5 ms·
I don't think it's propaganda. It's a result of the same feedback loop that gives you the morality of soap operas, the absurdity of reality television, the voy
by Dove 13y ago
I don't think it's propaganda. It's a result of the same feedback loop that gives you the morality of soap operas, the absurdity of reality television, the voyeurism of talk shows, historically the extremity of circuses and freak shows: the need to be more attention-grabbing, more extreme, more must-see shocking than the next guy.
It's hardly news that watching that kind of stuff gives you opinions that make you a worse person.
The way I see it, fiction has a dark side and a light side. The dark side normalizes and revels in darkness, to shock and allure the audience. The light side is shocked at the darkness and stands against it, to educate and enlighten the audience.
- humanrebar 13y agoGood point, but I'd like to add some more context. The average American male has access to all the porn he wants, UFC fights, FPSs, and so on. How is a network broadcaster going to shock and allure him in a way that will clear the censors? The list of options is short and torture is on it.
- prawn 13y agoI agree that it's not really intentional propaganda but more so a case of need to stimulate more than that which has come before. And maybe it's a short-cut for writers. We see it so frequently because it's a cheap way to build drama or disgust or reasons for revenge or suspense, etc. Doesn't require a difficult set (almost always happens in a simple room), easy to simulate and probably not especially hard to act (writhe around, please).
- mcantelon 13y agoTorture-as-a-tool became normalized in US media at about the time the US administration approved its use as a military tool. Until then this view of torture was taboo. So if the lifting of the taboo wasn't propaganda in the strict sense (recommended/directed by the authorities), it can be considered a type of voluntary propaganda in support of the decision making of the authorities (lessening opposition to the behavior of the authorities by explaining the same type of behavior from a sympathetic perspective).
- r0s 13y agoIt's an interesting viewpoint but I respectfully disagree. Fiction can only reflect or distort truth, because reality is neither positive and negative nor dark and light, the audience can only choose truth vs. fiction. Objective vs. subjective. But really we're talking about memory. Lasting effects either conscious or below. The way to remember things is elaboration and repetition. In that way, distortion of truth can only exist when there's limited information, but far more effective is repetition over time AND limited information. You'll only remember the fake stuff. Moral values are useless to us if we can't use them to decide things about hypothetical situations. In fact, the only way to build and solidify morality (which is memory) is elaboration, more novel experiences and information. So with that context: Fiction isn't the problem, a stagnant homogenous diet of it is.