An abstract of mine was accepted and I have a couple of months to write a chapter for a book about diversity in the media. The angle I'm taking is that on television there is little to no diversity of belief. We've made some strides in depicting racial minorities, and showing women in roles other than housewife, but the dominant discourse is materialistic.

What do you all think about this: Are diverse beliefs portrayed on TV? If so, where? How would you describe the dominant beliefs available on television? It seems to me that television contains mostly materialistic messages, that consumerism is the answer to everything. I'm including sitcoms, news, cartoons, serials, sports, home and garden shows, made for TV movies, you name it. How deep are the morals? How broad are the solutions to problems? Where is there a discussion of spirituality?

For example, rather than consumerism, do you ever see people re-using products? recycling? Do you see people wearing old clothes? Do you ever see people praying for answers? Do people serve each other for free, or is there always an angle?

DJ, wow, what a topic. Now that you mention it, I hardly ever see any morals portrayed while watching TV. Now I hardly watch so I'm not a great one to ask, but the occasional show I do catch is usually nothing but sarcastic humor, cutting others to pieces and awful sexual connotations.

Let me think on this to see what shows I can come up with that may portray healthy perspectives.

ARe sitcoms/series have underlying constant theme of materialistic? Perhaps I don't watch enough different sitcoms regularily.

However one of my favourite drama series, was "Six Feet Under", a U.S. drama series based on a family where 2 brothers own a family business funeral home after their father died. There's the older teenager daughter with red hair, Claire, etc.

Despite all the problems individual family members might have, they genuinely try to be a family, ...to love/care one another each in their own wasy (with occasional) disagreements. Yes, times, where some family members were engaged in relationships that needed to be straightened out or just dropped because of a toxic personality, etc.

I loved the show because of its humanity...and the funeral business where for each show, the theme would open up on a tv reflective mediation of a person who just died, circumstances at point of death...and ended up the funeral home.

This is not religious, but the show in its heart, was spiritual and not about material /consumer things (except the time funeral business was threatened or a lover buying a small thing for someone).

The final episode actually took one forward of how each family member might look like just before death, when aged and at what point their life they each were, before they died.

Sad, somehow so real...meditative and reflective. It was a great finish to a great series. And clearly, even if we were/are married/coupled or have children: we enter into this world alone and we each, will leave this world alone. But a backward reflection for viewer who watched the series, that we have 1 life, live it with at some of your dreams fulfilled, love well and make the best of it.

Orchid --
I also loved that series but don't have HBO so I watched it entirely on DVD. Though I agree with what you say about the family trying to stay together, I still see it as materialistic. The relationships the characters were involved in were physical, mostly. The patriarch was all about his own pleasure. The mom, the daughter and the homosexual brother were all about finding themselves as sexual beings, not spiritual beings, dealing with their various fears and insecurities. And though Nate met the Quaker woman and started going to services with her, he also was about "finding himself" and not caring what that did to his wife and daughter. So while it was a relatively thoughtful series, it wasn't one that was interested in spiritual truth, for example.

I recently did a study about Sex and the City, comparing the views of that show in the US with how they perceive it in China. The show is called (in Chinese) "So Want to Be in Love" The scripts have been entirely redone in Chinese, but using the original plots. I'm not saying that Chinese culture is less materialistic than ours, but it's interesting to see how they perceive the women in ways that would be unfamiliar to us in the US. For example, some of the respondents there say they put men on a pedestal. I don't think we do that here!

If you look at any sitcom, you will find archetype characters and plots that always end up maintaining the status quo of power relations, for example.

Shows like "Saved by the Bell" and "Family Matters" end with a moral, but they are in the mainstream belief community and not much more probing that an Aesop's fable.

Are there shows that "think outside the box"? It's a tough question.

What about Oprah? Does anyone watch that? My daughter tells me that her shows end with some sort of spiritual message.

Interesting. There is a different way of looking at this, for me, each character imperfect as they are, they may have wanted sex PLUS more beyond and were struggling to find that/establish that in their relationships. Which is natural and normal for most folks-- no matter how religious or non-religious a person is. 6 ft. under did not reflect the dream mainstream image of family. I think the show reflects more reality...most families do experience abit of dysfunction at some point in time, either involving 1 or several family members, where someone is insecure, etc.

Would you have considered shows where characters are overtly searching for God or trying to meet/wrestle with overtly themes of Christian faith, values, as more "spiritual"? I don't mind watching movies like that occasionally. But a whole series would not interest me if it was overly didactic instead of effectively weaving themes of submission vs. liberation, self-interest vs. family, etc.

Sex in the City is overtly more materialistic than 6 Feet Under. Dumb as it may seem, I enjoyed watching the show...for its fashion. Got tired of Carrie's, played by Jessica Parker, constant manhunt escapades and her insecurities. Certainly the series was more "fluffy" / airheaded in content compared to 6 ft. Under.

But I'm the wrong person to opine much on series, ...I tend to watch Food Network, some British drama/police series.. Have lost track of U.S. sitcoms. I have zero interest watching anything like the Sopranos, Housewives (or whatever). Many U.S. cop/lawyer shows turn me right off because the easy violence, cool/hip/tough script is annoying ...'cause in real life to meet cops, judges and lawyers like that...was really annoying. I worked in various agencies for over 15 years, where my client groups were primarily ex-police officers, firefighers, judges and lawyers.

I appreciate what you're saying Orchid. I agree that didacticism gets old rather quickly and also prefer that ideas be woven into the plot somehow. Also, what you point out -- that you can find a certain spirituality in 6 Feet Under (that the characters want sex plus something beyond) -- is indicative of one of TV's characteristics, i.e., that TV texts are open ones and that viewers fill in many of the gaps.

I watch Desperate Housewives as well as 30 Rock -- both are fun. And also Brothers and Sisters. I don't know that they have any particular redeeming value. B&S has a very complicated family situation. I think DH is campy and funny. 30 Rock even moreso. And actually, that may come closer to providing diversity in viewpoints, except that it's satire.

Hey DJ, you need to come to Canada or watch some of our comedy shows.. There is a Canadian mini-comedy series aired just recently, "Little Mosque on the Prairie".

Cute, satiric title. Yes, a mosque shares space with a mainstream Church. And the local Muslim leader is a handsome ex-lawyer. http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/

I watched some episodes...I actually found the humour almost too tame...not satiric enough.

It's hard to imagine that a comedy series like this could be aired in the U.S. at this time of history..when the U.S. has been at war/invaded some Muslim dominant countries in the past decade and now..

I know the loaded joke at that website made by the minister character in the show might offend people here but: "Christianity did not survive 2,000 yrs. by just being charitable". Funny, but sad. I think of the Crusaders killing others way back...

Diversity of beliefs would mean ability to laugh at oneself also...

[I keep responding and the posts disappear -- very frustrating!]
anyway...I heard about that show! There's a public radio show called "Wait Wait Don't tell me" which is basically a news-based quiz show. There's a panel in the studio, humor writers, cartoonists, comedians, etc. and people call in. One of their gigs is that they have 3 scenarios for the audience to decide which is the real one. Two are made up. One day it was about Muslim based sitcoms. The real one was more bizarre than the ones they made up. Very funny.

What you say about humor is right on -- if you can laugh about yourself, that means you can see yourself objectively, warts and all.

My parents' church shares space with a Jewish synagogue. That seems to be happening more and more -- I know of a couple like that around here too.

In the UK a reality show "Big brother"where people are in a house for several weeks caused much debate,
There was an episode where a quarrel esculated and it semed like bully/racist behaviour to many who phoned in.This went as far as Pariament and caused serious fuss.
It seems to me that fair minded people can and do complain when things go too far.
Mountain ash

Yeah, that story has made international headlines -- isn't it about a woman of Indian descent who felt insulted by other women in the house?

I think British TV, though, is much healthier overall than TV in the U.S. Over here the public service component isn't enforced and that's something that very few people even know that they SHOULD complain about it.

