3 ms·

I don't really see how any of these points relate to my comment. 1. That advertises played a shaping role in what could be broadcast on TV is not a conspiracy,

I don't really see how any of these points relate to my comment. 1. That advertises played a shaping role in what could be broadcast on TV is not a conspiracy, but documented fact. That, eg., the FTC had "public airwaves" obsceneity rules that made saying "shit" on TV revolutionary in the 2000s is, again, a fact. And so on. 2. That the mainstream media of the past was highly limited is again, a fact. Fox news, indeed, only arose post elimination of the fairenes doctrine (again, another extrordainary gov regulation on speech for a so-called Free Speech culture). It took the end of the FTC's public airwaves rules, via private means; the end of the fairness doctrine, and the like, for any diversity to arise: this was cable. HBO was the first breaking through of what-the-public-wanted. Therefore that the public engaged with the mainstream media is beside the point: it has nothing to do with my comment. My comment describes what happened when these extraordinary government and advertiser require restrictions were relaxed. (See, even hollywood before they existed: precode hollywood is a vastly more "modern" place than the gov-constructed fantasy land on TV which followed). 3. You diagnose problems with the present day mass media landscape ("audience capture") and the like. This was already a problem with TV, and indeed also caused by advertisers (see, e.g., the movie Network which basically diagnoses an aduience-captured TV host as necessary schiozophrenic). The relevant comparison I am making is not between the sins of one and the sins of the other. It is to simply observe that the modern mass media is not a product, in origin, of vast state and ad-sponsored censorship. That TV was is extremely well-documented. I've given you many search terms in this reply.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago
It was mainly censorship over form not thought. The modern media landscape has no censorship on form, but thought is manipulated/segregated so much more. I'd gladly give up the ability to say 'shit' for more freedom/diversity of thought instead of audience captured self selecting islands.
- mjburgess 1y ago
  This is, unfortunately, quite false. It would be an opinion I had a few years ago, but after much investigation of foreign policy and the like its extremely clear how much actual content is decided by governments. Most neutrally, for example, consider the run up to the iraq war: what was said, what was printed, and so on. But more recently, consider what's printed or included on any TV programme about any of the major conflicts in the world. There is no context or analysis or history provided. There's, at most, two sides: the government's preferred case and the government's preferred opposition to that case. This does not take much research, today at least, to discover -- frequently even mainstream expert opinion, outside of the government, says precisely the opposite. And that this is never broadcast or written about. Vast swathes of the media elite maintain their access to information via governments, and the wealth via ad companies. They are empty moronic vessels who perform the most ill-informed scepticism you could imagine. But it all passes with the public who think that if there's a leftwing view and a rightwing view on an event, then the event itself isn't made up -- or the facts shared across them must be true. But, often enough: nope. On the cultural side, the FTC and the Hollywood censors were in direct contact with TV production companies -- deleting scenes, and the like. Very contentful. All of this is well-documented.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

It was mainly censorship over form not thought. The modern media landscape has no censorship on form, but thought is manipulated/segregated so much more. I'd gladly give up the ability to say 'shit' for more freedom/diversity of thought instead of audience captured self selecting islands.

mjburgess 1y ago
This is, unfortunately, quite false. It would be an opinion I had a few years ago, but after much investigation of foreign policy and the like its extremely clear how much actual content is decided by governments. Most neutrally, for example, consider the run up to the iraq war: what was said, what was printed, and so on. But more recently, consider what's printed or included on any TV programme about any of the major conflicts in the world. There is no context or analysis or history provided. There's, at most, two sides: the government's preferred case and the government's preferred opposition to that case. This does not take much research, today at least, to discover -- frequently even mainstream expert opinion, outside of the government, says precisely the opposite. And that this is never broadcast or written about. Vast swathes of the media elite maintain their access to information via governments, and the wealth via ad companies. They are empty moronic vessels who perform the most ill-informed scepticism you could imagine. But it all passes with the public who think that if there's a leftwing view and a rightwing view on an event, then the event itself isn't made up -- or the facts shared across them must be true. But, often enough: nope. On the cultural side, the FTC and the Hollywood censors were in direct contact with TV production companies -- deleting scenes, and the like. Very contentful. All of this is well-documented.