0 comment Tuesday, December 2, 2014 | admin
Apropos of our discussion the other day about the roots of the counterculture and also the subject of advertising propaganda, I was looking through some old images and found some interesting ones.
The first is an Insurance Company ad, above, from 1952. The text is not legible in this smaller-sized image, so I will quote it here:
There are moral alternatives to war. We do have a choice. We can choose plowshares over swords...and thereby diminish the danger of a final and all-destroying war.
Most of the world's people -- nearly two-thirds of the human race -- are hungry. Remove this hunger and we remove most of the explosive possibilities in the world.
We, here in America, have crossed the threshold into the world of plenty. In the past ten years we have had twice as much new food as new people -- and our population has grown at a rate faster than that of India!
This American pattern of plenty gives us a platform from which we, in decency and humility, can help build a true brotherhood of man, living together peacefully in a prosperous world. Now, for the first time, we can help a hungry world feed itself. We will achieve peace only if we carry out this moral responsibility -- wholeheartedly, with the same vigor with which we have waged wars. It is up to us.
If we start now -- in politics, in economics, in social organization -- we can make abundance blossom for all the world.
Let us embark on the crusade toward creating PLENTY -- Pattern for Peace.''
The above is said to be ''From a recent address by Murray D. Lincoln, President of Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.''
I can understand how, in 1952, war-wearied Americans might be eager for some proposal or policy which would guarantee that there would be 'no more wars.' But is it true that poverty and hunger cause all wars, or that 'feeding the world' would guarantee peace? Did World War II happen because of poverty or want? Or World War I?
So, since this ad was printed, we've had more than half a century of trying out these utopian do-gooder policies. I wonder how many billions we've spent on 'foreign aid' or hunger relief efforts via the UN since then? And how much good has it done? Have our efforts and our dollars ended hunger or brought stability and peace?
Look at the picture in the ad. Back in 1952, few Americans would have proposed bringing the world here for us to feed them in our land, but does the picture not seem to imply that we will all cohabit together in America? The White man at the plow looks as though he's the one in harness to do all the hard work.
This picture, with its 'we are the world' motif, reminds me very much of the picture below, which actually appeared 9 years later, on the cover of the April Fool's Day 1961 version of Saturday Evening Post.
Everybody knows Norman Rockwell as the quintessential American heartland painter. He was particularly known for his magazine covers, most notably the Saturday Evening Post covers. We always associate him with rather corny middle American nostalgia, with his images of freckle-faced, red-headed boys and girls, the kind who used to be called 'all-American boys' and girls. (Today, of course, Barack Obama and the exotics who appear in our commercials are held up as truly American.) But when I first saw this illustration, called 'The Golden Rule', by Rockwell, I was rather taken aback, because it seemed so out of step with the work we associate with him. I wondered if it was not painted during the early 70s, when the diversity obsession set in. But no, it was painted in 1961, during an era in which America was still very American. Remember, the 1965 Immigration Act was still four years in the future when that picture was painted.
And of course, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the Golden Rule, but at some point, the politically correct commandment became do unto The Other at the expense of your own. Open your gates and doors wide to the entire world, no questions asked.
Here we are, 47 years on, and America is starting to look very much like that 'Golden Rule' painting, with those famous 'all-American' Rockwell faces surrounded by people from the four corners of the globe. Was this a prophetic painting? Or a prescriptive one, like the Farm Bureau Insurance Ad?
Was this 'pattern for peace' or a pattern for PC?
In any case, it seems this campaign to change our thinking about ourselves and our role in the world has been going on for a long time; it's only accelerated recently and become more obvious to us.
Labels: Advertising, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, One World, Political Correctness
0 comment Saturday, October 25, 2014 | admin
''...McWhorter suggests we're in a transitional phase in the way people feel about race as a national obsession. In the short run, "I suspect that where we are going is whites feeling ever more that it's time we blacks get over it, while an ever shrinking population of blacks continue hoping that whites will change their tune and 'wake up,' " he says. But this too shall (eventually) pass. "In about 50 years," he adds, "we will be so hybrid a nation that any idea of black-white relations as a major problem in need of address will seem archaic."
