The general decline in standards today

[Widebrim]

^^Thank God the 3 Stooges are on Antenna TV.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I already know now that my kids will be very limited on what they will be able to watch. This garbage will just rot their brains.

I'd say it's a definite factor. Also a reflection of it too in a strange self parodying way maybe. I have seen television from the 60's until now.
The stuff from the 60's was relatively harmless, quaint even.
I stopped watching it for the most part in the 70's when it all became a lot of cop shows and sitcoms. All commercial drek.
I've caught glimpses of it here and there in the intervening years to the present, and I see it getting worse and worse for the most part.
Very little TV has any redeeming value anymore, MTV being one of the worst offenders.
And, if kids are just sat down in front of The Idiot Box after school because mom and dad are off working to keep up with the Jonses, they get programmed I think. (Maybe this is why it's called "programming"?) They see things on a daily basis that kids should just not really see I think. Violence, sex, etc., and with cable TV,....ferghetaboutdit.:eusa_doh: At no time in history were children ever exposed to such a media blitz of evil as they are today, and it just gets worse and worse. But it is so all pervasive now, I fear there is no cure.
I'd say without equivocation that this "programming" has contributed significantly to the decline of civilization.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There was a time when broadcasters were required by law and by community pressure to take very seriously their role as trustees of the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Those words are still part of communications law in the US, but since the 1980s they've been only words. The only interest they serve today is their own.

And there's the root of the problem -- the enshrinement of self-interest as the true god of modern civilization. If anyone's ever wondered what the world would be like if everyone just did as they pleased without worrying about the impact on anyone else -- well, look out your window, or better yet, turn on your TV.

 

[Feraud]

Basically, teachers are scapegoats for inept parents. Politicians would be out of a job at their next election if they criticized the people who make children into who and what they are before they reach school.

You are absolutely right about this.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Basically, teachers are scapegoats for inept parents.

What we have now are children raised by "children".

 

[AmateisGal]

^^Thank God the 3 Stooges are on Antenna TV.

No cable tv for my daughter. We watch DVDs instead. Lately, we're on a Star Trek kick. She loves watching the original ones with James T. Kirk and Spock (the episode "Spock's Brain" had us all giggling). Plus she adores Hogan's Heroes. I absolutely REFUSE to get cable (plus it's expensive!).

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I just got rid of broadcast cable because I never watch TV (I only kept the internet connection).

 

[C-dot]

No cable tv for my daughter. We watch DVDs instead. Lately, we're on a Star Trek kick. She loves watching the original ones with James T. Kirk and Spock (the episode "Spock's Brain" had us all giggling). Plus she adores Hogan's Heroes. I absolutely REFUSE to get cable (plus it's expensive!).

"Brain and brain!! What is brain?!" lol

Seriously though, getting rid of cable has saved me $750.00 a year (I'm sure its more expensive now) and a lot of bad juju. A friend of mine loves watching MTV, and I get completely sick every time I watch it with her.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I watch three channels, and three channels alone: TCM, the Weather Channel, and the Red Sox. If the cable company ever goes to a-la-carte pricing I'll be very very happy. I don't even know where MTV is on the dial.

 

[AmateisGal]

"Brain and brain!! What is brain?!" lol

Seriously though, getting rid of cable has saved me $750.00 a year (I'm sure its more expensive now) and a lot of bad juju. A friend of mine loves watching MTV, and I get completely sick every time I watch it with her.

Jim, they took his brain! Classic!

While we were on vacation, I made the mistake of turning on the hotel t.v. and clicking on MTV. I watched an episode of Jersey Shore just to see what it was all about. Talk about idiocy. I can't believe people get paid to act like degenerates.

If I could get TCM and hubby could get the National Geographic Channel, we'd be set.

 

[Edward]

"Brain and brain!! What is brain?!" lol

Seriously though, getting rid of cable has saved me $750.00 a year (I'm sure its more expensive now) and a lot of bad juju. A friend of mine loves watching MTV, and I get completely sick every time I watch it with her.

You're not kidding about the saving. We never had satellite or cable at home, and since I moved into my own place ten years ago, I'v stuck with free to air. Anything I would want to watch on subscription TV either eventually makes it to free to air or would be cheaper to buy on DVD anyhow. There's a load of great stuff on the free digital channels over here, specially the BBC. ITV1 is, of course, rubbish as ever but the ITV3 & 4 channels show a lot of great old repeats. I'm a big fan of Film Four too. I have watched a little TV in other places in the world, and I find it interesting to get a feel for the local pop culture that way. I wish I spoke more Mandarin, as Chinese TV seems to be full of interesting looking historical dramas. German TV has some nice things, but I did notice a very big BBC-shaped hole. US TV, including HBO, seems to have some great shows, but I could never settle to watch anything properly with an ad break every ten minutes or less, and often an unclear delineation between the ad breaks and programme content (over here there is always a title card or some sort of ident to bookend the ad break; I believe this is a requirement under broadcasting law in the UK).

