NationStates Jolt Archive

In my quest to read political books by idiots, I read "Hating America: The new world sport". Now the basic premise of this book was that the World hates America because they are envious and jealous, and no other reason. This was put against the backdrop of the Iraq war, and how no-one else wanted to join in.

You Idiot! Let's see. You mention 300 000 in mass graves. Most of these mass graves were created when you and Saddam were best buddies in the Iran-Iraq war. The world didn't support you in Iraq because of your hypocrisy and years of previous support you gave him. I could go on, but I have a point to get to.

This got me thinking about how many people would just accept this stupid propaganda and not think for themselves.

In times where there is rampant, obvious censorship (such as the USSR era) people would risk there lives to publish information about what the government was doing, and no matter how hard the government cracked down, people knew what was going on.

I think the American censorship model of just keeping people more interested in whether Britney is wearing underpants or not, instead of real news is powerful.

The American journalistic heritage of the reporting excellence that discovered the Mai-Lai massacre, Watergate, etc is over. Abu Ghraib got a bit of coverage, but it fell off the radar. A president getting a blow job? More coverage than you can imagine. Much more than a stolen election.

I'd request this discussion doesn't get too much in to a republican-democrat debate. I accept it might slide in to a biased media debate. :-(

The wealthy and powerful have convinced enough people that all they need is bread and circuses. The apathy is tragic, and it is an evil and pernicious form of deliberate censorship, that is nearly as bad as the police closing down a paper.

Aye the power of the mass media huh!

As the average american work week gets longer and 2 income families are now the rule and not the exception, the television has stepped in to become our babysitter, primary educator and entertainer. The fact that flamboyant pretty narcissistic two-dimensional attention whores dominate that visual media that has become our altar of worship is really secondary to the question of how dumb are we as a people to allow our corporate masters to set up such a lovely self-feeding consumer culture that makes each generation more dependent on the television than the one before.

It truly deserves it's name of 'Boob Tube'.

As the average american work week gets longer and 2 income families are now the rule and not the exception, the television has stepped in to become our babysitter, primary educator and entertainer. The fact that flamboyant pretty narcissistic two-dimensional attention whores dominate that visual media that has become our altar of worship is really secondary to the question of how dumb are we as a people to allow our corporate masters to set up such a lovely self-feeding consumer culture that makes each generation more dependent on the television than the one before.

It truly deserves it's name of 'Boob Tube'.

um....yep. This.

The dumbest reason anyone can put out for hating America is that they're jealous of us. I mean, maybe if people started listening to actual criticisms of the country they'd see that people DON'T want to be like us...hardly sounds jealous to me...

um....yep. This.

Now if only I could get my own tv show...

How did they side step the issue of Britain, Spain and others supporting America?

How did they side step the issue of Britain, Spain and others supporting America?

shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Now if only I could get my own tv show...

The opening theme would be "The End of the World As We Know It."

As the average american work week gets longer and 2 income families are now the rule and not the exception, the television has stepped in to become our babysitter, primary educator and entertainer. The fact that flamboyant pretty narcissistic two-dimensional attention whores dominate that visual media that has become our altar of worship is really secondary to the question of how dumb are we as a people to allow our corporate masters to set up such a lovely self-feeding consumer culture that makes each generation more dependent on the television than the one before.

It truly deserves it's name of 'Boob Tube'.

Beyond that, the media changed from single agenda media baron-owned to corporate-owned, at which point the aim was to make money rather than promote an agenda, although agenda is a nice way of bracketing a market to make money.

The difference is that by making money the primary agenda, stress is laid upon shock and awe tactics rather than influencing public opinion.

Is either better than the other? Well, influencing opinion tends to focus on higher areas of thought than base shock and awe (where previously the only influence that counted was the educated and literate).

The real problem with the media is that making money, which tends to rely on advertising - did anyone see the story where McDonald's has formed a deal with Fox to have its iced coffee [featuring fake cubes so they don't melt] on news programs - means that there's a demand for space, whether in the form of multiple supplements or 24-hour channels.

There's just not enough news to fill and everyone has to be first. It's called 'churnalism', churning out stories without checking facts, reprinting old stories to fill space and putting in ill-thought out opinion pieces.

Information is now wider, however I'd also argue it's deeper as well, it's not all bad and we can choose. People have always followed the bright lights of shock and awe yet there's still more information out there now than there ever was before, it's for us to discern which are relevant and I don't actually think we do a bad job, it's just the pool is a lot larger.

As the average american work week gets longer and 2 income families are now the rule and not the exception, the television has stepped in to become our babysitter, primary educator and entertainer. The fact that flamboyant pretty narcissistic two-dimensional attention whores dominate that visual media that has become our altar of worship is really secondary to the question of how dumb are we as a people to allow our corporate masters to set up such a lovely self-feeding consumer culture that makes each generation more dependent on the television than the one before.

It truly deserves it's name of 'Boob Tube'.

I wouldn't say that we, as a people, are dumb to have let this happen, rather that it's just what is to be expect of a culture that has little to fear for its own safety that the general shift is towards hedonistic short-term gratification. It happened in other dominant cultures in the past, except that they didn't have such effect tools for the entertainment culture shift.

I do agree that it's a weakening effect in the mid- and long-run, though. But I don't think it's a thing that can really be prevented easily or that we yet know how to prevent effectively. Then again, I've been reading a lot of stuff on cyclical political theory lately so I may just be approaching the issue in a very skewed and cynical (or optimist, depending on how you spin it) manner.

The cheaper information gets the cheaper information gets.

Is it any wonder that in age of Intertubes average bit of information is complete nonesense?

There's just not enough news to fill and everyone has to be first. It's called 'churnalism', churning out stories without checking facts, reprinting old stories to fill space and putting in ill-thought out opinion pieces.


It's all about keeping your Stories Per Hour rate up: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=90984&title=more-stories-per-hour

ya but who really cares?

lmao sorry couldn't resist

Beyond that, the media changed from single agenda media baron-owned to corporate-owned, at which point the aim was to make money rather than promote an agenda, although agenda is a nice way of bracketing a market to make money.

The difference is that by making money the primary agenda, stress is laid upon shock and awe tactics rather than influencing public opinion.

Is either better than the other? Well, influencing opinion tends to focus on higher areas of thought than base shock and awe (where previously the only influence that counted was the educated and literate).

The real problem with the media is that making money, which tends to rely on advertising - did anyone see the story where McDonald's has formed a deal with Fox to have its iced coffee [featuring fake cubes so they don't melt] on news programs - means that there's a demand for space, whether in the form of multiple supplements or 24-hour channels.

There's just not enough news to fill and everyone has to be first. It's called 'churnalism', churning out stories without checking facts, reprinting old stories to fill space and putting in ill-thought out opinion pieces.

Information is now wider, however I'd also argue it's deeper as well, it's not all bad and we can choose. People have always followed the bright lights of shock and awe yet there's still more information out there now than there ever was before, it's for us to discern which are relevant and I don't actually think we do a bad job, it's just the pool is a lot larger.

Yep yep, all that you say here is true. See I knew you had brains!

Yep yep, all that you say here is true. See I knew you had brains!

Thanks, actually I got my mother to write that one.

There is I fear also a vicious cycle going on here. Those who are interested in investigative and deeper news will find other outlets to get their information, and indeed often several different ones (print media, internet news sites, blogs...). It has been argued (though I'm not certain I necessarily agree) that there is a whole generation of people who are probably better informed than the previous generation as they are getting their news for a wide variety of sources as opposed to reliance on TV news. However, unfortunately, these happy to be a minority of the population. And as they become more disenfranchised with majority news sources, these news sources will cater more and more towards the lowest common denominator.

Net result - popular news sources become more and more superficial and trashy, reinforcing the apathy of the large majority. Those who are more informed however feel disenfranchised from the majority and, due to this and other cultural pressures, feel that they are unable to make any real impact. As such, they don't bother, generating another sort of empathy but one born out of frustration and cynicism.

All in all, we will continue to become more apathetic.

Thanks, actually I got my mother to write that one.


Bwhahaahahah!

Information is now wider, however I'd also argue it's deeper as well, it's not all bad and we can choose. People have always followed the bright lights of shock and awe yet there's still more information out there now than there ever was before, it's for us to discern which are relevant and I don't actually think we do a bad job, it's just the pool is a lot larger.
Yep, I agree. The range of available information is both wider and deeper now than it has ever been... it's just that you have to be prepared to go looking for it. People who are prepared to go looking for it or to actually consider what's being reported when they see, rather than letting it just wash over them as they wait for the next installment of "reality TV is real, really", are the minority. You, me and the majority of the people who read and participate in forums like this one, as well as the people who find themselves actually discussing what's going on around them as a part of their normal daily routines, are the minority.

I believe that a significant proportion of the population just don't care about what's going on around them. The OP is right, it's an apathy that essentially and effectively censors the information that the public at large have at their disposal. It's the sort of wilful ignorance that leads to all those stories about people in the US being unable to locate major world events on a map or (since this is most certainly not confined to people in the US) results in 'British citizen in the street' interviewees being unable to name any members of the Cabinet or where the hell Sudan actually is.

The real problem with the media is that making money, which tends to rely on advertising - did anyone see the story where McDonald's has formed a deal with Fox to have its iced coffee [featuring fake cubes so they don't melt] on news programs - means that there's a demand for space, whether in the form of multiple supplements or 24-hour channels
Again, agreed. I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that advertising revenues might be skewing the way that news is made available, or the content that gets presented. It's one of the reasons that I prefer the BBC to any other TV news (and no, I'm not claiming that old Auntie is perfect).

As the average american work week gets longer and 2 income families are now the rule and not the exception, the television has stepped in to become our babysitter, primary educator and entertainer. The fact that flamboyant pretty narcissistic two-dimensional attention whores dominate that visual media that has become our altar of worship is really secondary to the question of how dumb are we as a people to allow our corporate masters to set up such a lovely self-feeding consumer culture that makes each generation more dependent on the television than the one before.

It truly deserves it's name of 'Boob Tube'.
Yeah, that about nails it. We used to call it the 'Idiot Box', over here :P

Considering the amount of disparate opinion on this forum, it is interesting that no-one has really come and argued against. That is really damning.

There is I fear also a vicious cycle going on here. Those who are interested in investigative and deeper news will find other outlets to get their information, and indeed often several different ones (print media, internet news sites, blogs...). It has been argued (though I'm not certain I necessarily agree) that there is a whole generation of people who are probably better informed than the previous generation as they are getting their news for a wide variety of sources as opposed to reliance on TV news. However, unfortunately, these happy to be a minority of the population. And as they become more disenfranchised with majority news sources, these news sources will cater more and more towards the lowest common denominator.

Net result - popular news sources become more and more superficial and trashy, reinforcing the apathy of the large majority. Those who are more informed however feel disenfranchised from the majority and, due to this and other cultural pressures, feel that they are unable to make any real impact. As such, they don't bother, generating another sort of empathy but one born out of frustration and cynicism.

All in all, we will continue to become more apathetic.

Agree, but there's also a certain element about television that isolates people from each other. What ends up happening is that it creates self fulfill prophecies. It is contradicting sometimes because many sources suggest that "most" people doesn't like what Bush is doing, but then when it comes to taking actions, all of a sudden people I talked to start stepping back and claim that "most" people don't care. So where do all those "most" come from? Much like Slavoj Zizek's ideas on virtual reality, our mind itself really isn't capable of processing the differences in the information, because all realities appears to us as virtual. Therefore I believe that all forms of virtual realities, such as the TV or a video game, has the nature of making people less attentive to the real world by giving us a channel to escape. The propaganda within the media just helps strengthen it.

Considering the amount of disparate opinion on this forum, it is interesting that no-one has really come and argued against. That is really damning.

I think I can sum up the reason for that with a handy, meh!

The world hates America because we are currently the world superpower. They'd do the same thing in our shoes, but they're jealous. That's what always happens with a super-power. Everyone get jealous, and calls them on hypocritical idiocy that they themselves do. We'd also do the same thing in their shoes. It's the way of things.

The world hates America because we are currently the world superpower. They'd do the same thing in our shoes, but they're jealous. That's what always happens with a super-power. Everyone get jealous, and calls them on hypocritical idiocy that they themselves do. We'd also do the same thing in their shoes. It's the way of things.
No, we hate you for exactly this kind of hubris.

No, we hate you for exactly this kind of hubris.
You mean the way Great Britain used to be?

You mean the way Great Britain used to be?
Quite. Being a superpower is nice, being very smug about it doesn't help anyone.

You mean the way Great Britain used to be?

Exactly, but we soon learned the error of our ways, and gave the half the world their independance. Except for you traitors of course who got upset about tea and bloody well took it back!

For the record I don't think the world hates your country but we do laugh at your leader.

For the record I don't think the world hates your country but we do laugh at your leader.

I'd agree there. Only distinct sections of the world hate America and that probably has something to do with invading their countries/financing corrupt dictatorships*/bombing them/fanatical religious doctrine than jealousy.

The rest of us just like to take the piss out of your leader because he sets himself up for the jokes so well


* Yes, we do this too, and certain sections of the world still hate us for it too, when they've caught us doing it.

Exactly, but we soon learned the error of our ways, and gave the half the world their independance. Except for you traitors of course who got upset about tea and bloody well took it back!

For the record I don't think the world hates your country but we do laugh at your leader.

Heck, WE laugh at our leader!

Heck, WE laugh at our leader!

I think that comes with the job though.

Television is force fed information, but it's right there in every home which leads everyone to believe that it is right all the time and all knowing. How can something that prevalent be wrong?? It doesn't help that most people rely on instant gratification as well, and TV is probably the easiest to access for entertainment (if you want to call it that).

I read somewhere that your brain basically shuts down when watching television according to MRIs and the like, I could definitely see that happening.