An understanding of the media message

[happyfilmluvguy]

In many cases, the media's selling product, either be a bad thing or a good, is not how real people are at the time. The more you see something, the more you remember it, and the more you want it. That's the media. If they were to advertise the 1940's lifestyle enough, and it started to show a vast amount of recognition, than other medias would follow. That's how the media works, and how it expands. You would start to see more people doing a certain thing because the media is telling them to.

Only we are thriving on a distant media that has long since past. Even we are a victim of the media, even if you can't agree with me, look at yourselves! Many things become popular through word of mouth, eventually leading up to an advertising bit. What the media is trying to do now a days, is to lead the people into their home and to keep them there! And that's bad. It is like leading an animal into a cage and then locking it shut.

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone stayed in their homes, or at least in one place? The media would have FULL advantage of advertising and feeding you with whatever they please. You would watch television, listen to the radio, and stay on your computer for music, movies, school, shopping, news, and anything else that catches a person's eye. They would have you in a locked place that you are too comfortable to leave from and be able to tease you with a flab of meat on a stick.

This is what is BAD about the media. Many people are not aware of this, and teenagers obviously don't know what is right and wrong because they steer towards whatever everyone else is doing. If alcohol is cool, then you drink it, if everyone is smoking, you start smoking. If the teletubbies are the most watched show on television, you'll watch it. If Spam in the #1 food around, you'll eat it.

Men don't pay much attention to the diversities of taste. They all dress in the same kind of way, whether they realize it or not. You could line them up by age bracket and there's hardly a lot of difference.

Women have always been in tuned with fashion, but it's easier to slip on a pair of jeans than it is to wear a dress apparently. Who could you say was a tomboy if they're all wearing "men related" clothing. EVERYWHERE it's jeans. I am sure jeans are sold more often than any other type of clothing.

Music and visuals like movies and TV are a little different story. I can imagine tastes in music and movies is more OPEN than clothing is. Sure there are those who just listen to a type of music, but there's probably one type that is much different from the rest. You listen to Rock and Roll, Folk, Blues, Jazz, whatever it is. Music can be a better variety. Movies has always been diverse. You like action, you like suspense, you like horror, you like comedy, you like romance, you like drama. But back to the purpose of the subject, they tend to give you the wrong messages because everyone else is within that message already. They're just recruiting and making sure that they have the older customer's loyalties. But like I had said before, the media can put just as much power into a good message as they do a bad one, it would just take a little time. More people will stop buying or watching a product basically because they are inclined to the past messages (wearing half as much clothing, violence, etc), and you want more consumers than less.

 

[carebear]

I don't know about "more violence". I always liked Jonny Quest ('60's). People and monsters were left for dead or outright killed all the time, no villain got away with "ejecting right when GI Joe's missile hits" around Race Bannon.

In the boy's adventure stories of my youth (Most Dangerous Game, Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, Leininger and the Ants, heck, even Narnia) people died and killed all the time. The villains definitely got their comeuppence but the innocent suffered as well. The important thing was that right and good stood up to evil against the odds and triumphed.

If anything the anti-violence idiocy of the '70's created the idea that there were no consequences to violence in children's entertainment. I had to watch Travis put a bullet in Old Yeller after he'd saved his life time and time again. Shane rode off gutshot into the Sierra Madres after saving the town.

In the 80's neither a "Real American Hero" nor a Special Forces A-team could hit anything but dirt and never took a round anywhere but the shoulder.

I can't speak for smut, but as far as children's violence goes the problem isn't too much, it's the wrong context and not enough consequences.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Seems to me that adults are making most of the problems in the world, not the kids.

And I'd say the odds of the kid watching PBS are dependant on how many channels the adult bought for their kids to watch.

And since you don't have children, you can buy all the channels you want. If you did have children, then maybe just have off air TV or get rid of it until the child is out of the house.

The point I'm making now is, it's the ADULT who makes the decision, not the kid.

Yes, you are correct, it is the adult that makes decisions in the home, in a perfect world. But, there are also a lot of kids out there that are not supervised all the time, and they don't have an adult around who does set rules, monitor media exposure. Unfortunately in today's world, our youth is exposed to a lot more than a few generations ago, due to the major boom in technology and the ease of accessibility of it. In today's world, unless one locks their child in the house, we are all constantly exposed to media in one form or another. Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming the media for the way our youth are turning out. In the end, that is the responsibility of the parent. I am just saying that with all the access they have to these young impressionable minds, they might take that access and try to do a little more good with it. No, there is not a balance of good/bad ideals being set forth through the many different media outlets. What is the harm in wishing that such a powerful form of impression could use that power to help out the adults, and the forming of our youth.
No, I don't have children, this is actually not your place to bring up. It is certainly not your place to tell me in any way of how I should raise them. There is no reason for you to even bring that up. I am still entitled, just as you are, to have my own opinion of the topic and express it in a manner that is proper. When I do have children, I can do everything in my power to make sure that they aren't exposed to what I see as the negatives, in my own home. However, I can't lock my children in my home until they are of age. They will still be exposed and affected by all of the media that is outside the house. Whether at a friends house or even at the library, media is everywhere. I will do everything in my power to teach them well, so they won't be guided by what they see on tv or the internet, or through conversations with friends. However, not all parents do this with their kids.

 

[Benny Holiday]

i think the target is much greater than just the traditional family. i think it is the american way of life, period. any family, traditional or non-traditional that provides a loving caring environment is fine with me. it is the larger picture i am looking at.

i was thinking on the way home from work about when things began to really change. when the hippy movement really took hold, when the people stood up and said get us out of Vietnam. when lennon sang "imagine" about a world of peace - the powers that be, the military, big business that makes money from war and hawkish politicians became afraid. peace would not be good for business.

people had started to not be sheep. and sheep-people do what they are told. they do not rock the boat or cause unrest. Non-sheep people are a threat to the government.

mediocre tv and film — i agree that much of it is mediocre (but i watch a lot and study it a lot) in its mediocrity pollutes the minds of the young and keeps the sheep sheep. money for education is cut year after year because a stupid population is non-threatening. as long as people are kept relatively happy, and willing to send their sons to war they will not rock the boat. the little good programming that is out there soon is killed off to be replaced by more and more violence.

watch the reality show "cops" some times. this is considered entertainment. but it shows men and women behaving in the most atrocious ways - and that's the cops! and we accept that behaviour. we accept more and more restrictions to our personal lives, all in the name of security and protecting the environement. closing roads - channels us into smaller and smaller boxes - easier to keep track of a population that you limit where they can go.

tv makes it all easier to accept those restrictions. hours of watching sports, kids watching hours of whatever parents put on their little dvds - a passive society is born.

a passive society is a non-threatening one.

whew, that's a lot to say.....sorry for the soapbox.

lara

Aldous Huxley was wrong above the Brave New World. They don't need little pills to keep the masses docile. Just blind, blatant consumerism and to breed a sense of familiarity with inconsequential violence and apathy to crumbling morality. And start 'em young.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

If anything the anti-violence idiocy of the '70's created the idea that there were no consequences to violence in children's entertainment. I had to watch Travis put a bullet in Old Yeller after he'd saved his life time and time again. Shane rode off gutshot into the Sierra Madres after saving the town.

In the 80's neither a "Real American Hero" nor a Special Forces A-team could hit anything but dirt and never took a round anywhere but the shoulder.

I can't speak for smut, but as far as children's violence goes the problem isn't too much, it's the wrong context and not enough consequences.

Very well said. You are right, there is a lack of consequence now-a-days. From lack of it on TV right into our homes. I don't know if this is truly correct, but from the people I know with kids, they seem to get away with a lot more than I ever could have. I see this a lot in the sitcom's of late.

 

[Terry Lennox]

No, I don't have children, this is actually not your place to bring up. It is certainly not your place to tell me in any way of how I should raise them. There is no reason for you to even bring that up. I am still entitled, just as you are, to have my own opinion of the topic and express it in a manner that is proper.

I'm sorry that you took what I said as telling you how to raise your _____.

What I said was if you did have ______ then maybe you could do X... That's a maybe you could not a you must.

I'm not saying as some are that some things are not fit for children, mine or anybody's. That's up to their parent.

And thank you for telling me my place.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Oh. Did I mention..

Yes, you are correct, you can tune them out. But the younger generation, the target audience, doesn't always know better. So much of what they learn is through the media.

I'm not a parent. I don't have any kids. It's not my job to parent other people's kids. It's a parent's responsiblity to parent. Not mine or the media's. Maybe, in the long run, that is the crux of the problem!... not 'media', or programmers, or producer's of 'entertainment' - just people who choose to take on the role of 'parent' who aren't qualified to do so. Hmmmmm...???

