On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:28:27 -0700
"CW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the problem with a documentary in which the documentarian is iased is that it
> stops being a
> documentary and becomes, largely, propaganda.
Agreed. This documentary focuses on areas of inquiry that are mostly too
complex to be treated by scientific method. History, as well as topics
like religion. art, and other creations of the human mind elude the more
rigourous practices used by scholars to make their claims about the
world as valid and trustworthy as possible. Plus, as you noted, he had
an axe to grind.
We all have a tendency to believe what best suits our purpose; highly
paid, highly privileged editors and journalists are no exception. But
that shouldn't keep one from watching and distilling the facts; the
names places and times of events, down to concepts and ideas
to be accepted or not. (Hi Fred) Better to input the opinions of all
sides and pick one's personal path somewhere down the middle. I don't
buy into everything in this docudrama. But the think the basic premise
of advertizing praying on baser instincts is valid.
>
> (I wonder what Jeremy Clarkson would say of this, though..
> maybe he's too busy testing out the new Bugati, which came not from the
> states ;)
I wonder if he ever takes that 37-year-old Mercedes 600 Grosser for a
spin. And does he drive it or is there a chauffeur?
> The thing is, though, not that some mass conspiracy brainwashed the
> public, including those not born - somehow this documentary seems to
> intone that the titans of industry warped people and repressed
> alternatives, etc.
The tabasco industry's deliberate campaign to get women to smoke, by
convincing them it made them free of men, (they had their own penis) is
rather warped. And it killed many thousands. Admittedly, the dangers of
smoking were not as recognised. And that's merely one example of the
warping of society for profit. Profit at the expense of society.
> but there are some things in which, titans or no,
> people generally agreed on.
>
> People tended to like the idea of "damn, I can get cool liquid", I'll
> take a refridgerator!
It's about the triggering of base instincts; that if I replace my
adequate refrigerator with the new model, I will be happier, more
beautiful, etc. In my unwashed study of American History, I see a shift
from consumers satisfying their needs to never being able to satisfy
their desires.
Buddha's Noble Truths certainly pertain to this; "the cause of
suffering is desire, with the illusion of Self originating and
manifesting itself in a cleaving to things".
Unchecked capitalistic greed.
Tobacco companies launched "Operation Berkshire" to counter
scientific evidence linking smoking to disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berkshire
Evidence from advertising agencies shows that ads were intended
to increase consumption, rather than simply brand share, as
claimed by the industry
Tobacco firms encouraged firms marketing "candy cigarettes" to
children by allowing the sweet firms to mimic cigarette
packaging and labelling, and by suppressing unfavourable
research linking candy cigarettes to an increased chance of
smoking later.
it's too easy to pick on tabasco. How about junk food:
Junk food marketers target kids with dirty tricks:
http://www.foodanddrinkeurope.com/news/ng.asp?id=65451-junk-food-mcdonalds-pepsi
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200311101.html
and many more...
Marketing attempts to alter our personal constructs in such a way that
secondary needs acquire disproportionate value; triggering a inordinate
drive for homeostasis of those desires.
>
> By using Freud and others to evaluate how society works, the
> documentary devolves into a one-sided arguement of human reaction based
> on psychological forces and holds this standard true.
As one who was married to a practicing, clinical psychologist, it is my
considered opinion that psychology is a belief system, and not a science.
Not to be confused with anything that looks like science.
> But this in no way equates with newer, and different psychological
> thought since the passing of Freud.
Rest my case.
IMHO there can be no doubt corporate profit motive has no conscience.
People/governments need to keep a vigil against abuses.
http://www.dailytech.com/FTC+Considering+Limits+on+Behavioral+Advertising/article11868.htm
> In his case, the documentary uses a fairly self-fulfilling method, by
> which interviewees are put forward that are known to agree with the
> heart of his theory, and basically none who provide alternative
> viewpoints on what compels human desires in the west or anywhere else
> in the world.
Yes, axe to grind.
> We aren't brainwashed into these things by a grand corporate scheme,
No, lots of small, directed schemes.
> and if we were, General Motors and Ford would not be worried about
> having vehicles that are too big while global competitors eat up US
> marketspace with smaller vehicles.
OK, Detroit is clueless. I saw an ad just recently about Mustang and how
it has power to spare, squealing tires; "Be a real Man with a Mustang".
Still beating that dead horse. Clueless.
> That's the problem with documentaries such as this; it, like Freud,
> assign too much power to the concept that individuals can be controlled
> by subconcious cues, whereas, like Jung and others believe, there is a
> subconcious standing within the id that helps define how we want things.
Corporations don't spend billions in advertizing because it has no
effect. When will there be advertizing in books?
>
> Just as a counterpoint.
A welcome change as I opened my mailbox this morning. Finally some
intelligent discourse. Thank you.
Regards,
Al
"We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must
be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been
entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs."
