Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

The Great TV Debate

By Monica Mehta, AlterNet. Posted June 10, 2005.


Does television have a place in the progressive agenda? Why should we pay attention to it, and what does it do for us?
Advertisement

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the TV networks' new fall season offerings, and made the controversial decision to recommend a few to our thoughtful, politically conscious audience. Among my picks were two political shows -- one featuring a female president -- and two legal shows focusing on innocent defendants. I added Martha Stewart's new helm at "The Apprentice," because she's become the latest icon of corporate corruption and news junkies like me might be interested in seeing an episode. I started the sub-heading with the disclaimer, "For those of us who haven't thrown our TV sets out the window."

What followed was a flurry of comments from readers who, it seems, have thrown their TVs out the window -- or have permanently fixed the knob to PBS.

One reader said s/he "object[ed] to an article praising corporate T.V. These shows are more of the same corporate B.S. and [an] article shilling for them was beneath a wonderful publication such as AlterNet."

Another suggested "stay dumb, lobotomized and buy this swill that passes for innertainment."

Many of the comments shunned broadcast TV altogether. But I'd wager that most of our TV-watching readers do, in fact, turn their dials to ABC, NBC, CBS, and even Fox once in awhile, and I suggested shows with themes of interest -- most of which espoused some progressive values (a woman in the White House, innocent prisoners caught in the system). I don't think that people who want to indulge in a little guilty pleasure after a long day of work are evil, moronic, or lobotomized. And I, along with the other editors, don't think a website like AlterNet should be above addressing that fact every so often -- albeit in a responsible way, such as recommending shows with relevant themes.

After I read some of the comments, another thought occurred to me: This might be a small part of the reason why some of us were so stunned when Bush won. We're simply out of touch.

As progressives who want to create change, we don't have the luxury of ignoring TV, or mainstream pop culture. Those who want to stay in their enclave of highbrow culture should by all means do so. But those who are interested in seeing change must have their finger on the pulse of America, and these days -- unfortunately or not -- network TV provides a few beats of that pulse. It's similar thinking that went into the advice a journalism professor had for her shocked students after the November election: that they do a stint at a newspaper in a red state.

We have to know what the other side is thinking; we can't be so stuck in our bubble that we don't know what's going on outside it, and then complain when we realize that everybody else doesn't think like us.

I'm not suggesting that by watching the shows I wrote about, readers will be suddenly attuned to America and able to right the country's wrongs. Nor am I suggesting that by watching lots of TV, we'll win the next election and all the other battles we're currently waging. Television may well be the opiate of the masses, and I understand people's refusal to watch it. My nephews, ages 10 and 7, have never had a TV in their house, and, barring any bias, I do believe evenings spent reading instead of watching Pokemon had a large part in making them the thoughtful children that they are (the older one is, in fact, a kid pundit for Jon Stewart's "Daily Show").

But for change-seekers, by discounting a medium that 98 percent of American households watch, we're not going to know whom we're fighting to represent. "Everybody Loves Raymond" was a top-watched show for nine years, mostly because viewers loved seeing their own tribulations played out: making a marriage work; raising kids; dealing with meddling in-laws; battling life's mundane practicalities. And we might be missing out on subtle progressive trends that may reflect society at large, even as Republicans wage an all-out war against alternative lifestyles. More than 22 million Americans tuned in this season to make "Desperate Housewives" the third most-watched show on TV. "Housewives" portrays all sorts of anti-"Focus on the Family" themes, like the cohabitation of unmarried couples, single moms who have a sex life, and gay children. (But when the gay son came out, the Republican mom had a fitting breakdown.) Plots involving gay characters are in a number of top shows, including "Will & Grace" and "ER." Most recently, a assistant district attorney was fired unfairly, because she was a lesbian, on a network TV staple: "Law & Order."

I reiterate that the majority of network TV shows aren't worth the electricity they expend. But there is something to be learned by studying what it is everyone's watching, from the frustrations of the average American to the changing moral standards of the day.

Be assured that we will continue to cover a lot of worthwhile, independent culture -- and shows on PBS. But if we ignore mainstream culture, we would be doing a disservice to our readers. We do live in this country, and we do want change; in the meantime, we must know whom we're trying to reach, and whom they're listening to.

Digg!

