It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Propaganda and the power of 'The Simpsons'

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
deer antler

i beleive your perceptions are accurate, the influnece this has on people cannot be measured however since the simpsons is but one popular show, but i beleive your point was too point out how our perceptions are molded subtly and manipulated especially in a capatalistic society ,

i firmly beleive many people are gaining the ability to see thru certain manipulations and misinformations wether subtle or large that effect us in our daily life and without going into the specifs behind this beleif i beleive the world is in for major change in the next 5 years and without getting to corny by that time frame people's consciousness is going to be enhanced due to the natural evolution of consciousness that more people are going to be able to see the bigge picture and realize this life is not only just like a video game but we are all as one in a sense. yup. just like all cells in our body are part of the same system. all people in this world are part of mankind err humans since females are included. and this will become more obvious as time goes by



9LC

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I remember watching the Simpsons when my mother was still alive, and she died in 1992.

It was fun to watch it, by after 3 or 4 years it becomes boring. We have some episodes on tape (there were no CD burners back then, this shows how old the Simpsons are) and watch them sometimes, but just to pass the time.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter
We got rid of our TV after it broke and we decided not to buy a new one.

It is quite phenomenal how quickly we 'Got over it.'


I think you're reading a little too much into it. Take away all the things you mentioned, and there would be no show. I seriously doubt the creators had brainwashing on their minds when the show was being discussed.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yes i do agree that simpsons is brainwashing, but i dont believe that it is pro-establishment. All TV programs are designed to brainwash us, take the news for example....its a easy one as it forms your sense of reality around the world. While other programs like lets say Day of our lives and bold and the beautiful, they are designed to also shift your view on reality. This is the purpose of TV.
So for you to say it is like a evil thing, i believe is wrong. Brainwashing can be used for good aswell.

ALso when you analyze the simpsons, Homer is not as stuiped as you think, acturly sometimes he does loosely quote daoist thought. Marge is surpose to be pure satire, for the 50's stay at home mum. While then whats left are the two most imprtant characters Lisa and Bart. Its like Ying and Yang. People think that lisa is the brain, but is you watch enough simpsons you will see barts intellligence come out, one i can think of the top of my head is how bart talks like a 20's vagabond. I believe that the simpsons is a satire on modern life, and you can say that simpsons is just propaganda for FOX, but if it is it isnt doing it very well.

Also i know alot of people around these days are sus about FOX, but politics dont come first with FOX. The bottem line matters the most. Murdoch doesnt care if they spray # all over him on the simpsons, aslong as the advertisers pay up he doesnt care what the simpsons does.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter


Originally posted by Astyanax
Have you never heard the phrase 'art holds a mirror up to life'? ...you're confusing the reflection with the reality.


TV created the both the mirror and the reflection. Our lives mirror that which television tells us.

It would be interesting to see a society not created by the Dictator that is the Media.

The media is not a living, conscious entity. It has neither free will nor independence of action. It cannot, therefore, be a dictator. Perhaps you mean that the people who control the media are a despotic oligarchy?

There are two responses to that.

Firstly, despite the consolidation at the top of the media industry, it is still global, polyphonous (indeed, cacaphonous) and fragmented. If it is an oligarchy, the oligarchs are sending mixed messages and confusing the ruled.

Secondly, if big media listens to anyone at all, it isn't to the politicos and tycoons trying to set their own selfish agenda, but to the general public. Programming and content in the media is governed chiefly by what opinion polls tell us people want to see, hear and read. So if there is a Dictator that is the Media, it's the general public that does the dictating. That's you, Delta Alter, and me and all the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
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.
....



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

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!!



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
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? Don’t you think it will impact on what is reported?

Media personalities are chosen because they think “the right way” by their employers. (or discarded)


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. In the media’s business model you are the product, not the program. Your viewing time (product) is sold to advertisers. The media’s stockholder and its main advertisers are the “dictators”, Not you. (see the propaganda model.)



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
there are two groups of people I avoid like the plague

ex-smokers and ex- TV watchers


they are all preachy and smug.......


my TV has 200 channels. I watch about 10 of them.


and


how is the internet really all that different from TV anyway ?


You sit in front of a box and look at it....and how many hollow earth, aliens mated with bigfoot threads does it take to lower your IQ ?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter

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!!



Yeah, sad.
I did try to watch it, but it was slow and not funny. I shoulda known not to even try. I don't know why I thought I might be able to stomach it. Nonetheless I couldn't. I made it thru about 15 minutes before turning it off. I don't really see the point in watching it now, except to get pissed off. A short synopsis will tell me enough/has told me enough.
VERY true about Burns. Didnt even think about it. LOL. good point



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are two groups of people I avoid like the plague

ex-smokers and ex- TV watchers


they are all preachy and smug.......


my TV has 200 channels. I watch about 10 of them.


and


how is the internet really all that different from TV anyway ?


You sit in front of a box and look at it....and how many hollow earth, aliens mated with bigfoot threads does it take to lower your IQ ?




The internet (at the moment) bears no resemblance to TV - if you think it does you're obviously looking at the wrong websites.

Preachy and smug, non?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are two groups of people I avoid like the plague

ex-smokers and ex- TV watchers


they are all preachy and smug.......


my TV has 200 channels. I watch about 10 of them.


and


how is the internet really all that different from TV anyway ?


You sit in front of a box and look at it....and how many hollow earth, aliens mated with bigfoot threads does it take to lower your IQ ?




The internet (at the moment) bears no resemblance to TV - if you think it does you're obviously looking at the wrong websites.

Preachy and smug, non?


so I guess ATS is one of the wrong web sites ?


If you have a high speed connection , you can see the inevitable happening right in front of you....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.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Thanks for the link Astyanax, I didn’t know about the ‘2-speed’ Internet. You know what they say about the crap always floating on top.


Originally posted by AstyanaxPut 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.

In a democracy it is essential that the media reports the truth. It is impossible to find out for ourselves, or not time-wise to find out exactly what happens in government. WE can’t realistically travel to Washington and attend all governmental functions. We must depend on a un-biased media to tell us the truth, and what matters to us. It is not their function to entertain, or else the democracy fails.

However the Simpson is entertainment and bias is fair game.



But in the end it is us, not the media, that is to be blamed.


Ha… the beast within…



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
In a democracy it is essential that the media reports the truth.

I couldn't agree more.

The way to make it happen is to vote with our feet. Stop watching Fox and watch, I don't know, BBC World News or something. When dishonest or tendentious reporting stops reaping massive audiences, advertisers will notice, revenues will plummet and voila, no more liars on the tube.

Don't see it happening any time soon, though.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I can see why people tend to look into things like the simpsons as a provider of propaganda, but I believe the writers are extremely gifted satirists, there is an episode where grandpa goes bullfighting, in an earlier scene he is skateboarding with his electric chair (
) when he says to nelsons's gang 'you're all gonna die in a needless war''. this type of suprising and 'against the script' comment is bound to raise eyebrows but for me it is not propaganda.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join