TV: Do they think we're stupid

[stratego]

Do TV producers think we are goldfish with no memory span whatsoever?
(Let me give examples to clarify myself)

One week I think REAL_TV was showing "Funniest Sports Injury of All Time." They show a clip where a guy throws a javelin and hits a referee on his left arm. They tagged the clip with funny music and everyone laughed.
However three weeks later they used the same clip for "Most Dangerous Sports Injury of All Times." They tagged the clip with dramatic music and claimed "If that javelin were to hit 5 inches to the right, it would've been fatal"

Another example is a History Channel Documentary about the V-1 & V-2 rockets. One week they claimed that these early protypes of cruise missiles were highly inaccurate and ally pilots could easily tip them off course by nudging them with a fighter plane.
However, THE NEXT WEEK, History Channel promoted the episode with "The V-1 rocket and its successor the V-2 rockets; Two of Hitlers deadliest arsenals"

TV producers. Do they really think our memory span is too short to remember what was said last week

 

[Archer 007]

Maybe they forgot themselves.

 

[CurtSibling]

To answer the debate - Yes, they do.

And in some cases - Yes, people are.

 

[addiv]

That's why (commerical) television is debilitating: everyone is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Perfection]

there should be a channel of just people insulting things. I think that would be good.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by addiv
That's why (commerical) television is debilitating: everyone is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

A typical left wing idea to even think that it needs a commercial station to see debilitating television.....

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by addiv
That's why (commerical) television is debilitating: everyone is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

Right. Television should be like modern art: publically financed garbage.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by Stapel


A typical left wing idea to even think that it needs a commercial station to see debilitating television.....

You're denying the public tv stations offer better, more intellectually challenging programs than the commercial ones?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by addiv

You're denying the public tv stations offer better, more intellectually challenging programs than the commercial ones?

They only have good shows on PBS when they do their money raising pledge drives. And those good shows are quite rare.

Any time I flip past PBS, they are always showing something with Judy Dench in it. No thanks.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by addiv

You're denying the public tv stations offer better, more intellectually challenging programs than the commercial ones?

YES!

I am pretty much alone with this view in our 'bible and Marx controlled' polder country.
People refuse to see the facts. Try to compare discovery channel with 'banana split', and you'll see what I mean.

Thanks to commercial TV, I can watch football, when I want to.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by Stapel

YES!

I am pretty much alone with this view in our 'bible and Marx controlled' polder country.
People refuse to see the facts. Try to compare discovery channel with 'banana split', and you'll see what I mean.

Nice examples. Try to compare RAM, Tegenlicht or the Forsyte Saga with Idols, Hart van Nederland or Ton, and you'll see what I mean.

Thanks to commercial TV, I can watch football, when I want to.

I never denied that. But football is not exactly the most high-brow thing you could watch.

 

[Stapel]

Well, Addiv, my point it is that we do not need government (read PvdA) controlled TV for quality programs.

Don't you think it is odd that political discussion programs, discussing our government's behaviour, are made by government controlled channels.

Rosenmuller, Rottenberg, Meurders, Witteman, Van Dam (all left wing Dutch politicians) have TV programs made of tax payers money! Whereas Harry Mens (rightwinger) buys his own TV time.
I wouldn't mind having 1 public channel for RAM, Tegenlicht or the Forsyte Saga. But claiming that public channels are the keepers of quality TV is rather funny.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by Stapel
Don't you think it is odd that political discussion programs, discussing our government's behaviour, are made by government controlled channels.

They're not government controlled and are often critical of the government. The commerial channels could make quality political programs too if they like, but unfortunately they don't, probably because it doesn't pay off. So I'm happy at least the public channels make such programs.

Rosenmuller, Rottenberg, Meurders, Witteman, Van Dam (all left wing Dutch politicians) have TV programs made of tax payers money! Whereas Harry Mens (rightwinger) buys his own TV time.
I wouldn't mind having 1 public channel for RAM, Tegenlicht or the Forsyte Saga. But claiming that public channels are the keepers of quality TV is rather funny.

Most journalists are slightly left-wing by nature, but what would you want to do about that? And it's not like their programs are heavily biased in favour of the left, IMHO. And the government is mostly right-wing, so it's a nice balance.
The public channels are not [the] keepers of quality TV, but they have much more quality programs than the commerical channels, because they're not just trying to make profit.

 

[bobgote]

Yes, they think you're stupid.

and if you watch their shows, they're right.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Very true. Which is why I never watch TV anymore.

 

[Perfection]

Well, all I really want on the TV is young attractive females, and the networks seem happy to provide.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by addiv

They're not government controlled and are often critical of the government. The commerial channels could make quality political programs too if they like, but unfortunately they don't, probably because it doesn't pay off. So I'm happy at least the public channels make such programs.

Well, they do. Especially Frits Wester is doing a great job. But it is the acceptance of the public, we need. Political programs DO pay off. Also Harry Mens' program is about politics.

Most journalists are slightly left-wing by nature, but what would you want to do about that?

Nothing indeed.

And it's not like their programs are heavily biased in favour of the left, IMHO.

Yes they are! Open your eyes. They are terribly left-wing biased! I guess, you will only take notice when you are a right winger. I can't stand a show like Marcel van Dam's '"De Eerste Kamer" exist thanks to my tax money! In my book it is pure theft!

And the government is mostly right-wing, so it's a nice balance.

Here you admit they are left wing biased. I hope you are joking. It is not the task of public TV to balance politics. Apart from that, in my view, there is a 3/4 majority of left wingers in our parliament. Just a matter of standpoint.

The public channels are not [the] keepers of quality TV, but they have much more quality programs than the commerical channels, because they're not just trying to make profit.

First of all: I think commercial stations offer more quality programs. And indeed: also more crappy programs. But here comes the point: Is the government to decide for us what are quality programs?
Second: making a profit and making quality go hand in hand rather fine!

 

[KaNick]

Originally posted by stratego

Another example is a History Channel Documentary about the V-1 & V-2 rockets. One week they claimed that these early protypes of cruise missiles were highly inaccurate and ally pilots could easily tip them off course by nudging them with a fighter plane.
However, THE NEXT WEEK, History Channel promoted the episode with "The V-1 rocket and its successor the V-2 rockets; Two of Hitlers deadliest arsenals"

TV producers. Do they really think our memory span is too short to remember what was said last week

This kind of thing happens often with history shows.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by Stapel
Well, they do. Especially Frits Wester is doing a great job. But it is the acceptance of the public, we need. Political programs DO pay off. Also Harry Mens' program is about politics.

Nothing's stopping the commercial channels to make political programs. Except maybe public acceptance. But the public is who the programs are made for after all, isn't it? And I can't say the political programs the commercialos make are an improvement to those of the publicos. Remember the debate on Rtl 4?

Yes they are! Open your eyes. They are terribly left-wing biased! I guess, you will only take notice when you are a right winger. I can't stand a show like Marcel van Dam's '"De Eerste Kamer" exist thanks to my tax money! In my book it is pure theft!

Isn't it the task of Marcel van Dam in that program to discuss things with guests? If so, you can't say it's a biased program, because he isn't the host of the program. Only the discussion leader is to stay neutral, but the participants in a discussion should of course voice their opinions. But don't worry, I hate Marcel van Dam too, he's the worst kind of PvdA-er.

Here you admit they are left wing biased. I hope you are joking. It is not the task of public TV to balance politics. Apart from that, in my view, there is a 3/4 majority of left wingers in our parliament. Just a matter of standpoint.

Yes they are left-wing biased, I just said I don't think they're very left-wing biased. I don't care because I'm left-wing, and there isn't any way to get rid of it, as I said before, unless you want to abolish public television altogether (although I'm not so sure it would be gone then, since many journalists would go to the commercials and continue to be left-wing).
And there are some programs for right-wingers too, like Harry Mens's program, and since you say yourself that right-wingers are a minority, it seems fair right-wing programs are a minority in the media too, doesn't it?

First of all: I think commercial stations offer more quality programs. And indeed: also more crappy programs.

So that's simply because there are more commercial channels then. But I don't see how you can deny the public channels make more quality programs. Yes, for the average person, maybe the commerial stations make more entertaining programs, but nobody can deny the public channel programs are of a higher cultural, intellectual and scientific level than the commercial channel programs.

But here comes the point: Is the government to decide for us what are quality programs?

You don't have to watch those programs, there are commercial channels too after all! What's the problem?
And yes, I think people who have enjoyed a good artistical television-making education can make very good programs. Programs that wouldn't survive on commercial channels, and sadly less and less do so at the public channels too.

Second: making a profit and making quality go hand in hand rather fine!

No, I don't think so, that was my initial point. The general public isn't waiting for quality programs, they just want to be entertained.

 

[Akka]

Let's go for the elitist speech : yes they think people are stupid, and yes they're mostly right.

Just look at the audience ratings.