oh look at that well at least we know he's still got a shot at being in the white house... considering the GWB past.

thanks for that update.

Some of the previous posts remind me of a study once done where a university basically "implanted" false memories into their subjects.

From what I remember, the subjects watched a short video of a vehicle driving down the road. After watching the video, they were asked to fill out a short form involving the video. The very first question asked to approximate the speed of the vehicle when it was closest to the barn - however, there was no such barn in the video. However, once it had been established in the subject's minds, one of the latter questions asked them to describe the barn. The results were that an incredibly high percentage of subjects described the barn, I can't recall if it was very few or none at all that stated that there was no barn.

I think that the study was to show that people made extremely poor witnesses, and that police questioning techniques may actually destroy any actual remnants of memory that may have existed about the crime by phrasing their questions a certain way.

My Personal Experience: Growing Up in a Mass-Media World
 

I felt overwhelmed by my parents and wanted to feel like a free and separate being.
I was rebellious and developed an attitude.
I was primed for outside influences.
Popular mass-media culture was an escape from my daily life.
I internalized the rebellious attitudes that were being promoted and sold as mass-media products to my demographic.
They were designed for me by huge corporations that had spent millions and millions of dollars figuring me out and they had an influence on shaping my attitudes toward the world and my self image.
…….

I mean, my self-image was pretty significant, since it’s who I thought I was.
I would look in the mirror and try to emulate the look of my favorite pop stars and actors.
The lyrics of popular songs filled my head. I listened to pop music and then after that I thought I was going beyond that by listening to alternative types of music – often the more obscure the better. That way, I felt I was being more unique, original, and creative in my tastes. I felt I was above the types of more mass-produced music that were more popular than the type of music I was listening to. Whatever it was at any particular moment, I played it very loud. Playing it so loud was a sort of aggressive, assertive, attitude-type thing.
…….

A big part of my self-image revolved around the type of clothes I wore.
They were defined for me by advertising campaigns and peer pressure.
It was important to me to fit in to the group(s) I had fallen in with.

It’s hard to draw the line between my own internal projection of the adolescent rebellion I was experiencing and the way I externalized that into my social and political attitude and views. They were connected in a very direct way. The types of fashion, music, TV, and movies that I liked directly fed the attitudes I incorporated into my self-image.

Above all, it was important to think of myself as a freedom loving, cool, fun, risk-taking, unique, interesting, and creative person who was different from adults who looked staid and boring as they lived their lives around me. It was important to believe I would not become like them because I was not like them. All of these ideas were marketed to me by commercial entities. I can’t really tell which ideas were my own and which ones I simply picked up from the media and the products it advertised and I consumed.
…….

My parents were, by all accounts, good people whose only fault may have been that they tried perhaps too hard to be good parents. They were involved in a positive way in my life to the degree that I felt the need to rebel. If there’s something to blame there - for me developing adolescent rebellion - I’d have to blame myself for having a lot of intelligence but no maturity. I worked on my family’s farm and later in business and several other venues for years by the time I was 16. So, it wasn’t life experience I lacked – more just perspective. To tell you the truth, relative to the lives of my peers, I’d say I was a normal adolescent.

The influence of mass media on my life was enough to create self-image and behavior patterns that were clearly reflective of what was being promoted and sold to me.

Identity and behavior are deep and essential parts of a person. Mass media and consumer culture had a major influence on my life - even more than the influence of my parents or traditional institutions.
…….

If anyone had asked me if I was shaped, influenced, and manipulated by mass media I would have denied it vigorously. I prided myself upon my individuality and my strength. Of course, as an intellectual, I saw a lot of Americans shaped by consumer culture – but they were the opposite of me as far as I could see. They were conservative and shaped by the boring supermarket and shopping mall culture of the targeted middle class. That’s what I considered to be “mass culture” – not my radical anti-everything-that-I-was-rebelling-against subculture or my alienated, cool, and in-the-know friends. We were cynical and smart, we thought.
…….

We believed because we had moved to the edge of popular culture – far away from the middle of the bell curve – that we were not the manipulated customers of the huge conglomerate multi-media and fashion giants we sensed other Americans were. Of course, it was simply a path staked out before us every step of the way by successions of thoroughly researched marketing groups who catered to the evolving, ever-changing leading edge of “youth culture.”

As a group, we had targeted economic resources. Marketers who had mapped the course of cultural movements ahead of us were tapping them. mapping them, influencing and manipulating us. When we perceived this, we claimed our favorite icons of celebrity were being “co-opted” by the consumer culture that threatened to neutralize the “authentic” voices and expressions we consumed. This tended to move us toward even more peripheral status where the patterns of co-optation reoccurred.

Rather than creating our own mindsets, we were led down predictable paths. The carts of consumerism were ineluctably positioned before our adolescent and post-adolescent horses. Wherever we stood at any moment, we were still buying things that continued shaping our minds. Music, movies, television, manufactured products and fashions still defined who we were to ourselves and to each other.
…….

How all this affected our minds is difficult to precisely define – not because it is not demonstrable in our every thought, action, expression, and presentation of self. It is hard to parse because it is nearly impossible to separate the millions of commercial images, sound bites, snippets of dialog, body postures, and attitudes we soaked up, internalized, and imitated from anything personal or interpersonal which was uncontaminated by external “entertainment” and consumer-oriented programming.

We were vulnerable because we wanted certain things and we were insecure because we felt we lacked them. These desires were exaggerated – even created - by the culture we inhabited. Our very vulnerabilities, while utterly natural products of the struggle to become oneself were also the urges, which moved us to acquire packaged solutions - advertised as having the ability to fill our needs. We felt the need to become more like the advertising we responded to because it presented icons and ideals of the qualities we admired.
…….

Our very rebelliousness was exploited by packaged messages of rebellion. Commercial interests executed the paradoxical situation of filling society with anti-social messages because they were selling to our needs and desires to be anti-social. Our rebellion became another parameter of our targeted demographic profile. We knew this, yet we continued to consume the messages as if we could separate the message from the messenger.

The recording industry sold the images, sound, and lyrics of those on the fringe of social acceptability, thereby bringing them on to center stage of the culture of entertainment we inhabited. The television and film industry, the fashion industry, and the creators, producers, and distributors of video games, books, magazines, and comic books mirrored this process.

We did not, would not, could not acknowledge the absurd situation we found ourselves in – we were trapped. To acknowledge that everything we had become had been spoon-fed to us by manipulative and exploitative individuals and corporations who, in deep ways, did not share our beliefs was too much to admit. The condition was one of dysfunction and borderline sanity. We were creatures of culture who wanted desperately to stand apart from our culture as individuals. Yet we were herded sheep-like to contribute to our own corruption.
…….

It went something like this…

I’d get up in the morning with a negative attitude and reinforce that attitude by scanning my walls for the pictures, posters, and artwork that projected the images of pop icons, rock stars, movies of the day. – or more esoteric political or surrealist visions.

“This sucks” was my mantra. This meant that the world I was forced to live in was essentially beneath my level of intelligence and taste.
Of course my root attitude was simply a product of adolescent hormones. I craved constant reinforcement from the media-saturated environment I drew around myself. So did my "peers." We exerted "peer pressure" on each other - which amounted to extra impetus to continue down this road of total vulnerability to the media-infused lives we were all living.

The books I read explained why “This sucks.” The music I listened to carried “This sucks” as it’s primary message. The rest of the embedded messages conveyed by my type of products proclaimed things like: “You are one of the few people who can express true rebellious individuality,” “This product here is different from the other products of our consumer-oriented, mind-dulling world,” and “The people who create this are “true artists” expressing things that are not encouraged by your parents or traditional institutions,” etc.
…….

The utter absurdity of the behaviors I engaged in did not occur to me. I would play music filled with negative messages so loudly there was no other brain activity possible. It never occurred to me that I was programming myself. I called it “Listening to music.”

I would put headphones on and the zone inside my head stopped being a brain and became simply the empty space between the speakers – filled with raucous and overwhelmingly negative blasts of dysfunctional noise, street slang, and bad English. I mostly sought out the “alternative” or “subcultural” varieties and believed these illusionary descriptions bestowed some sort of special, unsullied, or artistic qualities.
…….

Eventually, I began “enhancing” these experiences with drugs.
This was the next step in deepening the process of saturating my brain with the debilitating nonsense I called, “my favorite things to do.”

I was irresponsibly randomizing neural connections that had formed during a lifetime of socialization. I was a parody of my former self - pushing the quality of my “entertainment” toward the threshold of the psychotic episode.

Being an artist and an intellectual, I rationalized all this mind-dulling stuff as “Keeping up with what’s going on in the world,” etc. I also thought it was "...no big deal, it's just entertainment."

I was a rationalizing machine. I could crank out arguments that, I believed, could bulldoze any attempt to question my “lifestyle.” I was an utter hypocrite, addicted to the things I was defending.
…….

Wow, Art... that was an utterly amazing, eye opening post...

Yes art...well written.

that's a considerable amount of money for a 5 year study.

I'm not too happy with the who is sponsoring the bill because IMHO they have a personal agenda and personal stake.

That's fine.
What's required is a massive and total reconsideration of the effects of media on contenporary populations. Expensive research is part of the process. Corporations have been doing it forever and many billions and billions of dollars in private proprietary studies are what we, as a people, are up against.

sure I'm not dismissing it out of hand, the monies we spend here on research is pretty atrocious.

my only issue is with the sponsors since I think that it won't be as independent as we could get, but it is better than zero.

From my considerable experience standing in front of young people and being paid to teach them something, this sort of evidence is clear and obvious.

Until Media Literacy teaching underlies all pedagogical practice we will become increasingly lost - as generation upon generation of us are subjected to more and more mediated substitutes for actual experience.

thats' right. there's simulation, there's visualization, but neither replace actual experience.

I had the opportunity to watch 3 of the 5 shows. I did not catch the last 2. I should have because the first 3 were very well done.

If you can catch them as rebroadcasts, they are worthwhile in watching the social commentary.

----

Bravotv.com
Bravo explores groundbreaking moments in television history that, quite literally, sparked a "TV Revolution." From "I love Lucy" to "Married with Children," "All in the Family" to "Sex in the City," and "Soap" to "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," some of the most momentous events concerning women, minorities, sex and violence in television are covered in this 5-part series, beginning Sunday, May 23 (9:00-10:00 p.m. ET) with back-to-back episodes airing on subsequent nights.

Television, one of the most powerful mediums in American culture, simultaneously reflects and fuels social change. By blending history with the portrayal of sex, violence, minorities, women and homosexuality on television, "TV Revolution" touches on some of the greatest and most controversial moments of the small screen. Viewers are given a first-hand understanding of this dramatic history through the eyes of the actors, producers, and directors who lived and worked through it, and the television historians that have documented it.

"TV revolution" includes the following episodes:
SUNDAY, MAY 30 12/11AM
BODY COUNT
Explores the violence that television has brought into America's living rooms since its inception, be it real, fictional or something in-between. It also looks at the effect of violence—or its threat—on programming after television coverage of historical events such as the cold war, the desecration of Three-Mile Island, the Columbine shootings and September 11. Featuring clips from "Starsky & Hutch," "Hill Street Blues," "NYPD Blue" The Sopranos" and "The Shield," and commentary by director Steven Bochco, "NYPD Blue" actor Dennis Franz, actor Jimmy Smits, "The Shield" star Michael Chiklis, and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" creator Joss Whedon.

SUNDAY, MAY 30 1/12PM
SEX IN THE BOX
This episode delves into the portrayal of sex on television, and why we have often found the sexual revolutions going on in history at odds with the images we see on-screen. Whether it’s nudity, abortion or teenage sexuality, television has always been wary of its depiction of sex and the issues that surround it. Featuring clips from "I Dream of Jeanie," "Married with Children," "Seinfeld," MTV, and "Sex and the City," and commentary by "Gilmore Girls" actress Lauren Graham, "Nip/Tuck" creator Ryan Murphy, Barbara Eden, "Laugh-in" creator George Schlatter, and Suzanne Somers.

