CONSERVATIVE ARTICLES OF FAITH ON CULTURE BEING WHAT THEY ARE, Your Correspondent is wondering what exactly they would have in mind to answer what they're forever perceiving as "liberal propaganda messages" subtly being incorporated into most films and TV programmes these days.
Said messages only "leading viewers towards error," especially so the likes of children and vulnerable individuals.
One likely arena for such a "message" being pushed, howbeit subtly, of course: None other than "reality" TV, pure and simple, cheap and cheerful.
In particular, a "reality" series based on the producerist "back-to-the-land" ideal as sees small-town/rural America (and its "traditional values systems") being the last and only hope that "right-thinking" working-class white families have to save them from "loss of pride and honour" caused by the "unhealthy" presence of National Minorities and welfare cases in what few traditionally white working-class neighbourhoods remain in the major cities.
Save what sense of "Traditional Values" they expect to have out of their own hubris-laden arrogance and not much else.
Which, for the most part, involves scare tactics (and deliberate such, @ that) seeking to "resettle" working-class whites into rural communities otherwise @ "clear and present risk" of depopulation and inability to attract "real" industry and jobs (as in unskilled, labour-intensive Luddite models) based on free-market capitalism being the Great White Father.
Only it turns out that there's little in the way of shopping opportunities to be had where they're being resettled: Blame it on Wally World, the nearest such being a considerable drive away, and its predatory tactics packaged all the more as "defending" free-market capitalism as Great White Father.
Hence, when all is said and done, expect such "resettled" in the name of a warped "back-to-the-land" ideal being one with saving working-class "honour" turning into nothing more than Family Guy and South Park meet Survivor--in short, an outright farce reducing such thus "resettled" into quasi-pornographic objects of fun, thereby deflating any propaganda merit whatsoever.
*************
UNFORTUNATELY, WE "MORALLY SUPERIOR" AMERICANS HAVE NO MONOPOLY on complaints about TV programmes suspected of being obscene, indecent, tasteless, or otherwise unsuitable for children and other vulnerable persons--and the advertisers who sponsor them just to create the aura of American TV being purely FreeVee.
Even the Japanese, with a reputation for some rather raunchy shows on TV themselves, have been known to take issue with a number of TV shows themselves, if the following "WaiWai" item from the Mainichi Daily News of Tokyo can be accepted as credible (and besides, "WaiWai" is pretty much in the same league as the late Weekly World News, with the added angle of drawing upon the likes of Japan's trashier weekly magazines for source material):
Despite constant complaints about the filth and degradation on display in some of Japan's cruddiest TV shows, major corporations are still willing to funnel hundreds of millions of yen into the programs, according to Shukan Bunshun (12/13).
"Ratings are everything for us. The better a show rates, the more it can charge for advertising. Advertising revenue determines how well a network performs and how much employees get paid. At the moment, the going rate for a monthly advertising contract for a prime time TV show earning ratings of 15 percent or more is about ¥100 million," a major network insider tells Shukan Bunshun, adding that TV advertising is a ¥2 trillion business.
"Most sponsors could care what programs they're advertising with. All they're worried about is how many viewers from the key consumer market of women aged 20 to 34 that a show can pull in."
Parents of schoolchildren across Japan are regularly infuriated by a series of shows on TV.
Taking the cake is "London Hearts," a variety show hosted by comic duo London Boots that has for the past four years been voted by a national PTA association as the program they least want kids to watch.
"Before going on air, the show gathers 10 women performers in a studio, gives them themes like 'The Woman Most Likely to be Hated by Men' or 'The Woman Most Likely to Get Cheated On' and asks them to decide among themselves who they think will be the loser. When the show goes live, an audience of 100 is also asked to pick the loser from among the 10 women. The panelists are then left to battle it out over all the answers that are given," a TV script writer says.
Cartoon "Crayon Shin-chan," the story of a crude pre-school boy, is also a perennial target of parents.
"Shin-chan is just filthy. He shows no respect for his parents, makes fun of adults and whips his willy out at the drop of a hat. I remember reading the comic it is based on before I was married and thinking, 'Gee, if I have a kid like this, I'll throttle him,'" a 48-year-old woman says.
Another mom despises "Crayon Shin-chan" because of its influence.
"Kids only need to see him once and they start copying his behavior," the 35-year-old housewife says.
"Mecha Mecha Iketeiru," a show by another comedy twosome called Ninety Nine, is also loathed by respectable parents. The show features a wordplay game, with the losers punished, often with physical violence in the form of a group beating meted out for giving a wrong answer, an action many say inspires school bullying.
Sex is also a prime target of those upset by the idiot box. "Baka Dono Sama," a vehicle for comedian Ken Shimura, has been blasted for scenes implying he is sleeping with several women at the same time and for showing a woman naked from the waist up and referring to her as a "flesh cushion" even though it screens at the family time of 7 p.m.
"Ainori" is another program drawing criticism, with the reality show taking several young men and women in a drive around the world in a pink car with "Love Wagon" written on it and the performers instructed that the aim of the show is for them to eventually find someone working with them to pair off.
Networks aren't too fazed by the criticism.
"Our programs are made according to the network's ethical standards, loved by viewers and we trust the producers," a spokesman for TV Asahi, which runs both "London Hearts" and "Crayon Shin-Chan," tells Shukan Bunshun.
Advertisers aren't too concerned about what they're pumping their money into, either.
"We're aware that some of these programs are being criticized, but we'd rather not comment on the social responsibility aspect. We do not have concrete standards on the types of programs we will not advertise with," a spokesman for Unilever Japan tells Shukan Bunshun.
Softbank Mobile Corp. has a similar line.
"We have no particular guidelines about advertising, but place priority on the effect of the advertisement, which we judge by the ratings and the type of people watching the show. We're aware of the criticism, and we're certainly not ignoring it," a spokesman says.
Not all companies are like that, though. Health product manufacturer Unicharm Corp. and confectionary giant Lotte Co. both advertise during controversial shows criticized for their crude content, but have declined to be credited as sponsors. A Unicharm spokesman explains why.
"We decided in June last year to stop advertising on 'London Hearts.' We still run a spot advertisement, but don't want to be credited as a program sponsor," the spokesman says.
Lotte is even more specific.
"Because of all the criticism from places like PTAs and the like, we felt that we could invite misunderstanding, so declined the chance to be a credited sponsor," a PR representative says.
Hair product manufacturer Aderans Co., however, clearly doesn't care.
"We have absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the program," a spokesman for Aderans tells Shukan Bunshun. "Nor are we in any position to issue orders or make comments about the shows."
(Meanwhile, let's just hope some target of an American Family Association-directed boycott campaign pro Deo, patria et familia actually turns the tables on the AFA for once with legal action for Unlawful Interference in Interstate or Foreign Commerce, Criminal Syndicalism, Racketeering and Related Conspiracies.)
*************
AND ONE THING MORE: Are conservatives looking to have the now-discredited term "morons and idiots" applied to "chronic and habitual" welfare cases solely for the sake of further keeping the poor down, all the while excusing such as "patriotic"?
