no more "reality"...
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6519209.stm

Italy state TV bans "reality shows". Applaus! Applaus...! APPLAUS...!!! I don't care if it is a moral issue, or an economical consideration: "Hauptsache weg" .

Berlusconi being the exception.

Don't forget to kill big Brother, too, please.

Not every vulgarity needs to be delivered, not every shamelessness needs to be pleased, just because some mobs in the streets call for them. Better educate the mobs.

I wish Germany would follow.

I was very pleased hearing this news on radio.

Unfortunately, the state TV is less than an half of this sort of trash show; most of titles, including "Big Brother", "The farm" and others are Berlusconi's businness.

I had some look on this kind of shows, and the only pleasure for me was in seeing how famous adults are so less skilled than any boy scout.

Out of that, nothing is less real than a "reality" where a selected group of characters lives and groans in front of several cameras; a volounteer enprisonement, for money and fame, where just the duty for silly side games save people from utimate boredom.

Finally, Italy does something right ;)

Let's hope the UK follows Italy's lead.

Lets hope the U.S. follows. I don't watch tv but the wife does. Every time I think they can't come up with another reality subject they do.

Do like I do, make your own program. I just bought the latest "The Professionals" DVD box and the final season of "Twin Peaks". I always think twice before switching to current TV programs... Plan to get the old "Robin of Sherwood" series as well, at least the first two seasons before the protagonist changed (planning that since long... :-? ).

And no - no Star Trek series DVDs over here :lol: Only VHS recordings of the movies.

I have season one and two of Starsky and Hutch :rock::rock:

Reality shows are made for the brain dead and sad acts. And there is a lot of them in the UK thats why these shows rule TV. :damn:

I consider daily soaps, sit coms and reality shows to be a mental health hazard. Seriously, and talking as an ex-psychologist. If you eat bad food, you get weak and/or ill. But with mental and intellectual input, it should be different...? "Modernes Fernsehen verblödet."

No complaints here Skybird, you got my vote. :rock: :up: :rock:

If a university had tried to run a psycological experiment like big brother then they wouldn't have got permission on ethical grounds. Some serious regulation is needed for these TV programs!

Have they banned reality TV such as garden makeovers or house buying programs in Italy?

I agree totally. I have a classroom full of people who can tell you who won the last Star Search but few of them know how to do long division. :nope:

The answer to survive and enjoy TV is: https://www.tivo.com/

Yeah. I don't use my Tivo anymore. I might sell it sometime soon as well. It's hacked with an ethernet cable hanging out the back end so that you can transfer shows to whatever device you want. Only problem is, it's a 10 mbps cable so it takes forever to transfer a couple GB show. I mainly use my Tivo now to record video games off my computer (which is a cool use for it) now since that is all it is good for since my computer took over the Tivo job. Using XP Media Center 2005, you have none of the restrictions on what you do with a file as found on a Tivo (Without hacking the Tivo that is), and the guide data is free so it doesn't cost you anything to use it either.

-S

For some odd reason, restricting free speech is always met with cheers when we dislike or disagree with the speech in question. Since there is fairly widespread revulsion for reality tv, it is a smart political move to ban it. It accomplishes two things to do so: first, it is a popular short term political move, and second, it affirms the power of the government to make decisions about what gets shown in the media.

The problem always comes down to who decides what gets restricted. I wonder if this thread would be as positive if they were banning tv shows that show discussions of evolution, or images of naked women, or ads for alcohol? My guess is that for these kinds of speech the reaction would be more mixed.

I would recommend caution in applauding governments for exerting power over what gets shown in the media. Today, when they ban something you despise, and you agree with their exercise of that power, you are inviting them to use that power another day around something you care about.

Never give up your rights, even if it benefits you in the short term. Rights are bloody hard to reclaim once lost.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

I have never seen a single reality show in my whole life :smug: , but I also don't think they should be forbidden. It's like prohibiting stupidity...it's useless. There are millions of idiots out there, and I'm nobody to tell them what is good for them or not. We have a say here in Spain that is: "Just because thousands of flies love the S**T, that doesn't mean S**T is good", in referring to the fact that majorities are not always right. But the fact is that S**T is good....for the flies;)

If they want it, let them have it. For those it is too late to try re-education anyway.

The only sad part of this is that they also can vote in a democracy. That's why I don't like the democracy, based in Aristotelic reasons :shifty:, but sadly we have no better system (Based in Churchilian reasons):down:

EDIT: Forgot to add: I concur mostly to what Rykaird said before. As long as every TV has a on/off switch, your freedom is preserved. If everyone would be forced to see that rubbish (A la "Clockwork Orange") that would be a different story, though.

Give My Regards to Huggy Bear

You guys oversee one thing: looking TV is no one-way road, but it feeds back on the viewer, like almost all sensual input. You may think that if the plebs in the street demands some crap format, it will just be freedom of speech and that it should be honoured by delivering them what they want. But it will lead to a constant detoriating of overall quality in TV - and that is what I see happening since roughly twenty years now. Leave the decision about quality to quotas only, and you will soon have garbage TV the sort of that we now have.

By saying no, and leave them no choice than to consume better quality, or not consume at all.

