Bhassler wrote:Nope. There's big bucks in television and film, and like most things where the stakes are very high, the culture becomes very conservative.
Generally speaking, the US govt pumps billions per year into TV, movies, and other media. It's called behavior placement where they insert plot lines that are designed to influence the audience to approve of what the government is doing. The GAO called one particular case involving fake news stories illegal and it was definitely a plan by several people in the Bush, Jr. admin, so it could be called a conspiracy.
Here are some examples:
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegalhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allMock News on Medicare Called IllegalThe General Accounting Office says viewers of the segments played by 40 TV stations weren't told they were produced for a government agency.http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/20/nation/na-gao20GAO Says HHS Broke Laws With Medicare Videoshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41077-2004May19.htmlI believe that the total money spent by the govt, regardless of which particular administration is currently in power, this money is simply to purchase influence over the media that is needed for culture creation. Culture creation is the idea that those in power use media in all its forms in order to strongly influence the direction of society and to change its values and norms according to a plan, and the plan is always to achieve more power to benefit those in power, the specifics of which can vary quite a bit.
Over 90% of the media is owned by five corporations that form a de facto cartel. These corporations are intertwined with the government and there is the revolving door of corporate officers moving in and out of government regulatory positions. Is the merging of the institutions of the Fortune 100 and the governments not apparent to all?
Over time, dominant institutions accelerate their intolerance for any opposition to their power, one of those oppositions being the family, who are loyal to and support each other. The government would rather try to dominate a man who is totally alone and dependent upon it for all his needs than to deal with a man who has a support structure providing physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual sustenance. So, the family must be gradually displaced, rendered obsolete by government and media taking over the role of father and mother as the time children spend under their influence increases so that the ideas of the government are transmitted by direct or indirectly controlled media that shape people's minds until they become amenable to total dependence on the government, resisting loss of independence and freedom less and less.
The Simpsons started as a funny niche program, started to go viral, got popular enough to get noticed, and eventually reached a tipping point where someone thought they could make big bucks producing a television show.
I remember the first two or three seasons of The Simpson's, when Homer was based on a benevolent Walter Matthau father figure and the show was a good satire. I think you're right about how it played out and I think the exact same thing happened with "Married...with Children". After they stopped attempting a realistic and funny satire, the show was just used to push the envelope of what's morally acceptable further and further.
Last edited by Michael on Tue May 22, 2012 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.