People will eventually replace TV this way- the same as most people dont really go and buy CD’s at the record shop.

other top listed I've never seen…

As to the illiterate, racist, homophobic, rednecked chicken-hawk calling for your abduction, simply point & laugh. S/H/It is an anachronism in today's world.

Either that, or it's the shit they put in the water…

=]

So much better than the 'low-brow' drivel everyone else seems to be foisting upon us (TINU) against our will & driving down the moral standards of TorrentFreak's 'populace'.

=]

=]

If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.

By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an emotional attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. Fiction is something by which people relate to their own lives – it is for this reason that people become emotionally attached to fiction. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially and culturally beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.

(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)

If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.

By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an emotional attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. Fiction is something by which people relate to their own lives – it is for this reason that people become emotionally attached to fiction. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.

(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)

If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.

By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.

(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)

If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.

(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)

If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not, because those in charge do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.

(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)

…

However I may agree with you that there are (so) many turds floating around on TV, I will defend to the hilt the pointy-headed retard's right to watch as much crap as they like, whenever they like. It is not for you (or I) to decide what is aesthetic or tasteful enough for general broadcast, nor to make sweeping generalisations regarding TV's impact on 'society'. (Do you also still subscribe to the outdated – & frankly ludicrous – meme that violent videogaming causes violent people?)

Television OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

=]

Wow right back atcha! Talk about failing to remember what you yourself _just_ wrote. Not to mention a fascinating, almost limitless, capacity to completely ignore most of the points _I_ (& others) have made.

I reiterate: if you don't like it, switch off – or jump on over to mvgroup.org; there's a wealth of edutainment just awaiting your 'intellectual' perusal.

1 – Entertainment need not be "intellectually positive". There's pretty-much always been an element of mindless pabulum (google 'vaudeville', 'music hall' or even 'Commedia dell'Arte' – 500-yr old crude, slapstick comedy!).

2 – TV would soon go bust if it tried to 'teach' (read 'preach to') the great unwashed.

3 – Your 'society' would NOT thank you for interfering with their leisure time, & it ain't the Evil Empire (your 'industry') deciding what's on. The people choose – via pilots, focus groups, screeners, etc.

You wanna learn, go to school – 'cos TV ain't edumacation & never will be (thank Ghod!).

As to the illiterate, racist, homophobic, chicken-hawk calling for your abduction, simply point & laugh. S/H/It is an anachronism in today's world.

The Big Bang Theory sounds good, used to watch it but then got busy with other stuff. Maybe ill look into that today.

http://bluehumor.org

I am not concerned by what I watch, nor what others watch, but rather what is fed to society by the industry.

I am not concerned by what I watch, nor what others watch, but rather what is fed to society by the industry.