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.