What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[vitanola]

Doesn't sound like some want to adhere to the reminder that politics are banned for good reason.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"It is not, and was never intended to be, a hot spot of current political debate. "


I suppose that if you call 1776 current...

Many seem to consider ideas with which they agree to be "political", whilst those which they find to be congenial are merely "common sense". This tendancy has been with us for a long while, but has become greatly exaggerated in the past generation, particularly since, say, 1996.

This forum is devoted to discussions of the so-called "Golden Era". Some have devoted a great deal of time to the study of the actual period in question, immersing themselves in the surviving cultural artifacts and the other minutae of the period. A few have taken considerable pains to study also the political, philosophical and economic underpinnings of the culture of that lost time. Often "moderns" are seen to project their current political positions on their rosy view of the "Golden Era" in ways that are most profoundly ahistoric. This is, I think unfortunate, and is, in it's effect quite profoundly political, in the modern, rather than the historical sense.

I'm quite familiar with Adam Smith, but that's not the point. I'm trying to reconcile these two statements from Sheeplady, not Adam Smith:

"Exploitation is about power and the powerless. It has so little to do with anything BUT power." and


"So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are."

The first statement says it's not about compensation, the second implies that it's *only* about compensation, as if they were making the same money as other sitcom actors, they'd ceased to be exploited.

Excellent point. One which I missed entirely. I saw the statement which Sheeplady made and added my own baggage to it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Exhibiting a freak in a circus tent is exploitation -- even if the freak gets paid. Reality TV is no different.

 

[Smithy]

The real reason why TV production companies the world over vomit out reality TV shows is all down to production costs. Reality TV is ridiculously cheap to make compared to drama, comedy, even documentary.

It's cheap and it cashes in on the voyeuristic element of human psychology.

It's also the most insidious form of TV that has been invented and the really scary thing about it is how far they are willing to push it to achieve ratings. And at the end of the day networks are all about ratings not content. Ratings are what pulls in advertising dollars and in a TV execs mind that's all that matters.

Having worked as a media planner/buyer I can say that with all honesty.

It's not the most squeaky clean of industries that's for sure.

 

[2jakes]

Exhibiting a freak in a circus tent is exploitation -- even if the freak gets paid. Reality TV is no different.

Reality TV is something that I won't miss when it becomes obsolete .

 

[HudsonHawk]

Exhibiting a freak in a circus tent is exploitation -- even if the freak gets paid. Reality TV is no different.

Are all circus performers exploited? Clowns? Lion Tamers? Are all actors? Comedians? Professional wrestlers (or where I come from, "wrasslers")? At what point does an entertainment exhibition cease to be exploitation by the promoter and simply a performance?

 

[Smithy]

Are all circus performers exploited? Clowns? Lion Tamers? Are all actors? Comedians? Professional wrestlers (or where I come from, "wrasslers")? At what point does an entertainment exhibition cease to be exploitation by the promoter and simply a performance?

Well that becomes a philosophical argument. It can and has been argued (especially in political philosophy and commentary) that anyone working for anyone else is in a sense being exploited. They are using their skills and abilities to make money for a person/organisation/company often not commensurate with what they receive in return.

Exploitation though in the sense we are discussing is probably more in terms of using someone's disability, or disadvantaged background, nature or personality to make a profit.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Exploitation though in the sense we are discussing is probably more in terms of using someone's disability, or disadvantaged background, nature or personality to make a profit.

Right, and with that comes the assumption that the person is either coerced, pressured in some way, or is forced by virtue of having really no other viable alternative, but to take the arrangement. In short, by definition, it means the person does not simply make a reasoned business decision. This may or may not be the case with these reality TV personalities, but why is there the assumption that it's necessarily the case? Take Duck Dynasty, for example. They were millionaires prior to the TV show. They didn't need the money, so why would they agree to do the show? Is it because they were coerced or tricked into it? Or is there some personal motivation for *wanting* to do it. If it's the latter, are they still being exploited?

 

[2jakes]

Well that becomes a philosophical argument. It can and has been argued (especially in political philosophy and commentary) that anyone working for anyone else is in a sense being exploited. They are using their skills and abilities to make money for a person/organisation/company often not commensurate with what they receive in return

Exploitation though in the sense we are discussing is probably more in terms of using someone's disability, or disadvantaged background, nature or personality to make a profit.

Child Labor -1890s

"The 1890 census revealed that more than one million children, 10 to 15 years old,
worked in America. That number increased to 2 million by 1910. Industries employed
children as young as five or six to work as many as eighteen to twenty hours a day

1919 President Wilson approved & signed into law the "Tax on Employment of
Child Labor." This placed a 10% tax on net profits of businesses that employed children
under age 14 or made them work more than 8 hours a day, 6 days a week.

1929 every state had a provision banning children under 14 from working ".
( Progressive-Era-Reform Studies @ University of Virginia ).

 

[Smithy]

Right, and with that comes the assumption that the person is either coerced, pressured in some way, or is forced by virtue of having really no other viable alternative, but to take the arrangement. In short, by definition, it means the person does not simply make a reasoned business decision. This may or may not be the case with these reality TV personalities, but why is there the assumption that it's necessarily the case? Take Duck Dynasty, for example. They were millionaires prior to the TV show. They didn't need the money, so why would they agree to do the show? Is it because they were coerced or tricked into it? Or is there some personal motivation for *wanting* to do it. If it's the latter, are they still being exploited?

