It seems the number one goal of daytime TV is to convince you that you’re not a loser.
It’s probably not a good idea to make a blanket statement here, but people who have no job and watch TV during the day tend to be more likely to be losers. However, the last thing those TV stations want is for their daytime viewers to do is get a job, so their number one goal is to make sure those people feel good about themselves.
Nothing makes people feel better about their lives than seeing parades of pregnant 14 year olds, 600 lb men, and people with lobster fetishes. No matter how void your life is of meaning, any segment of any daytime talk show will make you realize your life could be way more pathetic. The TV stations remain happy because people are content with sitting at home watching TV. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if technical schools have to pay more to show their commercials since they encourage people to do something during the day.
Most everything on TV sets out to make us feel better about ourselves. Many of these ‘family media advocacy’ types complain that the media puts out bad role models for the children. Their intent is good when they say this but they’re completely missing the media’s strategy. They put these types on TV so we can feel superior to them.
An example would be that MTV show “Sweet Sixteen” – and yeah, I’ve watched it, and no, I’m not proud of it. I’m dumber for watching it. However, when guys like Brent Bozell, a nationally known media watchdog founder, say things like;
“After watching these punks gorge themselves on conspicuous consumption, children watching probably want to emulate them, while their parents, if they watch, would want to slap these brats into the next zip code.”
They’re wrong. Nobody wants to emulate those kids. The show is specifically edited to make everyone want to ‘slap the brats into the next zipcode’. It makes the views feel like they’re better people. As a beneficial side effect for advertisers, it makes the teenagers more comfortable with asking for more things from the parents -
By the way, I think it’s funny when people purposely
get the name of a pop-culture item wrong, just so they can falsely elaborate
on how little they know about the topic. An example would be, “I never
understood the appeal of that Jessica Sampson girl, or that South Pond TV
show.” Things like that are usually unintentional, but I think I’ve
heard a few preachers purposely do it.
Back to the point, Paris Hilton isn’t being established as a role model for anyone. She’s put on TV to give people the ability to say “well, at least I’m not THAT much of a skank”, no matter the situation. It’s wrong that she’s on TV so much, but not because people want to emulate her.
News channels are very guilty of this stuff, which is why as a passive viewer of cable news, I could write a two page report concerning the details of Anna Nichole Smith’s death, but I have no idea what the deal is with those British hostages.
I was watching Joe Scarborough’s show the other day and he actually said the following;
“Coming up next, are the accusations that the banter between Simon and Ryan Seacrest are scripted true? More after the break.”
I didn’t watch the segment, but the answer is yes. They are scripted and Joe Scarborough thinks you’re retarded.
Whenever I try
to write a non-football article I come off as way too pompous and arrogant.
My bad. Anyways, I hope I find a job before I graduate - my daytime TV consumption
email Mark at email@example.com