>(Hmmm...I wonder if they call it 'programming' for more than one reason? Are the TV networks programming the people who watch?)
>
> TV is not inherently evil. Unfortunately, most of what is broadcast on it is. I think even what I would consider "good" shows carry very subtle messages that attempt to erode the values that I cherish. I would say more about this, but I really don't feel like posting a book on the Message Forum.

Aw, come on Grishny, let's go for the controversy! Sam can always delete it if it gets out of hand ;-)
(This isn't aimed specifically at Grishny, BTW. Just my thoughts on the subject he has raised.)
I agree that TV shows, along with any other form of life experience, can change the values of the frequent viewer. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Regarding TV, my question is, do you think this is deliberate? If you think a show subtlely encourages you to believe [insert controversial topic of your choice here] is really a good thing, why do you think the show's makers are doing this?
Is it all a huge conspiracy against the public, because the people behind it are EVIL?
Is it a conspiracy against the public, because the people behind it are basically good people who genuinely believe that [controversial topic] is a good thing?
How can you tell the difference, and does it matter?
Is it to please the advertisers?
Is it even deliberate, or just TV dumbness without malice aforethought?
Why?

I am approaching this from the viewpoint of having once worked in the magazine publishing and advertising industry. Let me describe a scenario that happened at least once every issue of the magazine. Company X pays for a full-page colour ad. Company Y, with a competing product, pays for a two-page feature article which mentions his product in glowing terms. (If you think magazine articles are not paid for by advertisers, you are charmingly naive and optimistic, but you are wrong. Sorry.) The magazine is published, and both Company X and Y instantly threaten to sue us because each thinks the magazine is in league with his competitor and favoured them in better ad placement, writing style or whatever. The great New Zealand public looks at the ad, reads the article, and goes out and buys the unadvertised product of Company Z because it's the one their friend Tony got for Christmas and he said it was good. Then they write an angry letter to the magazine, asking why we didn't run ads for Company Z but we did for its two competitors. It is because we are EVIL, and in league with Company X and Y, who are both evil and in league with one another.
This really happens.

Brunnen-"one of many reasons I don't work in the industry any more"G