I am not a TV watcher so please ignore my ignorance. I've thought about this thread since you started it and Oprah and Dr. Phil come to mind. Even though I don't watch them (sorry Oprah, I'm working when you are on) I often read about their guests, hear about them from other women, etc. From what I can tell, the morals and values she protrays are healthy and right on target.

I've only seen this show once ot twice. I don't even know the name of it but a gal in my prayer group talks about it. It's on Sunday nights. It's the one where a team goes in and builds homes for people who have experienced some type of tragedy. That show has a lovely message.

Extreme Makeover, Home Edition, I think it's called, where they build homes for people with tragic life circumstances.

It's interesting that you can count on one hand the programs we've come up with so far.

The Soprano's incorporates the Catholic church into many of it's episodes and it is not always portrayed in a good light.

Brothers and Sisters is about a family where it seems that each member has his or her own particular views about many world topics and yet they manage to love and care about one another despite their individuality and beliefs.

Boston Legal touches on many varied topics and opinions in their court cases each week, including Wiccan beliefs, how transvestites are viewed by the public and political values from opposing sides.

TVC
I never see Boston Legal. How do they deal with the various beliefs, like Wiccan? Are they seen as unusual, or normal? And in the Sopranos, what do you mean that it shows Catholicism in a negative light?

What do others think: Does Television show religion in general in a negative light? Do you think there's a dominant belief that's accepted as normal?

Reality is that unless you don't believe in any higher power, it doesn't matter what name the higher power is. There is only one looking out for us. Maybe it is someone from Mars for all I know.

I am Jewish and believe that sharing a place of worship, is the right thing to so. Share the rent, if any, and care for everyone. The key is to do right with everyone and make this world a better place.

What I don't like is when people take and can't keep it as good as it was given. There are many signs of this regardless of religious belief or economic situations, why should anyone give them something if they don't respect what they are given.

DJ, I'm thinking of Farscape here, and other SciFi shows that take modern problems and project them into a future or other worlds where those problems are seen in a different context. In SciFi, materialism and/or provincialism are sometimes viewed as the catalyst of decline in civilizations. Spirituality is also portrayed in more complex ways.

That's a good point, Meredith. Thanks for that insight. That's what viewers saw in Star Trek -- a world where diverse beings got along peacefully. I haven't seen nor heard of Farscape, though. What channel is it on? Do you think there's much Sci Fi on TV (other than the Sci Fi channel)? And why is it that this type of thing is limited to Sci Fi programs? Does it seem too farfetched for our time?

Hi, DJ: Is your research limited to American media? Would a comparative study of British TV programmes help? We still enjoy programmes of the sort that you speak of on a regular basis and the productions are in all forms i.e. documentary, sitcoms, dramas, reality etc. They are all made and presented to cover a diverse spectrum of faiths and how that is lived within secularism. The BBC is still at the forefront of these productions although independent networks have also appropriated times for these.

Hi Lola
I'm wondering about the belief systems and value systems underlying most or all of television programming, specifically in the U.S.

However, I'm curious about what you're describing when you say that you enjoy dramas, sitcoms, etc. that cover a spectrum of faiths within secularism -- would you say that a secular point of view is the predominant one?

DJ, Farscape aired for several years on the Sci-Fi Channel. We don't have cable, so I've seen it the past few years when it got picked up by commercial independent channels 11 KTTV & 13 KCOP.

Star Trek was definitely a forerunner in this genre, but Sci-fi literature existed for decades before that, with both Utopian and Dystopian societies being recurring themes. In written or visual media, sci-fi takes more chances on ideology because that is who reads it and that's who watches it. Sitcoms are usually not written for people who want to think about larger issues, at least not at that moment.

Basically, mainstream media reflects mainstream ideas, as seen through the filter of the economic class who can afford to put it on film or TV. You don't get a lot of ideological diversity because the producers of these films/TV shows are trying to make money by attracting the highest paying sponsors -- which is determined by a show's ratings, which are generated by appealing to the largest number of viewers, i.e., the lowest common denominator.

But you already knew that.

