In Reply to: I completely agree with your assessment of ... posted by Mike K on September 8, 2009 at 08:36:28:
>>We have to remember: tv, radio, newspapers, magazines are sales
media first and foremost. Their supposed use or mission to
convey information or entertainment is but a thin veneer for their
real purpose. <<
In fact, for decades it was a decent content model: Free access to programming in return for viewing advertising. And it remains, in principle at least, a decent idea. You don't need to love television programming to agree that (eg) network news has had some great moments. That's free, ad-supported content protected by well-established (and in many media, still existing) editorial standards (specifically, a clear divide between editorial control and business interests). Of course that only ever applied to news; entertainment programming of decent quality has always relied for its existence on occasional high-minded producers and executives.
But my point is that your characterization, while it may describe the prevailing situation fairly well, is a little too cynical historically. Organizations with sound principles can still create principled content. It doesn't happen as often as I'd like, but it happens.
That said, I too find television nearly unwatchable. I despise commercials, which means that model I just defended works poorly for me. I often start watching something I'm interested in, turn the channel when a commercial comes on, then fail to find my way back to the show. The result: I just sit there flipping channels until I'm stupid.
Jim
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A point of (slight) disagreement... - Jim Austin 11:07:55 09/08/09 (4)
- RE: A point of (slight) disagreement... - Dawnrazor 12:43:48 09/08/09 (3)
- Habit I guess - Jim Austin 13:26:59 09/08/09 (2)
- RE: Habit I guess - Dawnrazor 14:09:37 09/08/09 (1)
- Good suggestion - Jim Austin 14:12:48 09/08/09 (0)