No, as I said the idea of exploitation can be pulled out in the philosophical sense wherein anyone working for someone else can be seen as being exploited.

Is everyone involved in reality TV exploited? Of course not. Oddly enough the idea of exploitation often lies more in the viewer rather than the person involved. Porn is a prime example. The person involved does not necessarily feel they are being exploited when often they are.

But really at the end of the day, reality TV is symptomatic of much in the mass media, it involves little use of the grey matter to watch or interpret it.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I would personally say the latter but as with most things it's a matter of opinion.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Are all circus performers exploited? Clowns? Lion Tamers? Are all actors? Comedians? Professional wrestlers (or where I come from, "wrasslers")? At what point does an entertainment exhibition cease to be exploitation by the promoter and simply a performance?

A professional entertainer with a legitimate talent is one thing. People exhibited to the public as something to gawk at in and of themselves are quite another. The Dionne Quintuplets were ruthlessly exploited in the thirties, just as that blonde woman and her eight kids were exploited in the 2000s.

There are a few reality stars who I'd say aren't exploted. Those Duck people know exactly what they're doing -- it's marketing, plain and simple, a big gimmick to promote their line of merchandise. Not everybody needs to buy a duck call, but there's a lot of people will buy a shirt or a coffee mug or a desk calendar with what's his name's face on it after they see him on TV. And businessman that he is, I'm sure he has his legal department make sure he gets a nice big cut of the action.

But most reality people aren't like that. They don't know anything from show business, they're just ordinary people with some freakish aspect to their lives that the Boys From Marketing can use to grab the attention of the Holy Television Audience. And from my own experiences with show-biz types, I'd imagine the producers are very good at turning their heads and trying to get them to do what they want and sign on the dotted line before reading the fine print. That's exploitation.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Is everyone involved in reality TV exploited? Of course not. Oddly enough the idea of exploitation often lies more in the viewer rather than the person involved. Porn is a prime example. The person involved does not necessarily feel they are being exploited when often they are.

This is it, in a nutshell. If a person knows exactly what they're doing, why they're doing it, and is comfortable with the arrangement, are they being exploited or are they simply making a legal business transaction that is mutually acceptable to both parties? Is the answer "maybe"? Duck Dynasty guys are not, but the Hollywood Hillbillies are? How and where do we draw the line? That is the interesting part of the discussion.

But really at the end of the day, reality TV is symptomatic of much in the mass media, it involves little use of the grey matter to watch or interpret it.

True, but that is another topic on its own.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's a question of basic morality. If you are taking someone who has no legitimate reason for being on television and turning some unfortunate aspect of their lives into grist for a cheap TV program, you're exploiting them. You could pay them 99 percent of the profits, but you'd still be exploiting them. You could play it all up as "sympathetic" and you could have a smarmy host crying great crocodile tears as the unfortunate's story unfolds, but you're still exploiting them.

Of course, the phrases "basic morality" and "show business" seldom intersect these days, so I'm probably expecting too much, but that doesn't change what's right and wrong.

 

[vitanola]

Of course, the phrases "basic morality" and "show business" seldom intersect these days...

Have they ever, as a general rule? Remember what happened to the White Rats. How about T. O. B. A.? Klaw and Erlanger? Evelyn Nesbit touring on Orpheum time?

 

[F. J.]

I think the horse is dead . . .

:deadhorse
I'm no veterinarian, but I do believe that the equine that you all have been incessantly beating is long-since dead.


With that in mind, how about something else "modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?"

 

[LizzieMaine]

Have they ever, as a general rule? Remember what happened to the White Rats. How about T. O. B. A.? Klaw and Erlanger? Evelyn Nesbit touring on Orpheum time?

There were a few honorable men in show business -- Uncle Carl Laemmle comes to mind, and people used to say nice things about Gus Sun and Barney Balaban, but yes, in general the executives at the top of the industry have usually been swine. Which makes it all the more necessary to read the fine print when dealing with their minions.

 

[vitanola]

There were a few honorable men in show business -- Uncle Carl Laemmle comes to mind, and people used to say nice things about Gus Sun and Barney Balaban, but yes, in general the executives at the top of the industry have usually been swine. Which makes it all the more necessary to read the fine print when dealing with their minions.

Don't forget Mickey Shea up in Buffalo, and John Royal in Cleveland. Royal ended up with the NBC, didn't he?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yep, his main job there seemed to be trying to prevent Fred Allen and Janet MacRorie from killing each other. Ah, happy days.

 

[HudsonHawk]

:deadhorse
I'm no veterinarian, but I do believe that the equine that you all have been incessantly beating is long-since dead.


With that in mind, how about something else "modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?"

We're having an observational discussion, not making policy. If you don't want to participate, that's ok. Feel free to start a discussion that is more to your liking.

 

[1mach1]

Reality TV is something that I won't miss when it becomes obsolete .

:eusa_clap

 

[Gregg Axley]

Talking phones, cars, etc.
Like I need to hear voices, when nobody else is around.