 

[bunnyb.gal]

You're not kidding about the saving. We never had satellite or cable at home, and since I moved into my own place ten years ago, I'v stuck with free to air. Anything I would want to watch on subscription TV either eventually makes it to free to air or would be cheaper to buy on DVD anyhow. There's a load of great stuff on the free digital channels over here, specially the BBC. ITV1 is, of course, rubbish as ever but the ITV3 & 4 channels show a lot of great old repeats. I'm a big fan of Film Four too. I have watched a little TV in other places in the world, and I find it interesting to get a feel for the local pop culture that way. I wish I spoke more Mandarin, as Chinese TV seems to be full of interesting looking historical dramas. German TV has some nice things, but I did notice a very big BBC-shaped hole. US TV, including HBO, seems to have some great shows, but I could never settle to watch anything properly with an ad break every ten minutes or less, and often an unclear delineation between the ad breaks and programme content (over here there is always a title card or some sort of ident to bookend the ad break; I believe this is a requirement under broadcasting law in the UK).

I've found that Film Four has really gone downhill in the past few years - I recall that when it first came out that there were many more foreign/indie/classic films on it, and now Jack Black films, romantic comedies and mediocre recent releases are way too much in evidence. Still, they do have the odd gem on there.

There's some interesting stuff on the Sky Arts channels from time to time.

One channel I do wish we had was TCM USA. It was the only channel I bothered to watch when I lived in the US, and I would happily swap our 500 or whatever it is cable channels for that one - the UK version is bilge in comparison.

 

[Steven180]

I usually miss these great conversations...

I agree with everyone on the poor product aired on most television these days. Cable capability and a plethora of channels provide the conditions for competition whereby the many networks now look to the extreme to draw an audience and maintain viability. I am tying my hands right now to prevent from going into the news networks and this influence on them...

In the end I think it comes down to control. People, obviously us here, need to control the influence in their own and their children's lives. This provides a standard of ethics, morals and values, and stability in interpretation. This is how children are raised well, and how they raise their children well, and so on...

Controlling those shows, particularly by watching series and documentaries that demonstrate valued entertainment, provides your family with good influence, effects that reflect and reinforce your own beliefs, and valuable family time. So kudos and keep it up to those who are. Think about the days of a household sitting around the radio listening to the news and story line radio together. You watch TV with your heart, but listen to radio with your brain.

Unfortunately, until the the minority demands recognition or until the majority of the populace losses interest in reality TV, they are likely to be around for some time. It is a choice for the entertainment industry, but in reality it is still a business.

Best to all, good discussions,
M.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Having lived the first two thirds of my life in the days of three-network-plus-NET/PBS over-the-air television and locally-owned-and-managed radio, I'll say without any reservation that it *was better then* in every conceivable way. I'd gladly go back to it.

 

[Feraud]

What we have now are children raised by "children".

Media reported anomalies aside, I've read the average age of U.S women having a first child is approximately 25-26. This is well past the childhood stage.

 

[Widebrim]

No cable tv for my daughter. We watch DVDs instead. Lately, we're on a Star Trek kick. She loves watching the original ones with James T. Kirk and Spock (the episode "Spock's Brain" had us all giggling). Plus she adores Hogan's Heroes. I absolutely REFUSE to get cable (plus it's expensive!).

Antenna TV is a "free air" network, AG. I agree about cable; I've been tempted to get it because of TCM, the History Channel, etc., but it's still not worth it. And Hogan's Heroes is one of my favorites!

 

[Widebrim]

Media reported anomalies aside, I've read the average age of U.S women having a first child is approximately 25-26. This is well past the childhood stage.

Yes, but there are segments of society in which the median age is much lower, as evidenced here in L.A. And even if a parent is "older," very often his/her mentality is still in the childhood stage.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's the operative thing -- if anything, 25/26 was a bit old to be having a first child sixty or seventy years ago. Most people became parents for the first time in their early twenties. The question is, was a 22-year-old in 1939 or 1949 more mature/adult/responsible than a person of the same age today? A case can be made that, in the modern era, a 25 year old is still an adolescent in outlook.

 

[Edward]

I've found that Film Four has really gone downhill in the past few years - I recall that when it first came out that there were many more foreign/indie/classic films on it, and now Jack Black films, romantic comedies and mediocre recent releases are way too much in evidence. Still, they do have the odd gem on there.

Yeah, they do show a lot of mainstream pap, but I find late at night they can be good, especially for obscure European horror. They also recently had a Bergman season: I saw The Seventh Seal in full for the first time and found it surprisingly watchable and entertaining. I love it when I discover something obscure on there that turns out to be great. Five Against the House was like that.

There's some interesting stuff on the Sky Arts channels from time to time.

One channel I do wish we had was TCM USA. It was the only channel I bothered to watch when I lived in the US, and I would happily swap our 500 or whatever it is cable channels for that one - the UK version is bilge in comparison.

I'd assumed they were similar programming - seems not. TBH, with DVDs as cheap as they are now, I don't know that I'd ever really consider shelling out for a cable channel at all.

That's the operative thing -- if anything, 25/26 was a bit old to be having a first child sixty or seventy years ago. Most people became parents for the first time in their early twenties. The question is, was a 22-year-old in 1939 or 1949 more mature/adult/responsible than a person of the same age today? A case can be made that, in the modern era, a 25 year old is still an adolescent in outlook.

To a degree I think this is an inevitable result of longer life expectancies and greater educational opportunities.

 

[LizzieMaine]

College-as-an-extension-of-high-school is a big part of it, agreed. So the question then becomes should society recognize that cultural shift and acknowledge that adolescence now extends thru the twenties?

Should, for example, the voting and drinking age be raised to 28?