Slashdot Mirror


China Cuts 'Excessive Entertainment' From TV

An anonymous reader writes "Chinese broadcasters have axed two-thirds of popular TV shows in line with a government directive to curb 'excessive entertainment.' From the article: 'The rule, first announced in October, is targeted at what Chinese regulators have called "excessive entertainment and a trend toward low taste," to address the rise of talent shows, dating shows and other such programming aired by China's tightly regulated, but increasingly competitive, regional satellite broadcasters. Authorities also encouraged broadcasters to air more news and educational programming.' according to local media reports."

336 comments

  1. So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the viewers can't find what they want on the tube, they'll get it somewhere else.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their internet is even more restricted than what thier tv is going to be

    2. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      If the viewers can't find what they want on the tube, they'll get it somewhere else.

      -jcr

      Some of them will. Majority will just channel surf and watch the most bearable programmes they find.

    3. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope... People who use TV are typically dumb(i am not talking about specifically breed of internet users who ocasionally use TV or older folks). So even if they go online for entertainment - will give benefit. Good move China!

    4. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Serpents · · Score: 1

      And nothing of value was lost? Frankly, I'd love to see the TV stations where I live to kill 2/3 of the reality/talent shows and replace them with something worthwhile. When I was a kid, the national TV (2 channels at that time) had several science programs targeted at kids and teenagers. Now we have access several hundred national and private TV channels and not a single show which would try to explain how lasers work to a 10 year old but plenty of the "pew pew pew KABOOM!" variety...

    5. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the viewers can't find what they want on the tube, they'll get it somewhere else.

      -jcr

      But they cant so and any how the Chinese Government have got it bang on it's about time that a good 80% of the crap on the TV world wide was put exactly where it should be in the incinerator . There is way too much so called entertainment these days full of overpaid tossers tossing around not interesting not funny if fact boring

    6. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2

      If the viewers can't find what they want on the tube, they'll get it somewhere else.

      -jcr

      If Chinese Idol isn't produced, they will be hard pressed to find it. And no, American Idol will not be a suitable replacement - after all Americans aren't watching the original either. Every country wants their own asshole judges and overconfident, untalented contestants. And hardly anyone cares about the winners for that matter.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    7. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality shows actually supplanted game shows. Today's reality show is just a more polished long-tail version of what used to be 30 minute game shows. What really makes me facepalm is the knockoff shows (which China can rightfully axe since they don't have useful copyright laws, and nothing of value will be lost.) Here in North America, there's probably a handful of shows that are popular, of which there will inevitably be a knockoff on each neighboring network. If you watch House for example, you'll find the same theme on Grey's Anatomy within a week, because whatever the writers were watching to steal ideas from that day, were the same source. It doesn't matter which program is the better program, just that many programs overlap that if you were at the water cooler at the office and talk about one show, someone who wasn't watching the show you're talking about, but the one on the rival network could add their two cents and still seem like it's the same show being talked about.

      It's not so cut and dry that way, but the problem lies in that instead of coming up with original programming, they just see whatever is the most popular and try to cash in on it. Even in foreign countries we see similar trends, like with Japan, the animation industry often seems to come out with a lot of shows with the same theme during a season.

      What you may also find interesting is that if you've watched one asian drama, you've watched all of them. Asian dramas are much less "gritty, dark and violent" and their dramas have laughable production quality compared to what is shown in North America. I'm so not kidding, some of the dramas finish taping hours before they air. They focus on storyline, but as a foreigner who doesn't understand the language that well, one drama may as well be any drama. This may be why none of these shows are shown on primetime television here in North America.

    8. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, no. They may just get used to a higher standard of entertainment - less viral, more demanding. In a way it may be for the better.

    9. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by poity · · Score: 1

      I'd love for these crap TV programs to be replaced with more documentaries too, but government should not be the one dictating what is on the airwaves -- it should be the people educating each other and changing what's on the air with their remotes. I can't believe so many on /. are supporting this action considering the past reaction to other proposals for "protecting decency" and "promoting values".

      And If you guys read the article, you'd get nice quotes like these:

      "Satellite channels have started to broadcast programs that promote traditional virtues and socialist core values," Xinhua on Tuesday cited China's broadcasting regulator as saying.

      One does not have to be a member at /. for long to know that if any US politician were to say something similar, he/she would be criticized to hell and back for government overstep.

      Also had people read the article, they'd get the larger context:

      In October, Mr. Hu warned senior Communist Party leaders that "hostile" foreign forces are seeking to "Westernize" the country. "We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle, always sound the alarms and remain vigilant, and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond," Mr. Hu said, according to the Associated Press.

      ..which is that the government feels threatened by the "westernization" of the Chinese mind. If anyone in the West were to say something similar regarding Eastern pop culture, or in the US regarding European pop culture, the accusations of xenophobia would be flying all over the place, here especially. Yet, somehow on /., the PRC government not only gets let off the hook, but support as well.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    10. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      They arent getting it from youtube, thats for sure. (China blocks youtube).

    11. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      [Country]'s next [something]. Who wants to be a [something]. And so on, and so on.
      If viewers mostly find crap interlaced with commercials, they'll (at least some of them) do the same thing.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    12. Re:So, China wants to drive web use over TV? by Serpents · · Score: 1

      While I agree that governments should not be allowed to kill TV shows arbitrarily, state owned TV stations should be about something more than just ratings. At least in countries with television license, where the state-owned stations are funded by general public, the money should be spent more carefully.

  2. Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I had my own country, I would make reality TV illegal too.

    1. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by chilvence · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was going to say, if only we would legislate the x factor out of existence too... good on the chinese for using authoritarian government for good.

    2. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Zibodiz · · Score: 2

      Can you please run for president?

    3. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have the right to hate any show you don't like and refuse to watch it. You don't have the right to tell other people what they like.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by dokc · · Score: 0

      If I had my own country, I would make reality TV illegal too.

