But just being a "nut" case myself I am glad to hear a professional say this.Originally Posted by nancigirl
He is there just to get ratings as is all the tabloid TV shows.
I am sure the produces know this.
But just being a "nut" case myself I am glad to hear a professional say this.
He is there just to get ratings as is all the tabloid TV shows.
I am sure the produces know this.
I'm an advid Dr.phil viewer myself too , but Ive not see him do a show on
CDers or transsexuals at all , however I watched Montel last week , he
had a very informative show on Transgenders and some issues......
Dr. Phil ?.......well see........
" too young to fall in love "schoolgirl "
Maybe its just me but I saw a CDer and his spouse on the show once and was shocked. Not by how negative the Dr. was but, on the contrary, by how accomodating. I have also seen TS on there and Phil wasn't judgemental or negative at all.
He even told the CDer's wife that the stats show the husband will not ever give it up and if he has accepted himself then she can either accept him or look for a new relationship.
I expected the worst from this man where these issues are concerned but he shocked me.
Secretly, I think he may even be one. Just this weird vibes I pick up.
It's nice to have a teacher who claims to know something, but that's second-hand information, at best. I've worked in the industry, as a consultant and as a vendor. Some of what you say is true, and some if it is plainly incorrect. I've worked with HBO, NBC, CBS News, ABC News, Fox, some locals, a few animation houses and some post-production studios, etc.
Yes and no. It is about money, but TV will show things that will upset their viewers. Nothing like a little righteous indignation prompt a letter writing campaign and some more viewing to see what the next atrocity will be. It seems counter-intuitive, but despite it appearing strange, it is, never the less, true. If the stations think there will be a high share nielsen rating in it, "The revloution[sic]" will be televised.#1. It's all about the money
Television thrives on advertising dollars. As a result, television benefits from pandering to the desires and view of the watchers. As a result, television does not take the opinions of it's viewers lightly, and applies their desires to the media world and reflects it back at them. "The revloution will not be televised."
This argument holds no water. If it were even remotely correct, you would only see gays as targets of derision. You would also see more of how “deviants” gay, transgendered, etc. can be cured.#2. Coded genderism
To borrow a concept from race roles in television, and apply it to gender and sexuality, Dr. Phil's opinions on transgender issues is not surprising. Rather than scorning and laughing at the transgendered individual, as was common at one time, now there is a coded genderist assault against us, that it's simply an issue that can be resolved with proper counseling and cured. Like the ethnicity argument on race, that immigrants and foreigners must be assimilated into the dominant culture to some degree, and have the differences ironed out, instead of expelling or killing them, so the argument that transgenderism (and homosexuality) are social problems that can be cured, instead of accepted.
The networks are owned by large corporations. The affiliates are owned by small businesses. ABC News has a tiny fraction of the news media share. They couldn't suppress a story if they wanted to do so. I'd like to see the proof of the owners who "have ties to religious groups or [sic] fundamentalist or conservative think-tanks." This statement, "you will [sic] be hard pressed to find a program which doesn't reflect this view," is preposterous. Just ask the Parents Television Council, or the National Institute on Media and the Family. They'd not be in existence if our postulation were true. There would be no red flags on their website, either.#3. Media Oligopoly
Television is owned by only a handful of transnational media giants, which will stretch the truth to make sure their coffers stay full of the green stuff. Disney, for example, covered up the fact they hired many child molesters as mascots in Disneyland and Disneyworld, by canning the story from Disney owned networks. Likewise, if the owners or supporters of these companies have ties to religious groups or fundamentalist or conservative think-tanks, which many do, you will be hard pressed to find a program which doesn't reflect this view.
Regards,
Christina Nicole
Good post Christina. Very Insightful. The idea that television networks are tied to the right wing is preposterous. Except for possibly FOX and the religious Networks, the majority of the media is positioned anywhere from somewhat Center to New York Times Left. And as far as "Expert" Professors, most I have encountered are pompous elitist windbags. I am glad I was in my 30's before going to College so I had experienced the real world before having my head filled up with nonsense by these quacks.
"My Mother wanted me to find a nice girl..so I became one."
The media will show what titillates viewers, but some issues are simply not broached because they are percieved as too radical. And in of it, the titillation serves a purpose, to offend and shock the viewer into certain narrow perspectives. It is important to know that the media is not as radically conservative (excluding the Fox network) nor as lefty liberal as politicians like to claim it it. It preserves a certain position in the middle, with both some left and right leanings on varying issues. In a sense, it generally panders to both occasionally conservative morals, and "progressives". In order to maintain an audience, of course titillating and shocking the audience is necessary. In the news industry, it's practically necessary, so people get at least the feeling that the news media has veracity. But generally, the media does not have a wide, and full public scope, out of concern for it's interests.
As said above, the television is a reflection of it's audience. Gays are considered somewhat more acceptable, as part of the progressive perspective of television. Even if the many people oppose marriage, less and less people oppose their right to exist. In the past, say, go back 20 or 30 years, you see many gays as subtle targets of derision, as sissies, prancing around, with the conspicuous lisp (and still today you see it). You also see many gays in a sort of tragic figure role. Transgendered people on the other hand, like some other groups, are not yet absorbed into the mainstream, and are on a different level in the social consciousness, and are still seen as an outside group.
A good example would be Fox founder Rupert Murdoch, who created the Fox empire, starting from a small media company in Australia, and slowly turned it into a large media giant. Murdoch is somewhat well known for hist conservative positions. Fox of course is the network with the most blatant agenda on the map, especially when it comes to news reporting.
The thing is, many news corporations and television programs did used to be privately owned, and yes, then the small companies were not replaced, but rather purchased by larger corporations to appear on the airwaves, as affiliated with the news network. However, a large portion of the programming overall does come from the parent company. Nationally produced news shows, studio programming and the like, comes not from the local, but the national. (Likewise, a lot of international news comes from sources, like Reuters) News shows that even are locally produced, take a lot of their national news from national news sources. Only a certain portion of the news (usually on a local level) are produced in house.
The example of the PTC and other conservative media control groups proves nothing. It's like saying that because the Democrats control the congress, there should be no dissenting opinions. Conservatives comes in many shapes and colors, not to mention one being a large divide between the decision making conservatives and the average citizen conservative.
"If" is the operative word. And keep in mind that the Fox parent company owns two network television channels, and several cable channels.
And as stated prior, many channels do reflect a certain, if restrained, brand of "progressivism" or middle position, to reflect the nature of the viewers.
And finally, some Ad hominem, with which no argument on the internet is without.
On a slightly related note, it's good that my opinions stir up some healthy debate though, with a mix of agreement and dissention.
It's even more severe, since our children are basically raised on television, increasingly. It's a worrying trend that children are being programmed to be insensible consumers, without really much of an ability to assess the difference between what we need, and what is being sold.
IF is the middle word of life. And you are dead on, the whole purpose of discussion is to DISCUSS. Share points of view, exchange ideas, even those that may be objectionable to you. Today's society is showing an increasing intolerance for opinions that differ from one's own. On one hand people rightfully trumpet their rights to be heard and on the same hand wish to deny those who differ theirs.
Cheers to you Bridget. When we stop being able to express our different views , we are lost.
And you can't go wrong with such a good Irish name.
"My Mother wanted me to find a nice girl..so I became one."
jusrt watched a re-run of a sally jessie show about trans issues, she seemed very accepting........ricki lake has ALWAYS been accepting, as has oprah and montell......i wouldnt trust the rest the make a mockery
SallY Jesse. Is she still around?
The King of CD friends has to be Phil Donahue.
"My Mother wanted me to find a nice girl..so I became one."
Posting Permissions