SUNDAY, MAY 30 2/1PM
MAIDS, BABES & MOTHERS
Explores the changing roles available for women on television, from the most common to the breakout parts that have revolutionized the way females are portrayed on the small screen. This episode also delves into what went on behind the scenes, as women were able to infiltrate the ranks of television writers, producers and directors, and finally have a say in the television characters that portrayed them. Featuring clips from "Leave it to Beaver," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "Charlie's Angels," "Ally McBeal," and "Sex and the City," and commentary by actress Calista Flockhart, "Gilmore Girls" star Lauren Graham, producers Norman Lear and Darren Star, "Law & Order's" Elisabeth Rohm, actress Mary Tyler Moore, "Soap" writer/producer Susan Harris and "Murphy Brown" creator Diane English.

SUNDAY, MAY 30 3/2PM
BLACK & WHITE & LIVING COLOR
Takes a look at the evolution of minority roles on television, as minorities break out of stereotypical roles and take parts as police officers, "Star Trek" crew members, physicians, Sesame Street characters, and parents. This section also looks at the effect of television's coverage of the Civil Rights movement, including TV documented events from the Montgomery Bus boycotts to the march on Washington. Featuring clips from "I Love Lucy," "All in the Family," The Cosby Show," "American Family" and "The Bernie Mac Show," and commentary by director Rob Reiner, "All in the Family's" Norman Lear, "Six Feet Under's" Freddy Rodriguez, "Roots" star LeVar Burton, and "ER's" Laura Innes.

SUNDAY, MAY 30 4/3PM
OUT OF THE CLOSET
This episode reveals how homosexuality went from a forbidden topic to the central theme in some of television's hottest shows, by illustrating the astonishing power that television has as a medium to promote understanding and social change by contrasting the first televised report on homosexuality, Mike Wallace's 1967 "The Homosexuals," with current TV hits such as "Will & Grace" and "Queer as Folk." Also featuring clips from "An Early Frost," "Soap," and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," and commentary by producer Aaron Spelling, actor B.D. Wong, "Will & Grace" co-creators Max Mutchnick and David Kohan, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" star Ted Allen, television director Paris Barclay, "Sex and the City" creator/writer Darren Star, and "Queer As Folk" executive producers Ron Cowen and Dan Lipman

Yes.

First - the entire methodology of transforming historic news into entertainment is suspect. A problem with that is it gradually replaces anything like an objective understanding of history and news with a distorted one, because of the homogenized and, in many ways, deceptive manner in which issues are represented.

Second, the drift from broadcasting to massive demographics to narrowcasting to minority demographics is embedded in the sequence of shows used as examples of something here.

As an interesting note: I'm aware of a sizeable audience of 10-year olds for "Queer Eye..." I have occasion to observe how bringing a group of individials who represent a scant percentage of the population into mainstream entertainment creates the impression that these individuals are somehow normative - thereby increasing the false perception that their numbers among the general population are far more in abundance than they actually are. It's the spotlight effect as applied to groups.

In general - the salient fact here is that the entertainment media increasingly promote their "progressive" agenda. A history of the evolution of mass media must reflect the fact that what is happening is the increased politicalization of entertainment and, by extension, all media.

The media is a lens. Lenses have an unavoidable characteristic of distorting the data they present.

Agreed one of the paradoxical elements of the catalog of all books and including the catalog itself within the catalog.

While I do not give it much more creditibility in historical factoid or information because in order to squeeze in the right facts etc into the 44 minute hour is truly not comprehensive enough.

It's not much more different than pick any of Vh1's 100 greatest etc.

What I did find interesting is that they bothered to put it together. If you had seen it, your statements of the Queer demo, is a bit spot on. There was much rhetoric going on about Mary Tyler Moor, That Girl, and the reset of the up and coming from the liberal movement of the time. I recall watching it growing up and thinking that well, my mom is a working professional, and these people aren't much different from my mom or any of my friend's moms except they are white.

I thought it totally normal, and in fact, some of my own can do attitude was formed and pushed together by viewing women in leading roles and succeeding.

Yet those very same shows mentioned I watched every week and the only thing I got out of it was, 'well, I'll never make it-I'm not attractive and nothing happens when i twitch my nose".
I would have to agree with the idea, though, that a medium, no matter how much it portends to be unbiased and fairly balanced, can not report objectively on itself. And while television continues to 'toot its own horn' regarding usage and placement of various minority sectors of society, it's just a panacea...'give'em what they ask for and they'll beg(pay) us for more'.

from NYtimes:

COMMERCIALS IN FLUX
What's Around the Corner for Ring Around the Collar?
By THOMAS HINE

THE first American television commercial was broadcast in New York on July 1, 1941, during a game at Ebbets Field between the Dodgers and the Phillies. The game was interrupted by an image of a Bulova watch face, superimposed on the screen and accompanied by a voice-over announcing, "America runs on Bulova time." Bulova paid $9 for the spot.

Television has come a long way since then. When the broadcast networks presented their coming fall seasons to advertisers in New York recently, they were looking for $9 billion worth of advance sales.

This year, however, as buyers grumble about paying more for shrinking, distracted audiences, a big piece of American commercial culture seems endangered. In the age of the remote control, of HBO and endless cable choices, and of TiVo, the recording device that lets viewers skip commercials, the marriage of mass entertainment to "a word from our sponsor," appears to be in trouble.

This may not be a cause for mourning. Any phenomenon that gives rise to Mr. Whipple, the hypocritical fondler of Charmin toilet paper, has much to answer for. Still, for generations who have grown up wanting their Maypo, or wanting their MTV, the crisis of the commercial is significant. We are people who deserve a break today, who want the real thing, who aspire to the Pepsi generation and just do it. We have learned to fear tired blood, mean old Mr. Tooth Decay, ring around the collar, static cling and dishpan hands.

Commercials aren't really interruptions to our entertainment but a major component of our common culture. As Madge the manicurist would say, we're soaking in it.

For half a century, commercials have dramatized the problems, solutions and promises of life. When the Beatles made their American debut on "The Ed Sullivan Show" in 1964, their first set was followed by an Anacin ad, whose pounding hammers and almost unbearable snippets of domesticity ("Mother, please, I'd rather do it myself!") were designed to give audiences the very headaches the product aimed to cure.

Commercials helped fuel the postwar boom in America, by convincing succeeding generations that their parents' luxuries were their necessities, while Morris the cat taught people that even pets are entitled to a higher standard of living. What's changed is not that the typical 15- or 30-second television ad is disappearing, but that it's something people can choose to see rather than something that can't be avoided.

In the 1920's, when broadcast radio was the hot new technology - like the Internet in 1996 - there were efforts, even within the advertising industry, to limit or ban commercials because, unlike print ads, they would threaten the sanctity of the home. But in 1922, when a Queens housing developer who advertised on a New York station attracted large numbers of new customers, broadcasters' moral qualms began to disappear.

Advertisers took complete ownership and control of much of radio's programming, and their commercials were often integrated into the programs' scripts. For example, on "Ma Perkins," a weekday program owned by Procter & Gamble that ran for 27 years, the laundry powder Oxydol was mentioned about 20 times in each 15-minute broadcast.

There was never any squeamishness about the commercial intrusiveness of television, which became publicly available after World War II, with hopes that it would help keep the country from falling back into the Depression. A 1946 Commerce Department study predicted, "Television as an advertising medium will create new desires and needs and will help industry move a far greater volume of goods than ever before."

Following the radio model, much early television programming was advertiser-controlled, and shows were filled with moments like the weekly dance of the Old Gold cigarette packs. Live commercials were among the most entertaining features of programs, because you would never know when the dog would fail to eat the Alpo.

By the mid-1950's, shows produced by a single sponsor dwindled, as networks began to assert control over programming and advertisers saw the benefits of spreading filmed commercials magazine-style through the weekly schedule.

Some makers of commercials saw themselves as avant-garde. The bustling city scenes of the 1960's "Ban takes the worry out of being close" campaign looked far more sophisticated than the programs it supported. And such ads became cultural reference points. "LSD is like Ban deodorant," a student identified as "a University of Michigan acidhead" told Time in 1966. "Ban takes the worry out of being close, LSD takes the worry out of being."

Even the dumbest commercials insinuated themselves deep into people's psyches. Gary Cross, a Penn State professor and author of "An All-Consuming Century," a history of commercialism, asked: "Do you remember this? 'Buy Dr. Ross Dog Food. Do your dog a favor. It's got more meat, and it's got more flavor. It's got more meat to make him feel the way he should. Dr. Ross Dog Food is doggone good. Woof!' "

While the decline of the power of spots might promise to free our minds for more important things, they will probably just adapt and thrive, like cockroaches. "I expect that the natural competitive drive will lead to a still more ad-saturated media," Professor Cross said.

Some television is again making products part of the program. The 1993 "Seinfeld" episode in which a Junior Mint falls into the body of a patient undergoing surgery stands as paragon of product placement. And reality series sell prominent spots for products, as do makeover shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Obviously, commercials aren't confined to television. Some commercials, like BMW's mini-movies and American Express's mini-"Seinfelds,'' are being made specifically for the Net.

"The strongest media that will vie for TV advertising's vacated spot probably haven't been commercialized yet," said Christopher Ireland, the chief executive of Cheskin, a marketing consulting firm, and an expert on marketing to young people. "They will probably incorporate the emerging capabilities of wireless connectivity, and peer review ratings."

She predicts that television commercials won't disappear, but that young people will use them differently. "For example, teens may simply like an ad's music and download it. Or they may like the way it's edited and copy the style for one of their own videos. In each case, they may pay little or no attention to the ad's message; they instinctively know how to focus on what they value and how to ignore the other parts of media. Their parents never learned that."

Teens should be so smart.
What a dreamer.

Teens will always use commercials the same way - to learn:
How to act
how to look
how to talk
what to want
etc.

yes the last part of the article will only happen if teens are given the tools to think critically. other than that they will just follow the rest of the herd.

Now there's a revolution worth being a part of.

Revolutions in consciousness are the rarest ones.

CBS Changes Ratings Methods
 

CBS Changes Ratings Methods
By STUART ELLIOTT
Published: June 3, 2004
link


THE nasty war of words between Nielsen Media Research and its opponents is heating up as Nielsen defies the critics and proceeds today with plans to change the way it measures television ratings in New York.

On the eve of the change, the CBS unit of Viacom became the first big broadcast network to urge Nielsen to delay its plans, declaring in a statement yesterday that Nielsen's "overly aggressive, self-imposed timetable for this conversion" would "only be detrimental to its eventual effectiveness."

Underscoring the divisions on the issue, the decision by CBS came two weeks after BET - a cable network also owned by Viacom, which offers programs aimed at black viewers - endorsed the change. Univision Communications, operator of the largest network watched by Hispanics, last week came out against the change.

An organization representing many of the opponents of the changes, known as the Don't Count Us Out Coalition, attacked Nielsen anew yesterday, calling the company's most recent responses to its complaints "inadequate and unacceptable" and threatening lawsuits on the state and federal levels.

Nielsen, in turn, insisted that the coalition cease an extensive advertising and public relations campaign that Nielsen said was filled with "inaccuracies and distortions." The campaign now includes television commercials, which began running yesterday in four major markets to accompany advertisements that have been appearing in national and local newspapers and magazines.

The dispute between Nielsen, owned by VNU, and its opponents is centered on plans by Nielsen to adopt electronic measurement devices known as local people meters to gather data on television viewership in the New York market, the nation's largest. Nielsen intends to make the same change in Chicago and Los Angeles in the next two months as part of plans to convert the 10 biggest markets to local people meters by the end of next year.

The critics contend that the change, from the current system of using paper diaries along with people meters, would result in a significant undercounting of black and Hispanic viewers. Nielsen counters that the change would yield more accurate, not less accurate, data about what minorities watch because of the superiority of electronic measurement over paper diaries, which are filled out by hand.

"I equate this process as bringing the same result as undercounting on the census," Bernard Parks, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, said yesterday in a conference call with reporters in which members of the coalition outlined their coming advertising and legal steps.

Nielsen, in a statement yesterday, said, "People meters in no way prejudice any viewer group."

