remember the "educational channels"?

As the culture sinks further down into the muck that is “reality television”, here is an article which rather succinctly sums up what has been happening across the board regarding the so-called “educational channels”.

slate.com/blogs/wild_things/ … ional.html

Or, with regard to film, look what those corporate assholes have done to the IFC and Sundance Channels.

How long can it really be now before channels like HBO and Showtime succumb?

Here’s an excerpt:

[b]This concern has been voiced before about Discovery programming. Shark Week, arguably one of Discovery’s biggest pieces of viewer bait, has been accused of capitalizing on people’s fear of sharks while simultaneously misinforming the public about an animal that is actually in danger. It’s also not the channel’s first foray into shock programming—last Sunday it aired Nik Wallenda traversing the Chicago skies on a tightrope with no safety net or tether. Animal Planet, which is also owned by Discovery Communications, has made two documentaries on mermaids that are so ineffectively marked as fictional that the U.S. government has had to issue a statement informing the public that mermaids aren’t real. It’s also home to Finding Bigfoot. (I’m not going to elaborate on this.) The History Channel, which is owned by Disney, airs shows about aliens. And let’s not even talk about TLC, another Discovery Communications channel, which has long stopped calling itself “The Learning Channel.”

When did educational television become so unenlightening?[/b]

And, aside from the “sensationalism” gimmick, almost all of the “educational channels” have now embraced every imaginable [and idiotic] context in which “real people” in “real situations” can go into their oft times stupid and outrageous “acts” with the cameras rolling.

This sort of shit always brings me back to that classic scene from the movie Network:

Max: We could make a series of it. “Suicide of the Week.” Aw, hell, why limit ourselves? “Execution of the Week.”
Howard: “Terrorist of the Week.”
Max: I love it. Suicides, assassinations, mad bombers, Mafia hitmen, automobile smash-ups: “The Death Hour.” A great Sunday night show for the whole family. It’d wipe that fuckin’ Disney right off the air.

Yea, it is a disappointment. I do not get subscription tv just local channels. We do enjoy PBS. They are far more than just Sesame Street now. Like any channel you find shows that sucks but, they do have good informational programs.

Yes, thanks for noting PBS.

I have always worried that public television might also begin to sink down into what I construe to be “the lowest common denominator” approach to programming. I doubt we will ever see the equivalent of Duck Dynasty or Big Brother or Toddlers & Tiaras. But I am concerned about the corporate sponsorship. To the best of my recollection, there was actually once a time when corporations did not “sponsor” any of programing. Today however almost every program begins with one or another corporate ad.

I worry that before long they will start to insert them in the programming itself.

And the reason this is a concern of mine is the issue of “conflict of interest”. For example, what can we realistically expect when we sit down and watch the NewsHour when it is brought to us in part by one or another component of the military industrial complex…or one or another oil company?

Come on, how “objective” are they going to be in examining, say, the true nature of American foreign policy, when these companies make a considerable profit in being a part of.

Or when one or another big financial institution or bank is the sponsor? How deeply are they going to delve into crony capitalism then? Or the nature of political economy as it impacts on the relationship between Wall Street and Washington?

Here is how the PBS ombudsman rationalizes it:
pbs.org/ombudsman/2010/06/ke … _down.html

In my view, it basically comes down to this:

1] the folks at PBS trust these corporations not to have ulterior motives
2] the public in turn can trust PBS not to be biased in any way

Right.

I liked this part:

“Does BP ‘fashion an image,’ as the Post phrased it, in part by helping to sponsor one of PBS’s most respected programs?” I asked in that 2006 column. “If so, there is nothing wrong with that under existing PBS guidelines. BP also advertises in the Post and The New York Times.”

But what would one expect from “the corporate media”? Everyday what we receive in the way of the “news” is filtered through it. That’s why programs like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is such a breath of fresh air. He is not going to expose the nature of political economy as I would like it to be exposed but he is willing to expose [up to a point] the nature of crony capitalism.

Ah, but what if HBO decides to change its own “business model” down the road?

You are right, one can only hope that PBS keeps some integrity. I do like that they broadcast Britain’s version of Public news. Hard to edit that to fit US corps. One can only study and question. But, try not to get to paranoid because that can wrongly influence your judgment.