Bread and circus... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

irateplatypus · 03-26-2004, 12:15 AM

This will probably be a bit long... but bear with me.

I watched the Daily Show w/Jon Stewart earlier this evening. As i sat there watching their "coverage" of the 9-11 hearings and Richard Clark's testimony, I became concerned about the mediums that we use to learn about the world around us.

I think the Daily Show is hilarious. Even though it seems to lean left some of the time, some of the jabs at the right are genuinely funny to this conservative.

I watch the show for its pure entertainment value, not for my main source of news coverage. My worry is that many see the short quotes, silly ridicule and words without context and assume that they are informed about the issues.

I've seen it happen to both sides. The Daily Show will clearly misrepresent what someone was saying for comic value. If I were not well-versed in the political environment or if i only learned about politics from Jon Stewart, I probably wouldn't know that very little of what is said on that show is indicitive of what actually happens in government.

Now, on to the meat of this post...

In our constant craving for amusement, I fear that we lose the ability to really understand the issues that face us. We have all witnessed, firsthand or otherwise, the need to be entertained in order for us to give something priority.

We've transferred this need to politics...

1. Political discourse has become a insult throwing contest

2. Most people learn about the candidates from inflammatory and misleading 30 sec ads
3. We vote for presidents who play the saxaphone on MTV

4. Minions repeat slogans like "no child left behind", yet haven't a clue how that transfers to their local school classroom

You can easily make that same argument when discussing religion. We compile what we know from a few soundbites and whatever slogans catch our eye as we drive down the road.

Information has lost all meaning, it has lost all context. We are left with the complete abstraction of ideas, nothing is tangible or learned through experience and research. We see a few seconds at an Israeli/Palestinian checkpoint on the news and are led to believe that we know something about the situation. No wonder everyone considers themselves to be an expert on every subject! That is what we're being told. The media makes no mention of the crucial limitations of the mediums they use to make millions.

If we demand to be entertained by all things in life, then we will gradually tend to favor the most extreme stimuli available (the kind of content that is easily delivered by televised sounds and images). Like it or not, seeing really is believing for most of us. We also know that on the TV, information delivered without context will allow anything to be seen in the perspective that the purveyor of the content wants it to be seen.

Is it any wonder that there is so much confusion and bitterness over such issues? My right-wing television shows do no better than any left-wing program in representing the full, contextualized, truth. It is the nature of the beast. Talking heads and short soundbites to not lend themselves to a deep understanding of anything. When we choose entertainment as a mandatory precursor for our attention, we put ourselves at the mercy of those who engineer the content.

This problem is not escaped by simply switching mediums, but it sure does help. Complex propositional arguments are more easily understood, logical fallacies more easily spotted when the content is experienced or read. You can feel yourself analyzing and digesting my words, an experience that would surely be stymied if you were simply watching me drone on the TV screen while you slumped in your lazy-boy recliner.

I'm not saying that I'm better than anyone, that I'm not susceptible to the need to be always entertained. But, I think it helps if we are at least aware of the dangers of accepting truth through a single all-consuming medium such as TV is for many people.

If you're still reading, then pat yourself on the back. What you just read probably wasn't awfully entertaining, but hopefully it was a bit thought-provoking. Well, I've got a lot more to say about this... but I'd like to hear what my fellow TFP'ers think. This is an issue that is independant of partisanship. God knows we've been short on those lately.

Tophat665 · 03-26-2004, 04:50 AM

Damnit, IP, how come you have to go and write something that I agree with?

Here's the problem: how to reverse the trend? Given that it seems to me that most people want from their news programs principally to have their preexisiting opinions reinforced, how does one market in depth news. How does one convince people that taking the time to have an informed opinion is worth it? Given that in this day and age there are realy only three ways to get attention: through drive time radio, prime time television, and web pages that show high on Google or link from major, name recognized news outlets (ABC, CNN, Fox, washingtonpost), and that the only way to get into one of thoe categories is to convince advertisers that you will provide more eyeballs, and that the only way to do that is to appear vapidly entertaining, how does one create a real analysis?

It seems to me that the only way to do this is to be sneaky or humorous. Or, one can try to grab a late night crowd by being extremely controversial.

So I have two ideas:
1) A show called "The Answer" that takes a current event and proposes to solve it through ludicrous means (let's turn the Middle East into an Ice Skating Rink), and then goes on to explain the situation in depth and with complete candor, and relate it all back to that solution.

2) A reality TV show that mocks the contestants lack of understanding of the issues in such a way as to provide the viewer with a rounded view of the issues.

I would say that either should be hosted by a complete right wingnut, a total bleeding heart pinko, and a guest commentator who really understands the issue.

Now, you really are advocating a more literate public, and that requires more education, which requires a culture change away from a certain anti-intellecualism that has been embedded in this country since the No-Nothing party of the early 19th century. One of the current parties (guitly of oversimplification myself here) basically wants to privatize education, and one of them wants to keep throwing money at it until it sticks. Obviously (to me, anyway) neither of those approaches is worth a bean. How to fix it?

More questions than answers, and my two year old just woke up, so time to go.

Tomservo · 03-26-2004, 10:42 AM

My first suggestion is a simple one:

Start watching "Real Time" with Bill Maher. While Maher does lean left, he loves to cry BS at either side. He's amusing and topical, and his guests usually represent a liberal, a conservative, and someone there for comic or celebrity effect. It's a very funny show, with each side getting good points in from time to time. Granted, it does lean left, but I generally feel better informed after hearing some celebrity misspeak about an issue, then be corrected by another panel member.

A quick note on Maher vs. TDS vs. Dennis Miller- I've only seen one episode of Miller's new show, and I was amazed how retarded it was. I mean, seriously, I used to really dig Dennis, but he didn't take a stand, raise an interesting issue, or even seem to care if he or his guest were present. It was only one show, so the sample size is too small to be representative, I suppose. TDS is always funny and often informative- if not the facts themselves, you get an idea of what issues are on the table.

I generally hit CNN, Drudge, and used to listen to O'Reilly daily. I'm off O'Reilly now, but I think CNN and Drudge give me both the "what we want America to know about" and "what they secretly don't want you to know about." People should use the web for good, informing themselves with various sources, instead of just porn and sports, neither of which I have any aversion to, I'm as guilty as the next chump. Especially sports.

Oh, and the BEST way to further your knowledge and understanding? Join the TFP! It lets you in on the base story, some wacky opinions in either direction, and you can form your own opinion.

irateplatypus · 03-26-2004, 10:53 AM

the solution to address the shortcomings of the medium of television and the need to be entertained is to watch yet another TV show because he is amusing? my point is that relying on comedians to inform us on the issues is exactly what is so unwittingly irresponsible about how we understand our world.

in your post you mentioned 3 specific TV shows, one 24 hour news channel and an internet rumor reporter. this is exactly what i propose is wrong with this aspect of post-modern society.

i mean no offense, but it appears that you didn't read either of the first two posts carefully. my issue isn't that you disagree, but your post didn't seem to address any of the arguments in the preceding posts.

Scipio · 03-26-2004, 01:17 PM

The problem is that there is no incentive to create shows that inform their viewers in a meaningful way. People who lean one way or the other tend to seek out media that reinforce their beliefs (ie the O'Reilly Factor, or now the O'Franken Factor). Other people either don't seek out news or information at all, or seek it in very small, probably entertaining doses. The media isn't some evil empire; it just tries to provide what people want, and they don't want to spend hours developing complex and accurate views on the issues.

However, within this framework of media, are they betraying the truth in order to get viewers? I think they are in that their primary mission isn't really dependant on what the truth is, or on offering a nuanced and balanced analysis. The media tries to "cut to the chase," and give viewers cues about what they ought to think about issues, rather than simply telling the viewers what the issues are.

I could go on, but this topic is horribly broad.

irateplatypus · 03-26-2004, 01:30 PM

scipio, i like your angle on this...

i'm not blaming the media, they are just simply satisfying a legitimate demand. the bottom line is, they are businesses who rely on entertainment to draw viewers and make money.

where this whole system goes wrong is when the average person takes what is portrayed on their television set for the actual thing. the trinity of television/news/entertainment is a sledgehammer doing the job of nail file. truth is rarely presented in virgin form on TV because the nature of the medium demands that only the part of truth that can be amusingly represented in video/audio form will be the truth shown.

that is fine, as far as it goes. but, unless the viewer is mindful of the limitations inherent in the mediums of communication we use... they will assume that the piece of the puzzle they are given is the whole picture.

we need to wake up and realize that not all things that are important are entertaining. so what if politics and social issues are often bland? being aware of the world, knowing what your government is really doing in your name... with your dollars is the duty of every contributing member in a truly free society. sometimes this means trudging through boring facts and lines of text devoid of a smug Al Franken or a caustic Bill O'Reilly. sometimes this means that we will have to go out and actually attend that town-hall meeting, sit in on the PTA board, read census reports, talk to real people face to face.

i'm as guilty as anyone here.

losthellhound · 03-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Im sorry to say this but it cannot be reversed easily. The world is full of stupid people, easily led people, and those people are easy to control. Media can throw at us everything from complex "infograms", video, and soundclips that hold our attention. Ever watch Fox News flash animation for the news starting, f16s flying everywhere, explosions (at least the time I tuned in thats what I was treated to). News has met Hollywood, and in order to get our ADD world to tune off of the latest reality show and into the news (the almost reality show)

We're not any different really, we're not superior, Im not proud to admit that I stopped and watched a cruise missile fly at a non descript building a thousand times before I started turning away.. (Im sure you remember the video clip)

We just have to remember to dig deeper, to discuss more..

03-26-2004, 12:15 AM	#1 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	Bread and circus... This will probably be a bit long... but bear with me. I watched the Daily Show w/Jon Stewart earlier this evening. As i sat there watching their "coverage" of the 9-11 hearings and Richard Clark's testimony, I became concerned about the mediums that we use to learn about the world around us. I think the Daily Show is hilarious. Even though it seems to lean left some of the time, some of the jabs at the right are genuinely funny to this conservative. I watch the show for its pure entertainment value, not for my main source of news coverage. My worry is that many see the short quotes, silly ridicule and words without context and assume that they are informed about the issues. I've seen it happen to both sides. The Daily Show will clearly misrepresent what someone was saying for comic value. If I were not well-versed in the political environment or if i only learned about politics from Jon Stewart, I probably wouldn't know that very little of what is said on that show is indicitive of what actually happens in government. Now, on to the meat of this post... In our constant craving for amusement, I fear that we lose the ability to really understand the issues that face us. We have all witnessed, firsthand or otherwise, the need to be entertained in order for us to give something priority. We've transferred this need to politics... 1. Political discourse has become a insult throwing contest 2. Most people learn about the candidates from inflammatory and misleading 30 sec ads 3. We vote for presidents who play the saxaphone on MTV 4. Minions repeat slogans like "no child left behind", yet haven't a clue how that transfers to their local school classroom You can easily make that same argument when discussing religion. We compile what we know from a few soundbites and whatever slogans catch our eye as we drive down the road. Information has lost all meaning, it has lost all context. We are left with the complete abstraction of ideas, nothing is tangible or learned through experience and research. We see a few seconds at an Israeli/Palestinian checkpoint on the news and are led to believe that we know something about the situation. No wonder everyone considers themselves to be an expert on every subject! That is what we're being told. The media makes no mention of the crucial limitations of the mediums they use to make millions. If we demand to be entertained by all things in life, then we will gradually tend to favor the most extreme stimuli available (the kind of content that is easily delivered by televised sounds and images). Like it or not, seeing really is believing for most of us. We also know that on the TV, information delivered without context will allow anything to be seen in the perspective that the purveyor of the content wants it to be seen. Is it any wonder that there is so much confusion and bitterness over such issues? My right-wing television shows do no better than any left-wing program in representing the full, contextualized, truth. It is the nature of the beast. Talking heads and short soundbites to not lend themselves to a deep understanding of anything. When we choose entertainment as a mandatory precursor for our attention, we put ourselves at the mercy of those who engineer the content. This problem is not escaped by simply switching mediums, but it sure does help. Complex propositional arguments are more easily understood, logical fallacies more easily spotted when the content is experienced or read. You can feel yourself analyzing and digesting my words, an experience that would surely be stymied if you were simply watching me drone on the TV screen while you slumped in your lazy-boy recliner. I'm not saying that I'm better than anyone, that I'm not susceptible to the need to be always entertained. But, I think it helps if we are at least aware of the dangers of accepting truth through a single all-consuming medium such as TV is for many people. If you're still reading, then pat yourself on the back. What you just read probably wasn't awfully entertaining, but hopefully it was a bit thought-provoking. Well, I've got a lot more to say about this... but I'd like to hear what my fellow TFP'ers think. This is an issue that is independant of partisanship. God knows we've been short on those lately. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

03-26-2004, 04:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Damnit, IP, how come you have to go and write something that I agree with? Here's the problem: how to reverse the trend? Given that it seems to me that most people want from their news programs principally to have their preexisiting opinions reinforced, how does one market in depth news. How does one convince people that taking the time to have an informed opinion is worth it? Given that in this day and age there are realy only three ways to get attention: through drive time radio, prime time television, and web pages that show high on Google or link from major, name recognized news outlets (ABC, CNN, Fox, washingtonpost), and that the only way to get into one of thoe categories is to convince advertisers that you will provide more eyeballs, and that the only way to do that is to appear vapidly entertaining, how does one create a real analysis? It seems to me that the only way to do this is to be sneaky or humorous. Or, one can try to grab a late night crowd by being extremely controversial. So I have two ideas: 1) A show called "The Answer" that takes a current event and proposes to solve it through ludicrous means (let's turn the Middle East into an Ice Skating Rink), and then goes on to explain the situation in depth and with complete candor, and relate it all back to that solution. 2) A reality TV show that mocks the contestants lack of understanding of the issues in such a way as to provide the viewer with a rounded view of the issues. I would say that either should be hosted by a complete right wingnut, a total bleeding heart pinko, and a guest commentator who really understands the issue. Now, you really are advocating a more literate public, and that requires more education, which requires a culture change away from a certain anti-intellecualism that has been embedded in this country since the No-Nothing party of the early 19th century. One of the current parties (guitly of oversimplification myself here) basically wants to privatize education, and one of them wants to keep throwing money at it until it sticks. Obviously (to me, anyway) neither of those approaches is worth a bean. How to fix it? More questions than answers, and my two year old just woke up, so time to go. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

03-26-2004, 10:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the solution to address the shortcomings of the medium of television and the need to be entertained is to watch yet another TV show because he is amusing? my point is that relying on comedians to inform us on the issues is exactly what is so unwittingly irresponsible about how we understand our world. in your post you mentioned 3 specific TV shows, one 24 hour news channel and an internet rumor reporter. this is exactly what i propose is wrong with this aspect of post-modern society. i mean no offense, but it appears that you didn't read either of the first two posts carefully. my issue isn't that you disagree, but your post didn't seem to address any of the arguments in the preceding posts. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

03-26-2004, 01:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	The problem is that there is no incentive to create shows that inform their viewers in a meaningful way. People who lean one way or the other tend to seek out media that reinforce their beliefs (ie the O'Reilly Factor, or now the O'Franken Factor). Other people either don't seek out news or information at all, or seek it in very small, probably entertaining doses. The media isn't some evil empire; it just tries to provide what people want, and they don't want to spend hours developing complex and accurate views on the issues. However, within this framework of media, are they betraying the truth in order to get viewers? I think they are in that their primary mission isn't really dependant on what the truth is, or on offering a nuanced and balanced analysis. The media tries to "cut to the chase," and give viewers cues about what they ought to think about issues, rather than simply telling the viewers what the issues are. I could go on, but this topic is horribly broad. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

03-26-2004, 01:30 PM	#6 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	scipio, i like your angle on this... i'm not blaming the media, they are just simply satisfying a legitimate demand. the bottom line is, they are businesses who rely on entertainment to draw viewers and make money. where this whole system goes wrong is when the average person takes what is portrayed on their television set for the actual thing. the trinity of television/news/entertainment is a sledgehammer doing the job of nail file. truth is rarely presented in virgin form on TV because the nature of the medium demands that only the part of truth that can be amusingly represented in video/audio form will be the truth shown. that is fine, as far as it goes. but, unless the viewer is mindful of the limitations inherent in the mediums of communication we use... they will assume that the piece of the puzzle they are given is the whole picture. we need to wake up and realize that not all things that are important are entertaining. so what if politics and social issues are often bland? being aware of the world, knowing what your government is really doing in your name... with your dollars is the duty of every contributing member in a truly free society. sometimes this means trudging through boring facts and lines of text devoid of a smug Al Franken or a caustic Bill O'Reilly. sometimes this means that we will have to go out and actually attend that town-hall meeting, sit in on the PTA board, read census reports, talk to real people face to face. i'm as guilty as anyone here. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 03-26-2004 at 01:35 PM..

03-26-2004, 10:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	My first suggestion is a simple one: Start watching "Real Time" with Bill Maher. While Maher does lean left, he loves to cry BS at either side. He's amusing and topical, and his guests usually represent a liberal, a conservative, and someone there for comic or celebrity effect. It's a very funny show, with each side getting good points in from time to time. Granted, it does lean left, but I generally feel better informed after hearing some celebrity misspeak about an issue, then be corrected by another panel member. A quick note on Maher vs. TDS vs. Dennis Miller- I've only seen one episode of Miller's new show, and I was amazed how retarded it was. I mean, seriously, I used to really dig Dennis, but he didn't take a stand, raise an interesting issue, or even seem to care if he or his guest were present. It was only one show, so the sample size is too small to be representative, I suppose. TDS is always funny and often informative- if not the facts themselves, you get an idea of what issues are on the table. I generally hit CNN, Drudge, and used to listen to O'Reilly daily. I'm off O'Reilly now, but I think CNN and Drudge give me both the "what we want America to know about" and "what they secretly don't want you to know about." People should use the web for good, informing themselves with various sources, instead of just porn and sports, neither of which I have any aversion to, I'm as guilty as the next chump. Especially sports. Oh, and the BEST way to further your knowledge and understanding? Join the TFP! It lets you in on the base story, some wacky opinions in either direction, and you can form your own opinion.

03-26-2004, 01:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Im sorry to say this but it cannot be reversed easily. The world is full of stupid people, easily led people, and those people are easy to control. Media can throw at us everything from complex "infograms", video, and soundclips that hold our attention. Ever watch Fox News flash animation for the news starting, f16s flying everywhere, explosions (at least the time I tuned in thats what I was treated to). News has met Hollywood, and in order to get our ADD world to tune off of the latest reality show and into the news (the almost reality show) We're not any different really, we're not superior, Im not proud to admit that I stopped and watched a cruise missile fly at a non descript building a thousand times before I started turning away.. (Im sure you remember the video clip) We just have to remember to dig deeper, to discuss more.. __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death