Monica Mehta is an associate editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It doesn't matter
Posted by: brianl on Jun 10, 2005 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You make some good points, but this post reminds me of one of the most unsatisfying courses I took in college - Communications 101. The professor (by mostly rehashing his own stupid required book) kept asserting that watching TV was an essential part of being informed. Failure to keep up with the latest programming would mean you were out of the loop.

On the contrary, watching TV only gives one the illusion of being informed. Television is called "programming" for good reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It doesn't matter Posted by: dlf
Being the Change We Want to See
Posted by: L* on Jun 10, 2005 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate your viewing suggestions and I thank you for considering your reading audience when you made them. But I have to say that reading your post makes me feel glad I'm not alone. I didn't realize so many of us had stopped watching TV. I think you're way off target, however, about us trying to "stay" in an "enclave of highbrow culture". (That's kind of funny actually, considering how simply I live.) It reminds of how the right wing is always calling us "elitists" and saying that we're "out of touch". I think the opposite is true.

I believe I am part of a growing movement of people who are trying to live their lives to "be the change we want to see". I would like to live in a less corporate-driven world. I got sick of the commercials for excessive and unnecessary crap I don't need and would never buy. I am purposely driving my car less (telecommuting) and walking more, patronizing my neighborhood stores. Sometimes I go to the mall or to a movie and that is plenty enough "mainstream culture" for me.

Since I stopped watching TV I am more aware of what's going on in my community and I feel much more "connected" than I ever have. The owner of our local newstand is from Afghanistan and it is more interesting talking to him than it is to sit in front of the TV. I get first-hand knowledge about gay discrimination from my gay friends. I get to hear Republican right-wing propaganda directly from the mouth of my Christian fundamentalist father. No, I definitely have to disagree that just because I don't watch TV, I am "out of touch". I am definitely much more informed than most people I know who spend hours in front of the TV. I want to "create change" by actually living the change, by being an example. Not by doing the things the masses do just to see why they behave the way they do. That's BACKWARDS!

And by the way, I was not stunned when Bush "won". Rather, I was stunned that Bush cheated AGAIN. THAT'S WHAT FLOORED ME. Was this covered on TV? Hell no. And this realization gave me strong motivation to pay more attention to what's going on in the "real world" of Congress (hey, now there's a reality show for ya). I believe I'm in touch with things that matter, not just to me, but to every single person on this planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Modest Restraint vs Anything Goes
Posted by: ggmurray on Jun 10, 2005 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American media culture is so sex-in-your-face or grisly forensics or absurd reality shows that it has become nearly impossible to watch. I can't help thinking that the modest dress of Muslim women is the perfect antidote to all of this. If liberals are identified with crass anything-goes media culture, is it any wonder that the ranks of religious conservatives would swell? I think liberals should stand up for decency in broadcasting and advertising. There is a world of difference between suppression and modest restraint.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Modest Restraint vs Anything Goes Posted by: Samantha Vimes
We have little English TV in Mexico, People read the net and magazines
Posted by: Barba on Jun 10, 2005 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi. I live in Oaxaca, Mx. This is a large city, 400,000 people in our valley, and the tip of Latin America. We have little TV here yet some cable so we do get CNN, the BBC, etc. In spite of cable most of our news comes from the internet, the Amate bookstore, the Oaxaca Lending Library (OLL) and (quickly) returning Gringos. Because of little TV we find ourselves doing old fashion things like having conversations, meetings on subjects, and building a library, infact we have over 30,000 books in the OLL and it includes the likes of Harpers, the Atlantic Monthly, the New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Utne, etc and Readers and Writers Group. I say OUR community is very informed and progressive. In 5 years I have never once heard anyone say, did you watch (fill in the name of a sit com) on TV last night, week, month? Because no one cares about Gringo Progamming, and that's what it is. 99% of Oaxacans get their TV News from the BBC because only the tourists still believe what is called "News" (Who Reports, We Decide) is presented on NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. We, in Oaxaca, already know "Fahrenheit 451" happened. Anyone looking for Guy Montag should know that he is alive and well and has moved to Mexico. The Al Report. Alan Goodin APDO #976, Oaxaca.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV Includes More Than Commercial Programming
Posted by: Sandra on Jun 10, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree that the commercial programming is horrible. We no longer watch it in our home. We do watch C-Span to see and hear what our so-called representatives in Congress are up to. We do watch PBS, particularly NOW. We also watch Lou Dobbs on CNN to determine what the middle of the road is concerned about. Commercial TV won't get any better unless those of us in the public continue to complain and threaten not to buy from the sponsors. In addition we should continue to complain to Congress. These are after all public airways. I'm waiting to see how the commercial media covers the Downing Street Minutes hearings on Thursday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the great tv debate
Posted by: oceanye on Jun 10, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say "After I read some of the comments, another thought occurred to me: This might be a small part of the reason why some of us were so stunned when Bush won. We're simply out of touch." Unfortunately, it's you who is out of touch. The Bush Gang didn't win the election; they STOLE it - and they were able to get away with it because they CONTROL the so called main stream media. Ohio was stolen, and also Florida. Probably others too. The only reason we should watch the mainstream media at all is to attempt to determine the latest spin. Watch PBS - but be careful - truth will soon disappear there too.