-dixon cannon

 

[LizzieMaine]

First "The Media" does not exist only to sell the greatest number of people the greatest number of goods.

Are we taking Television as the "The Media" or do we include everything else such as Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Puppet shows, street performers, Movies, Cell phones, video games, Billboards... the list goes on and on.

If I recall, there's a channel of television that's been on the air for quite some time called PUBLIC TELEVISION. It doesn't sell anything. In fact it's what many of you would call "good family" viewing.

And as to all the shows that so many people don't like, well, here's a thought... Don't watch them.

You have a choice. It's not Clockwork Orange you know.

Well, I've studied media all my life, worked in media for nearly 25 years, and have yet to see a form of The Media that wasn't out to sell something -- whether it be goods, services, or philosophies. But the commercial aspects of it dominate, and even public broadcasting isn't immune. Watch "Sesame Street" sometime and think of how many Elmo toys you see the next time you go to the store, and be sure to pay attention to the "underwriter credit" at the end for McDonalds -- which looks for all the world like a commercial to me. Look also at all the current PBS children's programs that are built around licensed properties -- Berenstein Bears, Curious George, Barney, all of them making the bulk of their money from sales of books or merchandise for which the TV show basically serves as a full-length commercial.

My point is that The Media is not an altruistic enterprise and it doesn't exist for the elevation of humanity. Broadcasting executives, for example, have gone to great lengths over the past eighty years to paint themselves as guardians of the public trust -- but when the chips are down, they've *always* shown that their real responsibility is to keep cash flowing, the sponsors satisfied, and the stockholders happy.

But, in the end, I totally agree with your final point. I don't choose to support the sorts of programs I don't like -- the "off" button is the best option we have for making our voices heard.

 

[Feraud]

doesn't it seem like in the ebb and flow it just never just quite goes back to 'normal"/ it is always just a little worse?

The problem is always defining what is "normal".
Are we talking about a time when crime, or spouse/drug/alcohol abuse did not exist? When exactly was that?
Social ills have always been with us but not as out in the open as we see today.

From what I see of our members none of us lived in the Golden Era. We do not have a realistic sense of the past to compare against today. Enjoying the style of hats, clothes, and cars are much different than living in a time and place!

I agree there are problems today but we would better serve our children by trying to fix today's problems rather than lamenting a time that probably did not exist exactly how we imagine.

 

[BellyTank]

So the 'middle classes' prefer to blame the 'decline' of society on the media?

Social conditions are much more to blame than the media- the great chasm between rich and poor seems to insulate 'us'- 'we' have our world, 'they' have theirs. Social conditions and the Politics which create, maintain and exacerbate them are what is really to blame- not TV shows. I'm sure Dr. Phil's ratings are so high because people love to see how the disfunctional other half live- gives 'us' some point of comparison- makes 'us' feel superior- something to look at and laugh at. Like a human zoo.

Of course Al Bundy is no role model- he's an anti-role model, a character to laugh at- a loser of the highes/lowest order.

Those cartoons like Ren and Stimpy and Southpark, et al, are the modern, surreal slapstick, again something to laugh at- all they do is create a media cult culture just like Monty Python did in the 'wholesome '70s'- not much else.
Not so far from Disney/Warners of the '30s- just a lot more socially informed and intelligent.

Something that's really contributing to society's downfall and how we are affected by others, is the modern technological culture- video games, the internet and mobile phones- people are opting out of real society and interaction, sitting at home, in semi-darkness, creating a breed of non-speaking, socially inept drones who simply cannot interact in 'real life', or even spell correctly.(excuse my spelling)

Video games are never going to create a breed of cold-hearted super-killers, just a breed of dullards, who cannot function in social situations and are obsessed with the irrelevant.

Entertainment, to a large degree, has become a solitary, home-based concept.

See the other thread about mobile phone culture and getting knocked down by SMS-ing pedestrians- this is something which effects us all in our day-to-day lives.