The unusual battle, pitting Nielsen against legislators, community organizations and powerful media companies, has riveted the advertising and marketing industries for months. One reason for their fascination is the importance of the Nielsen ratings in helping set advertising rates as well as determining programming schedules.

"Because of the economic damage" that would be caused by undercounting minority viewers, "we really don't have a choice" but "to pursue legal remedy" to delay Nielsen from making the change, Alex Nogales, president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, said during the conference call. Mr. Nogales, whose organization is a leading member of the Don't Count Us Out Coalition, said the coalition members were speaking with lawyers about filing suits against Nielsen in California and federal courts.

Another reason for the intense interest is that the issue of counting viewers of television programs has concerned Madison Avenue for decades. The opponents made much of a decision Friday by the Media Rating Council, an industry association that audits ratings services, to deny accreditation to the local people meters in New York until Nielsen addresses what the council termed unspecified "noncompliance and performance issues" that were found in an audit.

Nielsen had hoped the council would wait for the new system to go into effect before auditing it, but a decision by Nielsen to postpone the change to today from April 8 prevented that from happening.

Nielsen said that while it would work with the council to find solutions to problems the council has with its methodology, it would not delay the change a second time. But in a concession to the critics, Nielsen said Tuesday that it would continue to report ratings data for the next three months in New York using the current system of paper diaries and people meters as well as the new system of local people meters only.

The newest recruit to the ranks of the critics, CBS, said in its statement that it "has been, and continues to be, a supporter of Nielsen's conversion to the people-meter-based measurement methodology" in Chicago and Los Angeles as well as New York. But the network asked that Nielsen "not convert to the new service in any market until the service successfully passed an audit" by the Media Rating Council.

"When the local people meter service in each market successfully passes" an audit by the council, the CBS statement said, "we are prepared to support the establishment of that service as the official measurement service for that market."

Dana McClintock, a spokesman for CBS, said the network was aware that its opposition to the change was contrary to the stand taken by its sibling, BET.

Jack Loftus, a spokesman for Nielsen in New York, said the decision to continue reporting the ratings data from the current system as the company changes to the new system was made "to address some of the concerns" of CBS and the other critics.

Nielsen called yesterday for the Don't Count Us Out Coalition to explain where it is getting the money for its advertising and public relations campaign, which is being created by advocacy agencies and consultants like the Glover Park Group and Fabiani/Lehane. The Media Research Council urged last week that the campaign "be immediately ceased" if it is being supported by media organizations.

Univision said that while it opposed the change, it was not a member or a supporter of the coalition. But another media company, the News Corporation, has identified itself as a supporter of the coalition's campaign.

"It's been financial; it's moral; it's organizational," Gary Ginsberg, a spokesman for the News Corporation in New York, said yesterday of the support, adding that the campaign "has helped give voice to legitimate concerns we have, very serious concerns" about the change to local people meters.

Two broadcast stations in New York owned by the News Corporation's Fox Television Stations Group, WNYW (Channel 5) and WWOR (Channel 9), had declines in ratings in tests of the local people meters by Nielsen during the winter. But in those tests, viewership for many cable networks - including BET and channels aimed at Hispanics including Telefutura and Telemundo - increased.

sub?
 

Here's an interesting image used in a Stepford Wives ad.

It seems that it goes by very fast.
(see below)

.............

Controversial 'Stepford Wives' Ad Shows Hillary, Condoleezza
UPDATED: 12:04 PM EDT June 8, 2004
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Some people are saying the way Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice are portrayed in an ad for the new "Stepford Wives" film is distasteful, even outrageous.


The spot shows an image of Rice made to look nude from the waist up, and a picture of Clinton that morphs into what looks like a cookie-baking Stepford wife.

The pictures move across the screen very quickly, but they caught the eye of a Kansas City woman, who recorded the spot to make sure of what she was seeing.

Becky Reynolds said when she taped and watched the ad again, she "realized it was even worse" that what she'd suspected.
"It's just inappropriate, and it needs to be stopped," Reynolds said.
For those who haven't seen the 1975 thriller by director Bryan Forbes, the 2004 version is pretty much the same, but with a dash of technical wizardry. Both films are based on a book by Ira Levin about a small Connecticut town where the women act too perfectly -- because their husbands have replaced them with robots.
But Reynolds says the less-than-perfect images in the advertisement for the new film will keep her out of the theater.

Pat Gray, who works with Northstar Marketing Group, said the ad shows bad taste toward Rice and Clinton.
"In today's media environment, I don't know whether it's unacceptable morally or not -- distasteful, for sure," Gray said. "If I were them, I'd probably sue."
Gray also said the ad wouldn't drive him to the theater.
"That certainly wouldn't stimulate me to go see the movie," he said.
Nancy Kirkpatrick, a spokeswoman for Paramount Pictures, said the film studio hasn't received any complaints about the spot. Paramount hasn't heard from Rice or Clinton, either.

interesting...

I spent the weekend talking to a professor at NYU who is moving down to Savannah to head up the Digital Media department there. He talked to me about all the digital manipulation and such. The thing that struck me was the goal.. photo realism.

i told him that I would love to see ILM vs. Weta vs. Rhythm & Hues vs. Digital Domain etc., doing EXACTLY the same scene, and see definitively who is the better house.

link

It's not as blatant as it was in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and GI Joe heyday 80s... but it's still a horrific thing IMHO. While kids can't tell the difference at a young age, the adults don't fare much better because they were never given the tools for critical thinking.

Some folks even believe they have critical thinking abilities.
Unfortunately however, believing one has them isn't the same as having them. It's going to be a long road. IMO, it ain't gonna happen. We're lost...like babes in the woods.

Seems much more blatant now to me. No one released a major, if any, film starring Snap, Crackle and Pop, but Jimmy Neutron, Spongebob, et al, glare at you from all kinds of food boxes on the shelves. There weren't websites 15, 20 years ago aimed at kids starring their favorite character in games released by food conglomerates.
When my kids were toddlers (and maybe now), Toys R Us frequently ran promotions-with every purchase, your kids got a box full of goodies. Mostly this consisted of snacks and coupons for those snacks. OK, so it introduces my kids to something they may never have otherwise tried. But wrap shit in beautiful paper and put a ribbon on it....it's still shit- more pleasing to the eye, but stinks just the same.

I guess you never heard of the film Mac and Me funded by McDonald's for the most part...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095560/

but yes there wasn't any websites at the time, cross media and licensing wasn't as big as it is now. Lucas is the master of the licensing after Star Wars hit big, and that's where the motherlode of companies get their money from. Note that Scholastic brand Clifford is not able to compete as well because his missive does not allow for him to be on sugary things, so he's on Kix and a fruit gummy thing.

Here is a really fascinating documentary all interested in this thread should see: The Corporation ... *cough*

.....and just for grins...take a look at Joe Camel. See that huge cock and balls in his face? There is hardly Anything subliminal there. They say that the Reynolds Co. has been asked to remove Joe from areas close to schools.

Actually I was under the impression that Camel was unable to use Joe Camel in ads anymore. How long has it been since you've seen him in their ads? Now they have the flapper girl from the '20s and other iconic women as spokes characters.

Joe Camel got his walking papers in 1997.
Here's a link that details how the successful campaign to remove his blatantly cock-and-ballsy face from ads came about:

http://www.no-smoking.org/sept97/9-17-97-2.html

Here's the final coffin nail (*cough cough*):

http://www.facts.com/wnd/camel.htm

Harvard study is first to measure Hollywood 'ratings creep'
By Mike Snider, USA TODAY
Movies today have more sex, violence and profanity than similarly rated films did a decade ago, a Harvard study suggests.
The Harvard School of Public Health findings are the first to support the notion of "ratings creep," more risqué and violent scenes being allowed in films rated G, PG, PG-13 and R than in the past.

"This raises the question of 'What does PG really mean?' If parents are basing their experience on (movies) a long time ago, maybe they need to get recalibrated," says study co-author Kimberly Thompson, a Harvard associate professor and director of the school's Kids Risk Project. "The reality is, the ratings don't mean what they did 10 years ago."

Researchers studied films released from 1992 to 2003 with a database of the Motion Picture Association of America's rating reasons and movie content information from independent movie content reviewers Kids-in-Mind (www.kids-in-mind.com) and Screen It! (www.screenit.com).

Among the findings:

•Over the 11-year period, sex and violence in PG films increased, as did sex, violence and profanity in PG-13 films and sex and profanity in R-rated films.

•Smoking, which was not listed by the MPAA as a rating reason for any of the movies, appeared in 79% of films. Alcohol, tobacco or drugs appeared in 93% of films, including 51% of G-rated movies.

•More violence appeared in animated G-rated movies than in non-animated G movies.

Previously, the researchers found significant violence in G-rated animated films and in teen-rated video games. "Parents don't always realize that animation is not a signal that a movie is OK for kids," Thompson says.

Confusing the ratings issue are video games that tie into films such as R-rated The Matrix and the PG-13-rated Lord of the Rings films. Many games target children below the movie's suggested age group, Thompson says, a problem that would be lessened if there were a universal rating system for movies, TV and games.

The MPAA did not comment on the study, but president Jack Valenti has called the rating system "a beneficial tool." The voluntary ratings are determined by a rotating panel of 10 to 13 people in California, who watch 400 to 500 films a year.

With Valenti being replaced Sept. 1 by former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, there is an opportunity for reform, says online reviewer Nell Minow, also known as The Movie Mom. "The fact there's an overall deterioration (of values) is no excuse for the MPAA to mislead parents who think they have a sense of what PG-13 means by continually diluting that."

I have to admit I didn't read this whole thread. I saw through the Madison Avenue Cult and identified it as such many years ago. I philosophized about it, read books about it, and wrote poetry about it. Then I lost interest in it.

The only way out of it I can see is to not participate. I don't own a television set. I don't subscribe to periodicals or look at billboards. I only listen to the radio when the severe weather sirens go off in my town.

For a full philosophical treatment of the "Spectacle", as the Situationists called it, see Guy-Ernest Debord's Society of the Spectacle. Then unplug yourself from the boob tube and go live your own life. ;)

nice idea. I used to not watch much TV nor listen too much to the radio either.

But in the past 10 years my TV watching has increaded at least 1000%, espeically since I'm in the industry.

Cable a la Carte Still Half-Baked By Michael Grebb
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64203,00.html

02:00 AM Jul. 14, 2004 PT

It's one of the most perplexing questions ever to face humankind: Why can't you buy just the cable channels you actually watch?

At a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on Wednesday, a diverse panel of witnesses representing cable operators, cable channels, consumer advocates and religious broadcasters will jockey for position in the debate.

Several lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), already support mandated "a la carte" carriage. Under such a system, people could pick only the few channels they want rather than have to buy large "tiers" of cable programming that include 70 or 80 channels.

The cable industry argues that an a la carte system would destroy the economics of the business. The argument goes like this:

Without carriage on broad tiers, startup and niche programming wouldn't be able to attract advertising and would quickly wither away, leaving consumers with fewer choices. In addition, as audiences fragment among all the channels, plummeting advertising rates would force surviving networks to raise the license fees they charge cable companies. Those higher fees would in turn get passed right along to customers, increasing the price of each individual channel.

"Even if consumers were to choose just 17 channels, their bills would go up considerably," said Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. "Bundles of programming provide the best value for consumers."

Consumer advocates, however, charge that the cable industry just wants to preserve its power to squash any independent networks in which it doesn't have an ownership stake.

"I think that's a lot of it," said Kenneth DeGraff, a policy analyst at the Consumers Union. "If you ask the smaller cable guys, they're in favor of (a la carte). It's the big media companies that are opposing it."

Indeed, the American Cable Association, which represents small rural cable operators, said it would voluntarily offer a la carte programming if the big program networks would let it.

In legal comments (PDF) to the FCC last year, the group wrote that "the sole reason" it doesn't offer a la carte to its customers "is because media conglomerates, including Disney, Fox and others, flatly deny this option to smaller cable operators."

