4 ms·

You're entirely missing what the parent is talking about. Your point that "none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic" is irrelevant. On th

by nsajko 5y ago

You're entirely missing what the parent is talking about. Your point that "none of the characters giving voice to anything are sympathetic" is irrelevant. On the other hand: > They’re portrayed as tragically ridiculous players vying for power and positive public image who’ll drop their “principles” at the drop of a hat if it suits them This is exactly what the parent pointed out. To make this even more clear, I made excerpts from the quote by Jay (creator of Yes Minister): > this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest [...] > And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. So both series ("almost every episode") were clearly conceived and executed as propaganda, whether you like it or not.

Veen 5y ago
Do you consider Armando Ianucci’s shows to be following the same ideological agenda as Thatcher too. He ridicules politicians just as much, but I think he’d find the comparison surprising.
- nsajko 5y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not talking about any specific politician or ideology, I'm talking purely about the quote by the creator of the two shows.
raffraffraff 5y ago
Perhaps the whole thing was just propaganda. I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this propaganda was. Many episodes parodied real events. I think that the show was wonderfully written. It did a better job of showing how government works than the 6 o'clock news, and yet it was constantly funny and thought provoking. The acting was superb.
- nsajko 5y ago
  > I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this propaganda was. See Jay's quote. The goal was popularizing the ideas behind "public choice" theory, more specifically the idea that individuals that form the government are necessarily self-interested, without working for the public good. > It did a better job of showing how government works than the 6 o'clock news, and yet it was constantly funny and thought provoking. The acting was superb. That makes it effective propaganda. In case it's not clear, I'm not of the opinion that no one should watch Yes Minister, rather my position is that the specific propagandistic nature should be made clear upfront.

by nsajko 5y ago

Veen 5y ago

Do you consider Armando Ianucci’s shows to be following the same ideological agenda as Thatcher too. He ridicules politicians just as much, but I think he’d find the comparison surprising.

nsajko 5y ago
You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not talking about any specific politician or ideology, I'm talking purely about the quote by the creator of the two shows.

raffraffraff 5y ago

Perhaps the whole thing was just propaganda. I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this propaganda was. Many episodes parodied real events. I think that the show was wonderfully written. It did a better job of showing how government works than the 6 o'clock news, and yet it was constantly funny and thought provoking. The acting was superb.

nsajko 5y ago
> I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this propaganda was. See Jay's quote. The goal was popularizing the ideas behind "public choice" theory, more specifically the idea that individuals that form the government are necessarily self-interested, without working for the public good. > It did a better job of showing how government works than the 6 o'clock news, and yet it was constantly funny and thought provoking. The acting was superb. That makes it effective propaganda. In case it's not clear, I'm not of the opinion that no one should watch Yes Minister, rather my position is that the specific propagandistic nature should be made clear upfront.