B
T

 

[deanglen]

Entertainment, to a large degree, has become a solitary, home-based concept.
B
T

I really enjoyed your post, BT, and the part I quoted could be applied to my line of work, fior many view their faith community involvement (church membership) in the same light. They would rather stay home, get message off the tv or internet, and avoid others altogether. Great observations you've made!

dean

 

[herringbonekid]

it's all very well saying the responsibilty lies with parents, but just HOW influential do you think parents can be ? it's pretty easy to raise a child well when they are young and impressionable (that's if you CARE about raising them well to begin with) but when they become teenagers they are becoming THEIR OWN PERSON. you cannot police what a teenager watches or what music they listen to unless you lock them in their room and CHOOSE EVERYTHING you consider fit for them to view. even the sweetest children can rebel against a good upbringing when they get to teenage years. and unfortunately teenagers are often attracted to BAD things because they think they are COOL. there is almost nothing you can do to convince a teenager who has got it into his head that music which glamourises gunplay and maltreatment of women is cool is not so. and the ease with which anyone can access hard-core pornography cannot be compared to any other period in recent history. sure they had girly magazines back in the 50s but you CANNOT compare. it is a completely differernt world now. so no, i do not believe that human nature is always a constant. i think it can degrade drastically (or improve too). we are social creatures in an overpopulated world. if society (or sectors of) degrades to previously unseen levels, so will human behaviour. there is a large sector of western society that is untroubled about the consequences of their actions. whether that is because it seems so easy to kill another person (just pull the trigger) or to have a loveless relationship with someone you don't care about, it is INSTANT GRATIFICATION that matters to this sector and to hell with the consequences, because hey, the world's on the way to ruin anyway RIGHT ?




am i still on topic or have i veered ?

 

[Feraud]

it's all very well saying the responsibilty lies with parents, but just HOW influential do you think parents can be ? it's pretty easy to raise a child well when they are young and impressionable (that's if you CARE about raising them well to begin with) but when they become teenagers they are becoming THEIR OWN PERSON. you cannot police what a teenager watches or what music they listen to unless you lock them in their room and CHOOSE EVERYTHING you consider fit for them to view. even the sweetest children can rebel against a good upbringing when they get to teenage years. and unfortunately teenagers are often attracted to BAD things because they think they are COOL. there is almost nothing you can do to convince a teenager who has got it into his head that music which glamourises gunplay and maltreatment of women is cool is not so. and the ease with which anyone can access hard-core pornography cannot be compared to any other period in recent history. sure they had girly magazines back in the 50s but you CANNOT compare. it is a completely differernt world now. so no, i do not believe that human nature is always a constant. i think it can degrade drastically (or improve too). we are social creatures in an overpopulated world. if society (or sectors of) degrades to previously unseen levels, so will human behaviour. there is a large sector of western society that is untroubled about the consequences of their actions. whether that is because it seems so easy to kill another person (just pull the trigger) or to have a loveless relationship with someone you don't care about, it is INSTANT GRATIFICATION that matters to this sector and to hell with the consequences, because hey, the world's on the way to ruin anyway RIGHT ?

I have to disagree here. Parents are THE most influential aspect in a child's life! The point of being a good parent is not to raise children who will never rebel or do something you would never do. Everyone makes mistakes but the hope is whether one learns from those mistakes. The point of raising a child is to give them the best foundation you can for their future lives as independent adults. This does not always mean trying to shelter them from everything we did as teenagers. Nor do I condone being a "best friend" type parent. It is about balance and perspective.
What we need to give teenagers are choices and options with the hope they make good choices or be adult enough to accept the consequences of their actions.
Teenage years come and go. A good foundation will stay with a child forever.
I also have yet to see all these studies that show today's teens are more depraved and uncaring than previous generations.

 

[herringbonekid]

I have to disagree here. Parents are THE most influential aspect in a child's life!

I also have yet to see all these studies that show today's teens are more depraved and uncaring than previous generations.

- i agree to a point. but unfortunately for some teenagers, peer influence is also very strong.

-i was referring to 'certain sectors' of teenagers (i.e. the BAD ones). obviously NOT ALL teenagers are depraved.

 

[Feraud]

- i agree to a point. but unfortunately for some teenagers, peer influence is also very strong.

-i was referring to 'certain sectors' of teenagers (i.e. the BAD ones). obviously NOT ALL teenagers are depraved.

True on both counts.
Peer pressure is very strong and not always in a good way.

 

[lindylady]

True on both counts.
Peer pressure is very strong and not always in a good way.

Yes, peer pressure is very strong, but parents need to take a more active role in their children's lives. Going back to some of the earlier posts, I agree that parents are choosing to let the media act as babysitter to their children. Also, when the children hit puberty and become teenagers, the media becomes the nurturer, informing them of what to do, how to act, dress, etc. That is the parents' job. Unfortunately, parents these days prefer to claim that they are too busy with other projects to take on this job.

