When Kim an' John agree...
Big Brother has been around for years and all but passed me by. I've caught bits and pieces of it down the years, inadvertently, when I've been tuning in to catch whatever follows it or when I'm channel hopping and land there by accident.
I've never been drawn into the concept of watching a bunch of underinteresting, underachieving twenty-somethings loll about in their garden or on their sofas or in bed - or watch them attempt to accomplish stupid, pointless tasks so as to avoid the alleged consequence of failure which is starvation or eviction or whatever.
But Big Brother is impossible to avoid, because the media feeds off itself and the antics are structured so as to have cross over appeal. The bottom feeders among the newspapers feed off the program's appeal to the CDE demographic At the other end of the media spectrum the tendency is to report the program as part of a campaign to feed off the disdain of their own demographic both for the 'red-tops' and the people who read them.
I'm doing my bit to evict the program. I don't watch it and I don't vote in the eviction votes. The makers and advertisers get nothing from me; since I'm unengaged the media that dine off the side dishes get nothing from me either.
Big Brother is an immense commercial venture and when the investors perceive a better, quicker return on their pounds or bucks elsewhere, then elsewhere that capital will flow. Simple market economics.
In theory Australia's is an open market economy. In practice that's just about true. In theory Australia is a democracy. In practice that's largely true.
Which is why Kim an' John's foray into tv criticism is totally bizarre. Enough people watch the programme to warrant it being made? Market forces. It's in bad/poor/execrable taste? Tough. According to our Prime Minister the programme should be axed by the broadcaster as an act of 'self-regulation'. I may not be able to give you a text-book definition of self-regulation but I have to say that from this distance what the PM and the Leader of the Opposition appear to be calling for is indistinguishable from self-censorship.
Little Johnny is quoted as describing the programme as 'stupid', which is true - and called for it to be pulled from the schedules on that basis, which is unreasonable. If every stupid tv program were to be pulled from the schedules there'd be nothing but news and nature programs (excluding the ones made by Steve Irwin) left. That might suit Little Johnny but it wouldn't suit me any better than most of his voters.
Which makes me wonder, how stupid are these voters who fall hook, line and sinker for every one of little Johnny's wizard wheezes for stirring up flurries of electoral support? It's quite one thing to make baseless claims about babies being thrown into the Pacific, secure in the knowledge that the accused can't vote. It seems to me to be quite another thing to be suggesting that the masses have their twenty-first century opiate taken away.
And when Kim agrees with him, you don't even have to analyse to know its a bad, bad idea.
I've never been drawn into the concept of watching a bunch of underinteresting, underachieving twenty-somethings loll about in their garden or on their sofas or in bed - or watch them attempt to accomplish stupid, pointless tasks so as to avoid the alleged consequence of failure which is starvation or eviction or whatever.
But Big Brother is impossible to avoid, because the media feeds off itself and the antics are structured so as to have cross over appeal. The bottom feeders among the newspapers feed off the program's appeal to the CDE demographic At the other end of the media spectrum the tendency is to report the program as part of a campaign to feed off the disdain of their own demographic both for the 'red-tops' and the people who read them.
I'm doing my bit to evict the program. I don't watch it and I don't vote in the eviction votes. The makers and advertisers get nothing from me; since I'm unengaged the media that dine off the side dishes get nothing from me either.
Big Brother is an immense commercial venture and when the investors perceive a better, quicker return on their pounds or bucks elsewhere, then elsewhere that capital will flow. Simple market economics.
In theory Australia's is an open market economy. In practice that's just about true. In theory Australia is a democracy. In practice that's largely true.
Which is why Kim an' John's foray into tv criticism is totally bizarre. Enough people watch the programme to warrant it being made? Market forces. It's in bad/poor/execrable taste? Tough. According to our Prime Minister the programme should be axed by the broadcaster as an act of 'self-regulation'. I may not be able to give you a text-book definition of self-regulation but I have to say that from this distance what the PM and the Leader of the Opposition appear to be calling for is indistinguishable from self-censorship.
Little Johnny is quoted as describing the programme as 'stupid', which is true - and called for it to be pulled from the schedules on that basis, which is unreasonable. If every stupid tv program were to be pulled from the schedules there'd be nothing but news and nature programs (excluding the ones made by Steve Irwin) left. That might suit Little Johnny but it wouldn't suit me any better than most of his voters.
Which makes me wonder, how stupid are these voters who fall hook, line and sinker for every one of little Johnny's wizard wheezes for stirring up flurries of electoral support? It's quite one thing to make baseless claims about babies being thrown into the Pacific, secure in the knowledge that the accused can't vote. It seems to me to be quite another thing to be suggesting that the masses have their twenty-first century opiate taken away.
And when Kim agrees with him, you don't even have to analyse to know its a bad, bad idea.
posted by Enyo @ 7:49 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home