Meredith -- you wrapped it up so succintly with that post. Because of the role of gatekeepers, most of the discussion (like perhaps the Wiccan example on Boston Legal) frames the "other" versus the mainstream.

I didn't watch "Touched by an Angel," but read the episode synposes and am struck at how materialistic even the angels are -- accepting a Cadillac? drinking coffee? bearing grudges?

Still, I'm back looking for more. My deadline is Sunday and You've all given me great stuff to consider -- I'm still wondering if anyone has thought of any more examples?

I always found it strange that Carmella Soprano knows what her husband does for a living but still tries to find some kind of spirituality in the Catholic church, especially when one of the mob has been shot and in the hospital.

I just caught this post or I would have responded earlier.

Anyone remember Archie Bunker? Diversity was the theme: Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Orientals, anything and anybody Archie was threatened by while being funny and teaching family and world values. Almost everybody loved it and nobody got hurt. It had high ratings and ran for years.

When the three majors networks were making movies for television and mini-series about 20 years ago, they tried to make quality shows with redeeming values and often failed. Hey, it's television. Sex and violence sell (always have) and it's a ratings game.

Little House on the Prairie and Touched by an Angel showed some redeeming values from one perspective. Desperate Housewives has some redeeming values in family matters. I recently watched a TV movie starring Debra Messing (sp?) and I can't remember the name of it. It's Sex and the City meets the First Wives Club (in Hollywood). Nothing new but they're talking series. Redeeming values? I think not.

I don't have HBO so I got The Sopranos DVDs from the library. Love, sex, violence, family values, health, education, loyalty, trust, distrust, vengeance, religion and questioning religion - they hit it all. Just like real life. Carmella knows what Tony does, but like a lot of people who know what their spouses do for a living, it's the world they live in and they learn to live in it and accept it. Denial is a great game. Carmela asks good questions about her religion and says she's just trying to understand. Lots of pepole are like that. The priest she confides in isn't always of high moral fiber. Not everyone is.

People say the movie The Godfather is all about life. I think The Sopranos took that movie and made it a series. People loved the show and so did the sponsors. High ratings and ran for 10 years.

We want to escape from reality when we watch movies and television. We also want to believe they reflect some of what we're dealing with in our lives. They do.

You'll have to go the PBS and specials to get the ethnic and religious diversity you may be looking for because just like Tony Soprano, it's all about the business and the money.

DJ, please let us know the outcome.

Thanks Saundra for your input. I submitted the paper yesterday. We'll see what happens. Someitmes when it goes to publisher, someone gets bounced. My thesis is that US TV shows little to know diversity of belief. As you point out, programs are primarily created to support the financial interests of corporate media owners. No one much wants to rock that boat by being daring, edgy, different, appealing to minorities, etc. Even a social satire like Southpark supports dominant values and beliefs. Anyway, it's a complex topic. Thanks for helping!

As stated DJ, please let us know the outcome. After talking with you in Dots kitchen that day, I totally "get it" now. You are so right, it is a very complex topic but I was enthralled by it all. I would love to sit in one of your classes.

Hope you do well DJ.

I know that Seinfeld and "Friends", were blockbuster popular series...but neither ever resonated much for me...not enough that I would watch each show regularily.

"Friends" actually irritated me. It was so "white" to me. And did not reflect the reality of our generation and younger, particularily those living in big cities, having 1-2 good friends who were non-white, and just....leading ordinary lives with ordinary, funny incidents.

You can tell me about the Latino guy in "The 70's" show, but they make him out to be a stereotyped Latino guy, kind of stupid/non-intellectual, horny, etc.

Good points, Orchid. I completely agree with you about Friends. I watched Seinfeld in reruns and thought it was funny, until the Kramer actor's public racist rant. And Latino stereotypes are everywhere -- even the dog on Ren and Stimpy is a negative stereotype of a Latino.

Shows are put on the air for the benefit of advertisers, first and foremost. Ratings are a corrupt system tha's used to identify which specific audiences are viewing and then to set rates for advertisers. Viewers -- i.e., the public that's supposed to be served -- are a commodity that's being traded by the businesses involved in TV production. The more people are aware of how this system works, the more we can start to take back the airwaves.

I've been so busy that I just caught this thread and probably too late to make a difference but, for years now I've been insulted by the twattle that airs for the general population. For me its not about Conservatism vs Wiccan's or this belief system or another belief system, its about numbing and dumbing of the mind.

Christian TV is just as nauseating as Sex In the City. What kind of people actually live their lives as is portrayed on TV??!! I'm frankly upset by it all.

CNN repeats the same news stories over and over and over and call it headline news, the same themes are repeated in all the sitcoms and talk shows. People's lusts are becoming harder and harder to appease. Jack Ass aired a guy getting his butt nailed with a hydraulic nailer. CSI gets more and more graphic along with its sister shows reaching further and further to appease the public's desire to see yuck and rotting flesh.

The act of sex is looked on with as much respect as eating a bologna sandwich. The shows that do try to portray some kind of morals are sickeningly sweet and morbidly boring.

Frankly, I enjoy Sponge Bob with the kids and Everybody Loves Raymond and Frazier and Animal Planet and the Health Channels and the house makeover and people makeover shows and Dr. Phil although to me he is an arrogant Oprah Spiceboy creation.

Even the science fiction shows are of the same IQ level as Lost in Space. I used to enjoy Muldar and Sculley in a pretty good show but that ended...

I won't be preached to by the neo evengelists either. The Hollywood producers are either paid off or bow to the pressure of special interest groups who are pushing their agenda on everyone else.

I'm very selective about what I watch, not because I care that much about the morality of what I'm watching but just that my mind has to be fed and has to grow and expand and the AIDS looking for somewhere to happen mentality of most of the sitcoms just leaves me empty.

Do you all remember The Waltons ? Films...Anne of Green Gables
Little house on the Prarie?

Time for change lets swing the media into re runs...
Mountain ash

Mountain ash, I really liked Anne of Green Gables films!

New leaf, I agree with what you said about Dr. Phil, and TV in general. TV is soooo bad!

I really hate all those reality shows they are always advertising. I don't watched any of them. What has happened to TV??? I rarely watch it anymore. I usually read or rent a movie.

Me too. We play video games and I got one of those huge Where's Waldo books and we spend time hunting for items. Aaliyah is on the verge of reading and she's only 4.

We work out in the yard and paint and feed and water the Guenia pigs. She loves to help me cook and she is the coffee maker in the family. Dublin loves science and medical books (not for the pictures...lol)

We have been watching a mother Cardinal build her nest and lay eggs and sit on them. We did the research and are following along in reality watching the nestlings getting feathers and the dad taking over for the mom giving her a break. We have pet lizards that come out to greet us when we leave the house or come home and at night we sit in the porch swing and listen to the chicadas with candlelight and sip sweet tea and count the stars.

I don't miss TV.

I absolutely despise television! There is so little programming that educates, inspires, motivates, or otherwise enhances our experience, our human growth. It is a wasteland of inferior, mind-numbing, questionable so-called entertainment. As mentioned here, it is a venue for nothing more than pushing goods and services, period.

It grows yearly, more and more offensive, as to program content, and seems dedicated to lowering not only our sensibilities, but our intelligence level as well. Simply stated, it is mass Poisoning of the Populace.



.

I agree that there is so little on TV worth watching. I watch very little myself. There are so many other worthwhile things to do. But, I do have to say, The Discovery and History Channels are big in our house. My husband and I were watching one of the Planet Earth shows earlier, we really enjoyed it.
But now, I browse the forum and then it's on to a good book before bed.
gerri
gerri

Speaking of TV watching, I am not a huge fan at all of television. My daughter, however, watches her share. I am amzed that she has been at college for the summer and does not have a TV in her dorm. Maybe we should get rid of all the TVs in the house. Do all of you have them in your homes?

We have one TV and we hardly watch it. I'm thinking of repacing it with a fish aquarium. It would be more entertaining to watch than what's on TV.

I agree that there's a lot of bad stuff on television, especially because of the system. But there's also a whole lot of bad stuff in the library, not to mention the book stores! Around here, I'd say that about 90% of what's in either one is not something I'd want to read. But still I read books (mostly ones I hunt down on Amazon or in used book stores).

To me, the problem isn't the medium per se. The problem is, I repeat, the system. One huge conglomerate can own each of the following: book publishing companies, TV channels, movie studios, radio stations, theme parks and baseball teams. How do you think Harry Potter became such a huge seller worldwide? Because the same company owned the publishing company, the movie studio, and the TV station where it could advertise the first two.

These companies aren't interested in ideas and art; they're interested in making a profit. The most interesting ideas, like the most interesting tv shows, might appeal to a minority and have a hard time getting published and produced. But when they do surface, it's great to find them.

Dotsie, good question, concerning tv and how many sets we own. It started me thinking...I have always had my prejudice against television. I recall that when I was raising my girls, we had one large portable televsion, that sat on a wooden wheeled stand, in the family room. It was the only tv in the house. It's designated space was the corner of that room, pushed back, out of the way. One had to pull it out, to situate it for viewing from the couch and arm chairs. The room was dominated by filled bookcases, a large terrarium, and at one end of the room was a large table, with chairs. This table was our craft area, for myself and my girls, and for my Girl Scout Troops. The television was rarely turned on during the day. My husband would enjoy watching some programs in the evening, while I and the girls were otherwise occupied there in the family room. Remember those misty, long-gone days, when almost anything you had on the boob-tube could be viewed, or heard, by your children, especially before say nine o'clock?

Today, we have one television in our home. It's used for the most part for film viewing, and I enjoy video games. I do catch programs on the Discovery and History channels, and I have always been a Masterpiece Theatre fan.

I've realized just thinking about it now, my daughters' homes are over-tvd. The eldest daughter's home has four sets, one in each of three bedrooms, and one in the family room. My youngest daughter has three, one in the living room, one in the master-bedroom, and one in my granddaughter's room. This multi-tv thingy they did not learn from me. I do recall when having more than one television was looked at as some sort of 'status' symbol. That trend is still around, just a bit tweaked. Now, it's having the latest in technology, largest possible screen, separate expensive sound system, that feeds the 'status' symbol ego.

Something I'd like to pass along, concerning the quality of programming, the lack of intelligence displayed. I mentioned to a friend how much I do not like television, and she told me she didn't care what was on. After a day of work, she liked to sit in front of the set and just veg. She said she didn't want to HAVE to think. Maybe she summed it all up, with that statement.

I remember moving to the UK and had to settle for four channels! BBC1 and BBC2 with no commercials and two independent channels. While my children got weaned from TV, I got hooked on BBC programmes and documentaries. It was not until very recently that cable, satellite and freeview came to join the main four.

As we pay a TV licence to own a television here, the programmes are as diverse in content as the population it serves to entertain, inform and educate. Some productions by the independent channels come often on a "hit and miss" but the BBC, for one, have great productions and many are masterpieces. I encourage my grandchildren to watch children's shows put out by the BBC because of the tremendous care and study it invests towards education of the young, especially pre-schoolers. My granddaughter is learning British Sign Language from one of its early morning children's shows. And yes, we have a TV set in all the rooms except for the bathroom.

History lesson, for some background:

The big difference between England and the US is that over there the government operated tv and radio broadcasting and over here the government turned it all over to corporations to operate for profit, starting in the 1920s, though citizens tried hard to retain public channels. In the US people are afraid of government propaganda -- remember how we always used to hear that the Soviets were brainwashed? Well, what about corporate propaganda? When revolutionaries take over countries, they take over the media. Congresspeople need to kowtow the press or have their careers ruined.

And, by the way, the idea of "liberal media" is a propaganda technique. Don't fall for it -- it's a red herring. But I digress.

Look at the younger generations and compare them with when we were younger, or when our parents were younger. What are the differences? I remember in the 1970s how parents would only allow their kids to have toys made of wood, and wouldn't give them sugar, etc. Now I see kids with so many possessions that they need extra rooms for the toys. Isn't consumerism the national religion? Why is that?

What most people don't understand is that the US government was behind the formation of RCA, an early manufacturer of radio parts, and RCA developed the NBC broadcast network. For one thing, the federal govt. sees its role in part as protecting our economic system. So while we in the US like to say we have a free press, the government has been closely involved with broadcasting forever -- and they did it as a protection against Great Britain right after WWI, fearful of GB's power, since they already controlled petroleum and shipping, and were starting a broadcast company over here (British Marconi).

We had only two networks (CBS and NBC) until the 1948 when NBC was forced to split for monopoly reasons, thus creating ABC. And those 2 or 3 radio (then TV) networks have functioned using the public airwaves to make billions, barely allowing room for citizen input (PBS started in 1968, and immediately was attacked by Nixon and Agnew as "liberal" because it broadcast programs that made the Vietnam War look like a bad idea). We absolutely _need_ to have networks that those in power do not like! That's what the first amendment is for in the first place.

Right now, 5 companies -- let me say that again (with hundreds of cable channels how can this be?) -- _FIVE_ companies control almost all TV content, whether cable or broadcast (over the air). They also control book publishing. and everything I listed in an earlier post. It's sometimes called a great "echo chamber" because you hear it on TV, then you see it in the newspaper, hear it on the radio, then read books about the same ideas. So when I try to find text books to teach this stuff, you wouldn't believe how much hype I wade through to find ones that present factual accounts -- many of them praise the current US system (i.e., huge conglomerates) as though it's inevitable, natural and the best possible, explaining it by saying that these companies "need" to make their profits.

So this is why I was asking about diverse beliefs. Is there anything out there that portrays other than consumerist approaches to life? (But that deadline was weeks ago).

A conclusion I'm formulating: I see it all as propaganda, and I see the younger generations and the rest of the country (me included) as having been propagandized.

By the way, I read about all this stuff all the time because it's what I teach. And I tend to get steamed up about it. I don't want to be the last word on here though. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for historical info. DJ on TV broadcasting.

Here in Canada, especially for those of us living within 200 kms. north of the Canada-U.S. border, we get a ton of U.S. tv content.

In Canada there is a quasi public tv, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They do have a public mandate to provide a certain percentage of their content as produced by Canadians. Many of the employees, meaning permanent employees are are paid from the public purse.

The programming content has diversified, and in my opinion, increased the range of quality to the public. But unfortunately alot of their programs' existence on air now, are still ruled by the advertising dollars.

Just to give a flavour of some great Canadian programming:

Nature of Things --has run for over 2-3 decades. Hosted by a ex-geneticist/scientist now TV journalist on scientifc is David Suzuki. He has near celebrity status in Canada. What program in the U.S. would hire and air someone of Japanese-Canadian descent for the past 3 decades ..at the national level???? Especially someone who espouses consistently on enviromental protection? Wouldn't happen in the U.S. right now, would it?* Surely, Ralph Nader wouldn't have been allowed to have his own weekly national program in the U.S. in the same eras as Suzuki.

Royal Canadian Air Farce: Most Canadians love this weekly comedy show. I think it's run over 3 decades with regular comedians. National and provincial politicians do a short gig on air. 1/2 of the commentary is skit, political/current events.

This is Wonderland: A national series, fictional on a bunch of legal aid lawyers and their shenanginas with crazy clients. It was a good, sharp, endearing show... I worked in legal aid and with the lawyers myself..it shows the humanity, craziness of the justice system. This show was cancelled last year.

Little House on the Prairies --There is NO way the U.S. network would air this fictional series...about the handsome East Indian Canadian lawyer from Toronto who converts to becoming a Muslim iman (religious leader) in a small Canadian prairie town. They build a mosque by sharing space with a united church. It's a comedy but it's light.

This is why I do feel a bit suffocated when I go into the U.S......the whole heavy burden of Civil War, slavery, U. S. involvement in Vietnam, Iraq,...has created some great TV/film stuff, but can stifle current debate and honest satire for several decades. It's like an embargo on free thinking. It must the McCarthy years...that fear of being called commie for anything that even suggests something other than mainstream.