no more "reality"...

[Skybird]

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.

[Bertgang]

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.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Finally, Italy does something right

[KevinB]

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

[bradclark1]

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.

[Skybird]

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 Only VHS recordings of the movies.

[Letum]

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?

[Bertgang]

Originally Posted by Letum

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

I've never seen or heard such programs here; but our full list is very long, so I could have simply missed them.

The one I know the best was about survivors in a wild isle.
I never saw this one too, but some minor facts happened during the show became matter of a trial under my duty.

Anyway, reality shows won't be banned by law in my country.
Simply, the boss of state TV said stop to this kind of programs.
No censorship, just an advised choice for better quality.

Berlusconi's TV is free to continue with them.
Good for freedom, maybe, not so good for youthness.

[Skybird]

Rykaird,

my background is the set of liberties and values that derived from the age of enlightenment, and the French revolution ideals. The idea of humanism as an attitude of mind, the equality of male and female, the ideas you can see expressed in the French, American and German constitutions, and the deriving order of a nation, the strict separation between state and religion, the message of Jesus (I could also say Buddha, for I am no Christian fundamentalism, or even Christian at all). I am aware of the importance that ancient Greek history and philosophy had on Rome and thus, on our contemporary way of thinking. The development of sciences, and arts. The liberties we enjoy, and that are no voluntary offers by someone, but can be sued for at courts on the basis of valid laws.

Never before, in no time and no part of the world, mankind enjoyed such a high level of freedoms, guarantees that the the dignity of the individual is untouchable, and blossoming philosophy. Basing on Greek philosophy for the most, we developed the principle of reason, and logic beyond anything that is to be seen anywhere else in the world. Our daily life is enriched by inventions and tools and possibilities that would not have been possible without these. If you think I am wrong tell your dentist never to give you an anaesthetic again, and don't forget that boarding an airliner is impossible because it does not really exist. Withiut our unique cultural history, there would be neither aneasthetics, nor airliners. where these are build by others today, they are basing on our development work.

Note that excesses of modern times, like the world wars, or unregulated predatory capitalism with all its misery it brings for so many people just to foster the wealth of the few, are no logical consequences fro these things I mentioned, but are happening because the values and cultural developments I outlined just were violated or perverted - this catastrophes did/do not happen because they follow our cultural heritage, but because they explicitly violate it. Capitalism claims it's right for unlimited freedom of acting by he individual, and the world Wars developed by explicit ignoring of these cultural values and developments.

Even the age of imperialism will not stop me saying that the Western culture brought human culture to a brighter blossoming than any other culture ever did (and this does not mean that I am ignorant to other cultures of the past). Despite the exploitation (resources) and mastering taking place, the presence of the colonial powers, especially the British in India and Africa, helped a lot to bring education and health care to these countries, schools, hospitals, from which they benefit until today. Most important, especially in Africa: the British prevented more violence to happen than they caused themselves. African people were better off with the British, than with themselves, when endless tribal wars and slaughtering, being committed with unbelievable cruelty an barbarism, were almost routine. When the British left, all these wars broke loose again, as was to be seen during the last century and after WWII. It is always said that colonialism has shattered Africa, but that is neither so simply, nor is it true. The continent was shattered before, and when European governing went away, the many rifts and tribal open bills became apparent again and also provoked an amount of corruption that today the hope of ever getting Africa sorted can be given up for sure.

Today, a Pax Americana - if only it would not base on the greed and profit interests of corporations, but the true ideals that were originally expressed by the American founding fathers, would be a blessing for the world.

Yes, you hear right. It will surprise people when it is Sky bird saying that, for I have my reputation of criticising the USA so unforgivingly. But I also always made it clear that I see the US of today not representative for the original idea that it once was, in the past. I always said that modern foreign politics for me are not representing the America as intended in the constitution and the Bill of Rights, but is actively, willingly ignoring these, and violating these. If the US would be like it claims to be, wants to be, and was meant to be, I would be it's convinced and willing ally. But as things are today, I must oppose it instead, at least for the most of occasions.

I also define the Western culture not only by what it is, but by what it is NOT. The heritage of our history leaves no room for excusing totalitarianism. we went beyond religious superstition and literal word-believing (at least most of us). We went beyond slavery. We do not beat our women anymore, and don't consider our children to be a possession of ours.

You are weaselling, Rykaird, not me. You must do so, for you are not able or willing to describe the cultural ground on which you stand and that would be needed as a basis in order to be able to separate between what is good and what is bad, for example concerning TV quality. Even more so, people like you I have talked to before and often concluded that for that way of arguing it even is not allowed to define any such base in values and cultural identity - that would mean to give up the illusion that all and everything must endlessly be put into relation to each other and considered to be of equal worth. It cannot be, what shall not be. What is better is being forced back into mediocrity, what is worse is being polished and blown up until it appears to be more than it is. The result is a flat terrain, wiothiut any heights, without any downs. I'm not impressed. It's what I call Flatland.

You will not find anything convincing that I say. Having no identity you defend yourself, no awareness of the cultural heritage on which your present life with all it's liberties and freedoms and possibilities is basing, and avoiding any hierarchical thinking at all cost, because "hierarchy" today is brandmarked as a bad word, you are not more than a leaf in the wind, and the one blowing the strongest will determine your fate. By that, you are of no value for the community, and do nothing to strengthen it's future chances - even when you a have a job and maybe do it well.

I never argued and will never argue that we have a right (or an obligation) to bring our culture to others, and enforce it upon them. Others need to learn their own way, and at their own speed, and if they want the tools and possibilities that we developed (our ancestors), they need to lay the needed cultural basis first, for it is not by random chance that it was the Western culture gaining these abilities. The unique European geography, and coexistence of both rivalry and geographic isolation led to the huge canon of different schools in thinking, economy, science, trade, etc. Tribes and people had to compete with the others in order to survive, but nevertheless the geographic isolation made it possible, that one was not only copying the other, but was forming one's own ways - because one did not know about a model which to copy. An incredibla diversity that in most recent times even nhas learned to peacefully coexist, was the result. More diversity than in any other place of thr world, and more peaceful coexstiance than in any other part of the world. Stammtisch-TV would not have made that possible, of this we can be sure...

We should resist all efforts and attempts from within to make us forget the roots of our present, the suffering as well as the triumph, and should also resist all people from the outside that wish to take our identity away from us, and force us to surrender to their inferior, but often more brutal ideas of "culture".

You are wrong, Rykaird. What is crap, and what not, can be defined very well, and I gave you a hint with all what I said above. If you try to make a list of paragraphs, you only will find out that your list will always, always be incomplete, and me - I am no bureaucrat, lists and counting paragraphs are not my thing. Better advise is to have standards and a background by which to judge the present issue individually, instead of just trying to find a matching category for it

And one thing is beyond doubt: in our own home, we have any right that can be imagined to say that in our home OUR standards are the rule of all, not those of others from somewhere else. We do not have the smallest obligation whatever to make us smaller in order to allow others appearing to be as great.


Hitman,

were you said that you have troubles to find the "culture" in the arts of Picasso, Miro, and others, you miss the important point. A piece of art alone does not make a culture. culture is the possibility, the freedom, that the huge treasury of many pieces of many kinds of arts can even appear. The general context in which the artist, the piece of art, and he audience is embedded - this is what culture is. not the individual painting. Of course this means that in such an environment, the audience has an obligation to make sure it is educated enough to make sense of what the artist is showing them. Damn, again this bad thing concerning qualitative hierarchies! It seems nature is filled with hierarchies. But when the general context that embraces and houses all this is unable to give the audience any standards to judge what is "good" in the meaning of fostering this culture, and what is "bad" in temrs of helping to forget or even to pervert it's identity, then this is not a sign of the amount of tolerance in "culture", but is culture that is denying itself and deconstruct itself. and last but not least, "arts" have something to do with craftsmanship of whatever a kind. A piece of arts is no random creation, it is not just throwing two dice and have this or that result that becasue of it's random, unrepeateble nature would be a piece of arts, too. It means that NOT EVERYBODY can do it in terms of compoetence, craftsmanship, knowledge, experience. Else the chaotic, noise-craving hammering of a 4-year old kid on the piano would be considered as cultural as is a Debussy-interpretation by Thiollier. This is what separates objects of arts that I like or at least tolerate, from objects that I consider to be crap (especially in "modern arts".). Throwing some paint bin at the wall - is no arts. It may result in a visual pattern that somebody likes, maybe even me, but it is no art. Everybody can put a huge piece of Butter onto a chair (the infamous "Fettstuhl"). Hammering a statue out of a stone that makes the audience standing in silence and admire the beauty in it - that is something that not everybody can do. Or in TV: everybody can make an ape out of himself in Big Brother, but not everybody is able to pick a role and play it in a way that the audience is convinced that it is no actor playing, but that the figure itself has come to life.

"the audience has an obligation to make sure it is educated enough to make sense of what the artist is showing them". If it does not do tht, cannot do that, does not want to do that, it should stay away and remain silent. So: feed the audience with crap, and it's education level will detoriate. By that, culture is destroyed. Tolerating crap is not tolerance, but is harmful and dmagaing and in the end: suicidal. This is where tolerance should end. - Classical music has become ridiculously cheap and affordable for every peter and Paul. Every supermarket offers partially high quality recordings, for just some cents. It led to this: masterpieces of classical music are being omnipresent now and are being used without any differentiations. You sell a new soap, and there is Prokofiev. You open a drupstaore, and you play Mozart. the audience does not separate between good and bad music, and even less so to differ between a good and a bad performance. every uneducated hillbilly now can be "en culture" by spending some pocket money that is left after having had his last beer. The overall quality of the classical market has suffered incredibly by this. even worse, hip hop rappers and wannabee-girlies whith screeching voices but no ability to hold a clear tone when singing pick up a classical peice and rape it to their liking. the result is crap, and the loss of quality means a detoriation of culture as well. People cannot appreciate what it is that they have. They can't estimate it's truevalue. It just like that bus driving by, that bike leaning at the wall, that dog doing it's business.

No more differing between good and bad, quality and crap, and even more: no more ability to understand why one maybe should wish that. Great.

German readers: anybody remembering Harpe Kerkelings unforgettable Verarschung of the audience when he and a pianist performed just nonsens on stage, and then managed to successfully lure the confused audience into a deep and profound discussion about how much culture there was in that performance of theirs...? One of the best and most clever comedy stunts I have seen in all my life. :rotfl: "Hurz...!"


These remarks necessarily are not complete, and cannot be without writing a whole book.

[Skybird]

I mentioned it above, and here it is. The star is not the singer, but the audience's remarkable and highly insightful comments.



It is called: "Hurz!"

Totale Publikums-Verarsche (I excuse for the rude word of mine). the audience was all to willingly to get 2veraerscht". Stupid people.

[Hitman]

my background is the set of liberties and values that derived from the age of enlightenment, and the French revolution ideals. The idea of humanism as an attitude of mind, the equality of male and female, the ideas you can see expressed in the French, American and German constitutions, and the deriving order of a nation, the strict separation between state and religion, the message of Jesus (I could also say Buddha, for I am no Christian fundamentalism, or even Christian at all). I am aware of the importance that ancient Greek history and philosophy had on Rome and thus, on our contemporary way of thinking. The development of sciences, and arts. The liberties we enjoy, and that are no voluntary offers by someone, but can be sued for at courts on the basis of valid laws.

Me too. But it is important to add the lessons learned from fascism, comunism and WW2

Capitalism claims it's right for unlimited freedom of acting by he individual

Capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system. As such, it is politically neutral and as unlimited/limited as mathematics. A different matter is that a Political ideology (Liberalism) embraces it as a way of organizing a society.

Today, a Pax Americana - if only it would not base on the greed and profit interests of corporations, but the true ideals that were originally expressed by the American founding fathers, would be a blessing for the world.

Yes, you hear right. It will surprise people when it is Sky bird saying that, for I have my reputation of criticising the USA so unforgivingly. But I also always made it clear that I see the US of today not representative for the original idea that it once was, in the past.

Me too. The US have lots of defects, like any other country, but they have never been fans of "violent" imperialism, but instead of "economic" imperialism, even if being involved in many wars in this and the past two centuries (Hard to avoid when you are a super-power). Anyone can critizise their imperialism, like the imperialism of any mighty nation in history can be critizised (Spain has a long and interesting history about that), but at least it has been much more peaceful than others in the past.

But when the general context that embraces and houses all this is unable to give the audience any standards to judge what is "good" in the meaning of fostering this culture, and what is "bad" in temrs of helping to forget or even to pervert it's identity, then this is not a sign of the amount of tolerance in "culture", but is culture that is denying itself and deconstruct itself.

The problem is that in the end, those "standards" must be given not by "the general context", but instead by certain guys, with a certain name. And who are those guys? The government? The courts? The teachers?

The general context nowadays is in fact the idiots, my friend. There are millions of them All those ideals about humanism, enlightning, etc. were the result of the "Despotic Enlightmeent", when a certain group of "enlighted" guys decided what the rest of the society should consider good or bad. They convinced the millions of idiots to make a revolution (And die by thousands) in order to seize the power from the King and create the democracy, only to ensure that not the King's heir but instead the spiritual heirs of those "Despotic enlighteds" would rule. Was their standard better than the old King's standard? For sure. Is it way better than the idiot's standards? For sure. But is it still a way of telling the idiots what is better from them, instead of letting them decide? For sure too.

Throwing some paint bin at the wall - is no arts. It may result in a visual pattern that somebody likes, maybe even me, but it is no art. Everybody can put a huge piece of Butter onto a chair (the infamous "Fettstuhl").

Sure. That's what Picasso or Van Gogh heard a lot at the start of their careers :hmm:

Hammering a statue out of a stone that makes the audience standing in silence and admire the beauty in it - that is something that not everybody can do. Or in TV: everybody can make an ape out of himself in Big Brother, but not everybody is able to pick a role and play it in a way that the audience is convinced that it is no actor playing, but that the figure itself has come to life.

Not everyone can eat 10 burgers in 5 minutes (Like in Guiness Records), but that doesn't make it an art. Not everyone can drive a Formula 1 under 1.55 seconds in Barcelona circuit, and that doesn't make it an art.

Is art dependant from how many can do something?

Classical music has become ridiculously cheap and affordable for every peter and Paul. Every supermarket offers partially high quality recordings, for just some cents. It led to this: masterpieces of classical music are being omnipresent now and are being used without any differentiations.

Well I thought it also helped widespreading classic music and allowing more people to access it. I personally would not like to have paid 3 times as much for my already large collection

even worse, hip hop rappers and wannabee-girlies whith screeching voices but no ability to hold a clear tone when singing pick up a classical peice and rape it to their liking. the result is crap, and the loss of quality means a detoriation of culture as well. People cannot appreciate what it is that they have. They can't estimate it's truevalue.

I guess when the first ancient man of the caverns started blowing air through an empty bone and tried to make some music out of it, his neighbours probably thought the same. As I said before, Van Gogh as many others was not much appreciated at the start of his career (I certainly still don't like his paintings and wouldn't hang one in my living room, even if it cost only 1€).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But don't get me wrong. From all this discussion I recognize that I share completely your vision about what is crap and what isn't, what is better for everyone in our civilization, and what isn't. The only difference is that I still have a philosophical doubt about wether I have or not the right to say that my understanding of this all is the correct one, and that others are wrong. (A doubt which ironically is also a part of that cultural heritage of humanism)

You, instead, are very sure about your convictions -on a well founded basis, IMO- and therefore have the fighting spirit to demand it. To a certain extent, I envy you I only can be so sure about a minimal amount of things.

Cheers

[TteFAboB]

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

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

[Rykaird]

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

[Hitman]

I have never seen a single reality show in my whole life , 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 , but sadly we have no better system (Based in Churchilian reasons)

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.