a "second skin" that lines the reality we live in. But a problem is thereby created: the more ads suffuse our lives, the less attention we are wont to pay to them.

This is first-rate stuff, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the nearly insane vagaries of 21st century media-driven culture.


As for me, it reinforces a central development of my last ten years: I am SO FUCKING GLAD I no longer have TV.

Comments

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

I have a TV. I use it to watch DVDs and play video games.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have a TV set. I meant that I don't have television, meaning the stuff that's broadcast.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

*grin*

I can tune in if I'm inclined, but I'm usually not inclined. (maybe once every three years.) I don't bother with cable, though, even if it does mean not getting my Doctor Who fix until the DVDs come out.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Where I live you need cable, since regular TV reception has eroded to the point where it's unwatchable without it. And having grown up with TV being FREE, there's no frigging way I'm gonna pay for it. That's what the bloody ADS are for. *hmph*

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

I live in BOSTON, and if I want to watch tv without ghosts, blizzards, or interference, I need cable.

Feh. Don't know if it'll get any better when we go to digital next year, but I haven't decided if I'm going to bother to invest in the converter box yet. It'd take having something worth my while on the air...

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Ugh. My folks have digital, so I see bits of it when I go over to their house. I could never have that, it would drive me crazy. The reception is almost never good - the images pixellate, or have weird lines through them. Also, they rely on the on-air guide to know when things are on, but you can't trust the guides. The shows are often aired at times other than those listed, etc. After growing up with dependable reception and airtimes and all that, TV has become too much of a bother for me to deal with, especially since there's so little that I care to watch. I can get whatever I'm interested in online anyway.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

And big media wonders why people would rather look at their computers...

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Amazing, isn't it? The entire entertainment industry seem to be blind as bats.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

It's completely insane. But I agree with the doc that the extreme nature of advertising ends up inuring people to its message. The only way I can appreciate an ad is as a piece of filmmaking. I've very rarely been swayed by ads in the way they want me to be swayed, i.e., made to buy their products. I think I get that from my dad, who's a dyed-in-the-wool cynic.

Hmm, NPR. I used to trust them, but the way they've been parroting government propaganda about the war the last couple of years has lessened that considerably.

[claudia603.livejournal.com]

wow. This is why I ALWAYS turn off when ads come on. I can't stand the "must have it" mentality that it tries to incur in all of us.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I've never understood why people are swayed by ads. It's so transparently manipulative. Why should I believe somebody who's trying to talk me into buying something just so they can get paid their fee? It's silly. And the extreme jiggery-pokery nature of ads these days makes it sillier. If you want to sell me your product, just tell me plainly and honestly what's good about it. I don't need the video game hooha, thank you.

While I was watching this doc and they were talking about the transformation of Times Square and the "second skin" metaphor, I kept thinking of Minority Report - all those blaring animated ads covering ever inch of public wall space, and the retinal identifiers that would scan each passer-by so the ad could be custom tailored to them as they walked past. It's funny how quickly science fiction can become feasible, and then outdated. If privacy rights keep getting eroded at the rate they're going today, we'll see those kinds of ads within five years, I'll bet.

[celandine-g.livejournal.com]

I totally agree that 99% of ads are insulting to the intelligence of a 5-year old. But I will play devil's advocate for some of television. I very much enjoy the two history channels, PBS, The Science Channel, National Geographic, and Link-TV. I also have loved some of the Showtime serials, e.g., QAF, Rome, the Tudors--and I do enjoy watching "The Doctor" on Friday nights, hehe (thank-you, BBC!). So I think there are some things worth watching and God has given us the "mute" button which is one of the great inventions of the 20th century.

I grew up in the LA suburbs and remember when there were only 9 channels (but that was more than anyplace else in the country) and George Putnum, LOL--and yes, it was free. I knew I wasn't a prophet when I predicted that no one would ever pay for TV.

But I remember too when I used to watch network TV every evening--MANY years ago but I haven't watched a single program from them for a long time. It is all so stupid, crass, and just mind-numbingly shallow. I don't know if I have changed or it has changed....probably a bit of both, I suppose.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's you that's changed so much as them. Ever since television first started, one of the requirements for operating a TV network was that they had to devote a certain percentage of airtime every day to serious news reporting in exchange for time on the airwaves, which was rented from the government. That meant that the news departments were not allowed to run on a for-profit model; they were a public service mandated by law. When Reagan deregulated the television industry, that killed network news. Now there was no reason to be serious about the news department; it could run on the same corporate profit motive as the rest of the programming. So we've seen the decline of news reporting over the last twenty years, from shows dedicated to presenting real events in a serious manner, to flashy crap that re-packages tabloid gossip and government propaganda, all helped along by loads of pundit-yammered bullshit. The people involved in the news tried to hang on and keep it real, but they were battered down bit by bit, as the new generation of entertainment-trained "journalists" (that's a laugh) took over. SAD, but as the emperor said, there it is.

LA, yay! George Putnam, I remember him. Remember Ralph Story? Sheriff John? *sigh* Local TV, RIP.

Cable stations do have quite good shows, but they're almost all available on DVD eventually, so I see no reason to spend the exorbitant amounts that the cable companies want me to spend every month for something I'll be able to rent for a few dollars next year. Just about the only things I follow regularly are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and I can get those online. So for me the TV thing is no loss at all. (And the quality of news online is far superior.)

[celandine-g.livejournal.com]

OMG! Ralph Story. Yes, I do remember him and his great "human interest" segments. For some incredibly bizarre reason, I remember a special he did decades ago on the old "Red Car" public transportation system they had once in LA (even before my time, LOL). And Sherrif John was my hero. OMFG, I do remember him too. Gosh, what good old days they were. But, time flies.

Yeah, "news-as-entertainment" is revolting and so obviously patronizing and corporate-sponsored, it is disgusting. I appreciated your thoughts on the evolution of this travesty, the worst part of which is that people are so tired working 60 hrs a week to get the "things" the advertisors push on them, that they are too tired to notice what is missing or seek out the real news. Then they go and vote. That's why we are in the Iraqi quagmire and thrashing about madly amid the Bush debacle called a presidency. Sigh.

Link-TV has independent news and I enjoy CSPAN for its unhurried and unglamorized reporting of real things. PBS is unfortunately under the thumb of the Feds, I agree, but it is better than "network news" by a long shot. But I agree that online news is mostly far superior.

I have Direct TV via satellite which has excellent reception and service so I am pleased with that and I do find things of interest--although 3/4 of the channels could be deleted as far as I am concerned. Actually, I did see QAF via DVD (totally missed it while it was on) but I enjoyed The Tudors very much last season. It wasn't entirely accurate historically, I know, but it was great entertainment--which I think has its place. So I am OK with TV, in a severely edited capacity.

And I do enjoy TDS and Colbert too, although I think they are a bit too full of themselves sometimes.

Haven't been to LA since last September and have no plans to go at present--but I do hope to re-schedule our lunch sometime. I hope all is well. :)

[slipperieslope.livejournal.com]

I rarely watch TV. I was a Nielsen family for the last five years and they would call to make sure I was still around. One summer the only thing I watched was Reagan's funeral, dawn to dusk. Our country knows how to bury a president, pomp and circumstance we have a hold on, fascinating stuff. I kept on telling Nielsen they didn't want me, but they insisted they did. Over with now, thank goodness. I kept cable for the 'Sopranos' - so I need to dump that now - cut back to basic would be smart. Since I got the PC - no time for tube. I imagine I will get back to it eventually, when my world narrows some more. As it is, I always try to move during the commercials, clean something, fetch something, march in place. The fact is now I get twitchy if something is longer than an hour with no commercials ; )

Uh oh! They got me anyway!