jerry warsing in Virginia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the great tv debate Posted by: mwildfire
T.V. and Reality
Posted by: annadams95340 on Jun 10, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks - I feel a little less guilty about my enjoyment of Law & Order and other crime shows as well as my addiction to the S. F. Giants. Even though I agree that most of t.v. is brainless, especially the commercials and most of the news, sometimes I like to be brainless for a little while and t.v. works for that. If I tried to fix the world 24/7, I would give in to despair.

P. S.

Probably nobody except me cares, but Serena was fired on L&O because she was too sympathetic to the defense or at least that was the reason given. She asked if it was because she was a lesbian and her boss said no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good T.V. Posted by: sam
» RE: Good T.V. Posted by: Samantha Vimes
The Media
Posted by: bookwoman on Jun 10, 2005 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I believe one of the issues in the L&O which had Serena fired included her obvious bias toward one of the defendents who was gay.

As for the media, most Americans don't have the time to read blogs or newspapers. They get their information on television and radio. The Radical Right has been using this as their very own tool. Its time the progressives struck back on some other broadcast media than satellite radio stations which the vast majority of the people in this country can't access.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The FCC
Posted by: gramps on Jun 10, 2005 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never has an administration appointed an FCC so committed to eliminating public service requirements as this one. the airways belong to the people and are given to the corporations for a small licensing fee. The domination of our government by the corporations is complete.

Talk of campaign finance reform is useless unless a demand for free air time for candidates is raised. We should not allow one of our most valuable resources to be used solely to present the ethics of the bottom line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way progressives can win is to forget the TV
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 10, 2005 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Mehtha, I do agree with you to some degree but at some point, progressives will have to think outside the t.v. box. As Thomas Bico of the Moderate Independent points out, too many Democrats rely on what the polls and the media have to say about this issue or that to make their case and as a result the progressives lose election after election. Don't believe me? Then read these articles and you'll see what I'm trying to get it here:

M/I IS
NOW BACK WITH A VENGEANCE


THE REAL PROBLEM IN
AMERICA - THE BIGGEST DRUG ADDICTION KNOWN TO MAN


An Excerpt
From "America 1996:  A Glance At The American Sun"



IF YOU NEEDED A
CLEAR ILLUSTRATION OF THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IN OUR NATION, THE SCHIAVO SITUATION
SAYS IT ALL PERFECTLY

THE DAY OUR DEMOCRACY ENDED - Don't Blame The
GOP, It Was The Democrats Who Passed The Schiavo Law And Gave Bush Their
Approval As Dictator

The Republicans
Abandon The Constitution, The Dems Join Them And Then Lie And Pretend They
Haven't, The Vaseline Media Plays Along

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally I watch TV.
Posted by: WP on Jun 10, 2005 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm often frustrated with my friends who watch no TV. Their knee jerk response is to deride the entire medium. Although I understand the sentiment behind their decision . . .it seems like they're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I find that many of them ultimately wind up renting TV content on DVD.

TV informs (sometimes) and entertains (mostly). I luv "The Daily Show", "Charlie Rose", "6 Ft. Under", "Curb Your Enthusiasm", "The Medium", almost any show on HBO, BBC America, PBS, etc. etc.