Hell, we are not talking about the prohibition of political magazines, suppression of opinions on scientific opinions, and the censoring of cultural programs! Don't make this bigger than it is. We are talking about crap. C-R-A-P. Was it an attack on free press when in Germany many years ago the display of naked women on regular mainstream magazine's frontpages (not things like Penthouse or Playboy) was regulated and for the most, banned? By far it was not. Such stuff is still there. but salesmen no longer position it in the first and unhidden rows of their newspaper stands, like before.

Why is it that every piece of sh!t today gets excused and it's spreading is tolerated - always in the name of defending free speech and some undiscriminating tolerance for all and everything, no matter how bad or or stupid or dangerous or hostile it is? If that would work, why is the movie scene becoming more and more stereotypic and reduced to some cash-making schemes, and why is TV quality in free fall since so many years?

Allow open inflation of lacking quality, and you will get exactly an inflation of bad quality. See what you get so far.

Accept increasing brutalising and coarsen in medias, manners, and content in general - and you will get an increasing brutalising and coarsening of society. No wonder that more and more people are so simple-minded and show so bad manners, especially amongst the young ones.

"Eine Verrohung der Inhalte führt zu einer Verrohung der Sitten." If you read Shakespeare, you will foster the education of a certain development level of mind. If you read a primitive porn novel, you will Foster the education of a different level of mind. Which one would you choose?

Always putting things into relations until no more standards are left. Always rejecting any standards at all, and always saying that every standard, no matter what, is as valuable and must be found as worthy as any other given standard. Always being tolerant on everything, even if unlimited tolerance is only possible by completely giving up any values, any identity, and every stand of oneself. Bah. No wonder that this culture of ours is going to hell. It rots from within. :down:

The reason people defend almost anything in the name of free speech is because there is no universal standard of what constitutes "crap."

Simple example - the tv show South Park. The only episode I saw, someone hid a nuclear bomb in Hilary Clinton's private parts, and the Queen of England stuck a gun in her mouth and blew her brains out all over the wall. I found it pretty vulgar, and won't watch the show again. But should it be banned? There are millions who think it is hilarious. Who's right? Who decides? For me, I'd rather just elect to change the channel rather than cede to the government the right to decide what is "crap."

Should the Bush government decide for the American public what is "crap" and what is "educational"? Are you SURE that's the model that you want - that the government decides, as the Italian government just did on reality shows?

You can wail about declining standards (by the way, I happen to think the quality of tv programming is at an all time high right now - please revisit the 1970s and tell me that tv was so much better then) - but it still comes down to a question of power and authority.

With the exception of certain known social standards, I would rather use rating systems and market pressures to determine publishing standards. You talk about educating the public - OK, but who decides what they get educated on? There's an entire army of folks who think we should be teaching young children that homosexual relationships are a good thing. I disagree. Who decides?

One day a liberal government mandates educating children on homosexuality and four years later a conservative one eliminates discussions of evolution. Sorry, I just don't want them to have that control. You can say we aren't talking about such key issues - that this is just about crap tv - but there is no way to divide that level of authority so finely. You can't give the government the right to ban tv shows that are deemed to be not helpful to the masses, but only if they don't discussions on science, or education, or religion, etc. Sorry, the lawyers will then jump in and re-label anything the way they want it.

Your entire argument hinges on this idea that you happen to know what's best, that it is so obvious that reality tv is crap and should be banned. But you aren't the person making the call - its the government. There's no ballot measure where the majority gets to decide. Tomorrow (and they have certainly tried to do this) a liberal government bans conservative talk radio as "hate speech". If your a liberal, this is a wise and prudent move. If your a conservative, you just woke up in a totalitarian government.

What I want is less intrusive government. Period. Fix the roads and defend the shores, and stay the hell out of my personal decisions.

If banning reality shows leads to philosophical basic dicussions like it is tried here, then the deconstruction of any standards altogether has already proceeded farther than I think and the situation is really hopeless, because by that it is displayed what one considers to be the niveau of philosophy - and that niveau mirrors that of reality shows and thus is not impressive. And so is the resulting philosophy.

If all is open and free (beliebig), then nothing matters any more. And that is the total collapse of any moral system, no matter what. what is yelled the loudest on the streets, will decide what "culture" than will be.

And that is the culture of a dog having fun with what it just left behind at that tree, or the crowds in the Colosseum shouting for more blood and violance, and adult persons starring in porno movies and f#ucking on stage in public where they get handed some golden statue will be called "stars", and will be blown up to idols.

Like buildings must be taken care of, and must be cleaned and maintained, cultures must be taken care of, and their basic values must be protected against deconstruction. Some standards and values and morals are more of worth than others, while some even do active damage.

Today, every fascist, every mentally retarded, every egoist a$$hole can call his private and oh so important thoughts a "culture" - and by doing so will be given total immunity and is considered to be untouchable. Even if he calls for the supression of others, violance against people, sexual provocation in public, or war. It is "culture", isn't it, so it must be considered as valuable and as worthy as the best what mankind ever have shown up with. How could one dare to talk of qualitative hierarchies? Well i do, and if others dont like it, I don't give a damn. I am tired of seeing the rich AND SUPERIOR cultural heritage of the West going down the drain - in the name of all this above.

Total degeneracy.

Hell, we are not talking about the prohibition of political magazines, suppression of opinions on scientific opinions, and the censoring of cultural programs! Don't make this bigger than it is. We are talking about crap.

Simple that. No philosopher and no rocketscientist is needed to realise that. One needs no encyclopedia to realise when something is crap.