DeGraff pointed out that the gay-themed channel PrideVision TV has seen much success on Canadian cable systems since the channel's launch in 2000, but it has "had no success getting on here (in the United States)" largely because it is independent. "They can't be offered because they have no leverage," he said.

DeGraff said such niche channels would find it easier to gain carriage in an a la carte world because they wouldn't take up any space on a bundled tier.

Of course, it's unclear how much power the big cable companies actually wield.

According to the FCC's 2004 report on video competition, none of the top six cable system conglomerates holds an ownership interest in more than 18 percent of all national programming networks.

"The a la carte bundling helps the most totally independent, non-vertically integrated networks," said Frank Lloyd, a cable industry attorney at the Washington law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. "Otherwise, these networks could never survive."

Lloyd represents GoodLife TV Network, an independent programmer that opposes a la carte mandates.

In May, the House Commerce Committee requested that the FCC study the a la carte issue. Legal comments in that proceeding are due on Thursday, and the final report is expected out later this fall.

A report (PDF) last year by the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), however, concluded that cable a la carte wasn't worth the trouble and would actually increase rates for some consumers.

But the GAO report has never impressed a la carte advocates, who charge that the agency assumed a world in which a la carte replaced rather than simply augmented the current tiered system.

"That doesn't apply to the model we're talking about," said DeGraff.

Caught in all of this confusion are TV viewers everywhere, some of whom still wonder why buying access to A&E and Court TV requires that they also support Comedy Central and those raunchy kids on South Park.

Considering the complex nature of this debate, they may still be wondering long after Wednesday's hearing.
---------------

I understand what they are saying but I don't readily or easily agree with the fact that the costs will skyrocket. I think that like all things there should be an ala carte offering and if I chose to get a better "value" by bundling then I do that....

This is the same reasoning used by the Music Biz to keep songs bundled in albums. The real rationale is that bundling is needed to support a higher price structure and enable their massive overhead.

Those who pride themselves on their critical thinking abilities are the most brainwashed of all. Take, for example, people who extoll the virtues of the government's "laissez faire" stance on the economy when they can't even see how the government is complicit in cultural imperialism in that it makes "growing the economy" the central issue in our society. Washington, Madison Avenue, and Hollywood are co-conspirators in convincing the masses that rigorous exercise of the seven deadly sins are vital to the welfare of our nation.

Oh please. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody's life depends on watching any of it in the first place. It's a luxury. If people want a luxury item bad enough, they should pay the asking price.

When did life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness turn into the dubious freedom to choose between Pepsi and Coca-Cola anyway? :rolleyes:

If you follow the history of the FCC and the deregulation of the cable industry, you'll find that it's not about luxury. For premium items like HBO/Showtime yes, agreed, those are luxury items. Bundling items together example our MTV sister channels are all sold together. We bundle them together so that we as a business can get the most advertising leverage possible, even if you don't watch BET, we still will want you to have it because that's another number on the statistic.

But to be able to get broadcast channels, it's not a luxury item. It's a finite resource that belongs to the people. I live in NYC and there is no chance of getting signals over the air into my apartment.


While you may think that TV is a luxury item, at this point in time in my life, it's my bread and butter.

here is a good example as to difficulty of bundling and fledgling networks.

Thanks for all the good info, Cynthetiq. To me of course, it reminds me of the old saying, "pick your poison." I suppose we, at least, have some sort of "right" to do that in a commercial marketplace. Too bad about the marketplace of ideas though. It's still a vast wasteland out there.

Oh man....I could go on for hours on this issue. I agree 100% that our lives are dictated by media. Not enough time to pour my thoughts into this one.

please do.. you don't have to put so much into the first post.. but please join the conversation and add some more to the mix.

I thought it too relevant not to refer to the discussion that's proceeding in the following thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=62987

The discussion concerns perhaps the most obvious material example of what havoc the power of advertising can wreak upon a citizenry. I see whole shelves of junk food crammed inside the skins of too many people every day not to make the most obvious and clear connection to the relative helplessness of the individual against the collected might of billions of dollars of corporate research into the most sophisticated and advanced manipulation apparatus ever imagined by mankind.

Death to infidel cola
 

http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/cola.gif


The Cola Jjihad

Muslims make hard pitch with soft drinks


Posted: August 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for the last 25 years.
By Yoram East
© 2004 G2 Bulletin.com
Mecca-Cola, distributed in recent years to Arab consumers throughout the Islamic world, in the framework of the "war against America and Zionists", has found its way to an unlikely market – Israel.

Coke's legacy had spurred the launch of an alternative soft drink company, Mecca-Cola, some three years ago. It was designed to cash in on anti-American sentiment around the world. Mecca-Cola was introduced in France in 2002, and is now exported throughout Europe and the Arab world.

"Arabs are entitled to enjoy brands that were made especially for them", the company's Israel director, said. He dismissed there was a political message behind the brand's marketing in the Jewish state, but announced "10 percent of the profits will be distributed as donations to Palestinian children. It is intolerable that they should suffer, starve and miss school."

And that's just the beginning of the cola wars. There is a glut of new consumer products – mostly soft drinks – hitting the market from the Middle East.

New Islamic consumer products penetrating the North American market, mostly in the snack and fast-food sector, contain political markers and frequently subtle political insinuations.

In most cases these messages are anti-American, anti-Semitic or anti-multinationals – while at the same time cleverly promoting subliminal Islamist ideas. In essence these products, marketed with western techniques, serve as a means of condemning the very concepts used to bring them to consumers' shelves.

Some of the products arrived in the West immediately after Sept. 11 and most during the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One example of a mostly non-political and non-Islamist product being marketed in the U.S. is Cola-Turka. This product is marketed by using clear, well-known and valued symbols of the American culture.

Obviously, one goal is to penetrate the lucrative American market without openly criticizing the U.S. At the same time advertising techniques are used to vaguely suggest a cultural change can be achieved even when a soft drink is marketed through American promotion systems.

The beverage, launched in 2003 in Turkey, became part of the so-called cola wars waged on all five continents. In a number of publications Cola-Turka is hailed as the new kid on the block. Commercials for the cola star Chevy Chase. Filmed in New York, the ads show Americans drinking Cola-Turka becoming Turkish.

Cola-Turka arrived in the market shortly after the beginning of the 2003 pre-Iraq war Turkish-U.S. political strain. Market experts say the refusal of Turkey to allow coalition troops to operate from its territory, and later other U.S.-Turkish tension spots such as the 2004 arrest of 11 Turkish soldiers by American forces in Kurdistan, hyped anti-American sentiments and with that came an apparent attack on one of America's symbols.

One message says: "Drink Cola-Turka and become Turkish." Cola-Turka is steadily progressing in the beverages market, and is preparing to penetrate more. Undoubtedly the so-called Cola wars include clear signs of a cultural conflict between East and West.

An Egyptian product named Arab-Cola entered the market through use of what pollsters of Arab markets explain as: "Looking for new ways to piggyback on western terminologies to further nationalistic or religious Islamic needs."

The owners of the Egyptian product say the symbol represents "our identity." They clarify by adding: "Our main concern is aiming to be positive and initiative elements in our context proving we can succeed on our own, proud of being Egyptian in the first place and Arabs in wider sense."

The message of the Egyptian product is comprehensible to the public even without making too many political waves. Some observers say this wave of promoting nationalism through consumer products and changing the names of the product to become more symbolic began following the Iranian revolution of 1979. Iran is the home of Zam Zam-Cola, named after the holy spring in Mecca, a popular beverage in the Muslim world, especially among Shiites. Popularity and distribution of Zam Zam-Cola gradually weakened until the beginning of the first Palestinian Intifada in 1988. It then regained momentum during the battle over hegemony in Afghanistan, the campaigns in Chechnya, and more than any other event, the two wars in Iraq led by the U.S.

There are other new beverages such as the European-based Muslim owned Qibla-Cola. This product is now looking to expand to markets in North America and Australia, where there are extensive Muslim communities. The word Qibla defines the Muslim religious ritual of facing Mecca when praying. This on its own has a deep spiritual meaning for every faithful Muslim, and here, too, there is no need to add any words or spell out who the targeted consumer is. According to Muslim leaders in the U.K., it motivates many British Muslims to prove loyalty to their faith by preferring Qibla-Cola over the American Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. It is important to note that Qibla is a name for one of the African terror groups that emerged during the '80s in South Africa with a hard-core of jihadists and a long list of terror attacks. One expert on the Qibla group told G2B: "There is no link whatsoever between the beverage bottling company and the illegal organization, however, those who support the terrorists will prefer to hold a product bearing the name Qibla rather than purchasing a similar western product. There is no doubt the word Qibla is also a form of a battle cry."

Another assessment is that campaigning violently for political-religious beliefs through canned cola drinks might seem silly to western eyes, but it is definitely a motivator and a reason for pride among Islamic youth, especially in economically weak societies where anything that can hurt America is deemed good and acceptable.

Another beverage with clear political markers is France-based Mecca-Cola. The site of this beverage, which is among the leaders of the cola wars, identifies the business as having charitable goals. Mecca-Cola claims to be anti-materialist and anti-capitalist, labeling the marketing origin of western top beverages as based on corruption. One argument is that others, namely western and American products, do not share their revenue with zakat (charity), whereas Mecca-Cola claims to be assigning 20 percent of its income to charity.

While insisting it has peaceful goals, the Mecca-Cola website leaves no doubt most of their donations go "to the Palestinian people who are experiencing indifference and general complicity, these being the most wretched and most contemptible acts of Apartheid and Zionist fascism." This beverage, marketed and sold in North America turns any food store or cooler selling Mecca-Cola, to a political billboard aimed also at the U.S.

One battlefield of the cola wars is in Iraq. The campaign there is noticeable more in Baghdad where, Arab and Muslim brand names bitterly campaign against American bottling plants re-opened after 13 years of boycott. The fact American Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are now available angers Muslim zealots. They are doing their utmost to harm the marketing of "infidel cola," suggesting the buyer should prefer drinks produced and bottled in Egypt, Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon, and whenever possible purchase an explicit "Arab-Muslim drink." One report on Pepsi distribution in Iraq suggests that in 2003 Pepsi sold 7.2 million bottles a month, indicating the figure is down more than 60 percent from its pre-war sales figures. A report from a Baghdad supermarket quotes the owner saying he is going to stop selling Iraqi-bottled Pepsi until the formation of an elected Iraqi government expected next year. This political linkage, laced with nationalist elements, is felt in many places across Iraq and the region.

A British expert on terrorism funding told G2B militants are showing greater interest in marketing Islamic products resembling popular international goods. He said the main reason for this phenomenon is the successful U.S.-led campaign against terror funding through relatively easily traced zakat charities and traditional banking systems.

"In the business of selling Muslim chewing gum or Muslim chocolate it is easy to hide cash flow which goes from the cash register to zakat and in most cases even by-passing the till," said the expert. Terror watchers in the western world are aware of attempts to manufacture and market a variety of products to western countries, predominantly in Europe, the U.S. Canada and Australia.

Businessmen with roots in the Middle East are researching the required standards of the FDA and similar agencies for the manufacturing of snacks. A source in Los Angeles told G2B some activists interested in supporting the global jihad are on their way to produce canned soups carrying a religious title with clear preference to al-Quds, (the Arab name of Jerusalem), Mecca and names of Muslim heroes like Saladin and even bin Laden, not by using the full and legal name of the master terrorist but rather related nicknames or abbreviations such as O.B.L. for Osama bin Laden.

Another way is naming a product Muslim-Up to resemble 7-Up without specifying the brand name. One manufacturer of Islamic Cola in France told journalists he is working on the idea to compete with Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC, by opening a Halal fast-food outlet such as Halal Fried Chicken or H.F.C. Halal is a dietary Muslim concept similar to the Jewish kosher food dietary rules. An Italian Muslim entrepreneur is planning a Muslim pizza with titles such as Mecca-Pizza to imitate Boston-Pizza or al-Buraq-Pizza delivery named after Muhammad's white horse which he rode on his ascension to heaven from Jerusalem.