 

[Feraud]

Unfortunately, parents these days prefer to claim that they are too busy with other projects to take on this job.

My rhetorical rebut to that would be how active were parents in the old days when mom's "shooed" children out of the house in the a.m. not to see them until dinner?
The answer is no matter what generation you live in you must do the best you can for your children. It benefits them, us, and society as a whole.

 

[RedShoesGirl]

...They would rather stay home, get message off the tv or internet, and avoid others altogether...
dean

i wonder why this is? are we afraid of being a victim of random violence or are we just so tired of people at the end of a work day that we just want to be away from them in our off hours?

rsg

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I have to disagree here. Parents are THE most influential aspect in a child's life! The point of being a good parent is not to raise children who will never rebel or do something you would never do. Everyone makes mistakes but the hope is whether one learns from those mistakes. The point of raising a child is to give them the best foundation you can for their future lives as independent adults. This does not always mean trying to shelter them from everything we did as teenagers. Nor do I condone being a "best friend" type parent. It is about balance and perspective.
What we need to give teenagers are choices and options with the hope they make good choices or be adult enough to accept the consequences of their actions.
Teenage years come and go. A good foundation will stay with a child forever.
I also have yet to see all these studies that show today's teens are more depraved and uncaring than previous generations.

Very well said, Feraud. Like Herringbonekid, I agree with this to a point. I think that your idea of childrearing is an example that should be followed. You are absolutely right, a child needs a good foundation. They need to have choices. Just my opinion, and from a few experiences with some friends, kids who lead a sheltered life might actually grow up to hate that life, and rebel. I really like what you say about giving kids choices and options, and learning consequence. As adults we are faced with choices and obstacles every day. Without these lessons and a good foundation, how would we cope?? I know a few kids who didn't have this kind of rearing, and let's just say, they aren't successful as adults.
The balance you speak of is so important. Child raising isn't as simple as teaching right from wrong. It is showing a child the necessary things he/she will need to successfully survive in the world.
I really wish that each and every parent engraved these important messages into their children's heads.
However, not all parents are raising their kids right. I think children have changed a lot since I was a kid. I have noticed that respect, for your elders or your friends, is a concept that is on the decline. Whether we like it or not, there are groups of kids who's media exposure isn't monitored. Or, other groups of kids who manage to have access to it without their parents finding out.
Yes, I do think that the bottom line is the parents. It is not the job of large media corporations to raise our children. Heck, I'm sure some of the people in charge of these corporations aren't fit to raise a fish, let alone a child. I was just thinking that since media is everywhere, it'd be nice to see them do something good with it, try and make a difference. Don't take away what's already on, I enjoy some of it even though it can be really bad. But, let's balance the bad with more good, or at least access to good. I didn't expect this thread to bring up so many different thoughts and ideas. I enjoy hearing the different takes on the topic.
Let's face it, in a perfect world every parent would raise their children by the way Feraud explains. I think that is the making of a great kid, and I have met his son, and truly enjoyed his company and really thought he was a great kid But, we don't live in a perfect world, and not all parents are like this.
Also, just my opinion, but I have noticed recently a few different times, kids acting incredibly rude and out of control in public places. I'm definitely not saying this is the media's fault, but kids that I've come across recently seem to have a general lack of manners and knowledge of how to act in public places. I'm sure that this is mostly due to their parents lack of dicipline and an overall lack of consequences. But, kid's also imitate actions that they see. Part of this behavior certainly could have been learned through some sort of media outlet. Just a thought.

- i agree to a point. but unfortunately for some teenagers, peer influence is also very strong.

-i was referring to 'certain sectors' of teenagers (i.e. the BAD ones). obviously NOT ALL teenagers are depraved.

Yes, peer influence always plays a huge role. Good point, glad you brought it up. Kid's deal with peer pressure on a daily basis. Those kids who aren't well rounded and aware of consequences, the ones that don't have responsible parents who actually take the time to raise them, could really end up in a lot of trouble or cause irreparable harm.

 

[Matthew Dalton]

I would just like to see more selfless characters presented on TV.

The Charmed Ones for instance; supernaturally gifted and they spend their free time chasing boys and complaining how they wish they could just live for themselves.

If they kick some Demon's butt it's usually just because he attacked them directly.

Both the good and the bad are shown to be completely motivated by self-interest. The bad guy was just brave enough to go for it, he's the entrepreneur.