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.
Labels: Advertising, Anti White Racism, Elections, Presidential Candidates, Propaganda, Racial Division, Racial Guilt
0 comment Monday, June 30, 2014 | admin
A while back, I blogged about certain biased TV commercials, among them the Brinks Home Security Ads, one in particular involving a young woman at home alone as a White male attempts to break into her house. There are several such ads involving White male lawbreakers. The most egregious one lately depicts a thirty-something black woman, obviously representing an upper-middle-class single woman, who casually throws away documents into her recycle container. A thirty-something White male, who does not look like the 'criminal' type, but rather like your average middle-class White guy, jogs by and slyly steals the documents from the black woman's recycling. The commercial warns about 'identity theft.'
What are the messages of ads like this? Obviously that crimes are not infrequently perpetrated by White men, even by average, innocuous-appearing White men.
As the commenters here mention, it could be said that the Brinks people don't want to alienate minorities or be accused of 'racism' in depicting nonwhites perpetrating crimes --- even though many people are aware that statistically, nonwhites figure in more than their share of crime, proportionately speaking. No, there's no excuse for these ads. If the advertisers are so worried about the reaction of Jesse Jackson or other racial grievance-mongers, they could simply make the criminals vague, shadowy figures, who are racially unidentifiable. They could simply show the criminal in silhouette, or show his shadow, or a portion of him without indicating his race. But no; they give us a good look at the perpetrators, making sure we see that they are White, and rather ordinary-looking White guys at that, the type you would not edge away from if you met them on a darkened street. It seems that, whether or not the advertisers intend it, they are putting across the message that White men are not to be trusted, and that if you are victimized, chances are it's some Joe Average White Guy who has done it.
Another ad in the same vein, actually a 'public service announcement' about child abuse. I've searched for it on the Internet and it seems no longer to be available. But some of you may have seen it. In it, a little girl of 10 years old or so gets on an elevator with a man, presumably her father. The only other passenger on the elevator is an older black woman, of the type so often seen in commercials: the ultradignified type. The White man looks at the black woman and makes some small talk, 'how ya doing?' or something, and she looks warily at him, then at the little girl, who seems very subdued. As the man and little girl leave the elevator at the next floor, the black woman sees, emblazoned on the back of the man's jacket, the words ''Child Abuser." The little girl looks pleadingly back at the black woman, as if to say ''help me, save me from this man.'' The elevator door closes, and a voice-over says something like ''trust your instincts'' or something of that nature.
Some of you may have seen it; if so, please correct my description of it if I am remembering it incorrectly.
In any case, I don't think it's any accident that they chose a White man to be the evil child abuser, or that the 'good citizen' in the video is a black woman, just as the good citizen and victim of identity theft in the Brinks commercial is a black woman.
One of the most objectionable things about political correctness, to me, is that it lies. It turns reality on its head, and asks us to believe that this is a reasonably accurate reflection of the real world. Some will say ''people know that TV is not reality, and vice-versa." Well, some people do, but there have been a number of studies showing that people often base their view of reality on what they see on TV, whether on the news or in fictional programming on TV and in movies.
For instance it's been shown that those who watch a lot of TV (and thus, by definition, spend less time actually interacting with the real world out there) have a skewed perception as to how much violence occurs. And these ads misidentify the likely perpetrators.
This article actually acknowledges how the public's perception of the justice system is influenced by 'court TV' shows.
I am surprised that they admit that there is an overrepresentation of black judges on these ''reality'' courtroom shows.
During the 2000-2001 television season there were nine reality court shows in syndication, The People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court, Judge Hatchett, Judge Greg Mathis, Curtis Court, Judge Mills Lane, and Moral Court.
Six of the nine judges were male, two were white, and four were black. Three judges were women, one white woman, Judge Judy and two black women, Judge Hatchett, and Mablean Ephraim on Divorce Court. When the 2001-2002 television season began, there were eight daytime court shows, and none of the judges were white males. In January 2002 Larry Joe Doherty, a white male, aired on a new show entitled Texas Justice. When the 2002-2003 season began seven shows remained with three male and four female judges. The fourth woman was Judge Marilyn Milian, a Cuban American, who took over The People's Court. Of the seven current television judges, only Judge Doherty is white and male.
In real life, however, most judges are white and male. Only 3.3% of all judges in the United States are black, and the percentages are even lower for Latinas/os and Asian Americans. Women comprise only 7% are of all federal judges and 9% of all state judges. The percentage of black women judges is even lower than the percentages for blacks and women generally. Thus, it is surprising that two black women, one Cuban American woman, one white woman, two black men and only one white man preside over the seven reality court television shows that air daily in most major cities.
Perhaps the overrepresentation of women, blacks and black males on TV reality court shows simply reflects network attempts to reach targeted viewing audiences. Yet this over representation is not only a distortion of actual judicial demographics in the United States, it also is a distortion of demographic make-up of the television population generally. A recent survey of the small screen by Children Now found that only 17% of the prime time television population is black; 75% of the prime time television population is white. Women account for only a third of prime time television characters.
The Children Now study concedes that increasingly women are portrayed on television as professionals like lawyers and doctors, and whites and blacks "appear with about equal frequency as physicians, attorneys and in service/retail/restaurants jobs." Thus, television creates the impression that women and non-whites, primarily black male lawyers, are well represented in the legal community.
Whatever the reasons, the over representation of women and non-white judges on reality court shows, coupled with the perceived over representation of black judges on television in general, is problematic in the highly racialized society in which we live. The over representation of women and black male judges on television not only sends an erroneous message about the extent of their representation in the judiciary, but may actually undermine popular support for increased racial and gender diversity on the bench by suggesting that our nation's benches are already diverse, or that blacks and/or women have taken over the courts.''
Of course the writers turn this around to demonstrate how reality does not measure up to the fanciful world of TV in this respect; obviously, as they see it, blacks and women are underrepresented and White males overrepresented in the real-life judicial system, as lawyers and judges.
On television the court room is integrated. On the shows the race of the bailiff is always different from the race of the judge. Also male judges tend to have female bailiffs and female judges tend to have male bailiffs. Since all the shows share this feature, clearly race and gender are factors considered by snydicators. Perhaps syndicators realize that integrated courtrooms with women and black judges appeal to television audiences. The presence of women and non-white judges in integrated settings reassure viewers that justice in the United States is meted out impartially. While there are positive aspects to this portrayal of the courts, there are negative aspects as well.
One political scientist speculates that white's misperceptions about blacks' standing in American society make be the result of the success of some blacks. "As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods," and the increased sense of competition these observations engender in white Americans. It is no surprise that whites with the greatest misperceptions about the socio-economic status of blacks are less educated and affluent. Since less affluent and educated viewers are some of the same people who watch more daytime television, the possibility of the distorted information about the gender and racial composition of the judiciary is increased.
When virtual integration actually occurs, it easy for this group of whites viewers to doubt claims of the under representation of women and non-whites in the judiciary and the need for American society to make meaningful steps to address this problem. The fantasy of a racially integrated society keeps many whites from confronting how little contact they have with non-whites, especially black Americans, in real life.''
So they admit that there is a desire to change reality by means of presenting these skewed, inaccurate images to viewers, thus influencing them towards more 'egalitarian' attitudes.
Far from showing viewers a more equitable and realistic picture of life in the real world, and of minorities as individuals and as a group, TV shows us a make-believe world in which virtually the only blacks are those who are affluent, educated, upscale, and urbane. And of course they are usually shown as the ''good guys'' in contrast to the depictions of Whites as nerds, incompetents, slobs, or criminals.
If we didn't know better, we would assume that all the stories of high crime rates or other social 'dysfunctions' in the ghetto are mere stereotypes created by 'racists' who have it in for blacks. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what is alleged all the time by black 'activists' and politically correct advocates for minority groups.
And many Whites who have no real-life experience of blacks believe the TV stereotypes; it's those people who constituted the pro-Obama White voters. Sure, there are a certain number of self-hating far-left Whites who voted for Obama, but there are a lot more who know nothing about other races except what they see on TV and in the movies. These people are the targets of the advertisers who are busy creating a make-believe parallel universe in which middle-class White guys steal black women's identities.
Just as this writer says, TV and the media generally foster anti-American, anti-White attitudes. And I suspect that is what they set out to do, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Television entertainment is mostly boring, immoral and disgusting. Content is so disgusting and unreal as to be a factor in anti-American hatred and anti-American terrorism around the world. A people whose main or only contact with American culture is the crap they see on American television programs would, reasonably, develop a strong anti-American attitude based on what they watch on U.S. television and not based on the reality of American culture. If my only contact with American culture were American television, I also would hate America.
For decades, television and the media in general have been throwing at us an unending stream of weird, violent, smart alecky and perpetually enraged Hollywood Negroes, glorified homosexuals, sexually irresponsible urban women, assorted terrorists and criminals, unethical business people, and anti-American, anti-family, anti-White, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-personal-responsibility, anti-achievement, and anti-American-culture messages.''
Just as the writer concludes above, TV is more than ever a 'vast wasteland.'
Whenever the subject of media bias and the general worthlessness of television comes up, the usual cries of 'kill your TV' are heard. But is that the ultimate answer? If you overhear somebody slandering you, insulting you, lying about you, even threatening you, is the answer just to stop your ears and ignore it?
I think we have to be aware of what the public in general is being told and being fed, and we have to be cognizant of the effects of the pernicious propaganda in the media, and try to counter it, rather than attempting simply to shut it out.
Many of us, in more optimistic times, thought that if we wrote letters to the media or to advertisers, or boycotted sponsors or networks, our voices would be heard. Now, I am not inclined to place much trust in those methods. The advertisers, sponsors, media executives -- they all seem to be ideologues with an agenda over and above either informing or entertaining, or even selling products. They are propagandists, on a mission which only incidentally concerns selling products or entertaining people.
When you have true believers in charge, I don't think there's much hope that they will be interested in placating dissatisfied viewers or readers.
I don't think the ''just change the channel'' or ''just use the off button'' approach is sufficient. We still, unfortunately, have to live among people who are consuming the toxic waste that is purveyed by the advertisers and the media generally. We have to live with the consequences of the campaign to dumb down and indoctrinate our neighbors and families.
What is the answer, if any?
What are the messages of ads like this? Obviously that crimes are not infrequently perpetrated by White men, even by average, innocuous-appearing White men.
As the commenters here mention, it could be said that the Brinks people don't want to alienate minorities or be accused of 'racism' in depicting nonwhites perpetrating crimes --- even though many people are aware that statistically, nonwhites figure in more than their share of crime, proportionately speaking. No, there's no excuse for these ads. If the advertisers are so worried about the reaction of Jesse Jackson or other racial grievance-mongers, they could simply make the criminals vague, shadowy figures, who are racially unidentifiable. They could simply show the criminal in silhouette, or show his shadow, or a portion of him without indicating his race. But no; they give us a good look at the perpetrators, making sure we see that they are White, and rather ordinary-looking White guys at that, the type you would not edge away from if you met them on a darkened street. It seems that, whether or not the advertisers intend it, they are putting across the message that White men are not to be trusted, and that if you are victimized, chances are it's some Joe Average White Guy who has done it.
Another ad in the same vein, actually a 'public service announcement' about child abuse. I've searched for it on the Internet and it seems no longer to be available. But some of you may have seen it. In it, a little girl of 10 years old or so gets on an elevator with a man, presumably her father. The only other passenger on the elevator is an older black woman, of the type so often seen in commercials: the ultradignified type. The White man looks at the black woman and makes some small talk, 'how ya doing?' or something, and she looks warily at him, then at the little girl, who seems very subdued. As the man and little girl leave the elevator at the next floor, the black woman sees, emblazoned on the back of the man's jacket, the words ''Child Abuser." The little girl looks pleadingly back at the black woman, as if to say ''help me, save me from this man.'' The elevator door closes, and a voice-over says something like ''trust your instincts'' or something of that nature.
Some of you may have seen it; if so, please correct my description of it if I am remembering it incorrectly.
In any case, I don't think it's any accident that they chose a White man to be the evil child abuser, or that the 'good citizen' in the video is a black woman, just as the good citizen and victim of identity theft in the Brinks commercial is a black woman.
One of the most objectionable things about political correctness, to me, is that it lies. It turns reality on its head, and asks us to believe that this is a reasonably accurate reflection of the real world. Some will say ''people know that TV is not reality, and vice-versa." Well, some people do, but there have been a number of studies showing that people often base their view of reality on what they see on TV, whether on the news or in fictional programming on TV and in movies.
For instance it's been shown that those who watch a lot of TV (and thus, by definition, spend less time actually interacting with the real world out there) have a skewed perception as to how much violence occurs. And these ads misidentify the likely perpetrators.
This article actually acknowledges how the public's perception of the justice system is influenced by 'court TV' shows.
I am surprised that they admit that there is an overrepresentation of black judges on these ''reality'' courtroom shows.
During the 2000-2001 television season there were nine reality court shows in syndication, The People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court, Judge Hatchett, Judge Greg Mathis, Curtis Court, Judge Mills Lane, and Moral Court.
Six of the nine judges were male, two were white, and four were black. Three judges were women, one white woman, Judge Judy and two black women, Judge Hatchett, and Mablean Ephraim on Divorce Court. When the 2001-2002 television season began, there were eight daytime court shows, and none of the judges were white males. In January 2002 Larry Joe Doherty, a white male, aired on a new show entitled Texas Justice. When the 2002-2003 season began seven shows remained with three male and four female judges. The fourth woman was Judge Marilyn Milian, a Cuban American, who took over The People's Court. Of the seven current television judges, only Judge Doherty is white and male.
In real life, however, most judges are white and male. Only 3.3% of all judges in the United States are black, and the percentages are even lower for Latinas/os and Asian Americans. Women comprise only 7% are of all federal judges and 9% of all state judges. The percentage of black women judges is even lower than the percentages for blacks and women generally. Thus, it is surprising that two black women, one Cuban American woman, one white woman, two black men and only one white man preside over the seven reality court television shows that air daily in most major cities.
Perhaps the overrepresentation of women, blacks and black males on TV reality court shows simply reflects network attempts to reach targeted viewing audiences. Yet this over representation is not only a distortion of actual judicial demographics in the United States, it also is a distortion of demographic make-up of the television population generally. A recent survey of the small screen by Children Now found that only 17% of the prime time television population is black; 75% of the prime time television population is white. Women account for only a third of prime time television characters.
The Children Now study concedes that increasingly women are portrayed on television as professionals like lawyers and doctors, and whites and blacks "appear with about equal frequency as physicians, attorneys and in service/retail/restaurants jobs." Thus, television creates the impression that women and non-whites, primarily black male lawyers, are well represented in the legal community.
Whatever the reasons, the over representation of women and non-white judges on reality court shows, coupled with the perceived over representation of black judges on television in general, is problematic in the highly racialized society in which we live. The over representation of women and black male judges on television not only sends an erroneous message about the extent of their representation in the judiciary, but may actually undermine popular support for increased racial and gender diversity on the bench by suggesting that our nation's benches are already diverse, or that blacks and/or women have taken over the courts.''
Of course the writers turn this around to demonstrate how reality does not measure up to the fanciful world of TV in this respect; obviously, as they see it, blacks and women are underrepresented and White males overrepresented in the real-life judicial system, as lawyers and judges.
On television the court room is integrated. On the shows the race of the bailiff is always different from the race of the judge. Also male judges tend to have female bailiffs and female judges tend to have male bailiffs. Since all the shows share this feature, clearly race and gender are factors considered by snydicators. Perhaps syndicators realize that integrated courtrooms with women and black judges appeal to television audiences. The presence of women and non-white judges in integrated settings reassure viewers that justice in the United States is meted out impartially. While there are positive aspects to this portrayal of the courts, there are negative aspects as well.
One political scientist speculates that white's misperceptions about blacks' standing in American society make be the result of the success of some blacks. "As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods," and the increased sense of competition these observations engender in white Americans. It is no surprise that whites with the greatest misperceptions about the socio-economic status of blacks are less educated and affluent. Since less affluent and educated viewers are some of the same people who watch more daytime television, the possibility of the distorted information about the gender and racial composition of the judiciary is increased.
When virtual integration actually occurs, it easy for this group of whites viewers to doubt claims of the under representation of women and non-whites in the judiciary and the need for American society to make meaningful steps to address this problem. The fantasy of a racially integrated society keeps many whites from confronting how little contact they have with non-whites, especially black Americans, in real life.''
So they admit that there is a desire to change reality by means of presenting these skewed, inaccurate images to viewers, thus influencing them towards more 'egalitarian' attitudes.
Far from showing viewers a more equitable and realistic picture of life in the real world, and of minorities as individuals and as a group, TV shows us a make-believe world in which virtually the only blacks are those who are affluent, educated, upscale, and urbane. And of course they are usually shown as the ''good guys'' in contrast to the depictions of Whites as nerds, incompetents, slobs, or criminals.
If we didn't know better, we would assume that all the stories of high crime rates or other social 'dysfunctions' in the ghetto are mere stereotypes created by 'racists' who have it in for blacks. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what is alleged all the time by black 'activists' and politically correct advocates for minority groups.
And many Whites who have no real-life experience of blacks believe the TV stereotypes; it's those people who constituted the pro-Obama White voters. Sure, there are a certain number of self-hating far-left Whites who voted for Obama, but there are a lot more who know nothing about other races except what they see on TV and in the movies. These people are the targets of the advertisers who are busy creating a make-believe parallel universe in which middle-class White guys steal black women's identities.
Just as this writer says, TV and the media generally foster anti-American, anti-White attitudes. And I suspect that is what they set out to do, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Television entertainment is mostly boring, immoral and disgusting. Content is so disgusting and unreal as to be a factor in anti-American hatred and anti-American terrorism around the world. A people whose main or only contact with American culture is the crap they see on American television programs would, reasonably, develop a strong anti-American attitude based on what they watch on U.S. television and not based on the reality of American culture. If my only contact with American culture were American television, I also would hate America.
For decades, television and the media in general have been throwing at us an unending stream of weird, violent, smart alecky and perpetually enraged Hollywood Negroes, glorified homosexuals, sexually irresponsible urban women, assorted terrorists and criminals, unethical business people, and anti-American, anti-family, anti-White, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-personal-responsibility, anti-achievement, and anti-American-culture messages.''
Just as the writer concludes above, TV is more than ever a 'vast wasteland.'
Whenever the subject of media bias and the general worthlessness of television comes up, the usual cries of 'kill your TV' are heard. But is that the ultimate answer? If you overhear somebody slandering you, insulting you, lying about you, even threatening you, is the answer just to stop your ears and ignore it?
I think we have to be aware of what the public in general is being told and being fed, and we have to be cognizant of the effects of the pernicious propaganda in the media, and try to counter it, rather than attempting simply to shut it out.
Many of us, in more optimistic times, thought that if we wrote letters to the media or to advertisers, or boycotted sponsors or networks, our voices would be heard. Now, I am not inclined to place much trust in those methods. The advertisers, sponsors, media executives -- they all seem to be ideologues with an agenda over and above either informing or entertaining, or even selling products. They are propagandists, on a mission which only incidentally concerns selling products or entertaining people.
When you have true believers in charge, I don't think there's much hope that they will be interested in placating dissatisfied viewers or readers.
I don't think the ''just change the channel'' or ''just use the off button'' approach is sufficient. We still, unfortunately, have to live among people who are consuming the toxic waste that is purveyed by the advertisers and the media generally. We have to live with the consequences of the campaign to dumb down and indoctrinate our neighbors and families.
What is the answer, if any?
Labels: Advertising, Liberalism, Mass Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Propaganda
0 comment Thursday, May 15, 2014 | admin
What a long way we've come since 1961, when Kennedy appointee Newton Minow of the FCC proclaimed television to be a 'vast wasteland.' The television of 1961 was certainly full of vacuous programming and commercials, but compared to today's TV, it was high art. And bad as it may have been in parts, it was at least mostly entertainment without an 'agenda' or without heavy-handed messages bludgeoning viewers over the head, and without the steady propaganda that is the whole purpose, seemingly, of much of what is on TV in 2008.
You can't watch TV without being aware of the propaganda and the conditioning. The commercials seem as much or more concerned with selling a politically correct message than with selling a product or a service.
Today as I was watching the National Geographic channel I saw this VISA spot, which I've learned is narrated by Morgan Freeman (who else?). It's ostensibly about the upcoming Olympics, but if you haven't seen it, click on the link and watch it. It's short, but they do manage to pack a lot of propaganda into a short spot. If you want to be really discouraged, read the mindless comments following the spot.
In a ubiquitous Vonage commercial, it isn't the globalist agenda so much as the feminist, anti-White male agenda. Vonage seems to heavily favor ridiculing and belittling White males while exalting snarky, superior females. I am sure you've all seen this particular one, which is inescapable on TV these days.
The smug, sarcastic female seems to be a stock character in commercials these days, alongside the inept, awkward, clueless White male.
But the global agenda and the 'we are all the same' message seem to be promoted more heavily than ever in recent months. I've mentioned the History International Channel before, with its obnoxious 'Globalize Yourself' slogan.
For History International, the image makers at ZONA Design, Inc. created and produced a :30 image spot that encourages each viewer to "Globalize Yourself"; To explore the lives, the cultures, the various histories that shape the world we share; To try and better understand the world's peoples as what happens elsewhere on our planet profoundly impacts our daily lives here at home.
[...] To artfully make the network?s point, the ZONA creatives transitioned a series of images from diverse cultures - Russian, Tibetan, Peruvian, Aboriginal - and faces of African, Asian, Muslim and Hispanic men and women, one to the other, in the process weaving a global tapestry. Each day the world seems to be getting smaller so we created a travelogue that we hoped would help viewers make the connection that, as the History International tagline states, what happens over there indeed matters over here,? explained ZONA Creative Director/Designer Zoa Martinez.''
Celebrate diversity. Or else.
And then the BBC has its 'One World' mantra going. A few years ago, the BBC even ran a poll to find out who most people preferred as leader of a one-world government, which they clearly think is the future.
Now the "Beeb," as it is known, recently announced the results of a poll to find out who its audience would choose to head a worldwide one-size-fits-all government. And the winner was: Ex-South African President Nelson Mandela. According to the BBC, about 15,000 people voted worldwide and the contest was an interactive Power Play game modeled on Fantasy Football; participants were instructed to choose a team of eleven to run the world, from a list of about 100 people offered, coming mainly from the left-liberal end of the political spectrum. About half of the participants were apparently American, and for this reason if no other, the runner-up was William Jefferson Clinton. ''
I guess we all know who would be chosen today to head up this 'one-world' regime. And the media can take most of the 'credit' or more accurately the blame for that.
I suppose these propaganda efforts, obvious and overbearing as they are, must be somewhat effective, judging by the way the young are flocking to Obama and cheering 'Go World.'
But to return for a moment to Newton Minow's 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, if we read what he says, we can see the direction in which the elites were taking us even then.
Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years, this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world.
Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or to debase them.''
He concludes:
I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great nation fulfill its future.
Do this! I pledge you our help.
Thank you.'
The cause of freedom. It all sounds good. But between the lines, it seems he is talking about the global community, in today's terms, and about the media exercising 'leadership'. The media, though some of them purport to provide strictly entertainment, are now involved in what they think of as 'moral leadership' but which is really social engineering and propaganda. And they believe it is for our good, that they have to enlighten us because we are ignorant and narrow.
It's easy to recommend going TV-free, but the fact is, we still live in a world in which most people spend hours of their lives each day in front of the TV, uncritically absorbing what they see and hear on it. That, in large part, explains the phenomenal rise of Barack Obama, and it explains the political correctness which has infected our society, particularly among the younger and more impressionable.
By all means, keep your children from TV if you can, but it's getting harder and harder to separate oneself from the all-pervasive messages being spewed from television.
You can't watch TV without being aware of the propaganda and the conditioning. The commercials seem as much or more concerned with selling a politically correct message than with selling a product or a service.
Today as I was watching the National Geographic channel I saw this VISA spot, which I've learned is narrated by Morgan Freeman (who else?). It's ostensibly about the upcoming Olympics, but if you haven't seen it, click on the link and watch it. It's short, but they do manage to pack a lot of propaganda into a short spot. If you want to be really discouraged, read the mindless comments following the spot.
In a ubiquitous Vonage commercial, it isn't the globalist agenda so much as the feminist, anti-White male agenda. Vonage seems to heavily favor ridiculing and belittling White males while exalting snarky, superior females. I am sure you've all seen this particular one, which is inescapable on TV these days.
The smug, sarcastic female seems to be a stock character in commercials these days, alongside the inept, awkward, clueless White male.
But the global agenda and the 'we are all the same' message seem to be promoted more heavily than ever in recent months. I've mentioned the History International Channel before, with its obnoxious 'Globalize Yourself' slogan.
For History International, the image makers at ZONA Design, Inc. created and produced a :30 image spot that encourages each viewer to "Globalize Yourself"; To explore the lives, the cultures, the various histories that shape the world we share; To try and better understand the world's peoples as what happens elsewhere on our planet profoundly impacts our daily lives here at home.
[...] To artfully make the network?s point, the ZONA creatives transitioned a series of images from diverse cultures - Russian, Tibetan, Peruvian, Aboriginal - and faces of African, Asian, Muslim and Hispanic men and women, one to the other, in the process weaving a global tapestry. Each day the world seems to be getting smaller so we created a travelogue that we hoped would help viewers make the connection that, as the History International tagline states, what happens over there indeed matters over here,? explained ZONA Creative Director/Designer Zoa Martinez.''
Celebrate diversity. Or else.
And then the BBC has its 'One World' mantra going. A few years ago, the BBC even ran a poll to find out who most people preferred as leader of a one-world government, which they clearly think is the future.
Now the "Beeb," as it is known, recently announced the results of a poll to find out who its audience would choose to head a worldwide one-size-fits-all government. And the winner was: Ex-South African President Nelson Mandela. According to the BBC, about 15,000 people voted worldwide and the contest was an interactive Power Play game modeled on Fantasy Football; participants were instructed to choose a team of eleven to run the world, from a list of about 100 people offered, coming mainly from the left-liberal end of the political spectrum. About half of the participants were apparently American, and for this reason if no other, the runner-up was William Jefferson Clinton. ''
I guess we all know who would be chosen today to head up this 'one-world' regime. And the media can take most of the 'credit' or more accurately the blame for that.
I suppose these propaganda efforts, obvious and overbearing as they are, must be somewhat effective, judging by the way the young are flocking to Obama and cheering 'Go World.'
But to return for a moment to Newton Minow's 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, if we read what he says, we can see the direction in which the elites were taking us even then.
Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years, this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world.
Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or to debase them.''
He concludes:
I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great nation fulfill its future.
Do this! I pledge you our help.
Thank you.'
The cause of freedom. It all sounds good. But between the lines, it seems he is talking about the global community, in today's terms, and about the media exercising 'leadership'. The media, though some of them purport to provide strictly entertainment, are now involved in what they think of as 'moral leadership' but which is really social engineering and propaganda. And they believe it is for our good, that they have to enlighten us because we are ignorant and narrow.
It's easy to recommend going TV-free, but the fact is, we still live in a world in which most people spend hours of their lives each day in front of the TV, uncritically absorbing what they see and hear on it. That, in large part, explains the phenomenal rise of Barack Obama, and it explains the political correctness which has infected our society, particularly among the younger and more impressionable.
By all means, keep your children from TV if you can, but it's getting harder and harder to separate oneself from the all-pervasive messages being spewed from television.
Labels: Advertising, Entertainment Media, Globalism, Indoctrination, Media Bias, One World, Political Correctness, Propaganda