An understanding of the media message

[jamespowers]

I know my next-door neighbor and I think she's great. I know the little toddler boy down the street who loves my dogs. The rest of the neighborhood? I just don't care that much.

My friends don't live near here and most of the neighborhood is elderly. I'm pleasant, they're pleasant, everyone gets along okay and says hello but there's no reason for more than that.

Viola

Ah but there is a reason to know. As your family grows, there will be reasons to know.
It is the don't care attitude that belies comments made by neighbors of such debauched characters as Charles Roberts and Ted Bundy. They always say that their neighbor was always wonderful and they never thought he would do anything like that. Well he did so obviously you didn't know him well enough and just didn't care. Those comments are put forward by people to assuage their guilt about not knowing.
Believe me. I had a friend who, if I mentioned his name you would know exactly ewhat he did. I knew he was capable of doing what he did and my wife even had a forewarning about it days before he did it. We KNEW. I just never thought of warning the people because I thought they would be smart enough not to rile him up. They did. They are gone. They KNEW as well.
The funny thing is that his attorney called me to testify on his behalf! When I told her what I would have to say that was it. She KNEW.
Four people would be alive today if someone along that chain had been careful. :rage: That is what the disconnect nowadays leads to. Don't even get me started about school shootings and the people that knew there and still did nothing. The community and their neighbors failed because they just didn't care. They all just waved and thought the people were nice and friendly. :eusa_doh:

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

I can see your point, Terry, which is why I needed to pull back on the church attendance vein, but Carebear has put it well, I was trying to identify the impact of people isolating themselves in their media bubbles and how it affected something I was familiar with. Really wasn't seeking a discussion of religion.

dean

And on top of that there was no specific religion mentioned. The generic discussion could have covered all of them. Even bring it up instead of just passing it over caused this side discussion. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

Is it just me?

But I feel if we don't talk about politics.. we don't talk about religion either.

Oh, I agree by the way. It's only fair.

I was just trying to make sure the "no talking" was interpreted widely enough so as not to shut down any discussion of anything meaningful. Like in the "made in America" thread. It gets tough to discuss economics and human behavior without at least referring to political theory. Using the use of buzzwords like "church" and "God" as the triggers for a shut-down in that context means people end up with awkward semantic runarounds. Far better to throw in the contextually necessary reference and move on on the actual bigger point.

 

[jamespowers]

Oh, I agree by the way. It's only fair.

I was just trying to make sure the "no talking" was interpreted widely enough so as not to shut down any discussion of anything meaningful. Like in the "made in America" thread. It gets tough to discuss economics and human behavior without at least referring to political theory. Using the use of buzzwords like "church" and "God" as the triggers for a shut-down in that context means people end up with awkward semantic runarounds. Far better to throw in the contextually necessary reference and move on on the actual bigger point.

And now back to understanding the media message.

Regards,

J

 

[Viola]

Just as long as you stay off their lawns.

They refer to MY PARENTS (50s) as "the young people!"

My next-door neighbor is basically bottled awesomeness. She's in her 80s and really active and cool, and a huge power-tools buff. And she's a wealth of information about the neighborhood as she's never lived at any other address.

But it was really her setting off the fireworks last New Years. Those damn kids and their music that doesn't make any sense!

Viola

 

[carebear]

I know my response to messages I don't find relevent (I don't have to like them, they just can't insult my intelligence) is to ignore them.

It would seem though that, like the point made on the made in America thread about lowest end goods, if you are the kind of person who can turn away from the mass media feed, it was never really aimed at you in the first place.

Those who expect more from their entertainment and are willing to do something about it are few and aren't the ones who pay the bills, so less trouble is taken to supply them with what they want.

More people seem to want their news in opinionated soundbites as opposed to thoughtful editorials or detailed, as impartial as can be, examinations of the situation so that's what the news provides, in either political flavor.

Is the pool of people who want quality really that small or is it just not very vocal, is there a "silent majority"? Or, is it consciously being countered by some or several amorphous opponents who want those kind of people to disappear?

The last seems melodramatic, but historically not impossible.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I know my next-door neighbor and I think she's great. I know the little toddler boy down the street who loves my dogs. The rest of the neighborhood? I just don't care that much.