The phenomenon of Muslim or jihadi products is anchored in the Arab boycott of western, American and Israeli products. The boycott is now entering a new phase of combating American symbols by introducing Muslim symbols in look-a-like products. These are sold worldwide and in the last few years have begun to compete with American symbols in America itself. Intelligence analysis of the phenomena suggests the need to examine the labeling and advertising of each product suspected of sharing profits with terrorism. An Israeli analyst told G2B Arab and Muslim countries systematically inspect each and every product they import to guarantee there is no connection to Israel.

............................

For some reason, I'm cool with all this.
I agree that we export our so-called "values" by virtue of exporting our products. I can't blame the parts of the world that hate our values for hating our products - just because of what they are perceived to "stand for."

As for the talk of "Zionists" etc., well, they hate us. That's that.
I'm just saying I can understand this.

Coke and Pepsi have always been our most iconic exported symbols. The products have historically seen a boom in sales due to their close attachment with American culture and 'coolness'. In Japan and other Asian countries, they still seem to benefit but Middle-eastern countries are gaining an all-new depth to their hatred of us. That hatred is taught from a very early age and is affixed in much of the middle-eastern value system.

Establishing a product mix that compels people to purchase from a patriotic standpoint isn't new. Wal-Mart used to put "MADE IN AMERICA' in all of their commercials and on most of their product signage. Hell, the theme song that played in all of their commercials was "Proud to be an American". They told us we were supporting the small towns and small businesses by buying from Wal-Mart.

What happened? Greed.

Go to a Wal-Mart and find something that is MADE IN AMERICA. I dare you.

Cartoon Network to go after preschool crowd

By CAROLINE WILBERT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/09/04

Despite plenty of competition, the Cartoon Network is making a foray into programming for preschoolers.

The Atlanta-based network will launch a block of original programming next spring, targeting young children.

There are a number of other players in the field, from old standbys like PBS and newer entrants like Playhouse Disney.

Also, Comcast, the country's largest cable operator, is reportedly developing a 24-hour network aimed at the young set, through a partnership with Public Broadcasting System, Sesame Workshop and a European company. Comcast has not confirmed plans for such a network.

Still, Cartoon thinks there is room for more. Cartoon's hook: It will be funny, if not necessarily educational. The block's motto will be "fun, funny and fearless."

The Cartoon Network has traditionally gone after older children during the day and adults at night.

Alice Cahn, vice president of development and programming, said humor is a "skill kids need to know."

She said children with senses of humor and optimistic outlooks on life "tend to lash out less, verbally and physically, tend to have more friends, tend to have an easier time in the world."

This announcement comes on the heels of a widely publicized report in the spring from the American Academy of Pediatrics that said children under age 2 should not watch television at all. The report links television-watching by young children to attention deficit problems.

Cahn says research doesn't adequately prove the claim that television causes attention problems, though she acknowledges it is not a good idea for young children to watch hours and hours of television per day.

She said today's parents are comfortable with TV and use it as a teaching tool, just like books or toys.

We look at media the way our kids see it, as furniture," she said. "It isn't special anymore."

The preschool block, which will air while older children are at school, is a joint venture between Cartoon and Warner Bros. Television Group. Both are units of media conglomerate Time Warner.

The Warner Bros. group will produce many of the shows that air during the new block, including "Krypto," which will be about the adventures of Superman's dog.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/busi...10cartoon.html

"...programming for preschoolers"

"...targeting young children"

"...aimed at the young set"

"...gone after older children during the day"

"We look at media the way our kids see it, as furniture," she said. "It isn't special anymore."

Perhaps at some point in the future we'll see these statements as unthinkably barbaric.

art, it's a shame... because Scholastic Entertainment (people who did Magic School Bus, Clifford the Big Red Dog) have a conflicting interest in this.

They have been trying to partner with someone else anyone else in order to reach the children, but their credo directly conflicts with the goals of "mass marketing"

Yep, I'm aware of Scholastic Entertainment. It's a dog-eat-dog media circusworld out there. Hard to compete with the big advertising-backed outlets.

yet another consumable market...

I recently found this again.... I'm not sure if any of you saw this back in 2001.

I recently found this again.... I'm not sure if any of you saw this back in 2001.

link

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/images/public/coke1.gif
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/images/public/coke2.gif

Yes, this nasty tap water habit must be nipped in the bud. This type of strategic campaign is something the tobacco companies could use to dissuade us from our unprofitable addiction to air.

Huzza on an excellent thread~

Is it possible that a large portion of this conceived "mind control" issue that is being proported is just the work of the prankster predelictation of advertising proponants?

hmmmI think that the initial offerings in the thread were indeed just that. Inside jokes,
creative explosions set off by marketing brainstorms that culminated in lightening strikes that were made manifest by the multitude of examples that have been laid forth.

NOW
We evolve(?) into this abomination that lies above this very post.(well, above ART's post) This truly is thee dark side of marketing and advertising. The love and want of money is lamentably apparent.

"Coca Cola" and "Olive Garden" can "Suck My Cock"

Oh, by the way, if you want to know what type of people drink "Evian" water, all you need to do is spell "Evian" backwards.


go to nature Bill Hicks

tap water incidents....keeeeeeeeeekyst

10-teen
 

Makeup and marketing - welcome to the world of 10-year-old girls

Survey says put cosmetic vending machines into schools

Owen Bowcott
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian

The plastic bag that wraps around Bliss, a magazine for teenage girls, this month says it all. "FREE INSIDE! makeup palette," it screams. Across the bottom of the bag it teases with a "Lush mascara offer" "Gorgeous lip gloss offer", as well as a £5 voucher for "spray tan".
On the Bliss website, even before you get to the front page, a pop-up advert appears from Ralph Lauren asking readers: "How old are you?" If you answer 10-15, it goes on to ask "What was the last fragrance you purchased?" followed by "Which shop do you buy fragrances from?"
Bliss, Sugar, Cosmo girl, Elle girl, the list goes on ... The power of such marketing is highlighted today by a survey which shows that most seven- to 10-year-olds are using makeup.
The survey showed that by the age of 14, around nine out of 10 girls apply some type of eyeliner, mascara or lipstick. The number of those in the 11-14 age group who report using lipstick or lip gloss on a daily basis has more than doubled intwo years.
Mintel, one of the UK's leading consumer research organisations, which carried out the survey, draws the controversial conclusion from its results that cosmetic companies could go much further in their drive to entice young girls to buy their products. Firms should place vending machines for their products in schools and cinemas to target teenage consumers, Mintel says.
The study, based on marketing questionnaires, fails to distinguish whether makeup is being used merely for play, involving dressing up at home, or as part of a beauty regime when going out. But claims that youngsters are being forced to express their sexual identity long before childhood is over have provoked rows and moral panics in recent years.
Earlier this year the Association of Teachers and Lecturers called for age restrictions on magazines such as Bliss, Sugar and Cosmo girl on the basis that they were "full of explicit sexual content" and "glamorise promiscuity".
When Mad About Boys, a glossy magazine aimed at nine- to 12-year-old girls, was launched in 2001, MPs warned that it portrayed them as sex objects, gave tips on makeup and encouraged them to diet.
'Corruption'
Two years ago the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, criticised consumerism for its "corruption and premature sexualisation of children". Paris Fashion Week has provoked outcries for parading nine- and 10-year-old girls on a catwalk wearing plunging necklines and high hemlines.
The Mintel survey acknowledges such concerns but points out there are commercial opportunities. "Cosmetic manufacturers must be ever mindful of the fine line they tread between encouraging children to look and behave like adults and promoting their products as being good, clean fun," said Claire Hatcher, one of the firm's senior consumer analysts.
"Despite their self-assurance, when it comes to grooming products, these girls are still learning about what suits them and are therefore open to experimentation and new products offered in ways which appeal to their age group."
Retailing toiletries to teenagers has suffered neglect, the report adds. "Makeup, in particular, is often an impulse purchase, so placing teen brands in unusual locations such as in vending machines in schools, cinemas and bowling alleys may persuade consumers into buying something they had not previously considered."
According to the survey, 63% of seven to 10-year-olds wear lipstick, more than two in five eye shadow or eyeliner, and almost one in four mascara. Three quarters of 11- 14-year-old girls use eye shadow and a similar proportion mascara.
Lip gloss and lipstick is even more popular, with eight in 10 girls aged 11-14 applying it. Half of girls in that age group wear blusher, with 14% saying they use it every day or more. By the age of 14, almost three in five (58%) girls use perfume.
"Long before girls become teenagers, they use a wide selection of cosmetics as well as other skin care products and toiletries," said Ms Hatcher. "Their interest in these products is fuelled by teen magazines and by swapping ideas and recommendations with their peer group and, of course, watching what their mothers use.
"Manufacturers of consumer products such as makeup and fragrance should therefore be wary in over-promoting celebrities in the belief that all young teenagers aspire to a notion of perfection which many do not realise is unobtainable."
The survey, which questioned 5,856 youngsters aged seven to 19, also showed that fake tan is popular, with 13% of 11-12 year old girls using self tanning cream, lotion or oil. This rises to one-in-five among the 13-14 group. Hair colourants are also used by many young girls: 27% of those aged 11-14 use them, rising to 35% of 13- 14-year-olds.
Childcare organisations reacted with caution to the figures. "Children should be free to enjoy childhood without undue pressure," the NSPCC said.
"However, young girls have always experimented with makeup and the dressing-up box ... This should only really cause alarm if a child feels that it's something they are uncomfortable with but feel forced to do."
Many schools already discourage pupils from wearing makeup and some ban cosmetics.
The two main teaching unions reacted with disbelief to the suggestion of installing vending machines in schools.
Chris Keates, the acting general secretary of the NASUWT, said: "It's an extraordinary idea for anyone to come up with.
"Do people want to lose the focus of what school is about? Pupils should not be thinking about whether they have an opportunity to use cosmetics."
A spokesman for the NUT said: "Pupils have always tried to get around bans. But the purpose of school is education of the child not an opportunity to increase their sex appeal."
..........

In terms of marketing self-image, there's no difference between 10-year olds and teenagers. Today's "10-teens" are into the whole not-good-enough-unless-altered sense of themselves that was once the province of the insecure and youth-market dominated teen years. There's less "children" and less childhood these days than there used to be. What's been gained? What's been lost?

Way back in colonial times(well, maybe not THAT far back), Twiggy was the one to emulate. Big, black, overdone eyes, pouty pink shiny lips and stick-figure body. She even had a slight slouch. So, by 7th grade, we walked around with heavy black eyes, gobs of lipstick and earrings so big, they dragged down our lobes.We ate nothing but Lifesavers for lunch so we'd be stick-thin. Dresscodes were pretty strict, but we always tried to make the skirts a little shorter and the tops a little tighter. But, Mom and Dad were there to rein most of us in when the calls from the teachers or administrators came.
Kids still try to emulate the famous. But the famous ones push the envelopes ever further, forgetting or ignoring boundaries in taste and decorum. The major difference? Parents more often than not allow the kids to do whatever they want in their quests to be like their idols. No time for battles, maybe, don't care, perhaps....want to be a pal and not an authority figure to their children(god forbid they lay rules like THEIR parents did). Too often, the call from school comes and the parents berate the caller instead of correcting the situation.
The good side? Kids learn a lot earlier what their decisions reap. Maybe they don't WANT accountability and responsibility for their actions, but it comes.
I allow my daughter to wear eye makeup and I have colored her hair funky colors-it's her way of self-discovery and I would much rather guide her along than let her flounder alone. That will happen soon enough and I won't be able or allowed to guide. So, I kind of welcome the challenges these media whores send our way. It gives me and my children the opportunity to face it and make decisions based on their own lives and needs.

Yes. As you may know, I'm of the opinion that we are unable to sufficiently resist media to displace their influence in either our own lives or our children's lives to any significant extent.

