Originally posted by disneysteve
View Post
The only thing that makes me worried on some of the higher budget stuff..... Is when you have enough "add dollars" supporting the show, it can effect the product quality. Because they'll have 1st beholden responsibility to those paying their bills. And if they're really concerned with keeping that income source happy, they may have to "watch what they say" or choose to avoid certain questions, topics, blah blah blah.
A really good example is China & NBA. China pays NBA's bills, so they're not allowed to say anything that is in conflict w/ China, on public media. Like the whole human rights abuses alleged against their Gov't too the Uighur's -or- that NBA is not allowed to acknowledge Taiwan's existence or mention anything regarding Tibet, for fear of China demonetization of the NBA. Also similar to Raytheon and Boeing board members going onto CNN news. They are not allowed to promote anything that goes against the "ever increasing defense budget". I'd imagine the same reason that something like 69% of people (who knows how accurate that is) of both sides of the aisle, support Medicare for all. But CNN has a lot of insurance companies advertise on there, and help fund their organization. I recall reading an article about CNN not allowing some commericals to air, that appeared to be "anti insurance" , they used weak rationale saying it singled out an executive at one company.
My point is, advertising may seem benign. But it has impacts, because it is finally driven. It would seem wise, for everyone to question their source if the level of advertising really seems to be high. <---- this is more exclusive to information providing sources. As long as you're just getting entertainment, then it doesn't really matter. But for entertainment shows that capture the minds of our elderly, that are heavily advertised, I get worried... Fox and CNN, I know legally, they've had to defend themselves as entertainment shows in court. Because they're soo entrenched in propaganda and opinion, that it legally can't be defined as news (kinda like the subway bread , is bread here, but is a confection in Eu, because it's soo molested away from bread). Unfortunately, folks with stronger dissonance, fall prey to those entertainment news shows, and believe their bull**** interpretations as gospel. While they're not allowed to see, valid, reasonable, thoughtful counter arguments if they are obtuse to the advertisers preferred message. (for news my main gripe is, 100% Pro War and Pro insurance on both sides. I think these ideas at least need to be strongly questioned and re-examined by all, as they appear to be running orders of magnitude, below optimal).
Forgiving advertising influence at the low end, is a gateway drug to accepting it at the Highest level. This is where I approach much advertising based content, w/ trepidation and skepticism.
Leave a comment: