Humanity Reaches A New Low

1. KHM 5:58 PM

   I didn't even watch the YouTube offering---the trailers I saw for the show really pissed me off. The bad news is, its got major market share. Lots of people want to watch other people self-destruct. Nice.

    
2. Special K 6:36 PM

   Whoa. I couldn't even make it half-way through. I hear the show is really popular - who watches this crap? And, btw, Fox WISHES they were the bastion on morality, but their news reporting is just yellow journalism sensationalism. Blech.

    
3. Daddy 9:39 AM

   A new low? I did not watch more than the first few seconds of the clip, but this seems like the same stuff that Geraldo, Ricki Lake, etc. offered us more than a decade ago. They just dressed it up as a lame reality show since that is what people are watching these days.
   
   As for your comments on Fox News... I fail to see the differences between that network and the other major cable outlets. If you believe they are more biased than any other outlets, I encourage you to re-examine your own biases and think about why you believe that one network is better or worse than any other. They are all providing the same trash--they just dress it up differently for the various demographics.

    
4. KHM 11:46 AM

   I do think that overtly selling your secrets for public amusement is different than seeking satisfaction in conflicts before an audience is different. Neither are good, though. Its a sad statement about what the majority regards as amusing.

    
5. KHM 2:06 PM

   please pardon horrible grammar and syntax. I'm a decent writer but a lousy editor.

    
6. Lyman 4:52 PM

   Pat, I appreciate what you're trying to say but you're jumping to conclusions here. I wasn't speaking to what network was biased or better or worse or anything. I was pointing out that Fox's right wing slant seems hypocritical when they air the lowest of the low of reality programming.
   
   If you know of a newsworthy example of CNN doing the same I'd readily acknowledge it.
   
   And I get most if my news from the AP and Reuter's links on my Google homepage.

    
7. Daddy 7:59 AM

   > I was pointing out that Fox's right wing slant seems hypocritical when they air the lowest of the low of reality programming.
   
   I see...I think. You are expecting to find moral consistency in the programming on the fox news channel and the fox entertainment channel. Have you ever seen anything from fox that states that is their corporate charter? I think you are giving too much credit to the industry. I only expect a television network to try to get people to watch in order to make more money. If the fox corporation is trying to make a moral point, I agree with you--they have little to stand on. If they are trying to make money, they seem to be doing a great job since many of their shows seems to be highly rated. Heck, they even got all of *us* talking about one of their shows!

    
8. Lyman 9:16 AM

   Without much effort I was able to find this great blog about precisely what I'm talking about. Granted its from the Huffington Post so feel free to take it with a grain of salt, but when FOX poster-boy Bill O'Reilly preaches about "corrosive entertainment" while the same network airs moral garbage then I'd call that a mixed message.
   
   Does FOX have a responsibility to its viewers? No. But saying one thing and doing the other is cause for losing credibility.
   
   Now you have to trust me being honest here, I've never witnessed such hypocrisy from Blitzer or Obermann or any other (supposed) left-biased pundit. But then again, I don't watch them at all. If I'm in the mood for punditry I just watch the Daily Show where Stewart readily admits his show is comedy and does not take himself or his fake news too seriously.

    
9. Daddy 3:38 AM

   I agree--if O'Reilly speaks the FOX corporate line, then hypocrisy abounds. But, I did not know that old Bill owns or even leads FOX. He is just an entertainer--getting paid to spout opinions and drive ratings--and again appears to do a very good job of that.
   
   Two other thoughts your comments raise...
   1) I am not defending Bill (really I am not), but sometimes people believe the only way to change things is from within. Would Bill really draw as many people to his cause is he broadcast on public access?
   2) You highlight "corrosive entertainment" as something FOX rails against and promotes at the same time. Certainly, all the major networks provide that kind of programming, but you suggest that FOX news is the only one to speak against it. I would question the breadth of opinion of any news network that did not have any commentator who spoke against that. If you have never heard any one on the other networks complain about "corrosive entertainment", maybe *that* is the problem. Or do you believe that body count has no effect of shaping the minds of viewers young and old?

    
10. Lyman 3:52 PM

    1) Bill has a right to gain as much viewership as possible, but arguing against 'corrosive entertainment' on the network most guilty of it seems like double talk.
    
    I'm not making a huge logical leap here. When Peyton Manning speaks out against his own team, he is vilified, when John McCain takes a liberal stance on immigration he is vilified. When you work for a football team, political party, or tv network you are a representative of it.
    
    2) I'm sure other talking heads on different networks speak against that form of entertainment, but those networks do not air the same amount of crap that Fox does. They also aren't the voice of the 'moral majority.'

     
11. Daddy 5:28 AM

    Uncle. We ain't gettin' nowhere.
    --patrick

     
12. Lyman 8:58 PM

    yeah, I don't think I get where you are coming from

     

Post a Comment