• Teller
    It may be that as I age I become more sceptical of things, but I have become extremely suspicious of the increased popularity of "ghost" and paranormal TV shows.
    Some background: My wife and I are empty nesters and have time for some TV watching in the evenings.
    My wife has long been interested in things paranormal (Bigfoot, ghosts etc.). Now our TV time together is dominated with Ghost Adventures, Mountain Monsters and Dead Zone etc.
    Now, to me this type of programming has absolutely no value. The TRVL channel, formerly known as the Travel Channel has become a cesspool of of misleading, phony crappy shows. Are viewers really believing this stuff, or is it just some form of ersatz entertainment?
    If viewers actually believe in this stuff is it it ethical to produce this content for gullible viewers to make them believe in "Demons, "Shadow People" etc? Or is it just a "viewers beware" kind of thing?
  • Son of a Bitch

    I have similar concerns about the History Channel and Fox News. Neither one is what they report to be. Fox News is hardly “balanced and fair,” and it is mostly a propaganda or public relations firm for the hateful, disgraceful, xenophobic, racist Trump administration. It is not news.

    The History Channrel should be renamed “The Fiction Channel.” Hardly any of the programming on it is accurate history (thinking about the “Ancient Aliens” series).

    Shouldn’t there be an FCC regulation that mass media platforms should have disclaimers reporting what kind of content they produce? For example, Fox News should have to report before each program that they are giving opinions, not the news, and that many if not most of the opinions don’t accurately reflect reality. The History Channel should have to report that what they are airing are conspiracy theories that have not been corroborated by experts or any other sane person.

    Now, I’m all for free speech, but shouldn’t people have the right to know just what it is they are consuming? After all, food products are required by law to list ingredients. Why not “Fox News may contain unsubstantiated claims, poorly supported opinions, horse shit, and outright lies?”
  • Bitter Crank
    You two are complaining about the TRVL Channel and the History Channel, no doubt right on target. I'd add that National Public Radio and Public Television aren't as good as they used to be as well, but both at least still bear a strong resemblance to organization with intact integrity.

    So, what is the problem?

    #1, quality programming costs money, and really great programming is quite expensive.
    #2, quality programming requires really (A) smart and (B) creative people to produce it.
    #3, there are too many channels of programming to supply for there to be enough quality programming to go around.
    #4, as H. L. Mencken, the Sage of Baltimore, wrote [or should have written, if he didn't] "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the level of American taste [or intelligence].

    Some people, none of them associated with this site directly or indirectly, actually prefer schlock*** to quality. Many people actually prefer high quality television programming, but tire of higher-brow English accents, which the BBC does so well. But Masterpiece Theater can't be on 24/7. David Attenborough is getting pretty old. Here's a keepsake memory of the old boy:

    ***Yiddish, trash
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.