      Amen!

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    5. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't like reality TV, either.

      However, I'd personally lead the rebel army that took down your fascist ass. :-)

    6. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would have that right if he was put in a position of power in a fair election, having made it clear in advance that this was one of his policies.

    7. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really; no shit Sherlock. Clearly though, he would have this right if he had his own country.

    8. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by aztektum · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are people actually choosing to like reality TV?

      Or are they choosing to simply watch what the media companies offer?

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    9. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but when other people are clearly making a mistake, it's our duty (the smart people) to correct them. It's for their own good. China's smart people (the engineers and scientists who make up their government) have made a hard decision regarding their stewardship of the vast number of mouthbreathing hicks in China. These hillbillies don't need to watch so much damn TV, and the decision has been made.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    11. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by garaged · · Score: 1

      And setup a new democratically elected dictatorship who would strictly ( for thir own sake ) control what people can see on TV... Nice move!

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    13. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course I have a right to tell other people what they should like - you sanctimonious cuntsniff. You have a right not to listen.

    14. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the right to hate any ..... you don't like and refuse to watch it. You don't have the right to tell other people what they like.

      It's a shame cognative liberty is not more widespread and fewer laws were inplace to curtail it. However any number of activities and the posession of substances are controlled 'for the public good'.

      Where damage to society is deemed greater than the benefits of these activities laws are enacted, Day time tv, reality programming, quiz shows, rolling 'no new news', and interviews with people who were famous to ask how great it was to be famous, now that their not don't really have a lot to recommend them. Mos are so bad that I long for my childhood day in the Netherlands when they used to just turn of the transmitters during the day time. After all everyone was at work.

    15. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I had my own country, I would make reality TV illegal too.

      Which would be a dumb move. A dictator stays in power by providing bread and circuses. The last thing he wants is an educated, intelligent population, because the last thing such population wants is him.

      That's why this is a pretty surprising move on Chinese government's part. Have they started believing their own bullshit, or is "education" just a code word for "propaganda"?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by daid303 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sign me up!

      And can we take a TV camera with us, would make a nice show ;-)

    17. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      "I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

      - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (as a summation of Voltaire's attitude.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    18. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously, where is that "right" enshrined in Chinese law? Or are you just typing without thinking?

    19. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by delinear · · Score: 1

      A little from column A, a little from column B? Media companies love reality TV, it writes itself and costs peanuts to produce, but if there was no audience for it in the first place it would quickly go away. If people were starving for something more intellectually stimulating on TV, someone would produce it and corner the market, I can only assume the current mix roughly equates to what people want. Besides, TV has always been passive "dumb" entertainment, if people want more engagement in their homes there are games and the internet to fill that niche, not everyone wants to slob in front of the TV after a hard day and feel they're back in school (although there's a large demographic here who do tend towards more educational shows and personally I can't tolerate reality TV).

    20. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by delinear · · Score: 1

      That only works where the government also has strict control over the internet, otherwise people will get their fill of dumb somewhere else. Would you be just as happy for the government to tell you where you can and can't go online as you would be for them to tell people what they can and can't watch on TV, I wonder?

    21. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think all television broadcasts should be shut down, regardless of content. The bandwidth could be reclaimed for a nationwide wireless network infrastructure that anyone could get on, former television stations included. The immediate effects would be a squelching of the reactionary and hateful views found in much of today's television broadcasts, since everyone's voice would be equally as loud.

    22. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Are people actually choosing to like reality TV?

      Or are they choosing to simply watch what the media companies offer?

      yes, they are choosing to watch it. if they're choosing to like it is another matter, how can anyone choose what they like?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    23. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Emperor PulpTV: Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL TV station!

    24. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by webheaded · · Score: 2

      I know you're being pedantic but yes, plenty of people actually do like reality TV. Many of them are, shockingly, not idiots as everyone seems to imply. Not every reality show is American Idol either...a lot of the cooking shows (eg: Top Chef) have reality things and aren't anywhere near as retarded as something like Big Brother or The Real World or whatever.

      I mean yeah, there's a lot of shit on TV. On the other hand, maybe people here are just being assholes. As it turns out, the fact you don't like something doesn't make it shit. It makes it something you don't like. Let's come down off our high horses for a moment, shall we? I'm sure everyone here is guilty of liking something that other people think is shitty. Hell, I listened to the new Limp Bizkit album and liked it. Is that "shitty" music? Yeah, pretty much...but I still enjoyed it, so how many fucks do I give? Some people think Weeds is a shitty show. Plenty of people think that the Big Bang Theory is a shitty show. Maybe, just maybe, we can all stop being dick heads and looking down on people for the entertainment they enjoy.

      But please, continue. Wouldn't want to interrupt everyone being giant gaping assholes. You are perfect in every way. Everything YOU like is the best that there is.

      Disclaimer: I actually hate most reality TV, but you guys are just being dickheads, honestly.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    25. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Nah, we'd rule as a military junta for a while until I got bored of the harem and other groupies. Then I'd embezzle a couple billion and retire to some island fortress somewhere tropical.

    26. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I feel like I am repeating myself, repeating myself?

    27. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No need, I would just make education a serious priority, the population would then be less dumb. That would reduce a lot of problems.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...retire to some island fortress somewhere tropical.

      One word: malaria.

    29. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Meh. DDT.

    30. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The immediate effects would be a squelching of the reactionary and hateful views found in much of today's television broadcasts, since everyone's voice would be equally as loud.

      Your experiment has already been done, and it's called the Internet. As it turns out, not everybody's voice is equally loud because of network effects. There's definitely more opportunity, though, for a random person to rise above the noise.

    31. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      It has not been done yet. There are media companies that still have monopolies (or oligopolies, technically) over the EM spectrum in every local market in the US. Those monopolies have to be shut down.

    32. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are people actually choosing to like reality TV?

      Or are they choosing to simply watch what the media companies offer?

      The Jam did a song years ago (Going Underground) with the line "The people want what the people get". I think that line describes modern entertainment perfectly.

    33. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      People are choosing it. I don't have cable. I cut the cord almost two years ago. That being said, I go to extra lengths to get "Top Chef for my wife", as well as "The Apprentice" for me and my wife. We are well aware that these are crap shows. That doesn't matter. We don't want to spend every waking hour being "productive".

      Completely avoiding pop culture also leaves one uneducated. These shows shape our culture. Just as I have read the "King James Bible" even though I am not a Christian, I try to keep one ear open on pop culture. There is a lot of quality information that makes far less sense if you don't actually know what is in the "King James Bible" do to references and analogies. The same is true for other forms of pop culture as well.

    34. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by sootman · · Score: 1

      This isn't rocket science. It is offered, I don't like it, I don't watch it. It's not like it's the ONLY thing on. Not even the most prominent.

      The ratings at the moment are a bit screwy because of the holidays, but...
      http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/television.html
      Top 10 broadcast shows:
      Football, football, 60 minutes, football, NCIS, Criminal Minds, New Year's Rockin Eve, Big Bang Theory, CSI, NCIS.

      Sports, news, and scripted shows. Been that way for decades.

      Here's a random list from a couple weeks earlier. Very little in the way of reality shows.

      Like anything else, the noisy stuff gets attention. Shows like Jersey Shore get a lot of press but no one realizes that the majority of people are quietly watching sitcoms and dramas.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    35. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I've watched a few of those cooking shows you speak of, and while I enjoy the cooking parts and the competition, I still find them unwatchable due to the melodramatic "reality show" aspects.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    36. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Given the nearly ubiquitous nature of Internet today, the requirement to broadcast over EM waves to get your voice heard is not there. I don't care what kind of network you have, large numbers of people are going to gravitate to a few providers. Your utopian ideal doesn't exist.

    37. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Is that why my business of selling poo on a stick is failing???

      Actually, for the most part, I agree with you. Although there is a huge segment of the population that don't even realize when they are watch reality TV. Many of them even complain about it, and then turn around and watch a dozen hours of it a week. What I am talking about is professional sports. NFL is just as much "reality TV" as the Kardashians. For some reason, spending 8 hours every Sunday for months, spending thousands of dollars a year on paraphernalia, obsessively talking about it, and generally acting like an ass because your characters or doing better or worse in the show, gets a pass if it is NFL.

      Another aspect of 'reality TV' is that it isn't a specific genre. Really it is two different genres that get lumped into one because they are both low budget. Reality TV is almost always either documentaries, or game shows. The Kardasians is a documentary. Some will wail about scripting and editing, but those happen in National Geographic documentaries as well. The only difference between a documentary on Barak Obama done by National Geographic and The Kardashians done by E is the weight you give to the subject of the documentary, and whether it is one 90 minute broadcast, or ninety 30 minute broadcasts.

      Top Chef is a sporting event. There isn't even a difference. The only difference between the PGA and Top Chef is game is being played, and the marketing.

    38. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Your point is even more poignant when you factor in the percentage of these people that watch pro sports on TV. Pro sports IS reality TV. It is just less intellectual or useful than something like Top Chef.

    39. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      how can anyone choose what they like?

      Most acquired tastes work this way. {Beer, Coffee, Cigarettes, etc}

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    40. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just make education a serious priority

      Do it the American way! More emphasis on tests, more busy work, and even less learning! Anything else is simply un-American!

    41. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of them are, shockingly, not idiots as everyone seems to imply.

      I judge everyone by their actions. Choosing to watch reality television over a plethora of better options in entertainment, productivity, social causes, exercising, sleeping or sitting staring at a wall is demonstrably idiotic behavior.

    42. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already done: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/
      Protip: You'd die.

    43. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by garaged · · Score: 1

      Cancer

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    44. Re:Its hard for me to critisize this move. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Stop harshing my supervillainy buzz!!

  3. Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But after being pestered by so many Big Brothers and other related horrors, it's very hard for me to frown upon the chinese here.

    1. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's also about keeping viewers on governmentally administered channels(by axing competing shows on less controlled channels, though one could argue that they're all pretty controlled since they can do that).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by rtb61 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's about controlling what appears upon a public asset. Whilst other countries auction off bandwidth to the highest bidder, the 1%, forever squeezing out the little man, the 99% and the leave the censorship of what will and what wont appear to the 1%. So whose news is censored most the US news (in favour of the 1% and corrupt politicians) of China news (in favour of their 1% who happen to be rich autocratic politicians). The only real difference there is the US 1% outsource their corrupt politicians under the capitalist system.

      I seem to remember free to air being of much better quality when it 'was' more tightly controlled. Deregulation, it's about higher profits not better quality.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by siddesu · · Score: 2

      This time around it doesn't look like a free speech issue, but more like a preparation for succession issue. The current leadership in China is already old (this is the Deng cohort, pres. Hu is already 70), and he seem to be getting China ready for a new generation of political leaders. When you do leadership change in this kind of regime, you do everything to ensure smooth succession to the people you chose.

      There was even an old Soviet joke about the perils of transition. If memory serves, Radio Yerevan was asked "What is bloody sex?". "Pulling out a member from the Politbureau", replied the radio.

      Without a smooth translation, the situation in China could get much more unpleasant than that.

    4. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 2

      I quit watching TV altogether ages ago, too much commercials for shit I don't want and far too few things actually worth watching. I'll buy/download the things I want to watch and I'll watch when where & how I want.

    5. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by tsotha · · Score: 1

      So there's a dearth of satellite bandwidth, is there?

    6. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      So there's a dearth of satellite bandwidth, is there?

      Actually in some parts of the world, there is a shortage

    7. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, my first thought was "if only they'd do that here". I have almost stopped watching tv, because there is almost no factual programs, and the ones there are, are mostly rehashes of old "nature themes" with added soundtrack.

      It would be really nice if they went for less "wow, awesome" and more insight and real knowledge.

    8. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember in my home country that watching tv-shop on major channel at 17.00 because there was no competition sucked. and we had fucking bold&beautiful on prime time. and matlock. talk about quality for 6 hours a day on 2 publicly funded channels and 1 commercial! you know the public tv stations heavily lobbied _AGAINST_ the commercial vendor having the right to produce news? it's not fun to give up a monopoly on an entire nation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by horza · · Score: 1

      Back in UK for Christmas and I was shocked at how long the adverts last. Looking at ITV2 tonight, Oceans Twelve runs from 10pm to 12.30pm. IMDB tells me run time is 125 minutes. So 1/2hr, or 20%, of the film is adverts. Makes it impossible to enjoy a film.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by Terwin · · Score: 1

      Every few months I speculate that perhaps some day I will go through the bother of getting a digital converter so that my rabbit ears will work again.(never had cable or satellite TV)

      Then I kill the impulse with a DVD or some Netflix.

    11. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It would be nice, but our brief moment in the sun has faded on that one. For a while, we had Discovery, Animal Planet, History Channel, and the like.

      Now, we see things like Animal Planet running 'documentaries' on Dragons. http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/ Where they tell you how they will "Make you believe that dragons were real, and still might be."

    12. Re:Yes, concerning, free speech, etc by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      Back in UK for Christmas and I was shocked at how long the adverts last. Looking at ITV2 tonight, Oceans Twelve runs from 10pm to 12.30pm. IMDB tells me run time is 125 minutes. So 1/2hr, or 20%, of the film is adverts. Makes it impossible to enjoy a film.

      Phillip.

      The adverts on shows from the USA are still pretty long. There is a show my girlfriend likes (a BBC show) that lasts for a full hour. As the show was popular, a US company brought the rights to do their version, using the name and format, and one of the conditions of this was that the sows produced by the US company could be shown in the UK.

      My girlfriend was watching one of these US versions a month or so ago - the entire show was about 30 minutes (in full, no adverts as it was on the BBC), and every now and then there would be a voice over repeating what had just happened in the last scene that was shown just moments before (it really reminded me of that Mitchell and Webb Gift Shop sketch).

  4. Big whoop by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    just go without cable and save yourself 100 bucks a month

    1. Re:Big whoop by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tried to do that last month, because I had sold my big screen TV, there being nothing but crap on basic cable any more. Instead Comcast made me a 6 month deal to pay less for internet, and still keep TV service, even though I have no way to watch it. My bill is $20 a month less, so I really don't care how they split it, but it's interesting how hard they tried to keep me on TV service. I wonder if they get paid by advertisers according to audience as measured by subscriptions? Then it doesn't actually matter if I don't watch.

    2. Re:Big whoop by tsotha · · Score: 2

      The cable company has to pay for some channels (They pay a lot for ESPN), for some no money changes hands (the legacy networks, I think), and some pay the cable company (HSN). So yeah, that's exactly what's happening. If you're on the lowest tier they make money by having you as a customer (neglecting sunk costs) even if you don't pay.

    3. Re:Big whoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You read the fine print?
      That amazing deal may only last a year....

  5. I won't blame them for that ! by yvesdandoy · · Score: 0

    TV programs have become so incedibly ridiculous and debilous that the only station I watch is ARTE (France-Germany-Belgium publicly funded with NO audience level as a goal !)

    1. Re:I won't blame them for that ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      publicly funded with NO audience level as a goal

      You bastard! Your ruined it for them by being the one person to watch it.

  6. Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the slippery slope argument, I am in complete favor of some forms of censorship. Go China.

    Although... the lack of programming designed to actively destroy intelligent thought will probably accelerate their rise to global dominance.. Hrm...Time to learn Mandarin.

  7. Thank you! by DWMorse · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Thank you, China, for the excessively entertaining action!

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  8. No X-factor??? by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    A country where stupid politicians don't try to learn dancing salsa on TV? Count me in!!!!

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  9. Irony by Ltap · · Score: 5, Funny

    So Big Brother shut down Big Brother?

    --
    Yet Another Tech Blog
    (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
    http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    1. Re:Irony by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It's their nationalism streak.

      They must have felt the U.S. was making a parody of their government policy.

    2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Brother was originally a Dutch show. The US doesn't have a total monopoly on shit TV, although now China has less, it is closer.

  10. Sometimes, China gets it so right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One-child-per-family, and now this?

    Greedy heartless fuckers that they are, even Chinese powerbrokers do their society service once in a while.

    1. Re:Sometimes, China gets it so right by delinear · · Score: 1

      One-child-per-family contributes to child abandonment, gender-specific abortion and infanticide. It's also driving more Chinese to use fertility treatment to give birth to more than one child at a time (since that's not forbidden) which adds to other birth related complications. While I don't disagree something needs to be done about rapid population growth, I don't think a government mandated limit is the right answer.

  11. Re:FCC Should take note by kelarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TV doesn't make people stupid, it just keeps stupid people entertained and out of the public eye, so why is excessively entertaining media a bad thing?

    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things...

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
  12. Ummmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    After watching cable TV in the US over the holidays, could I ask that they do the same thing to American TV?

    (Only partially tongue-in-cheek).

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Practical arguments against? by Cabriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Beside the obvious "OMGFreeSpeech" and "OMG1984" arguments, in the face of garbage programming like American Idol, Survivor, Dancing with the Stars, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, etc, what practical non-what-if arguments are there for this being a bad thing?

