Propaganda and the power of 'The Simpsons', page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 8-7-2006 @ 02:58 PM by 9LC
Originally posted by Xatnys


To the OP,

In my opinion, it's really all about the individual honestly. I went without viewing television for 5 years. I now have television, and have found that any prolonged period without television does "deprogram" you. When I started watching television again, I found that 99% of the programming was moronic and I couldn't stand it.

Now, my family and I watch only things found on the "educational" channels(science channel, history, learning channel, etc) and ..... the Simpson's.

But we don't view the Simpson's as it is presented. Rather we watch it and try to dissect the social commentary that is found in it's parody. Rather than sitting there and "turning our brains off", we try to evaluate what statements are being made by the writers. I think if you do that, you'll see that the Simpson's are rather witty, fairly anti-establishment, bluntly exposing corruption and idiocy that you can find daily in the real world around you.

I agree with you that the Simpson's has an appeal that draws many of these folks in, no doubt about it. Most of them watch it as a satirical comedy, never thinking about the nature of underlying truths found there. But that's true for many things, not just the Simpson's.

Bottom line for me is, most people do watch television and simply turn off their minds and allow it to put the pretty/funny/dramatic/sensual pictures into their mind. And some even delude themselves into thinking that their own lives are as interesting and glamorous(or strange and humorous etc) as the characters they watch on television. No doubt. But you can't change them, and can't make them not want to watch t.v. , it's something they find comfort in, and they are addicted to it.

In this house we watch very few things, and keep it in perspective. Your family might be able to do the same thing, but not everyone will. Sad, but it's not something you can personally change.

X





i agree with you, i like a good parody because it is a way to cope with the stupidity of this world throught humor and if you are on the right frequency with what you analize
it won't affect your subconsciousness in a way you don't want it to.


a good example is mad tv, sure some of it is just plain comedy but they have some sketches that breaks apart some of the subliminal of the media and once a person see it on mad tv their subconsciouness will click something and as a result they will have a valid consciousness opinion towards something that is indeed dumb and stupid.



once the subliminal is revealed it is no longer subliminal so put your self in a state of mind in which you can interpret any subliminal frequency you will intercept and you will never be unwillingly subconsciously affected again.




i do agree that we would be better off with out tv though... it's like when someone invents a cure i am against the cure because it is just a cure invented to fix a problem created by a previous cure which will create even more problems that will need more cures.


technology is a endless paradox.


reply posted on 12-7-2006 @ 01:50 PM by innerevolt
Great thread. I have OFTEN wondered about the Simpsons.
Without repeating everything said already... It IS hard to imagine that as big as the Simpsons are, that Big Bro wouldnt use it as a tool. If you do in fact believe in Big Brother, you KNOW FOX is a ig player. The Simpsons is one of their biggest shows if not the biggest.

So YES, as subtle and mundane-but at the same time in your face it is... its a conditioner.

There can be valid debates with very valid points on both sides to it being a brainwashing conditioner OR a funny satire on/for America's ways.

I just think it depends on how you look at it:

-If you keep an open mind being able to recognize that yes, Homer IS an idiot--and no, it is not acceptable to be such an ignorant, incompetent asshole, all the while keeping your sense of humor (always good to have) it is my belief one won't be conditioned or brainwashed by it at all. One CAN just laugh and see the satire in the whole thing.

-But if one does not realize there is such a thing as brainwashing (especially on a prime-time t.v. scale) then I could see it conditioning them to see the Simpson's family as THE-WAY-IT-IS and "the show is just making fun of that."

*might just be a paranoid point here, but... Mr. Burn's voice Harry Shearer is a member of Bohemian Grove and has even wrote/made a movie satire making fun of it. Heard of it?:
www.imdb.com... which is very sad imho. So again, that might be a paranoid connection... and a small one in comparison to the fact that the show is on Rupert Murdock's FOX channel.

All in all, imho: YES it is a conditioner to minds that aren't aware of the conditioning. But just like anything else, if one is aware of the possibility of brainwashing or being controlled, it won't work and can be analyzed (while enjoying) for conditioning material. ....


reply posted on 13-7-2006 @ 10:24 AM by Delta Alter
Originally posted by innerevolt

-*might just be a paranoid point here, but... Mr. Burn's voice Harry Shearer is a member of Bohemian Grove and has even wrote/made a movie satire making fun of it. Heard of it?:
www.imdb.com... which is very sad imho.


Very interesting, innerevolt - I hadn't heard about that. Trivialising what it is that really goes on at Bohemian Grove, perhaps?

Have you watched the film?

I didn't know that Harry Shearer was a member of Bohemian Grove - how ironic, Mr Burns would definitely be a member wouldn't he!!



reply posted on 14-7-2006 @ 10:06 AM by Astyanax
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Astyanax do you not think that GE amongst other thing one of the world's largest maker of armament owning a majority of NBC is a problem? Conflict of interest perhaps?

No, there is no conflict.

GE's job is to maximize value for its shareholders by building sales of its products and increasing revenues from the companies (like NBC) it owns.

