Litany said:
Unconcerned parents might be raising brainless little brats but it is not the media's responsibility to educate. They're not your parents. They're not the government. They give the people what they want. And it's not like this is some bodyless entity floating around in the ether. It's run and populated by people.
That's just the thing - for many children, tv is the only parent, and it's just as prominent in the lives of adults too, but what kind of influence is it?
I don't know about you, but with the exception of the simpsons and royal family which both cast tv in a bad light, i've never watched a show were people sit watching tv. Nor have i heard people say, "why don't you go and do something worthwhile, like watch tv?"
Nor can we ignore the recent trend towards shallow, negative and greed driven programming. Weakest link thrives on cruelty, big brother glorifies celebrity, pop idol awards vanity with fame and fortune to the winner and (more tellingly) crushing abuse to the losers, what not to wear is nothing but bitchiness, and that's before the countless number of money obsessed property shows in which people buy happiness.
When once tv was used to entertain and inform, it has now for the sake of greater profits lodged itself deep in our worst flaws. This wouldnt be so bad if it was not so addictive and influential, but judging from the billions spent on tv ads each year, it's clearly VERY influential and VERY good at keeping us hooked.
Obviously other social issues contribute to the problem, but once it's accepted that a commerically motivated, morally bankrupt media can lead people any which way they please, then dismissing corporate responsibility as some minor distraction seems blindly irresponsible.
At what point does an organization reach such size that it no longer has to answer to its actions? How can you resolve the conflict between companies feeling justified in spending billions on tv marketing, and then say they're not responsible for the effect?