Sorry to join this discussion late on but has anyone been the the Guiness Storehouse in Dublin, Ireland? I was there last week and as I enjoy my guiness I thought that it was a great place to visit. I link this to here tho because they have a floor in the building called 'advertising' and basically people like myslef have come in and paid to see all of their past adverts and they are being constantly shown to us. Also looking through some from the 50's with slogans such as 'Guiness is good for you' and 'Guiness gives you strength' I found these proper drilled into my head once i left. IMHO places like this and the jamesons distillery etc are also huge on the mass media mind control! T

Time.com press release:

Sunday, Sep. 26, 2004
10 QUESTIONS FOR SUMNER REDSTONE:
VIACOM CEO SUMNER REDSTONE’S REACTION TO CBS BACKING DOWN FROM BUSH SERVICE STORY ‘WAS ONE OF SEVERE DISTRESS,’ HE TELLS TIME


NEW YORK: “My reaction from the beginning was one of severe distress,” Sumner Redstone, chairman and CEO of Viacom, says when asked about his reaction to when CBS News backed down after defending its story on Bush’s service record. Redstone spoke with TIME’s Neil Gough in Guangzhou, China, where Redstone announced new business ventures in China country for MTV and Nickelodeon.

Asked if Dan Rather would be able to remain as long as he wants as anchor Redstone said: ”I already said that I would wait for the report to try to determine whether there should be any consequences to anybody at CBS News. I have found him, by the way, to be a very good reporter over the years. And, frankly, a very good friend. And I grieved all the more because of that friendship.”

Redstone on the role of politics: “There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

When asked how closely he’s been following the CBS News controversy, he says, “Let me first give you some perspective. Neither I nor any executive at Viacom has any access to or plays any role in the news reports that come from CBS. Like you, we read about them in the newspapers. Notwithstanding that, I have, for obvious reasons, been carefully monitoring the situation. I have been talking continually with (CBS president) Les Moonves and with the members of the Viacom board. Now we have set up an independent panel—and believe me, it is independent, and believe me, it will move very fast—and I am satisfied that they will reach the right and appropriate conclusion and we will then act accordingly.”

When asked if he foresees this incident as having any short-term or long-term impact on the brand, he says, “Of course it’s had a short-term impact. It would be foolish to deny that. But long-term impact? No. Certainly not economic. Eight of the top 10 shows in all of television are shown on CBS. That’s an extraordinary record that can’t be overlooked because of this incident. And what advertisers buy are programs.”

When asked if he sees a need for a change at the News division, he says: “I think it would be too early for me to judge. I intend to maintain a kind of independent view until I see what this panel has to report. And then you can assume that whatever is appropriate will take place.”

When asked about Dan Rather, and if he will be able to remain as long as he wants as anchor, Redstone says, “I already said that I would wait for the report to try to determine whether there should be any consequences to anybody at CBS News. I have found him, by the way, to be a very good reporter over the years. And, frankly, a very good friend. And I grieved all the more because of that friendship.

When asked about politics, Redstone says, “There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

When asked if the China market has opened up, he says, “I have been coming here for many years. Those years were spent for the most part in building relationships of friendship and trust with the various officials of the Chinese government. And as a result, from a commercial standpoint the doors have just opened—and they have opened wide.”

Asked how his channels do in China, he says, “Nickelodeon is the highest-rated product on the CCTV (China Central Television) kids’ channel. And we expect to triple our distribution by the end of the year to make the total distribution of MTV China about 10 million.”

Asked how China channels do in the U.S., he says, “We believe in cultural exchange. We’ve gotten CCTV into a lot of hotels in the U.S. We export their product through the MTV Music Awards, which is a joint venture with CCTV. We are doing the things we think will endear us ultimately to China and keep opening the doors.”

Asked if censorship in China is an issue, he says, “We really don’t have that problem. The programming on our channels in China is co-produced with a Chinese company. We are very conscious of the taste of the Chinese people and the Chinese government. And therefore we don’t produce material that invites criticism from China.”

.................

This guy is a realist.
There should be more of them in big media.
He's the captain of a giant org that needs some discipline. I see some strong implications in his statements that should filter down through the ranks of his operation in the near future. If you've been following all the news on Viacom ventures this year, you may see evidence here that the relationship between this once-responsible company and the government that tolerates it may be changing. That would be a change for the good, IMO.

But aren't all those quotes, found in yet another media outlet, nothing more than mass media mind control telling you exactly what you want to hear?

Yes, of course.

I've never gotten to sit with the man ever, but I do know his secretary and his personal food assistant.

He's very down to earth and also a very credible man. He's a no nonsense guy.

one of the myths/legends of the office...

Sumner Redstone and Tom Freston, president of MTV Networks riding up the same elevator. Sumner shakes his head as he looks at Tom. Tom is dressed in a pair of jeans and button down shirt with a sports jacket on. Sumner says something to the effect of "You are worst dressed executive I employ."

Freston replied,"Yes, but I make you the most money."

Sumner responded, "You got me there..."

I didn't spend any pc time today so I didn't get to read the news, thanks for keeping up...

I could use a personal food assistant.

Google Conforms to Chinese Censorship

Sep 25, 6:26 AM (ET)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Google Inc. (GOOG)'s recently launched news service in China doesn't display results from Web sites blocked by that country's authorities, raising prickly questions for an online search engine that has famously promised to "do no evil."

Dynamic Internet Technology Inc., a research firm striving to defeat online censorship, conducted tests that found Google omits results from the government-banned sites if search requests are made through computers connecting to the Internet in China.

Steered by an identical search request, computers with a United States connection retrieved results from the sites blocked by China.

"That's a problem because the Chinese people need to know there are alternative opinions from the Chinese government and there are many things being covered up by the government," said Bill Xia, Dynamic's chief executive. "Users expect Google to return anything on the Internet. That's what a search engine does."

Xia suspects Google is cooperating with the Chinese government's censorship efforts to smooth the way for expansion plans that could help the Mountain View-based company boost future profits.

The Chinese government lashed out at Google two years ago when it temporarily blocked access to the company's main search engine before relenting under public pressure.

Google acknowledges its Chinese language news service - introduced on a test basis two weeks ago - is leaving out results from government-banned sites, but the company believes the omissions jibe with its long-standing mission to make its search engine efficient and useful.

If Google were to display results from sites the Chinese government blocks, computer users would end up clicking on links that lead nowhere - something the search engine has always tried to avoid.

"Google has decided that in order to create the best possible search experience for our mainland China users we will not include sites whose content is not accessible," company spokeswoman Debbie Frost said Friday.

Only a "tiny fraction" of Web sites are being excluded by the Chinese news service, Frost said. Xia said his tests indicated Google is excluding Chinese results from at least eight sites, including www.epochtimes.com and www.voanews.com.

Google says the Chinese news service draws upon roughly 1,000 sites - a broader array than in Germany, which trolls 700 sites, and Italy, which monitors about 250 sites.

"It's probably killing them to leave some (Chinese) sites out of its index, but they have probably decided they are doing greater good by providing access to all these other sites," said Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li.

Complaints about Google's search results aren't new.

As its search engine has become more popular in recent years, Google has drawn fire for displaying some results too prominently and downplaying others.

Some organizations also have lodged complaints about the company's policies governing the kinds of ads it will accept.

Google's pledge to "do no evil" - trumpeted loudly by company co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin - is spurring even greater scrutiny of company behavior.

If it wanted to take a political stand, Google could consider posting a disclaimer on the Chinese news site advising visitors the search results may be affected by government censorship, said analyst Li.

A step like that, though, would run the risk of inciting the Chinese government to restrict access to Google's news service.

"Doing no evil doesn't necessarily mean Google has to be the progressive cause for change," Li said. "(In China), they are saying, 'This is the law of the land, and there is nothing we can do to change it.'"

.......................
China gets its way and Google gets to stay. One hand rubs the other. I scratch your back - you scratch mine. Go along to get along. I'm not at all sure that ultimately China will fare any better than the Soviet Union did in stemming the rising tide of free exchange of ideas trumping governmental restrictions. But for now, chalk one up to the forces of totalitarianism. How long can the bamboo curtain remain impervious to the global power of the Net? Time will tell...

from Variety.com

In the wake of CBS News' "60 Minutes" controversy, an influential Republican on Tuesday said he wants to convene a Capitol Hill hearing on TV news operations after the Nov. 2 election.



Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record) (R-Texas), chair of the House Commerce Committee, told a meeting of the TV engineering trade group MSTV in Washington that broadcast network news divisions "need to have safeguards to prevent reporters from infusing their opinions into news reports."


The lawmaker said he wanted to hear from execs of all the nets -- not just CBS -- and threatened to introduce legislation requiring TV news operations to impose safeguards against partisan bias seeping into reports. He backed off the threat of legislation when pressed for specifics.


Barton also implied that TV news is less reliable then the print media, adding that with reality TV such a force in the entertainment world in recent years, many TV news personalities did not begin their careers as "real journalists" working for newspapers and other print media.


CBS declined comment on Barton's remarks.


News execs emphasized that the First Amendment protects the media from government censorship.


Within CBS News, top Republican Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press prexy-CEO Louis D. Boccardi continued their investigation of the botched "60 Minutes" story. Pair were appointed by CBS News prexy Andrew Heyward and Viacom co-prexy/CBS prexy-CEO Leslie Moonves.

.......................................................

Requiring TV news to be non-biased...what a concept.

In this week's Time magazine, the Chairman of CBS News, Sumner Redstone, mentioned that he was particularly distressed over the whole Rathergate debacle. In saying this, he also first mentioned, quote:

"Let me give you some perspective. Neither I nor any executives at Viacom has any access to or plays any role in the news reports that come from CBS. Like you, we read about them in the newspapers. Notwithstanding that, I have, for obvious reasons, been carefully monitoring the situation. ..."

Article

Strange days when the Chairman/CEO (and his executives) of a major news network refuses to take responsibility for what his tv anchormen report to the public. Its as if the inmates were running the asylum.

Sumner and the rest of the executives here at Viacom conform to corporate culture that lets people do what they do best. If you see it as the inmates running the asylum I guess that's a fair statement, but the more accurate statement is that management doesn't get in the way of the things that the groups are trying to accomplish.

The executives set the directives and boundaries and let the rest of the people do the things that they are good at doing.

Cynthetiq, perhaps it has been that way.
But now...
Here's what I see him doing - you tell me exactly how much of a stretch you think it is.
He is sounding a distress call. To ignore the captain's distress is to bring distress upon oneself. This message applies to Rather and the CBS news operation, who have allowed political and personal agendas to tarnish the lustre of the Tiffany Network; Stern, who has allowed his infantile narcisissim to replace entertainment with political diatribe; the liberal media elite - whose agendas and candidates are, by his own definition, not good for his company; MTV, et. al. for the Janet Jackson debacle; and these are to just name a few of the most egregious cases. Can you see these signals in his statements? I most certainly can.

I don't see him waving a flag of distress. I do see him voicing his concern.

One of the paradigm shifts that has happened over the years is that the media has moved from the simple slant-bias to all out blantant talking head/anchor bias. The commentators have moved from the sidelines of junkets and segments to whole hour shows on all mediums.

I'm not so close to the Viacom floors anymore... I don't get the pulse like I used to from them, but Sumner has always been keen on independent investigations which are paid for by Viacom so it's not really all that "independent."

He's a shrewd businessman, so long as he's making money he's not going to push someone into any corners to conform.

a small tidbit about him: He doesn't use the computer on his desk, he mainly looks at the quotron screen which is a direct stock feed. if that's down for more than 5 minutes he can be very cranky.

Understood. Yet, the CBS brand (and Rather) has taken a blow, or has it? The public does have a notoriously short attention span, that and new viewers/generations constantly coming aboard.
I can see this whole thing being a non-issue from a business standpoint. Running a business successfully - making money - is The Bottom Line. That's fine, thats the way it is. And in the context of this whole situation, your above quote about The Boss coming down on someone makes perfect sense.

Cynthetiq,
I don't know how on earth else to read a statement like this:
"VIACOM CEO SUMNER REDSTONE’S REACTION TO CBS BACKING DOWN FROM BUSH SERVICE STORY ‘WAS ONE OF SEVERE DISTRESS,’ HE TELLS TIME"

If that was my captain, you better believe I would be reading it that way.

Also again, his statement:

"When asked about politics... “There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.” seems to me to be a clarion call to a kind of realism that is taboo among the intelligensia these days.

