Miriam,
I had all the same thoughts, maybe a few more, maybe a few less…and I forgot to
mention in my last post that I was APPALLED and disgusted that the debate was
held in a casino. Apparently, the stage looked like it should have those strip
tease, go go dancer poles on it, all blue glitzy lights, and the Podia were
also some glitzy lit up things. o wonder the rest of the world laughs this
country. Our political process, among many other things, is oohing but show
business and Madison Avenue.
On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
The more I think about this debate, held in a gambling casino, broadcast on
a cable TV network only, so that one has to have the money to pay for the
cable package in order to hear the debate, and the more I realized that no
one seemed to be even thinking about the implications of all this, the more
distressed I became. I was relieved to find the article that I posted
because at least someone, besides me, someone who actually had a reading
public, wrote about it. I don't expect much but really, a political debate
for presidential candiddates should be easily accessible to everyone. It
should be broadcast on the radio. It should be on a major channel that
people don't have to pay for. If you think about it, all the technology that
everyone is so enthralled with, all the cable TV and satelite TV, all the
internet freedom and smart phones, all the social media, all of it is very
expensive. People are in debt constantly in order to be part of the world
because it is assumed that whatever we have should be providing a profit to
some big corporation or other. In the bad old days, you turned on your TV
for free. There were commercials that paid for the programs, but you didn't
have to pay to watch them once you managed to purchase the TV. Or you turned
on your radio and the world was constructed in such a way that your radio
could actually receive the signals from the radio stations. You did not have
to learn how to use a computer to access a radio station. And if you were
blind and you couldn't see a TV screen but wanted to hear TV programs, you
could purchase a device that allowed you to easily reach TV programming
without paying a fortune for a TV set that you couldn't see. So in some
ways, the world is less accessible than it was, at least for people with
limited incomes, for the elderly, for a majority of blind people. Unless one
is old and remembers what life was like, I guess it isn't all that evident
to people that every day living is much more expensive than it once was and
much more complicated.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:18 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Look! Someone else beside me noticed!
Back in 1962, I headed off to the Great World's Fair in Seattle.
Among the interesting sights were a flock of pigeons busily pecking at
different colored lights on a panel. From time to time a grain of feed
would roll out a slot, to be grabbed by the successful bird.
These pigeons had been conditioned to peck out some rather complex patterns
in order to receive their reward.
We all know of Pavlov's dogs, responding to the bell, but we seem to be in
total darkness when it comes to the conditioning that makes us behave the
way we do.
With the advent of Radio, and then the addition of pictures, we began to be
conditioned to entertainment that was packed into shorter and shorter time
frames. Today's half hour program might actually have 20 minutes of
program, and ten minutes of commercials and station breaks.
We have been conditioned to demand our information in small snippets.
We are becoming more intolerant of wordy speeches, demanding to be
entertained. Our news is brought to us by pretty, giggling and chuckling
talking heads. Our thinking has been thought out for us and packaged in
short bites sprinkled with lots of advertising and opinions of those
controlling our conditioning. Mass entertainment has already enslaved many
millions of people. Presented properly, folks will accept anything.
The so called Debates are a great example of the extent we've become
conditioned.
First, I had mentioned the Hollywood extravaganza presentation, sprinkled
with what the announcer called, "short breaks". These were commercial spots
that were more than short.
But I did overlook the fact that these debates are being presented to us
over commercial channels, paid for by corporate dollars. We are reduced to
the roll of an audience being entertained. We have no more to do with these
debates than we do when attending our favorite sporting event. In other
words, we are not involved.
As I've preached before, we have been taken captive by our
Corporate/Military Masters. A bloodless coup. We are just the same as the
pigeons. Flash the pretty pictures on the screen and we will behave in very
predictable patterns.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/14/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
channels.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015 06:46
Privatizing Democracy: You Had to Pay to Watch Last Night's Debate on
CNN on TV
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Airing presidential debates only on pay-TV is another step toward
privatizing democracy. (Photo: Mohamed Nanabhay) CNN aired the first
Democratic debate last night, October 13. It also aired two Republican
debates (a "main event" and an "undercard" debate) on September 16. On
August 6, FOX held the first Republican debates (also televised in
separate lower and upper tier candidate - based on polls - segments).
CNN bragged on its CNN Money site that "23 million [viewers] watched
[the] GOP debate, a record for CNN." Adweek reported that 24 million
viewers watched the first FOX GOP "main event" debate. As CNN Money
stated in its article, Historically the most popular events on TV have
been shown by broadcast networks, not cable channels like CNN.
According to Nielsen data, Wednesday's debate ranked as the #10 cable
program ever, behind 8 college football games on ESPN and the Fox
debate last month.
The Democratic debate viewership totals were not in at the time of the
writing of this commentary, but an October 14 CNN Money article has
already predicted that "preliminary Nielsen ratings indicate that
CNN's Tuesday night debate was the highest-rated Democratic debate
ever."* So the CNN and Fox cable news channels have enhanced their
branding, audience and potential advertising and campaign advertising
revenue by burnishing their images as "go-to" television political
outlets - with the full cooperation of both major political parties
who negotiated details of the debates with the two stations.
Overlooked by the corporate media, however, is that there was a
profound loser in the airing of the first political debates of the
duopoly political brands in the United States: democracy. By offering
the debates on television only to paid subscribers of television
packages that included CNN and Fox News, the most important political
interaction between candidates for president of the United States was,
essentially, privatized.
Yes, as the The Motley Fool website estimates there are an
approximately robust 95 million pay-TV subscribers (although cable TV
subscription is falling, as The Motley Fool article details, due to
competition from the internet and other new technologies). However,
the disturbing irony remains of offering presidential debates that can
only be viewed on television by those who have paid for access to the
Given the tremendous impact of television on molding perceptions inchannels.
the United States, this amounts to a capturing of a very large
political space of discourse and spectacle by for-profit entities.
These companies limit TV viewing of the debates to those who have paid
for access in their cable subscription packages.
It is a dangerous precedent that diminishes a vigorous democracy to
require a payment for watching presidential debates. In many ways, the
cable stations are promoting their "star" news personalities as much
as offering a forum that is billed as an exchange of policies and
ideas. Forget for the moment that analysis of the debate descends into
an analysis of performance, "gotcha moments," superficial interaction
and personal style - not to mention the vital role calculated sound
bites play in post-debate coverage.
Yes, modern presidential debates are spectacles and often are more
superficial entertainment than an in-depth exchange of policy viewpoints.
In
the long-term debates should be restructured to emphasize substance
over performance. Nonetheless, in an age when television remains our
primary national influencer of political perceptions in a presidential
race (although the internet is making increasing inroads into that
terrain), debates should be televised for free and be accessible in
the public domain.
Despite CNN's bollixed offer of streaming the debate live on the
internet (which many people couldn't obtain for a variety of reasons,
including buffering problems), to watch it on an actual television you
had to ante up.
Furthermore, toward the end of the debate, CNN even aired
advertisements on television.
Why shouldn't a presidential debate be conducted in a neutral setting
(not the tacky Wynn Casino, which received a windfall of publicity)
with questioners who are experts in their fields? Why shouldn't there
be a pool camera that makes the debate available to any station that
wishes to air it?
No one should have to pay to become engaged in democracy.
*The Los Angeles Times reported later Wednesday that more than 15
million people had watched the event on CNN on television, a record
for a Democratic debate.
Not to be reposted without the permission of Truthout.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015 06:46
Privatizing Democracy: You Had to Pay to Watch Last Night's Debate on
CNN on TV http://www.reddit.com/submit http://www.reddit.com/submit
. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT Airing presidential
debates only on pay-TV is another step toward privatizing democracy.
(Photo: Mohamed Nanabhay) CNN aired the first Democratic debate last
night, October 13. It also aired two Republican debates (a "main
event" and an "undercard" debate) on September 16. On August 6, FOX
held the first Republican debates (also televised in separate lower
and upper tier candidate - based on polls - segments).
CNN bragged on its CNN Money site that "23 million [viewers] watched
[the] GOP debate, a record for CNN." Adweek reported that 24 million
viewers watched the first FOX GOP "main event" debate. As CNN Money
stated in its article, Historically the most popular events on TV have
been shown by broadcast networks, not cable channels like CNN.
According to Nielsen data, Wednesday's debate ranked as the #10 cable
program ever, behind 8 college football games on ESPN and the Fox
debate last month.
The Democratic debate viewership totals were not in at the time of the
writing of this commentary, but an October 14 CNN Money article has
already predicted that "preliminary Nielsen ratings indicate that
CNN's Tuesday night debate was the highest-rated Democratic debate
ever."* So the CNN and Fox cable news channels have enhanced their
branding, audience and potential advertising and campaign advertising
revenue by burnishing their images as "go-to" television political
outlets - with the full cooperation of both major political parties
who negotiated details of the debates with the two stations.
Overlooked by the corporate media, however, is that there was a
profound loser in the airing of the first political debates of the
duopoly political brands in the United States: democracy. By offering
the debates on television only to paid subscribers of television
packages that included CNN and Fox News, the most important political
interaction between candidates for president of the United States was,
essentially, privatized.
Yes, as the The Motley Fool website estimates there are an
approximately robust 95 million pay-TV subscribers (although cable TV
subscription is falling, as The Motley Fool article details, due to
competition from the internet and other new technologies). However,
the disturbing irony remains of offering presidential debates that can
only be viewed on television by those who have paid for access to the
Given the tremendous impact of television on molding perceptions in
the United States, this amounts to a capturing of a very large
political space of discourse and spectacle by for-profit entities.
These companies limit TV viewing of the debates to those who have paid
for access in their cable subscription packages.
It is a dangerous precedent that diminishes a vigorous democracy to
require a payment for watching presidential debates. In many ways, the
cable stations are promoting their "star" news personalities as much
as offering a forum that is billed as an exchange of policies and
ideas. Forget for the moment that analysis of the debate descends into
an analysis of performance, "gotcha moments," superficial interaction
and personal style - not to mention the vital role calculated sound
bites play in post-debate coverage.
Yes, modern presidential debates are spectacles and often are more
superficial entertainment than an in-depth exchange of policy viewpoints.
In
the long-term debates should be restructured to emphasize substance
over performance. Nonetheless, in an age when television remains our
primary national influencer of political perceptions in a presidential
race (although the internet is making increasing inroads into that
terrain), debates should be televised for free and be accessible in
the public domain.
Despite CNN's bollixed offer of streaming the debate live on the
internet (which many people couldn't obtain for a variety of reasons,
including buffering problems), to watch it on an actual television you
had to ante up.
Furthermore, toward the end of the debate, CNN even aired
advertisements on television.
Why shouldn't a presidential debate be conducted in a neutral setting
(not the tacky Wynn Casino, which received a windfall of publicity)
with questioners who are experts in their fields? Why shouldn't there
be a pool camera that makes the debate available to any station that
wishes to air it?
No one should have to pay to become engaged in democracy.
*The Los Angeles Times reported later Wednesday that more than 15
million people had watched the event on CNN on television, a record
for a Democratic debate.
Not to be reposted without the permission of Truthout.