NBC's job is to maximize value for its shareholders by building its audience, which translates directly into growth in advertising revenues, which is how the company makes its money.

NBC is called upon to present accurate, unbiased news reporting if and only if it is evident that such reporting is more popular with viewers than a biased or even inaccurate report. This is not necessarily the case, no matter what people say when you ask them. Poll TV viewers and the majority will say they want accurate, unbiased coverage. Track their viewing patterns and you see a different picture; people tend to consume media that reflect their own attitudes, beliefs and biases.

Put crudely, there's more money to be made from telling people what they want to hear than telling them the truth. I'm not saying NBC reporting is biased or that accuracy is not valued at the network; I am saying that reporting the truth is never the highest priority for a mass medium.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Programming and content in the media is governed chiefly by what opinion polls tell us people want to see, hear and read.

The Media’s business model in different from say, Coca-Cola’s business model....

Only slightly. The media model is business-to-business: its customers are other businesses, not the audience it reaches. But business success for a mass medium rests on attracting and building a mass audience. The way you do that is not too different from the way you sell Coke. You do it by offering the people what they want. This is a world away from propaganda: propaganda involves offering people what somebody else wants them to accept, not what they want for themselves. It's such an obvious distinction, it's hard to understand why so many people get confused.

I think it's because the media, like politicians, are a screen on which we project our own inner nastiness. It's easier to blame the media for crime, violence, intolerance, jingoism and so on than it is to blame ourselves. But in the end it is us, not the media, that is to be blamed.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by Astyanax]

[edit on 14-7-2006 by Astyanax]


reply posted on 14-7-2006 @ 10:17 PM by ConspiracyNut23
3 years! Although we will see more and more convergence a la youtube and google video, I doubt the net will look and act like a TV in 3 years.

There will still be entire libraries on here available for Internet viewers. Sites like ATS where users discuss issues will still exist. (Although I’m sure Springer’s TV baby will be running by then)

New media offer alternatives to new ones, it doesn’t necessarily eliminate the others. The Internet offers a platform for a whole range of media, radio (podcasts, webcasts), TV(youtube), books, (Guttenberg, sacred-texts) etc.

I also hate it when people hold TV as the lowest form of media, you read books you’re an intellectual, you watch TV you’re a couch potatoes. Highly elitist statements. Selective TV viewing can be good, just like selective reading can be good.

Astyanax thanks for the insight,
I was thinking a bit too “black and white”. There would have to be a balance between their advertisers/owners wants and the needs of the audience. (or they would loose the audience, and we’d have show’s like Rumsfeld’s Power Hour – sponsored by Raytheon.

The example given by LazarusTheLong earlier is an example on how ownership can be exploited in certain cases. There’s also the infamous famous Fox memo reported in “Outfoxed” where Murdoch uses his influence to control Fox’s news reporting. (I admit Fox is a different beast than NBC)

There’s also the issue of what is not reported are even wrongly reported. For example Bush’s Death Tax. It is reported like if it’s a middle class phenomenon, and that it would help the middle class. While in reality the middle and lower classes pays little or no inheritance tax, it’s mostly the upper class and the elite that are affected.

An honest newscaster would report that.

All and all the media is ALWAYS sympathetic to business interests. I doubt you’d see an honest report calling for the removal of corporate charters or a look at the Federal Reserve.



reply posted on 14-7-2006 @ 10:28 PM by Astyanax
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
TV and the net are becoming more and more alike, and will in the very near future be one in the same. I'd say within 3 years.

A lurch in this direction were made recently with the rejection of the Net Neutrality amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill by a US Senate committee. The issue is still undecided, but it's looking bad for net neutrality. The way is opening for the creation of a 'two-speed Internet', in which telecoms providers will be able to decide what content gets preferential routing across their networks. In practice, paid content is likely to get priority over free content (such as emails and ATS). See
this link. (The rest of the page also rates close attention from those concerned with media freedom, no matter where in the world they live.)

A growing convergence with TV is also seen in the success of pay-per-click advertising and sponsored searches, which (in theory, at least), offer a far more efficient way of spending a firm's advertising budget than traditional mass-media advertising. The Internet, after years of teething troubles, is finally a serious contender among advertising media. What that means, effectively, is that you, me, Delta Alter and all the rest of us are going to be seeing more ads on our monitors, tra-la.


reply posted on 5-9-2006 @ 08:51 PM by annestacey
Originally posted by Delta Alter

Take a look at this:
www.alternativescentral.com...

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Delta Alter]


I've come into this thread late and I apologize if I've missed some already-published information, but I'm wondering how credible this article is. The website is very amateurish and the author is listed only as "L. Wolfe". Is there more information about the origin of this article?

Thanks!!

A.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



A MUST Read, "Written By A Female Cop"
  Posted 5 days ago with 34 member flags
***Programming The Nation FULL Video- Limited Time Only!!***
  Posted 1 days ago with 26 member flags
Know your enemy ... the Daily Mail & Viscount Rothermere
  Posted 14 days ago with 17 member flags
Pictures That Shocked The World (viewer discretion advised)
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags