Back in 1962, I headed off to the Great World's Fair in Seattle.
Among the interesting sights were a flock of pigeons busily pecking at
different colored lights on a panel. From time to time a grain of
feed would roll out a slot, to be grabbed by the successful bird.
These pigeons had been conditioned to peck out some rather complex
patterns in order to receive their reward.
We all know of Pavlov's dogs, responding to the bell, but we seem to
be in total darkness when it comes to the conditioning that makes us
behave the way we do.
With the advent of Radio, and then the addition of pictures, we began
to be conditioned to entertainment that was packed into shorter and
shorter time frames. Today's half hour program might actually have 20
minutes of program, and ten minutes of commercials and station breaks.
We have been conditioned to demand our information in small snippets.
We are becoming more intolerant of wordy speeches, demanding to be
entertained. Our news is brought to us by pretty, giggling and
chuckling talking heads. Our thinking has been thought out for us and
packaged in short bites sprinkled with lots of advertising and
opinions of those controlling our conditioning. Mass entertainment
has already enslaved many millions of people. Presented properly,
folks will accept anything.
The so called Debates are a great example of the extent we've become
conditioned.
First, I had mentioned the Hollywood extravaganza presentation,
sprinkled with what the announcer called, "short breaks". These were
commercial spots that were more than short.
But I did overlook the fact that these debates are being presented to
us over commercial channels, paid for by corporate dollars. We are
reduced to the roll of an audience being entertained. We have no more
to do with these debates than we do when attending our favorite
sporting event. In other words, we are not involved.
As I've preached before, we have been taken captive by our
Corporate/Military Masters. A bloodless coup. We are just the same
as the pigeons. Flash the pretty pictures on the screen and we will
behave in very predictable patterns.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/14/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wednesday, 14 October 2015 06:46
> Privatizing Democracy: You Had to Pay to Watch Last Night's Debate on CNN
> on
> TV
>
> MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
> Airing presidential debates only on pay-TV is another step toward
> privatizing democracy. (Photo: Mohamed Nanabhay)
> CNN aired the first Democratic debate last night, October 13. It also aired
> two Republican debates (a "main event" and an "undercard" debate) on
> September 16. On August 6, FOX held the first Republican debates (also
> televised in separate lower and upper tier candidate - based on polls -
> segments).
> CNN bragged on its CNN Money site that "23 million [viewers] watched [the]
> GOP debate, a record for CNN." Adweek reported that 24 million viewers
> watched the first FOX GOP "main event" debate. As CNN Money stated in its
> article,
> Historically the most popular events on TV have been shown by broadcast
> networks, not cable channels like CNN. According to Nielsen data,
> Wednesday's debate ranked as the #10 cable program ever, behind 8 college
> football games on ESPN and the Fox debate last month.
> The Democratic debate viewership totals were not in at the time of the
> writing of this commentary, but an October 14 CNN Money article has already
> predicted that "preliminary Nielsen ratings indicate that CNN's Tuesday
> night debate was the highest-rated Democratic debate ever."*
> So the CNN and Fox cable news channels have enhanced their branding,
> audience and potential advertising and campaign advertising revenue by
> burnishing their images as "go-to" television political outlets - with the
> full cooperation of both major political parties who negotiated details of
> the debates with the two stations.
> Overlooked by the corporate media, however, is that there was a profound
> loser in the airing of the first political debates of the duopoly political
> brands in the United States: democracy. By offering the debates on
> television only to paid subscribers of television packages that included
> CNN
> and Fox News, the most important political interaction between candidates
> for president of the United States was, essentially, privatized.
> Yes, as the The Motley Fool website estimates there are an approximately
> robust 95 million pay-TV subscribers (although cable TV subscription is
> falling, as The Motley Fool article details, due to competition from the
> internet and other new technologies). However, the disturbing irony remains
> of offering presidential debates that can only be viewed on television by
> those who have paid for access to the channels.
> Given the tremendous impact of television on molding perceptions in the
> United States, this amounts to a capturing of a very large political space
> of discourse and spectacle by for-profit entities. These companies limit TV
> viewing of the debates to those who have paid for access in their cable
> subscription packages.
> It is a dangerous precedent that diminishes a vigorous democracy to require
> a payment for watching presidential debates. In many ways, the cable
> stations are promoting their "star" news personalities as much as offering
> a
> forum that is billed as an exchange of policies and ideas. Forget for the
> moment that analysis of the debate descends into an analysis of
> performance,
> "gotcha moments," superficial interaction and personal style - not to
> mention the vital role calculated sound bites play in post-debate coverage.
> Yes, modern presidential debates are spectacles and often are more
> superficial entertainment than an in-depth exchange of policy viewpoints.
> In
> the long-term debates should be restructured to emphasize substance over
> performance. Nonetheless, in an age when television remains our primary
> national influencer of political perceptions in a presidential race
> (although the internet is making increasing inroads into that terrain),
> debates should be televised for free and be accessible in the public
> domain.
> Despite CNN's bollixed offer of streaming the debate live on the internet
> (which many people couldn't obtain for a variety of reasons, including
> buffering problems), to watch it on an actual television you had to ante
> up.
> Furthermore, toward the end of the debate, CNN even aired advertisements on
> television.
> Why shouldn't a presidential debate be conducted in a neutral setting (not
> the tacky Wynn Casino, which received a windfall of publicity) with
> questioners who are experts in their fields? Why shouldn't there be a pool
> camera that makes the debate available to any station that wishes to air
> it?
> No one should have to pay to become engaged in democracy.
> *The Los Angeles Times reported later Wednesday that more than 15 million
> people had watched the event on CNN on television, a record for a
> Democratic
> debate.
> Not to be reposted without the permission of Truthout.
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Wednesday, 14 October 2015 06:46
> Privatizing Democracy: You Had to Pay to Watch Last Night's Debate on CNN
> on
> TV
> http://www.reddit.com/submit http://www.reddit.com/submit
> . Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
> . font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
> reference not valid.
> MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
> Airing presidential debates only on pay-TV is another step toward
> privatizing democracy. (Photo: Mohamed Nanabhay)
> CNN aired the first Democratic debate last night, October 13. It also aired
> two Republican debates (a "main event" and an "undercard" debate) on
> September 16. On August 6, FOX held the first Republican debates (also
> televised in separate lower and upper tier candidate - based on polls -
> segments).
> CNN bragged on its CNN Money site that "23 million [viewers] watched [the]
> GOP debate, a record for CNN." Adweek reported that 24 million viewers
> watched the first FOX GOP "main event" debate. As CNN Money stated in its
> article,
> Historically the most popular events on TV have been shown by broadcast
> networks, not cable channels like CNN. According to Nielsen data,
> Wednesday's debate ranked as the #10 cable program ever, behind 8 college
> football games on ESPN and the Fox debate last month.
> The Democratic debate viewership totals were not in at the time of the
> writing of this commentary, but an October 14 CNN Money article has already
> predicted that "preliminary Nielsen ratings indicate that CNN's Tuesday
> night debate was the highest-rated Democratic debate ever."*
> So the CNN and Fox cable news channels have enhanced their branding,
> audience and potential advertising and campaign advertising revenue by
> burnishing their images as "go-to" television political outlets - with the
> full cooperation of both major political parties who negotiated details of
> the debates with the two stations.
> Overlooked by the corporate media, however, is that there was a profound
> loser in the airing of the first political debates of the duopoly political
> brands in the United States: democracy. By offering the debates on
> television only to paid subscribers of television packages that included
> CNN
> and Fox News, the most important political interaction between candidates
> for president of the United States was, essentially, privatized.
> Yes, as the The Motley Fool website estimates there are an approximately
> robust 95 million pay-TV subscribers (although cable TV subscription is
> falling, as The Motley Fool article details, due to competition from the
> internet and other new technologies). However, the disturbing irony remains
> of offering presidential debates that can only be viewed on television by
> those who have paid for access to the channels.
> Given the tremendous impact of television on molding perceptions in the
> United States, this amounts to a capturing of a very large political space
> of discourse and spectacle by for-profit entities. These companies limit TV
> viewing of the debates to those who have paid for access in their cable
> subscription packages.
> It is a dangerous precedent that diminishes a vigorous democracy to require
> a payment for watching presidential debates. In many ways, the cable
> stations are promoting their "star" news personalities as much as offering
> a
> forum that is billed as an exchange of policies and ideas. Forget for the
> moment that analysis of the debate descends into an analysis of
> performance,
> "gotcha moments," superficial interaction and personal style - not to
> mention the vital role calculated sound bites play in post-debate coverage.
> Yes, modern presidential debates are spectacles and often are more
> superficial entertainment than an in-depth exchange of policy viewpoints.
> In
> the long-term debates should be restructured to emphasize substance over
> performance. Nonetheless, in an age when television remains our primary
> national influencer of political perceptions in a presidential race
> (although the internet is making increasing inroads into that terrain),
> debates should be televised for free and be accessible in the public
> domain.
> Despite CNN's bollixed offer of streaming the debate live on the internet
> (which many people couldn't obtain for a variety of reasons, including
> buffering problems), to watch it on an actual television you had to ante
> up.
> Furthermore, toward the end of the debate, CNN even aired advertisements on
> television.
> Why shouldn't a presidential debate be conducted in a neutral setting (not
> the tacky Wynn Casino, which received a windfall of publicity) with
> questioners who are experts in their fields? Why shouldn't there be a pool
> camera that makes the debate available to any station that wishes to air
> it?
> No one should have to pay to become engaged in democracy.
> *The Los Angeles Times reported later Wednesday that more than 15 million
> people had watched the event on CNN on television, a record for a
> Democratic
> debate.
> Not to be reposted without the permission of Truthout.
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment