Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:06:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
610 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > Therefore citing from [The West Wing] carries no water for me. Ever.
> >
> > I remember a relatively huge controversy amongst the legal profession--"L.A.
> > Law does not show what it's really like in the legal profession." A radio
> > DJ at the time quipped, "WKRP is nothing like how a radio station works
> > either, but I still like the show..."
> >
> > Yeah, M*A*S*H went 9 years longer than the war it was suppose to represent,
> > and watching "Pretty Woman" does not give you insight into the lives of
> > everyday prostitutes--What's your point?
>
> I think the point is that Leo perceives that people are distressingly apt
> to get their political views from fictional programs. No doubt Leo would
> include such fictions as the 700 Club and Rush Limbaugh's daily spew, as
> well as the film "Traffic," but apparently Leo sees fit to single out The
> West Wing.
> For what it's worth, Leo's not all that far off on this point, even if he
> failed to include other likely candidates. In this forum you yourself have
> quoted soundbytes from The West Wing in a way that suggested that you either
> accepted those soundbytes as "true" or else saw no need to distinguish
> between those bytes and actual fact.
If I were to pose the hypothesis--"If I were to let go of a hammer, the
hammer would fall. I do not have to watch the hammer fall to see that this
is true."--what does it matter *where* this hypothesis came from? This line
(paraphrased to be sure) was stated in Star Trek back in '67--Does that matter?
(I'm sure Spock phrased it better, oh well.)
If I were to quote, "Some people can read 'War and Peace' and just say that
it was a good book, while others can read a bubblegum wrapper and unlock the
secrets of the universe", what does it matter where the quotation came from?
(Lex Luthor, Superman)
As I say, to *initiate* a conversation can only be a good thing--resting
your entire arguement on what happened during a show is ludicrous--not only
are you then putting all your proverbial 'eggs in one basket', but it's a
show, not a holy writ.
> You also seem to have formed opinions
> about US culture and politics based on that show, to which I believe I
> responded that I'm glad to hear that Prime Minister Doug McKenzie is doing
> well, eh?
My formed opinions about how things happen in the world come from a variety
of sources, one of which is television--television, which for me, is on the
same plane for deducing what's up, as newspapers, radio, talking with people
such as yourselves, to name just a few. My formed opinion is not reliant on
one source, but *many* sources--I make a hypothesis, a framework for my
life, and see if it holds up to the punishment of reality.
So take off you hoser!
>
> > About the slamming of the fictional person, a la Dr. Laura...
>
> Dr. Laura is another fine example of fictional programming that is
> distressingly perceived as real or true or accurate. I know you're
> referring to a Laura-esque character, but the point remains that people do
> indeed believe fictional shows to equate to reality.
Well, Frasier Crane may be hypothetical, but Dr. Laura is quite real
(whether or not she's a doctor I do not know, but there's some real person
talking on the airwaves so she's about as real as Howard Stern) as are the
people in the 700 club and that Rush guy--they might talk fiction, or what
they believe is reality, but they are, indeed, real people. Whether they
are "true or accurate", who's to say? I have my views and they can be
pretty much summed up by using the term 'air-bag', but that's just me--In a
free society, people can express their views as much as they want, as long
as they do not curtail other folks freedom to express their views. The
'trueness and accuracy' of any given point can be found thru education and
learning.
Yes there are those folks who believe Mickey and Bugs are alive and well
somewhere, that Beretta, Kokak, Columbo are real life investigators, that
there really was a JR and he really did get shot--I am not one of those people.
The reality of life cannot be boiled down to a weekly television series--it
may emulate, encapsulate, or otherwise allow us to escape reality, but
that's all it can do.
I remember reading Gleiks (sp) book on chaos--they say that we weill never
be able to accurately predict the weather because we cannot put sensors in
the atmosphere every foot, and even that wouldn't be good enuf, 'cause
weather patterns (a la 'butterfly effect' change due to the moving of air
molecules. Since we cannot measure *all* air molecules *all* the time, we
will never be able to make a weather emulation that is accurate over time.
Such as television shows--too much happens in life, and the audience would
be bored out of their trees if we tried to make a show showing 'real life'
(at least mine--LEGO, EQ, 'cputer repair--real fun here, let me tell you).
>
> > You want to talk subtlety? How about anti-abortion zealots that run around
> > shooting doctors and personnel that perform abortions--that's about as
> > subtle as it gets, me thinks. There have been documented cases of abortion
> > clinics getting packages with mutilated dolls in them. So a television show
> > takes real life scenarios and works them into a story and puts them on the
> > tube--whoda thunk?
>
> I believe the technical term for that is "pandering." And when it's done
> under the guise of "raising the public consciousness," I find it to be
> especially vulgar.
Pandering is when we feed the kids ice cream all the time to keep them happy
and shut them up. However, feeding your kids ice cream all the time is not
good for them. Sometimes it's a good thing to get ruffage in ya!
When folks don't like what someone else is saying, and try to diminish the
efforts of those who critique what may be wrong with the system by using
clear examples, I find to be especially vulgar.
>
> > The entertainment industry has a way of starting terrific conversations.
>
> Yes, but all too often it's cited as if it were some authoritative source
> on matters of ethics, politics, and science.
Not authoritative, just a good start.
> > I prefer to think that the West Wing raises the bar on what would otherwise
> > be a pretty bleak television season. In a time when the industry is dumbing
> > things down, and going for supposed 'reality t.v,', the West Wing (and for
> > two glorious seasons, Sports Night) are a Godsend.
> > "More and more we are expecting less and less from each other. It's time to
> > start working against that"
> >
> > -Aaron Sorkin, in Sports Night as well as West Wing
> > (yeah, sometimes he reuses themes and even the same text in both shows--oh
> > well, whatreya gonna do?)
>
> So you're saying that the bar is raised by the regurgitation of trite
> homilies?
Who defined it as 'trite'? Is it? Look at the society around you--what
Sorkin said is obviously a quick sound bite, but just by your very sentence
in response, you just proved the 'truth' of the 'trite homilie'--we have
come to expect less and less from one another--we diminish those views that
are not ours. What if John Leo said it? Would it still be as trite?
>
> Dave!
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> My point stands. You're welcome to get your ideas about reality from wherever you like, including from TV shows that force feed bias while pretending to be balanced... Just don't cite them in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) A minor digression... You *do* need to make further observations to determine if it's true that the hammer would fall. Either you would need to make your deduction based on your witnessing of the descent of the hammer from your hand to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I think the point is that Leo perceives that people are distressingly apt to get their political views from fictional programs. No doubt Leo would include such fictions as the 700 Club and Rush Limbaugh's daily spew, as well as the film (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