My friends don't live near here and most of the neighborhood is elderly. I'm pleasant, they're pleasant, everyone gets along okay and says hello but there's no reason for more than that.

Viola

I think you may not see the need for more than that because it wasn't what you were exposed to when you were gorwing up. Please don't get me wrong, I value you contributions and opinions, am I wrong for saying that you are still in your teens? If so, you grew up during a time when technology was in great use. I think what Lizzie and I were trying to say is that growing up in these tight knit communities made a large impact on our growing up. Every day after school I had something to do. I can't remember any time during my youth when I came home right from school and turned on the tv. There were tons of activities to do, and they were done in groups. As young children we learned to forge tight knit relationships with our neighbors. It wasn't uncommon for me to just walk right into my neighbors house to say hello.
I know, today there are certainly a lot of after school activities, sports, dance class, etc.. Our activities were done as a community, all the adults on the block looked out for all the kids on the block. It was, in a way, a kind of extended family. It was very nice to be able to walk right outside my front door and have someone to play with, go on bike rides, make mud pies even. I am still friends with these kids, 30 years later.
So, as for seeing no reason for more than being aware of your neighbors existance, it might just be that you grew up in a different generation that had a lot of activities that took place indoors and could be done with just one person present. It's solitary entertainment.
I also think that the constant activities with my peers and the lack of lots of tv and video games helped widen my imagination. We went outside and had to find things to do. A lot of role playing took place. Play is just different now in comparison to what it used to be. It is possible if you grew up in this kind of community, you might think differently. I'm sure it also made child rearing much easier on the parents. They always knew we were in the neighborhood in someones back yard, and that there was always an adult that was easily accessible if one was needed. Personally, I like to know my neighbors. Especially living in an apartment building in the city, I think it's better to get to know my neighbors, especially in closed quarters. We all bump into each other so much, it alleviates awkwardness to take a little time to get to know them. This way when you run into one in the Hallway, garage or elevator, you can look up and smile and say hello instead of keeping ones eyes on the ground and walking by each other sheepishly.
Just my two cents....A close environment for kids filled with lots of other kids and responsible adults is a wonderful way to grow up.

Lizzie, your town sounds perfect. I'm glad that they are still in existence. All of us kids left our neighborhood, but our parents all stayed. So now on the holidays these kids come to visit and they have their kids with them. So, the cycle is starting over again. I do know that there are a few neighborhoods surrounding where my parents live that are filled with young couples and small kids. Everytime I pass by on a nice day I see kids riding their bikes, jumping rope, playing hopscotch in someones driveway, and just doing a lot of fun, creative outdoor stuff. It's nice to see that these types of communities are thriving still. But, unfortunately, not all communities are like this. Lot's of kids are left to their own devices for entertainment. If there is no guardian around to monitor media exposure, no kids on the block to get together with, and so on, these kids are left to their own devices. With a click of a switch they are entertained for hours. They are not being creative, having relationships, excersizing their sponge like minds. They are going to watch what is exciting to them, and possibly something that they know would not be approved of by an adult, many kids have a little rebel in them. They turn to media to staithe the boredom that occurs from having nothing to do, and nobody to help direct them down the right path. The only life ideas that are being introduced to them are through the shows they are watching.
As I and others have said before, it is the parents job to lay the foundation for a childs life. I just wish, given that they have such an incredible hold on the young market, that the media companies would take advantage of that hold in a good way by spending a little more time showing programmes that can have a positive message.
Wow, I just re-read this tangent I went on. Sorry for the long post.

 

[Viola]

You have a good point in that it was not what I was used to growing up. If I wanted my friends to come over, I called them on the phone and we set up something; none of them lived within a mile of me. I met them at karate class and Girl Scouts and whatever.

And yeah, I'm 22. (but to play the age card is low, Daisy, I don't think you're THAT old )

My next-door neighbors on either side when I was little were, uh, unique. You will know what I mean when I say that of the two sets, the dealers were the nicer people.

I didn't play video games either, though. I spent a lot of time in the park and local playgrounds with my friends and our dogs. And everywhere I went I usually took at least one of my younger siblings along.

I babysat from age 9. I still have an embarrassing memory of why you don't feed your 4-year-old brother a chocolate custard in public.

Viola

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

You have a good point in that it was not what I was used to growing up. If I wanted my friends to come over, I called them on the phone and we set up something; none of them lived within a mile of me. I met them at karate class and Girl Scouts and whatever.

And yeah, I'm 22. (but to play the age card is low, Daisy, I don't think you're THAT old )

My next-door neighbors on either side when I was little were, uh, unique. You will know what I mean when I say that of the two sets, the dealers were the nicer people.

I didn't play video games either, though. I spent a lot of time in the park and local playgrounds with my friends and our dogs. And everywhere I went I usually took at least one of my younger siblings along.

I babysat from age 9. I still have an embarrassing memory of why you don't feed your 4-year-old brother a chocolate custard in public.

Viola

So sorry for getting your age wrong!!
I do understand now why you would think a tight neighborhood might not be all that great. I don't think I'd be-friend any neighbor like the ones you were living next to. It sounds like, when you were younger and more impressionable, it was a good idea not to get to know them

 

[Viola]

Ah but there is a reason to know. As your family grows, there will be reasons to know.
It is the don't care attitude that belies comments made by neighbors of such debauched characters as Charles Roberts and Ted Bundy. They always say that their neighbor was always wonderful and they never thought he would do anything like that. Well he did so obviously you didn't know him well enough and just didn't care. Those comments are put forward by people to assuage their guilt about not knowing.

Reasons to know? Why? What possible benefit could I get from being in their business or having them in mine?

I don't tell personal info to strangers on the street. I don't want to tell personal info to someone just because their street is my street. I want to have a vague, pleasant, say hello and "nice weather we're having" non-relationship with most of my neighbors.

Trying to find out who's secretly creepy? Are you serious? What kind of interaction leads to that little reveal?

Viola

 

[jamespowers]

Reasons to know? Why? What possible benefit could I get from being in their business or having them in mine?

I don't tell personal info to strangers on the street. I don't want to tell personal info to someone just because their street is my street. I want to have a vague, pleasant, say hello and "nice weather we're having" non-relationship with most of my neighbors.

Trying to find out who's secretly creepy? Are you serious? What kind of interaction leads to that little reveal?

Viola

You might change your mind but believe me, I know the seriously creepy around me. You really don't have to talk to them much to get the impression. Like I said, neighbors know who the strange people are but they always manage to gloss it over when something comes of it. :eusa_doh:
You can choose however you want to interact with your neighbors but life is more interesting with a context.
That being said, I need to qualify that with a "there are some people not worth spending time on." The drug dealer down the street or the wierdo around the bend probably shouldn't know anything about you.
Also the concept of privacy that you mention is more a recent thing. The larger part of the history of this country was mostly a time where everyone knew everyone else--and their business too. Look at the houses from 150 years ago and see if there really was a such thing as a door to a room. That is sort of why beds had curtains back then. In Monticello, Jefferson's house, there is a bed placed between two walls.
Reason's to know tend to create things like Meagan's List. That is just one of the reasons and many others that need not be elaborated on. If its just you that is fine but when you have children the world becomes a different place.

Regards,

J

 

[katiemakeup]

My mom and I were talking about this yesterday~ she said that in the 60's, they weren't hippies. She wanted to look pretty! Most of the media was geared towards free love and such. And that in the 50's-60's that's when a lot of the movies started the 'realistic' theme. She didn't want to see Easy Rider, she wanted to see Joan Crawford in shoulder pads.

I think that these 'real topics' were obviously there back in the Golden Years, it's just that people usually kept their mouths shut and acted with decorum. Well, at least as not as much as today's times, that's what I gather. Plus it seems like there were more strict codes on keeping children/teens away from such adult behaviors.

I get uncomfortable when I see tampon & condom commercials on tv or radio... or Girls Gone Wild for that matter. It's all just too much!

 

[Lincsong]

The big difference between television 2006 and television 1956 or 1966 is that controversial topics and non-traditional families were dealt with in a more tactful manner. Sure there were Lucy and Desi, Ward and June Cleaver and Ozzie and Harriett Nelson, but there also was; Bachelor Father, My Three Sons, Petticoat Junction, Beverly Hillbillies, Danny Thomas, Andy Griffith, I Dream of Jeannie, Hazel the list goes on and on. The televison show The Fugitive touched on many many taboo subjects. The big difference is that Peyton Place didn't have to have Eva Longoria running around in Victoria's Secret to boost ratings.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Lincsong makes a good point here about the overall tone of television then compared to now -- but I think a big part of why that is has less to do with cultural shifts than with drastic changes in the broadcasting industry itself over the last thirty years or so.

