OT - 10 steps to fascist police state

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

In a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film
argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate
America."

Dead-on truth.

All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
corporation. (ie Sony.)

-chris

All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
corporation. (ie Sony.)

Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
usefulness"? Who gets to decide what is "societaly useful"? Who
decides what kind of society we should have?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
All movies, music and other entertainment is calculated based on not how
good or socially useful it is, but on how much money it makes the parent
corporation. (ie Sony.)

Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
usefulness"?

"societal"?

Not always, but, should we stick with the status quo, where a bleach-blonde
ex-stripper predictably ODs and gets more media time than all of the
soldiers killed overseas this month combined? Should stick with the status
quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for the
executives? That way, executives, advertisers and investors can make tons
of money off of things like Cho, Columbine, 9/11 and Anna Nicole Smith. I
don't happen to find "motherfu*cking snakes on a motherf*cking plane" likely
to promote intellectual stimulation, but it sure made a handful of people a
crapload of money and robbed quite a few million of $7.50 or whatever.

Who gets to decide what is "societaly useful"?

Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza and all its
miscellaneous internet-porn spinoffs. We put garbage into society, we get
garbage out of society. It's true that society buys into it but the only
reason it's there is because somebody figured out that if you get a
weed-smoking rap star and some naked underage drunk girls, you can make
millions.

Who decides what kind of society we should have?

In reality? The people who make celebrity cult heroes out of Michael
Jackson and Tupac, who hire only anorexic coke whores for their magazine
covers, who give record contacts to people like Tupac and Brittney Spears,
who think that what we -really- need is another Friday the 13th movie, and
who market candy and soft drinks to children, gangster rap and Grand Theft
Auto games to teenagers, and ad-driven political hate radio to adults.

In a perfect world, WE decide what kind of society we should have, not a
handful of top-level media conglomerates such as Sony, Disney, Entercomm,
etc.

-c
holy crap... I'm a rock musician; I can't believe I'm saying all this
stuff. But there it is...

Do you really want movies to be made based on their "societal
usefulness"?
...Should stick with the status
quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for the
executives?...

I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then
why do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?

Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza...

Oh. That's what you want us all to watch? What if we don't =want= to
fill our brains with purple dinosaurs? You want to make movies about
how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad, go make them.
It's not all that hard. The hard part is forcing people to sit
through them.

Who decides what kind of society we should have?
In reality? The people who make celebrity cult heroes out of Michael
Jackson and Tupac,

No, that misses the mark. In rality, =each= of us, acting individually,
decide what kind of society we have. That includes a society in which
we are permitted to eat red meat and soft boiled eggs, a society in
which we are permitted to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, in which
we are allowed to swim naked in our own back yards, in which we are
allowed to raise our children the way =we= see fit, and not by vote of
the Grand Canonical Ensemble.

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV. But if you
don't like what your neighbor watches, why is it your business?

And what if your neighbor doesn't like what =you= watch?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose
wrote in :

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.

And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

Then watch the news on a different channel.

Actually, the problem isn't so much that the news reporting is
"controlled" by media companies, but rather, that news reporting is
under the entertainment division and not the journalism division.

Who wants to watch real news and actually analyze current events? Yes,
those kinds of people are in the minority. Most people =prefer= to
watch a white SUV drive down the highway.

=That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
profitable to the media companies. I agree that in doing so, we are
handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
late. But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.
Whoever the "them" turns out to be.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

Most people =prefer= to watch a white SUV drive down the highway.

=That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
profitable to the media companies. I agree that in doing so, we are
handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
late. But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.

That was pretty much my point. WE are society, not the corporations who
control the media.

But millions of people have already "handed over the keys to their brains"
and, the fact is, showing the faces of murderers prompts copycats. There
would be no "copycat killers" if they weren't handed a role model by
somebody selling them ads.

Earlier this month a kid in Oregon fired a rifle into a high school. Later
he said he was inspired by a documentary about Columbine. That's what I'm
getting at: Kids who idolize symbolic antiheroes will emulate them to
capture the same 15 minutes of fame.

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/20...columbine.html

-c

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:17:04 -0400, Jose
wrote in :

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.
And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?

Then watch the news on a different channel.

Actually, the problem isn't so much that the news reporting is
"controlled" by media companies, but rather, that news reporting is
under the entertainment division and not the journalism division.

Actually, the problem is that the communications industry is
controlled by only a handful of large corporations, and thus what gets
reported must not taint the image of any of their holdings.

Who wants to watch real news and actually analyze current events? Yes,
those kinds of people are in the minority. Most people =prefer= to
watch a white SUV drive down the highway.

=That= is the problem. It is us, collectively, who decide what is
profitable to the media companies.

Please explain how the audience can decide on having news of which
they are unaware reported.

I agree that in doing so, we are
handing over the keys to our brains, and at some point it will be too
late.

That point has arrived.

But the power was not siezed by them, it was given to them.

Actually both are true.

Whoever the "them" turns out to be.

Rupert Murdock, Sony, ClearChannel, TimeWarner, ...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose
wrote in :


If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.


And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?



Then you won't know about it and will continue to live in blissfull ignorance. On the other hand, if you DO know "the news media" is conspiring against you then you already know where to go to get the "real" news.

--
Jim Fisher
(Who has lived with the "liberal news media"for 45 years and is still not brainwashed)

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:37:38 -0400, Jose
wrote in :

If you don't like what you choose to watch, turn off the TV.

And what of the news you'd like to watch, but because it may have a
negative impact on the news media's parent company, it isn't reported?


Then you won't know about it and will continue to live in blissfull
ignorance. On the other hand, if you DO know "the news media" is
conspiring against you then you already know where to go to get the "real"
news.

--
Jim Fisher
(Who has lived with the "liberal news media"for 45 years and is still not
brainwashed)

They told me I was gullible...and I believed them.