Discernment is the key to TV viewing. There's amazing content on our airways that is signaling a revolution in consciousness, but there's a great deal of crap out there too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV Power
Posted by: mstenger on Jun 10, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although people think they appear intelligent when they say, "I never watch TV," I always find them incredibly dumb. TV is one of the most powerful mediums in this country. Just walk into any suburban home and I guarantee that in most of them you will find the TV on even if nobody is sitting in front of it. TV is the "window to the world." This fact along with the false reality corporate American has cooked up for us is why we as a nation have jumped right into the mouth of the beast. If we underestimate the power and influence of TV, and we fail to use it ourselves, we will never save America from the regressive monster that is devouring it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TV Power Posted by: churchofone
» RE: TV Power Posted by: oceanye
» RE: TV Power Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» F*** Power Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: TV Power Posted by: beebee
Independent Programming at its best!
Posted by: rh2050 on Jun 10, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would encourage everyone to get to know Free Speech TV. One program I recommend is Democracy Now! It is my primary source of information and news. Democracy Now is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 300 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, community, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio and the internet.

In addition to Democracy Now there are many other excellent documentaries, special reports, keynote speakers, world music and conscious entertainment on channels Link TV, channel 375 Direct TV and channel 9410 DISH network and Free Speech TV, channel 9415 Dish Network.

Oh yeah and Al Franken is on daily on Sundance. I encourage everyone to check it out. And by the way w I am guilty of watching 6 Feet Under, Huff, The Daily show and occasionally Adult Swim. Also I watch a hell of a lot of independent and art house films.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

huh??
Posted by: mungojelly on Jun 10, 2005 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this logic really bizarre. We can get in touch with mainstream America by watching network TV? OK try this for a counterargument: In that case, if every progressive took your advice, then one would be able to get in touch with progressives by watching network TV.

The only way people are more "in touch" when they watch the same television shows is that they're having the same thoughts at the same time. That's not the kind of unity I'm interested in. Your argument would only make sense to me if television were interactive.

If you really want to get in touch with people, try TALKING to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is good to be informed.
Posted by: lonl on Jun 10, 2005 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a thousand battles without a serious defeat.” The old proverb applies here. The enemy is the political, economic and military system of global imperialist domination. Most TV (including PBS) is highly infused with propaganda for the views and policies of the US' imperialist rulers, whether in the form of news, ads, pop, or highbrow culture. Of course, ideas subversive to imperialism also manage to appear as do progressive cultural items.

TV is entertaining in many ways, even while poisoning peoples’ minds with divisively racist, sexist, agist, militarist, homophobic, anti-Muslim, etc. imperialist culture. But the people’s side is not yet in position to offer much to counter it. That should change. But no way can we stop people from seeking entertainment where it can be found. So I support Ms. Mehta’s and others’ recommending that progressives who happen to like TV look for reasonably positive material, critique what’s on, and exercise our right to fight for better, less biased, more decent materials and fairer modes of presenting news.

Clearly understanding “liberals” and “conservatives” as they exist today could also help us grasp the role of media (with TV by far the dominant medium). Mainstream media, whether private or public, with liberal and conservative voices, now largely plays a role of apologizing for and even promoting imperialist domination in the Third World, and for maintaining and possibly expanding the war in Asia. If liberal media opinion were to shift seriously against the war, progressives would of course welcome it. But the election of 2004 clearly shows that we cannot rely on those forces to take that stand. In fact, they worked in complete unity with conservative media (with great success) to prevent the antiwar movement from having any effect on actual war policy through the election.

It is encouraging to read in this thread the comment of L*, who wants to be “…the change we want to see.” No doubt any number of folks are quite disgusted with the current state of affairs and of media. More people than ever before want to live their lives in ways that are free of imperialist culture! But this can’t happen without large numbers of us finding a way to pull together and break with imperialist politics. Propaganda for such a break is important, as is understanding the propaganda of the other side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More TV Power
Posted by: mstenger on Jun 10, 2005 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When "Friends" was the most popular show, you could walk into nearly any hair salon in the country--probably in the world for that matter--and tell them to cut your hair just like Jennifer Aniston's, and the stylist would know exactly how to cut it. Now THAT'S influence! Although we here on Alternet are probably consumers of multi-media, don't forget that most Americans get their news from TV sound bites put out by corporate Bush supporters. Is it any wonder that the country still doesn't have a clue that Bush is a lying moron?!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like TV
Posted by: merryd on Jun 10, 2005 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watch a lot of TV. I read a lot of books. I read alternative news souces. I listen to NPR and Podcasts although I walked away from corporate radio many years ago (and consequently have no idea what music most young people listen to anymore).

TV is just one more example of how we need to employ the critical thinking skills that are part of our makeup as human beings. The very critical thinking skills that are being pushed out of our schools and are feared above all else by the extreme right wing. It does us no good to either bash or praise the medium, we are better served by learning how to interact with it.

I respect and applaude those who chose non-interaction but I do not believe that these people have made the only right choice in the matter.

As a television viewer I believe it is my responsibility to hold the providers of my entertainment accountable for what I am watching. This is especially important in a season that ended with the cancellation of what I think were two of the most powerful women-focused shows on the air -- Joan of Arcadia and Judging Amy.

Joan of Arcadia was a teenager who encountered and interacted with God throughout her daily life. God would manifest as random strangers throughout the show. God was portrayed as young, old, black, white, blue-collar, punk, and any number of other manifestations. Although this was radical enough, the words and actions of God demonstrated a theology that told Joan she was a participant in the co-creation of the world and that her choices mattered more than her sins -- there was even an episode where Joan told God to get the h*** out of her life and stop bothering her...and she was not struck down by lightening.

And Judging Amy. This season saw Amy get pregnant but not married. When she found out about her pregnancy her mother (Tyne Daley) made sure she know that she had 'options'. Now, this is about as close to an endorsment for women's choice as we're going to see on mainstream tv and I wish they would have gone further but I wonder still if it had anything to do with the abrupt end to the series.

TV is what it is and it is sometimes good, sometimes bad but it's probably not really worth getting into a huge argument about. We can watch it critically. We can boycott products that advertise during shows like 'the swan' or 'wife swap' and tell the advertisers why we're doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Agree
Posted by: Brad J on Jun 10, 2005 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pretty much agree with the writer wholeheartedly. It IS important that we "lefties" "stay in touch". I watch much less than average amount of television--mostly Simpsons, King of the Hill, and Family Guy (on Fox, ironically enough), and Sunday morning talk shows...sometimes watch Roseanne- I believe that a major reason for that show's success is that it's identifiably a WORKING CLASS family, and also a strong positive female lead. Currently being very low-income until I finish college, I don't have cable or I would watch Jon Stewart and Chappele on a regular basis.
I probably average about 1 hour of TV/day, maybe a little less...I would willingly attach a "Kill Your Television" bumper sticker to my car, b/c considering the nature of TV programming, I think encouraging the idea that it is "cool" to NOT watch TV is very healthy...also, I refuse to watch TV with people who don't accept my inevitable tendency to critique, deconstruct, and interact with the ideological content--some people I've found think this somehow "ruins" the experience, a view of which I am very intolerant- I just think interacting with culture is most of the point, and in any case it helps make it somewhat tolerable. and I'm definitely in hearing progressive analyses of "mainstream" culture, especially since I watch so little of it....
oh yeah the 70s show is sometimes bearable. don't get why people would watch Seventh Heaven on any kind of frequent basis. interested to hear more progressive "confessions" of what we watch, don't watch, etc....it's generally good advice to the Left that we "lighten up" a bit.....BUT we should never stop insisting that we deserve MUCH better than the fare that network bosses are serving up, and we should not EVER let them get by with blaming US the public for THEIR inadequacies. And of course we should keep finding ways to help get progressive cultural alternatives out there.
I got to go- I just realized that Simpsons started 5 minutes ago. Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alternative media
Posted by: merryd on Jun 10, 2005 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is the second half of my previous post (i like tv) that was too long and got cut off

We can also support alternative media. Podcasts are essentially a radio format that operates outside of any corporate influence and currently any regulation that I am aware of. It is distributed freely over the internet to people who choose to participate. One of my favorite shows -- This Week in Tech -- is operated on a donation based system much like Alternet. The people providing the show are people that had been doing a wonderful TechTV show (the screensavers) until the channel was bought by comcast and pretty much turned into a girls and games channel sponsored by Microsoft. The people of This Week in Tech decided to do their own thing. It is their hope that eventually they will be able to do 'videocasting' and basically recreate the show with more freedom, wider distribution, and creative content. They have chosen to keep the show 'pg-13' so that it is palatable to all demographics (at least those interested in tech talk).

This is an incredibly exciting development and, if we are truly committed to alternative media, we will seek out ways to support and grow these ventures (as we do alternet). However, they still probably won't outshine the box. Fortunately, we have been gifted with the ability to distinguish between good and bad and healthy and harmful -- and we have gifted with the ability to choose how they will affect our lives, our behaviors, and our values. The best we can do is to share that gift with anyone we encounter -- then we may see TV like we've never imagined or none at all because we'll be too busy have scintilatting conversations with the people in our neighborhood.

peace,
md

i can't figure out how to make it not turn read -- i can't see that i've added any html but apparently it's there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternatives
Posted by: Kspencer on Jun 10, 2005 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of alternatives, there is another quality television channel already available for free in the 25 million US homes that receive satellite. Link TV is a 24-hour mix of documentaries, international news, foreign films and the best of World Music. No commercials, no government funding.