The programs Lincsong mentions were all intended for family viewing -- they *had* to be, because most markets outside the big cities only had three or four television stations, and some even fewer than that. These outlets had to serve a very broadbased audience -- there was no room for the sort of specialized narrowcasting we see today. Television - as was the case with radio before it -- *had to be* programmed in such a way as to reach that broad audience without offending or upsetting any part of it.

The rise of cable in the '70s changed all that. Now, there's hundreds of channels catering to every interest, and each channel focuses on its own specific demographic, leaving viewership utterly fragmented. And with that much more competition, each network finds itself pushing to do whatever it has to do to stand out for the crowd and grab a minutely-bigger slice of a shrinking pie.

Another point to think about is this: networks don't program for families anymore because fewer and fewer families actually watch TV as families. When I was growing up, there was *one* television set in the house, in the living room, and we all watched the same thing because we didn't have any choice. Nowadays, television sets are all over the average house -- bedrooms, dens, kitchens, rec rooms, wherever one can fit, and everyone watches their own program. That's a situation that simply didn't exist forty years ago in the vast majority of American homes. Today, networks realize they aren't programming for family viewing anymore, and their choices reflect that reality.

 

[Feraud]

The big difference is that Peyton Place didn't have to have Eva Longoria running around in Victoria's Secret to boost ratings.

But it wasn't because a program like Peyton Place didn't want to, was it?? It wasn't tactful, it was enforced!!
Believe it or not censors existed in the Golden Era. They existed for a reason! Obviously there was something someone wanted people not to see.
I am not suggesting the censorship was appropriate or they didn't go overboard, but please let us not think life was Leave it to Beaver by design!
Was it the I Love Lucy program that showed the married couple sleeping in separate beds? Wasn't it also "controversial" when Lucy was pregnant?

 

[Terry Lennox]

In many ways the Golden Era wasn't a time of innocence.. but a time of ignorance.




.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

In many ways the Golden Era wasn't a time of innocence.. but a time of ignorance.

yes, and also a time of hush hush. A lot of naughty things were going on, it's exposure though, was limited.

 

[Lincsong]

But it wasn't because a program like Peyton Place didn't want to, was it?? It wasn't tactful, it was enforced!!
Believe it or not censors existed in the Golden Era. They existed for a reason! Obviously there was something someone wanted people not to see.
I am not suggesting the censorship was appropriate or they didn't go overboard, but please let us not think life was Leave it to Beaver by design!
Was it the I Love Lucy program that showed the married couple sleeping in separate beds? Wasn't it also "controversial" when Lucy was pregnant?

I think all the early '50's television shows had couples in separate beds. By the mid '50s if they were actually married then it could show a single bed. Lucy and Desi started out in twin beds and then the twin beds got moved next to each other. I think, but could be wrong, by the time when they moved to Connecticutt they had a single bed.[huh]

When Lucy was pregnant, they could not use the word "pregnant" so they got a rabbi, priest and minister together and figured out a way to break the news.lol Anyway I never thought anything about the separate bed thing on t.v. because my grandparents had separate rooms.lol

Back to Peyton Place, this show and The Fugitive touched on controversial subjects, yeah the censors kept a lid on lingerie, but the subjects were discussed nontheless. Maybe it went over a lot of people's heads, but watching some of the social commentary on The Fugitive was a crystal ball to some of the societial battles of the 1970's to today. (But we can't talk politics, so don't ask me what the topics were)

 

[Lincsong]

In many ways the Golden Era wasn't a time of innocence.. but a time of ignorance.

I wouldn't call it ignornace. The neighbors in my parents neighborhood in 1959 knew what couples were going to "swap parties" who was with who when the spouse was at work. It was more a time of keeping a lid on things and not parading it out in the open.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

In many ways the Golden Era wasn't a time of innocence.. but a time of ignorance.

True. By the same token, though, there was some "folk" knowledge back then that has been lost to us. It is always so. What's fun is finding what's been forgotten, and holding it up so we can see it ... even if we don't adopt it.

.