The above quotes are just too revolutionary to take mildly, I think. If this isn't rocking the boat, well then the boat is just being pulled down by the weight of its own anchor in the sand - along side of the heads of its crew, who are evidently also waterlogged and sandbound and just about sunk.

Do I over-react? If this was my boss saying these things, I know what I would be thinking. I'd be calling for stories about the coming paradigm shift...

It's a messy situation when the first thing that people can think of is to ask the government to step in and do things for us. Are we really so brain-washed as to think that this is a good situation? Anytime we have to reply on government to do things for us, we give away our personal freedoms one-by-one.

What perfect drones we have become for government. Just like little children, the first thing we are trained to do when things get out of hand is to cry "mommy" to the government so that they can step in and "make it all better" for us. Politicians calling for legislation for more government control is like asking for more gasoline to put out a fire.

Art said >> Requiring TV news to be non-biased...what a concept.

I hear new legislation may also be forming to require water to stop being so wet. It would probably be as successful...

Art, that story calls our system into question a bit... It makes me wonder whether he thinks his contribution or his vote is worth more in the process. It makes me wonder what it means that he would contribute in one direction while voting in the other - and if that indicates some distrust of the system on a basic level, even as he participates on multiple fronts.

ubertuber, realism is sometimes stranger than fiction. I admire his ability to separate his wishful thinking from his responsibilities.

One who can not grasp things in their pragmatic dimension is hopelessly lost. In that condition one speaks mainly to oneself.

Hehe, I like how you put that...

Who will win? Big Government or Big Business? It seems to me reasonable to think that, in governing a country, that country's media would fall under the jurisdiction of the government of the country it does business in. Probably somewhat naive of me. It does paint a bizarre picture - of Big Business running the show under a political construct such as the First Amendment. Art, would this be an American phenonmena or does this type of thing happen in other countries too?

I've observed my thoughts before, and try to do so with at least some frequency. Rarely do I find myself thinking of buying something, or of a TV show or a movie. My thoughts are generally more focused on real life, or hypothetical life (ie. real life that isn't real yet). One thing I do notice though, is frequently there are songs going through my head. Aside from that though, nothing untoward regarding the media.

powerclown, great question. I figure this is how it is in postmodern USA at the start of the 21st century. The underlying power dynamics (media, government, intelligensia, populace, global audience) however, seem to me to describe the basal situation as it exists in other countries as well.

NBC Nightly News Puts 'ILIE' in Graphic Next to Bush's Face
 

There have been some pretty good examples of MMMC during the 2004 Presidential election season. I thought I'd start with this one and perhaps work our way back.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...sion/I_lie.jpg

enjoy.

ART, if you don't mind me asking, do you happen to be a para-military type of guy?

I showed the last graphic to several people who were all very skeptical about the intent of the graphic. No one really thought there was anything to it that could have been intentional.

To quote an old saying, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled off was making people believe that he didn't exist". I think the same saying could apply here. I wonder how many people run across this thread and think "what a crock of shit!" ? I get this response all of the time when I broach the topic with friends or acquaintances and I imagine that is what most of the controllers of information want.

Suave, I'd like to answer your question, but it's not a term I use.

Anyway, I see the image as right down the middle of the topic of this thread. In the world at large, we see what we want to see - but in the media we only see what we are shown. This thread is really about drawing your own conclusions as to what the "meaning" of it all is.

I know that this may cover ground that has already been covered but for the people who don't read the entire thread for content...

Art said >> in the media we only see what we are shown.

I wanted to add to that thought and state that the converse also applies.

We also DON'T see what Mass Media doesn't want us to see. It's really the same thing. MM is not only controlling the images and sounds that we are bombarded with, but they also selectively deny us information that works contrary to their goals. Whether you call it conspiracy or coincidence, we are completely at the mercy of the networks and news outlets for our daily information dose.

My local hospital just had it's first reported case of Mad Cow disease with the diagnosis of a 40 year old woman. She was given a terminal prognosis. No news reports, no newspaper articles, - nothing. It's big friggin news here in the USA when it happens somewhere else but when it hits here, not a peep.

From the lack of coverage, you might get the idea that there is no chance that anyone has gotten the disease and thus assume that there is no danger. If the newspapers and networks are right, there isn't. I will be curious to see how the next few days play out and see what comes of this.

Fair enough. It wasn't that important a question anyways.

As far as mass media control, that's why even reputable news stories should be taken with healthy skepticism. Fortunately, while "the media" (an almost ominous-sounding term in this context) does have a large influence on us as a society, if not as individuals, it is not focused on negatively affecting us. Generally, what is or is not shown by the media is selected because they want to intrigue more people, and therefore increase profits, so on the whole, negative effects are felt as an unfortunate consequence of relatively harmless greed. It gets more dangerous however, when one in control of a powerful information medium has a political/moral/etc agenda, which is thankfully either rare or relatively weak.

I thought this was an interesting read. It shows just how powerful the media really is in affecting cultural changes over a short period of time. Those of you who are geographically challenged Bhutan is between China and India.

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for that comprehensive post, Cynthetiq.

It's been clear to me for many decades that television is the most powerful tool for mind alteration that humankind has ever developed. And the manner in which it has been implemented and utilized is almost wholly pernicious. On balance, we are all the worse for it.

Adding propaganda to the long list of media flaws, there remains only one more intrerpretation to add at this time - it is the old CYA option. It's important to investigate the lies perpetrated by idealogues from all parts of the spectrum when deconstructing the messages we receive on a daily basis. And the CYA strategem is quite universal. An egregious example follows:
..........................

from ... w w w . b r o a d c a s t i n g c a b l e . c o m

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sweating Bush II at CBS

By Staff -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/8/2004 10:44:00 AM


Players involved in the notorious 60 Minutes II story, reported by Dan Rather, which employed dubious documents regarding President Bush’s National Guard service, may have been rooting for a John Kerry victory.

No, it wasn’t that old bugaboo liberal media bias as much as it was a bias toward saving their own skins. The report from an internal investigation into the documents mess was purposely being held until after the election.

Pre-election, the feeling in some quarters at CBS was that if Kerry triumphed, fallout from the investigation would be relatively minimal. The controversial piece’s producer, Mary Mapes, would likely be suspended or fired, but a long list of others up the chain of command—from 60 Minutes II executive producer Josh Howard, to Rather and all the way up to news division President Andrew Heyward—would escape more or less unscathed.

But now, faced with four more years of President Bush, executives at CBS parent Viacom could take a harder line on the executives involved.

More news on this today.
.................

Media Research Center Releases
“The Ten Worst Media Distortions
of Campaign 2004”



“The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. … And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and opportunistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them … that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.” – Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas, “Inside Washington,” WUSA-TV, 7/10/04.

ALEXANDRIA, Va.—The Media Research Center today released a special report, “The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004,” as compiled and ranked by MRC analysts.

“The liberal ‘news’ media have been as big an issue in this campaign as anything else. It is a fact: The media chose sides early and have acted as extensions of the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry-Edwards campaign,” said MRC President Brent Bozell.

The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004

Dan Rather’s Forgery Fiasco

Ignoring, Then Attacking, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Pounding the Bush National Guard Story

Spinning a Good Economy into Bad News

The Networks’ Outrageous Convention Double-Standard

Swooning Over Edwards’ Image, Ignoring His Liberalism

CBS’s Byron Pitts Promotional Kerry Coverage

CBS Promotes Fears of a New Military Draft

Misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission on Iraq/al-Qaeda Links

Equating New Terrorism Warning to LBJ’s “Gulf of Tonkin”
Rathergate … CBS News had to appoint an outside two-member investigating committee to find out how and why a) Dan Rather aired a hatchet job on President Bush based on forged documents that CBS was warned about and b) CBS Producer Mary Mapes coordinated with senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart concerning the discredited source of those documents.

The Attack On The Swift Boat Vets … Last spring, over 250 Vietnam War contemporaries, including veterans who served with him when he was a Swift Boat commander and his entire chain of command, came forward to publicly challenge Kerry’s version of Vietnam and his anti-war activities. After being ignored for several weeks the media turned on these honorable men with a vengeance, rather than give them a shred of credibility.

Good Economic Numbers = Bad News? … When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was at 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Today, as Bush stands for re-election, unemployment is at 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent and economists’ consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent. Coverage of the Clinton economic data was overwhelmingly favorable (35 positive, 6 negative stories). Under Bush, it’s literally reversed to 6 positive, 38 negative. Numbers don’t lie. Bias is the only explanation.

The Networks’ Convention Double-Standard … Democratic speakers who savaged Republicans in Boston were touted by network journalists as “rock stars.” But journalists turned sour when covering the Republicans in New York. CNN’s Bill Schneider on the GOP: “This is a very angry convention, it’s a very belligerent convention.” TIME’s Joe Klein, a CNN contributor: “I’ve been doing this for a fair number of years and I don’t think I’ve seen anything as angry or as ugly as [Sen. Zell] Miller’s speech.”

CBS’s Byron Pitts, in a Pro-Kerry Class of His Own … Pitts, on the day Kerry accepted the Democratic nomination: “Tonight’s acceptance of the Democratic nomination is more than merely a day, it’s [Kerry’s] destiny.” Pitts, attacking the leader of the Swift Boat Veterans instead of addressing their charges: “Their leader, John O’Neill, was also Richard Nixon’s point man in attacks on John Kerry’s protest of the Vietnam War 30 years ago.” Pitts, on Teresa Heinz Kerry: “Both rich and reachable.”

CBS Cooks Up Fictitious Draft Story … CBS correspondent Richard Schlesinger focused this story around Beverly Cocco, portraying her as a mom “petrified about a military draft.” He never mentioned she is the activist leader of a group called “People Against the Draft.” He never mentioned that the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and the Bush campaign all oppose a new draft. Dan Rather introduced the segment this way: “A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?” Both Schlesinger and Producer Linda Karas cited erroneous email chatter about the draft as justification for doing an Evening News segment. Karas incredulously intoned: “The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece.”

“The major media are doing all they can to help elect Kerry, just as Newsweek’s Evan Thomas indicated,” said Bozell. “This report presents some of the worst media distortions this year, and proves beyond all doubt that the elite media are not objective or fair or balanced. They are liberal partisans who are sacrificing any remaining credibility in an effort to defeat President Bush.”

.......................

I'm of the opinion that, although the distortions came from both sides - and they continue apace - that there is in fact an ideological predilection in what may be described as the old media - as opposed to newer channels - which may be said to lean toward bias in the other direction. In any event, it's more disinformation. Is it any wonder we carry on the way we do - all of us?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi...&date=20041108

November 08, 2004

Why we are slaves to marketing

by Kay McFadden / Times staff columnist

Here's a little experiment: Before you read this paper, relate to it.

Does the soft pulpiness and sober typeface make you think of mom and dad or a paper-pushing bureaucrat? Did your 50 cents purchase a sense of community or of individual distinction?

I know - you simply wanted some news. But as "The Persuaders" informs us at 10 p.m. tomorrow on PBS, that's probably just your cortex talking.

One of "Frontline's" best productions all year, "The Persuaders" is a fascinating delve into how today's marketers influence our choices, from cheese to political candidates to Boeing's plush Dreamliner.

The 90-minute show features media critic Douglas Rushkoff, who collaborated on last year's teensploitation exposé, "The Merchants of Cool."

This time, the bottom line is even colder.

"My theory is simple," says Dr. Clotaire Rapaille, introduced as the Fortune 500 king of consumer code-cracking. "The reptilian brain is always going to win."

It may seem less than revelatory to say emotion trumps logic when we make selections. But last week's election and the news media's subsequent surprise demonstrate that this rule isn't taken seriously enough.

"The Persuaders" interviews Frank Luntz, the nation's leading provider of market research to Republican and conservative politicians.

"Eighty percent of our life is emotion and only 20 percent is intellect,"
says Luntz, whose clients include Rudolph Giuliani and Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. "I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think."

Although the actual recent election isn't included, "The Persuaders" cites 2004's visceral campaign ads and the strategy of finding emotional issues likely to boost voting by certain groups.

Feeling also enables a person to sweep aside environmental concerns for the dominating thrill of an SUV or to opt for a sense of belonging that bolsters the cultlike enthusiasm surrounding Mac, Saturn and eBay.

Naturally, consumer companies have been well ahead in utilizing this trend.

That's where "The Persuaders" starts, by setting us amid the neural overload of Times Square and the musings of Ad Age magazine columnist Bob Garfield.

"Somewhere beneath all these ads is the city I grew up in," he says. "But over the last 20 years, it's grown a second skin: a twinkling membrane of commercial messages."

Garfield then proceeds to a party sponsored by Song, a Delta Airlines division trying to launch itself in a market already saturated with competition and low-budget price wars.

The saga of Song is meant to be a narrative thread. But while facets of the company's image-making process are interesting and even unintentionally funny, Song itself never gets off the ground and fades away before "The Persuaders"
is over.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because Garfield's pilgrimage through the world of Madison Avenue is so riveting. He wants to know - and so do we - how it became so simultaneously blatant and insidious.

The modern marketing era began in the early '90s, we are told, when traditional methods of selling based on performance no longer mattered because products were becoming too comparable. The bombardment of reiteration wore away credibility.

Moreover, the increasing clutter of ads made a different approach inevitable.
Advertising was undergoing a consolidation trend as frantic marketers began abandoning long-standing relationships in search of the new big thing.

That turned out to be lifestyle advertising. Starbucks flogged the notion of meeting-place community; Benetton made clothes buying an endorsement of multiculturalism; Nike touted personal transcendence through sports.

Since then, the notion of creating clubs to which consumers want to belong has become more and more refined. Product lifestyle is a total immersion experience.

Ad strategist Doug Atkin, a brand manager at Procter & Gamble in the mid-'90s, recalls the "Eureka!" moment when he heard a group of people wax enthusiastic about their favorite sneakers.

Atkin immediately proceeded to make a study of what he calls cults, ranging from Hare Krishna to Harley Davidson.

His conclusion: "People, whether they are joining a cult or a brand, do so for exactly the same reasons. They need to belong and they want to make meaning."

Corporations nowadays approach brand-building within a similar framework. And their mechanisms for targeting the faithful go well beyond mere demographics, as revealed in a look at the gigantic information clearinghouse Acxiom.

At Acxiom, the population has been sorted into 70 different types, drawn from a compilation of census input, tax records, marketing lists and purchasing data. It sounds absolutely hateful to be reduced to a type, but I guess that's part of belonging.

It also seems wrong to talk about guilty pleasures in a show devoted to dissecting our unthinking desires. But "The Persuaders" provides a bevy of ad clips that are fun to see.

Viewers also will notice that what seemed sophisticated 15 years ago now looks clumsy, even as commercials from 40 years ago provoke nostalgia. You almost wince in advance for the sure-to-become-quaint spectacle of today's hip iPod spot.

A major theme in "The Persuaders" is the constant state of war between consumer boredom and marketing blandishment.

This is never so pointed as in the segment dealing with television commercials, the lifeblood of two industries.

TiVo and similar technologies have enabled viewers to tune out. The empire has struck back with product placement, ranging from prizes on "Survivor" to actual story lines, as when "Sex and The City" made Samantha's boyfriend into the Absolut Hunk.

"The Persuaders" covers vast swaths of territory without neglecting many vital details. Wisely, it doesn't try to reach for any sweeping conclusions. The program's balance may lie in the fact that for every marketing tactic that appalled me, others were enticing.

But "Frontline" producers are discriminating.

They note there's a big difference between pushing products and political agenda - although ironically, only product claims have to be true. Tape this show and save it for the next election cycle.


Kay McFadden: kmcfadden@seattletimes.com

Our godly president:

http://www.maryjones.us/pics/bush_halo.jpg

http://www.maryjones.us/pics/BushHalo.jpg

An image just like the second one (yet an entirely different picture) was also used on the front page of CNN.com a day or two after Bush won the election.

Cynthetiq, thanks much for the heads up!

Yes, sadly we overestimate our ability to make reasonable choices. It's vanity - pure and simple. We like to flatter ourselves. We have a great deal of vested interest in denying our sorry manipulable lot.

yes, I'm very much looking forward to this since it is being done by the same people that did Merchants of Cool about MTV. I know how much research we put into our products I have no idea as to what goes on at Disney or Time Warner, but I will guess that in order to compete at the best levels they have to be doing something along the same lines.

*runs over to the tv and turns it off*

the only problem with that is that it isn't just TV. It's all media from internet to print, TV to radio.

another review of the Frontline episode airing tonight.

from gothamist.com and they even see where their role is in the process...

I read through the first few pages of this thread and, don't take this the wrong way, I have to say that there's a lot of "tinfoil hat" wearing going on here.

I don't really ever listen to the radio. TV... I watch occasionally. One or two sitcoms, some Adult Swim, that's about it. Probably no more than an hour or two a week. I watch a lot of movies.

News... I don't pay attention to local news. I'll glance at CNN occasionally to see what's going on in the world.

I consider myself so far detached from effects of "media" and advertising that I had a very hard time relating to much of what was posted in this thread. I did, however, understand the points that were made on how one could probably misinterpret one thing as something else.

First off, I want to make a comment on the pictures shown - when I looked at the picture of the flowers, I saw flowers. When I looked at the Gin, I saw Gin. Later, when someone said, "Sex" is hidden in the pictures, I went back and saw it. Ok, nice optical illusion. What exactly does this prove aside from the fact that the eye tends to immediately focus on a more dominant color?

Same with the dolphin/sexual picture. All that proves is that it's a clever optical illusion - there isn't anything "hidden" going on aside from that. Your eyes see the picture and they naturally pick up the image of the two people. It'd be the same if the image was a plane, car, apple, whatever made up of small starfish or waffles.

Second, referring to the Palmolive pictures - what point are you trying to make? The arm belongs to another person with the words "Who can resist the gentle touch". As if hordes of people rush out to suddenly buy up the world's stock in palmolive or something. When I buy soap, I think, "I need some dish soap because I have dishes to wash. I don't give a damn what kind it is, it just better work good." Likewise if I buy bars of soap/shower gel. I buy what smells good and doesn't make my skin feel like crap.

Same with the Gin. Yeah, I could see how it somewhat resembles the word "sex" in the ice cubes, but there's no proof presented with that picture to show that the brain picks out that insanely hidden item to associate Gin with "sex". Did people get this sudden urge and say, "You know, Gin sounds pretty good right about now"? You have to look pretty hard to see it. When I buy alcohol, I buy whatever tastes good for the simple fact that I want to enjoy a nice buzz. I could care less if there's a bottle of absolut shoved up some girl's crotch or a bottle of budweiser being deep throated by a cheerleader. The last alcohol I purchased was a bottle of Barenjager. Honestly, I've never seen an ad for it in my life. I normally buy Corona - those commercials have people lounging on a beach enjoying a nice vacation. I could care less. It could show the bottles submerged in a vat of maggots. That particular beer tastes good to me, so it's what I buy. I'm assuming most people are the same way.

What's up with the picture of the water being sprayed everywhere? What, the water bottle represents a phallic object and the water spraying all over is supposed to be semen? It's bottled water. I think it's stupid to buy bottled water as it is, but that's another story.

I have an example: Axe body spray. Those commercials are so blatantly full of sex, it's not even funny. I can see how people would go out and buy that, because it smells good. Are people seduced by the sex? Probably, but it's an ad. The ad is saying, "Hey, if you want to smell good, come check this product out." No one wants to smell like ASS, right?

I believe that if you pay attention to one thing long enough, you'll see it all over. The same applies to certain mathematics and how people are amazed at how certain numbers are abundant in nature, etc. In this case, the obsessed topic happens to be sex. I'm not denying that the media puts images of sexy women to sell beers or whatever, but it's not like it's this grand conspiracy in an attempt to control your life make you buy strange amounts of palmolive, gin, or Dasani.

The kid looking anxious into the book while the woman in the background has her hand by her crotch... yeah, if you stare at it (like any other picture), I'm sure you can get a huge novel out of it: "Hey, hurry up and straighten your life out so we can go have sex. Then I can buy you a pizza and we can build some stuff out of legos!" I just have a hard time believing that people see something like that and suddenly get this urge to go take out a loan or think "shit, my life is in ruins."

The Phillip Morris picture w/ the kid on the snowboard... it looks like a match. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have them embed a hidden cigarette in the outline of the skiier's jacket? Why a match? The subliminal mind picks it up, "Hey, let's go light a match. Yay."

Speaking of subliminal minds, last I heard, many studies have shown that there's no evidence of subliminal marketing on people. Or is that what "they" want me to think? The guy who put images of popcorn and coke in between clips in his movie theater.. didn't he later admit to lying about the fact that it drove up his sales?

Just because there's an ad for it on the TV doesn't make someone "consumer sheep" if they go out and buy something, either. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy these things.

For example, I need a new vacuum. I happened upon a commercial for a Dyson vacuum that claims it works great and sucks up all kinds of junk out of your carpet. I went online, read reviews, and found that almost all who use it say it's damn great! So if I buy this, what exactly am I falling prey to? I DO need a new vacuum considering my old one is a POS.. and I DO want my house to remain clean!

What about commercials for places that have sales on clothes, or Best Buy ads that say, "DVDs are 10% off this week!" No one's forcing you to buy DVDs. It's saying, "Hey, if there's a DVD you want, come by our place because we're having this crazy thing called a sale."

Personally, I don't pay attention to most ads, and maybe that's the reason I'm skeptical about a lot of what's in this thread (or, at least, the first half). In the rare occasion that I do watch TV, I flip the channel whenever a commercial comes on. Commercials are a nuisance to me I guess I was lucky enough to associate "commercial" with "boring, change it now" as a child.

Like I said, if you pay attention and focus on one thing, you'll find it anywhere and everywhere you look.

...and They Live is a kick ass movie. You also need a video playback device and a television to watch it (they got you by the balls w/ that one!), unless you pick up the horrible censored version on USA or something.

I'll read the rest of the thread later, but so far it's interesting if you ever wanna stike up a chat with someone about off the wall conspiracy theories.

The thread is intended to raise questions, issues, and as a method of inquiry. It's a long thread. It evolves and moves in a way that covers many of the points you raise. There's a dialog that includes both sides of each - to the extent that folks have found them interesting. It continues to include other aspects of cultural manipulation and our susceptibility to it, moves to others, and never does, I think, reach resolutions, solutions, or conclusions. Welcome to the thread. I think it has some value to a kind of ongoing investigation of ourselves and what it may mean to be what we are and what we may or may not wish to be.

well stated art, there doesn't seem to be any end to this discussion in any concrete conclusion. it is merely to raise awareness.

Stompy, MTV Networks spends lots of money on researching what's hot, what's not, and how things become hot. I know for a fact that they spend lots of money (I don't see the budgets, but I do know how much staff is in that department and I see the research that they purchase, collect, pore over, and make judgements.) The reason that they spend all this research money? So that the development money for shows pays the most. For every $1 MTV spends on producing a show they take in $2. I remember when I first came to the company and it was just 4 channels and then they launched TVLand. Ever since they they have had record profits as they continue to buy up and launch other channels. Today there are 18 cable channels in the US, and over 100+ countries. MTV is gearing up to open in China and in Africa.

Remember the old commercials "I want my MTV!"? Yes, that's clever marketing and brand building. There's not a single place on this planet that I can go to and tell someone where I work and them not say that at some point in time. That is the power of a brand.

You shared about AXE and not smelling like ass. You're very right, no one wants to smell like ass. But given the amount of competition when you look on the shelves for a deoderant product something has to differentiate itself, either commercial (AXE - sex, masculinity - Old Spice, feminity - secret,) cost, packaging color/shape.

Marlboro cigarettes used to be marketed to women. It was a poor seller. Once they found the cowboy theme, Marlboro has been one of the top sellers worldwide.

I do highly recommend checking out Merchants of Cool it's available to watch online. I'm just about to watch The Persuaders which I think will be equally eye opening.