The network's own daily news program 'Mosaic' just won a Peabody Award, and Democracy Now! is on twice a day. Many Link TV programs are also streamed on the web.

Now I'm one of the founders, so I'm biased, but check it out at www.linktv.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Telesur
Posted by: Brad J on Jun 11, 2005 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of alternative TV, I think it's very exciting that the Venezuelan government, with help and support from Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries is supporting the creation of Telesur, a 24-hour alternative to CNN...I hope we can get it on satellite...I know some Latino activists who I bet would be thrilled to have Telesur "watch parties".....Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Telesur Posted by: oceanye
Fox News
Posted by: mj149 on Jun 11, 2005 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After decades of refusing to own a tv I ended up getting one in 1995 and was surprised to find some good things on it, both PBS and occassionally cable. But I always set the remote to pass over sports, religion, sales, and other things I had zero interest in. The day after Bush stole his second eleciton I added Fox News to my remote wanting to know in more about detail what the enemy was thinking and just how they are manipulating information. It has been an education, scary at times, to channel surf through and hear their arrogant, fear and hate filled messages. But this has fulfilled its purpose of alerting me to just how the twisted ideas I hear people saying got started, and gives me some prep time to counter their non-logic. Whatever our personal views on tv the sad thing is how judgemental many of the writers of previous comments have been with each other. Lets not do what the religious right does and demand an absolute belief in any one way to live. Respecting Diversity means supporting someone doing something you might loathe, if it works for them. Not always an easy task but perhaps worth the effort?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fox News Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Out of touch, another perspective.
Posted by: Zarquan on Jun 11, 2005 11:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people learn that I don't watch TV they often seem to feel threatened. They also often presume I have taken some sort of anti-TV stand as a matter of principle. (Actually, this was initially sort of true. In 1968, when I was 14, I saw a remarkable summer replacement series on CBS - "The Prisoner" - and thought nothing good could come from any venue that had no better sense than to cancel such a cool series.)

In any case, there's not much principle involved, and I don't feel superior to TV watchers. I simply can't stand to watch it for more than a few minutes. I also don't see how so many people find an extra hour - or two or three or more - each day to do nothing but watch TV.

There is no question, though, that I have grown horribly out of touch with the popular culture over the years. This is not a trivial matter - I do not have the knowledge base to understand casual tangential references to lots of famous people, television programs, or catch phrases. (E.g., the Jennifer Aniston mentioned in a previous post). As time passes, the disconnect becomes more pronounced. An awfully lot of people use such references so frequently that I can only make vague, amiable replies until an opportunity arises to bring the conversation to a close.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media is the messenger
Posted by: dlf on Jun 12, 2005 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the news of massive funding cuts for NPR, because the Republicans view it has a liberal medium, this truth should be self evident: if Americans don't wake from their slumber the government will lobotimize us, effectively quashing all legitimate dissent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: It Doesn't Matter
Posted by: blackpyecat on Jun 12, 2005 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with your comments although I can not stomach most current TV fare. Every once in a while I view C-Span but not at night because the Rabid Republicans make me so angry I have trouble sleeping.

Isn't the best strategy for war, is to know the stratagem of the opposition? I try but O’Riley Ranting turn me off and the misinformation that AIDS/HIV is primarily a homosexual disease as Hannity and Comes espouse makes me want to throw up. The Televangelists worshiping Bush and “bearing false witness” trouble me as Christian. And the other networks are so concerned with the bottom line they ignore their responsibilities to inform the public. Thank goodness for Alternet and BBC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media or Entertainment?
Posted by: pmorgan on Jun 12, 2005 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems we should distinguish between media and entertainment. Viewers who watch TV largely for entertainment may see, as I do, "CSI", "Lost", "24", "Whose Line is it Anyway" after reading the NYTimes and liberal blogs daily, and find a different sort of TV than those who watch the so-called news programs. But viewers who want to learn how the rest of America thinks should watch "Judge Judy" and discover our hapless, semiliterate fellow citizens at their most appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]