    1. Re:Practical arguments against? by Intropy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because being entertained makes people happy and being happy is better than not being happy.

    2. Re:Practical arguments against? by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      You can't make people better without making them their choices to be better.

      And by the way, bashing "American Idol" is getting old, it is high class performances. Yes, it's overcrowded with money and hype, and it's marketed mainly for teens, but lot of things are. For example those geekish cartoons you loved when you was ten.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    3. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because its not the governments job to say what the masses say is entertainment. If 5 million tax paying morons want to watch any of those stupid shows they should be able to. Its their lives. What classy shit are you watching thats so much better? Seriously, who are you to judge whats entertaining?

    4. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean besides the main argument what fringe arguments are legit for this?

      Maybe the fact that the media companies will have less viewers, leading to less people watching ads, leading to less revenue for companies, leading toe conomic collapse?

      Wait, you said non-what-if.

      Wait, what the fuck, how do I answer this if I can't say "We shouldn't do this because"?

    5. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Government instability. The reason why the U.S. is so full of the crap. Without mass media entertainment to keep the masses distracted they start to turn to other things to take up their time. Among these things, tends to be actually living and being active in society. When the people are active in a society they question things, get involved in things, and yes challenge things they feel aren't right. This is a huge responsibility on the part of those in power. If they don't keep the masses entertained, they can't really do all the shady things they like to. Just look at how successful Rome was with its Colosseum and all the plays, operas, etc. Imagine if they didn't do these things how hard it would be to maintain the society?

      Hell, you don't even have to look that far back in time, just look at the U.S. Look at how many things the government gets away with while the citizens just sit around feeling like they can't do anything anyway, and don't want to waste time trying especially when their time could better be spent watching American Idol and drinking at the pub. Did you see what happened in Europe when the government tried to change the retirement age? The people freaked out. Did you see what happened in the U.S. when the government did raise the retirement age? TV shows cheered by telling wonderful stories of working while your old. Working while your old is living, as no old person wants to be idol, or so said the media. They were right. No old person wants to be useless sitting around, but I think Grandma would prefer having a real life, with friends, family, etc. instead of john, joe and sue manager.

      So where am I going with this? Well, the issue for China is going to be how are they going to control the masses with news and education programming? Edutainment maybe? It'll be interesting to see, how much more active Chinese citizens get, which might not be a bad thing, wish it would happen here.

    6. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what practical non-what-if arguments are there for this being a bad thing?

      There's a lot of benefits to having a benevolent power decide what is best for the ignorant masses. They could for example decide mandated exercise schedules, enforce specific diets, require you to socialise in social groups; all of which would help improve your physical and mental wellbeing. Yet all of these, like controlling what you can see, are based on a willing acceptance that a central power can and does decide what is best for you. It doesn't encourage self-control, self-determination, individual responsibility. It is a partial, and authoritarian, solution to a symptom not the cause.

    7. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But watching most of these programs makes people miserable. Watching all the glamor and riches makes the dreary of reality impact all the worse. Unlike movies that are obvious fantasy these lie that this could be real. They have zero educational value, they will never make people feel better. They are just a drug that sucks people's energy and turns them into brainless trash.

    8. Re:Practical arguments against? by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the people are active in a society they question things, get involved in things, and yes challenge things they feel aren't right.

      That's pretty condescending. What makes you think they can't watch a few hours of television and still be informed? When people refer to large groups of people as "sheeple" and wail they won't "wake up" it implies if only people were paying attention they'd think like I think. Well, and stay with me here, maybe they already question things, they're already involved, and they already "challenge things they feel aren't right." Maybe their vision of how things ought to be isn't the same as yours.

      I'm guessing from the way your post is written you're not from the US. I'm at a little bit of a loss to understand why you think we in the US would make our country just like yours if only we didn't watch so much television.

    9. Re:Practical arguments against? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      The number of "Gosh, I wish this authoritarian bullshit would happen here because I don't like what my neighbor watches on TV" posts is seriously disheartening. WTF happened to the geekverse?

    10. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a rather large assumption. That I watched cartoons at 10.

      Not interested in logging in for this.

    11. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some geek piece of shit named Cabriel isn't the final authority on what is or isn't garbage? What should they show? Endless Firefly reruns so you can jack off to Josh Whedon? Seriously, a fucking geek making a call on what is allowable entertainment?

      I know scientists and doctors who watch Idol and Dancing because they enjoy music and dancing and seeing new talent. Who the holy flying fuck are YOU, you worthless, authoritarian cocksucking sack of useless shit, to say they are wrong?

      Just another wannabe geek fascist. You can write some code, therefore you are the pan-cultural authority on all things.

      Go fuck your fat ass with a kitchen knife until you bleed out, scumbag.

      Ahhhhhhhh i see the considered reply of the typical well educated YANK need i say more

    12. Re:Practical arguments against? by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I care when it's gotten to the point where there is literally nothing to watch that doesn't leave me feeling disgusted. I don't care what any individual is doing, but as a society it cannot be good that programming has gotten so low; filling our brains with this stuff is not going to advance us anywhere, so why are we wasting valuable spectrum on it?

      Wipe it out and replace it with something intelligent.

    13. Re:Practical arguments against? by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's actually worse than you think. It's not just filling brains with mush and turning people into passive vegetables, it actually shapes the aspirations of society. Who wants to work hard and become an astronaut when you can just do nothing all your life then suddenly sing or dance on a stage and become the most desired person in the country? In the UK the contestants in this show "Big Brother" have actually become celebrities in their own right! It's ridiculous, they have contributed nothing of value.

      Phillip.

    14. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they've rid their country of reality television and ridiculously superficial people having soul shattering dilemmas over the fact that they got a stain on something or x store didn't have whatever in their size, then I'd say they're one step closer to utopia than we are...in it least that regard...

      In my personal opinion, American TV has never sucked as bad as it has for the last 10 or so years. The pure abject waste that's spewing all over the airwaves caused me to give up TV all together...and I'm happier for it...with the delightful side-effect of never having some stupid jingle playing in my head from some commercial...hey, from one humble American, kudos to China...your oppression has gone in a somewhat helpful direction this time...

    15. Re:Practical arguments against? by Ironhandx · · Score: 0

      Average American works 47+ hours/week. Average American also consumes 35+ hours of TV per week.

      Explain to me how the fuck this can't be considered distracting the masses? This means that, since its an average, 50%+ of your god damn population spends 90% of its waking time either at work or watching the boob tube. Considering the average commute is another 2.5 hours a week, and well, getting something to eat, raising children and every other damned thing has to come out of that other 10%... you see where I'm going with this.

    16. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that even Discovery, National Geographic are choke full of sensationalistic pseudoscience.
      I recently heard that NG is airing videos about significance of Mayan calendars and the "imminent" doomsday scenario for 2012.
      It's science for the masses, presented incorrectly, and instead of debunking stupid myths, they put those in even more dumb heads.
      Unbelievable how many people believe in that kind of crap, and if some "scientific authority" says it's true they are going to take it for granted.

    17. Re:Practical arguments against? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Against the "release educational shows" proposed by the Chinese government which leads to:
      Less people watching 'bread and circuses' shows, leading to less revenue for _media and entertainment companies_ (after all, all the ads are doing is trying to define a preference in a market that's largely for things we will use anyway, unless you want to stop using soap, shampoo etc. The market for them will still be there, just may shift a few percent around companies if there weren't ads), leading to people being more informed on educational subjects, leading to increased education, leading to increased creative potential for the country (certainly in the sci/tech arena), leading to a massively stronger position in a world dominated by sci/tech.
      Yeah, sure, you'll probably tank the career of a reality show host or two (or force them to actually work and make a program that's worth watching), and possibly affect the profitability of some of the shows (hey, having to invest time and effort into making a good show costs money).
      This is engineering of a society. You can see the aim behind it, and it's going to be interesting to see how it fares.. China is massively behind education these days (in sci/tech/engineering), giving those jobs quite a preferential pay packet.
      It could well end up with the West being led by MBA management with high pay, and trying to keep the sci/tech types on low salary and subordinate, while in China, the sci tech guys lead the way, with management being a logistics function to make sure it all happens. In the timescales China works on (40-50 years, rather than the year to 5 year plans of western companies), they may have a winning strategy.
      So, the West decides to hire some of the good Chinese graduates to work in their companies? Great. China will have hordes of comparably skilled and effective people working in China. So that doesn't bode well for the 'Brain Drain' style hiring that's beeing driving things over the last 40+ years.

    18. Re:Practical arguments against? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      I don't know where you got your "facts" (from your ass maybe?) But the department of labor and statistics disagrees with you.

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    19. Re:Practical arguments against? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Being entertained by TV makes people placid and easily controlled.

    20. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The numbers might disagree, but they are only slightly less ridiculous. 1) sleep 2) work 3) TV. Nothing else compares.

    21. Re:Practical arguments against? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      That link only deals with daily numbers. If you attempted to use that you would actually come up with a figure of 52 hours/average a week, but the data is so non-specific for anything other than a daily basis that its total guesswork to get there.

      " As previously mentioned, Americans work approximately 47.1 hours each week; "

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work%E2%80%93life_balance

      I did a tiny bit of math on this second one, quickly and in my head, so I could be off +/- an hour or so, I aimed low and put a + sign after it.

      "151 hours of TV content per month"

      http://www.myce.com/news/TV-consumption-at-all-time-high-15573/

      No, I am not going further than wikipedia/google for a slashdot post. Admittedly that statistic once I look at it again is 151 hours average based on all cable subscribers, there is a full 20%+ of the population that drags the stats for the BLS figure down a fair chunk since these are effectively zero numbers added into the other equation.

      However from your own source, since it just helps to prove my statement:

      On an average day, nearly everyone age 15 and over engaged in some sort of leisure activity, such as watching TV, socializing, or exercising. Of those who engaged in leisure activities, men spent more time in these activities (5.8 hours) than did women (5.1 hours). (See table 1.)

      We'll say 5.4 hours on average for everyone that matters then, or 45 hours a week. Of that time about 4.5+ hours daily is spent on recreation or TV. The rest is divided between computer time, only some of which is relevant to helping your situation, probably in about the same proportion as people spend watching CNN or NPR out of their 45 hours a week.

      Yes, I understand people do what they enjoy, I also understand that when so much of your life is taken up for pure enjoyment, almost NONE of it is spent actually giving a shit about how you're governed, or what you should do about it.

    22. Re:Practical arguments against? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Those shows are not my cup of tea, but I know some very educated and professional people who like Idol and the dancing ones. They just enjoy music and watching people dance. They watch it to relax after dinner after a long, hard day, and move on with other evening tasks. They don't lose their aspirations.

      Become an astronaut? WTF? This is imaginary nonsense concocted in the echo chamber of geek fever dreams.

      This hysterical, nearly apoplectic response by the geekverse to these shows to the point of cuddling up to authoritarian concepts is the mushiest thinking of all.

      Other than a couple shows at any given time, I gave up on TV. Walked away and didn't look back. Wringing my hands that others have a different opinion is a complete waste of time. Most people have been ignorant and dumb for the entire span of civilized history. There is nothing new happening.

    23. Re:Practical arguments against? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Wipe it out and replace it with something intelligent.

      Like what?

      Everyone I know who watches silly shows do so after a long day at complicated professions. Maybe people want to relax at the end of the day, and not learn about string theory or genome sequencing. There's nothing golden about your vision of what TV should be. If you want better, get the Science Channel or rent documentaries or something. There's plenty of good stuff out there if you look. TV is an antiquated delivery system anyway.

      Every generation always thinks it has it worst.

    24. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you dont like it, dont watch it. but why do you feel the need to deprive others? oh right, you're the center of the fucking universe. I'm familiar with your type.

    25. Re:Practical arguments against? by MrTester · · Score: 1


      Your totally glossing over the fact that 90% of the 90% of Americans spending 47+ hours/week at work spend 50% of that work time surfing the internet. During that time we are all actively engaged in politics (like this discussion) and flirting with people we think (hope) are women.

      See? Were not distracted, were fully engaged in society.

    26. Re:Practical arguments against? by selven · · Score: 1

      But people continue to voluntarily watch them, and I'm pretty sure we all agreed that actions speak louder than words.

    27. Re:Practical arguments against? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think most of the people saying so are at least half-joking.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:Practical arguments against? by Raenex · · Score: 0

      I care when it's gotten to the point where there is literally nothing to watch that doesn't leave me feeling disgusted.

      Oh really? I've enjoyed shows like "The Universe" on the History Channel, "Nova" and "Frontline" on PBS, and "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. There are also lots of fictional shows that rise above the level of reality TV, but then again, you seem to have this personal standard that you think should apply to everybody else.

      Wipe it out and replace it with something intelligent.

      Fuck off, fascist. How about you create a show that you think people will like? It's easy to throw stones at people who have to stay in business and get ratings while sitting on your ass.

    29. Re:Practical arguments against? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Being very "educated and professional" is not synonymous with being smart, thinking well, or even with knowing a lot of things. It is a common myth that doesn't hold up to reality. Being "Educated" generally means that you have successfully memorized a very narrow slice of information. It doesn't preclude being smart, or having a wide set of knowledge, but they are not the same thing.

      That being said, smart people also can watch and enjoy these shows. Your point still stands.

      As for the astronaut comment, I am not going to look up the exact number of American Idol winners, or Astronauts, but I think it is safe to say that your chances of becoming an astronaut are dramatically lower than your chances of becoming the winner of a reality TV show.

    30. Re:Practical arguments against? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't be funny if it wasn't true.

    31. Re:Practical arguments against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is not the geekverse. It has been invaded by hipsters and polititards.

    32. Re:Practical arguments against? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I didn't read TFA, but I did read a different article on the topic a few days ago.

      The Chinese government aren't banning western reality shows. They're banning locally produced reality shows that were incredibly popular. Their problem is that the contestants were indirectly criticising government policy and highlighting problems in their society on these shows.

    33. Re:Practical arguments against? by zougloub · · Score: 1

      My GF heard the news from the source and told me about it a few days ago.
      She was very happy about this responsible/authoritative decision, because of the excessive garbage they have on TV.
      Most of the shows are totally pointless and yet addictive, while aggressive for the eyes and ears.

      Entertainment shows reduced to a "maximum of 90 minutes daily between 7:30 p.m. and 10 p.m." - that's better, and still a lot !

      The movies usually get aired later, so perhaps they'll be shifted, and working people will have a chance of watching more cinema.

      While I can attest on Internet censorship in PRC, regarding this particular issue I think the censorship / population control accusations are IMHO exaggerated; what's worse than the shows being purged ?

  15. "For The Evulz" literally by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize that it is actually possible for a government to decide their people are having too much fun.

    1. Re:"For The Evulz" literally by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0

      The USA has been doing that for over a century.

  16. All power to China by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Excessive entertainment over the tube is one of the lead causes of the downfall of the Western nations.

    Turn on the tube if you don't believe me, flip some channels, see how many of the programs are of any value in the first place?

    No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

    They have been dumbed down by the entertainment industry.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No wonder over 500% of Slashdot users post hyperbole without anything to back it up.

      Seriously, I don't know if you're joking or not, but your post is just false premises, non-sequiturs and made-up "facts". Analysis:

      Excessive entertainment over the tube is one of the lead causes of the downfall of the Western nations.

      You need to establish the premise of "the downfall of the Western nations" (whatever that means), then establish a cause-and-effect relationship between "excessive entertainment over the tube" and the former.

      Turn on the tube if you don't believe me, flip some channels, see how many of the programs are of any value in the first place?

      How are you establishing the "value" of TV programs exactly? By your own judgement as whether it's something you'd like to watch?

      No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

      Citation needed. Or an admission that you just made this up.

      They have been dumbed down by the entertainment industry.

      Non-sequitur. Even if you establish two concurrent trends, it doesn't mean there is a connection or cause-and-effect relationship between them.

    2. Re:All power to China by dokc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe he doesn't support with links what he claims, but he is nevertheless right. We are all dumbed down by the entertainment industry.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    3. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not so, Only people who are already dumb watch this crap

    4. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not looking for watertight scientific proof, but the GGP makes an extraordinary claim (i.e. that excess of "entertainment" TV shows causes the downfall of Western nations), and indeed it's possible this is right, just as it's possible the world is run by a secret society of reptilian fascists. However, the GGP presents it as fact, and with no supporting evidence and only an illogical argument and further extraordinary claims to back it up, I see no reason to accept the claim.

      If he had presented it as opinion (which it is), and had omitted the ridiculous reference to the level of geography fail among US high school grads, then I wouldn't have had any cause to challenge it.

    5. Re:All power to China by hairyfish · · Score: 2

      Maybe he doesn't support with links what he claims, but he is nevertheless right. We are all dumbed down by the entertainment industry.

      Perhaps if you watched Discovery instead of MTV, you'd be aware of the Flynn Effect

    6. Re:All power to China by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Flynn Effect (Link didn't work the first time)

    7. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any person watching 3 minutes of Jerry Springer would come to the original conclusion. No citation is needed to prove gravity works.

    8. Re:All power to China by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Hey, go easy on the Ickemeister! He's the only author other than Hitler to ever be banned from Canada's book monopoly's shelves. You know what they say; schizophrenia is the best fantasy.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    9. Re:All power to China by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      (Just ask the Gangster Computer God.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    10. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      most people are sheep, if sheep watch dumb stuff, they get dumber, if sheep watch educational stuff they get smarter.

      The U.S. government already regulates what you can eat by banning or cutting back on bad for you foods (banning fast food places in ghetto's, getting rid of trans-fats etc..), why not regulate bad for you television. As much as it goes against freedom and democracy this actually sounds like a really wonderful idea.

    11. Re:All power to China by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flynn Effect (Link didn't work the first time)

      Errm, IQ Scores are always centered at 100 by definition. Ergo average IQ score can't go up or down, only the raw survey scores can. Who would have thought that the very channel you praise for not dumbing down the populace would dumb down that fact.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    12. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This requires that we were "all" smart in the first place. I would argue that we have a more intelligent populace overall than at anytime in History.

    13. Re:All power to China by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1

      No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

      Where exactly did you pluck that statistic from, and what relevance does it have to a comment made by someone who hasn't directly stated their nationality? In case you haven't noticed, reality TV isn't exclusive to the US. For instance, China seems to be having a rash of it. I challenge both your uncited statistic and your reason for a reference to one specific nation, sir. You are justifying unscholarly personal assertions with pseudo-intellectualism and I'll have none of it.

    14. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not so, Only people who are already dumb watch this crap

      Interesting theory. At which IQ level does the switch happen?

    15. Re:All power to China by dokc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if you watched Discovery instead of MTV, you'd be aware of the Flynn Effect

      I don't watch any of them.
      Thanks for the information about Flynn Effect, it's quite interesting, but if it's really true (Don’t believe any statistics you don’t make up yourself) that would mean that the situation is even sadder - general population is more intelligent as before, but not using that intelligence (just like before).

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    16. Re:All power to China by dokc · · Score: 1

      This requires that we were "all" smart in the first place. I would argue that we have a more intelligent populace overall than at anytime in History.

      That is true, and very sad, because we don't use that intelligence:
      Hide not your talents, they for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?

      - Benjamin Franklin

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    17. Re:All power to China by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      How about my own little anecdote instead? i don't know about the other guy but I've watched relatives turn into zombies thanks to those damned reality shows, we are talking smart people just turned into lumps that breathe watching endless reality crap. i have to wonder if one dissected the signal you'd find some hidden message like on "They Live" with words like "Don't think" and "obey" popping on the screen. I know that the girls at the cableco always point me out when i come in because i don't have a TV, not because they find that fact shocking, its because they simply can't understand how someone can't be watching reality TV. You can ask them about Survivor or Idol, that Jersey thing or the cooking one and they know ALL about every contestant and just tons of completely pointless bullshit about these "personalities" if you want to call them that.

      Finally the REALLY scary part to me is how many families are using the idiot box for a babysitter for their kids. My kids would come in from visiting one of their friends and would have these shocked looks and say something like "Can you believe they have TVs everywhere but no books?" which frankly I find horrifying. Can you imagine growing up with nothing but reality TV crap to "stimulate" your mind?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    18. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

      Citation needed. Or an admission that you just made this up.

      His figures are a little out, according to the Huffington report on the Gallup /Harris poll in 2008 it was 37% of ALL Americans that couldn't recognise their own country.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-americans-unab_b_150933.html

      Got to love the quote from that article. On being shown a map of the USA and asked which country it was:

      "That thing definitely looked familiar," said autoworker and father of three Ed McConnell. "And my gut told me there were probably a whole bunch of Americans there. So I had to go with 'Iraq.'"

    19. Re:All power to China by TheLink · · Score: 2

      They may be more intelligent, but that does not mean they are better informed.

      The media industry gets more money giving people what they want rather than giving people what they "should" get. You want "mental junk food" all the time? Sure no problem. Even google has been known to change their search results so that each user gets more of what Google thinks the user would want.

      There are 24 hours in a day, you're not going to learn as much about the world if you spend most of it playing FarmVille (or Happy Farm which is more popular in China, and apparently the most popular MMOG in the world beating FarmVille).

      --
    20. Re:All power to China by jpapon · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Personally, I don't give a damn if an autoworker can find the USA on a map, as long as they know how to repair my car.

      While I can find the US on a map, I don't know how to replace a serpentine belt. Does that make me dumb?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    21. Re:All power to China by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Flynn Effect

      (Link didn't work the first time)

      Errm, IQ Scores are always centered at 100 by definition. Ergo average IQ score can't go up or down, only the raw survey scores can. Who would have thought that the very channel you praise for not dumbing down the populace would dumb down that fact.

      Erm, no, sorry. IQ Scores are NOT always centered at 100 by definition. As raw scores shift higher, IQ scores will likewise shift higher until the the raw-score-to-IQ-score conversion process is renormalized. How often are they normalized? It wasn't an easy question to answer, but I found one website that claims they are only normalized "every 10 or so years".
      http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/culture_iq_notes_5.html

      Also, it seems that before the Flynn effect was discovered, there was no such periodic renormalizaion (which makes sense...why would you renormalize before anybody has even discovered that they've become unnormalized). Therefore at the time the Flynn effect was defined, scores were not normalized, and the Flynn effect was indeed described as IQ scores increasing over time. Look around the web. Every single reference to the Flynn effect I can find, even those from reputable sources, describe it as an increase in IQ scores over time. For instance, here's a page on it from a Psychology Professor at Indiana University:
      http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

      But congratulations on getting a +5 Informative for posting incorrect information. Maybe you should watch more Discovery Channel.

    22. Re:All power to China by delinear · · Score: 1

      Besides, I doubt the intelligence of the populace is China's concern here. If there's one thing a totalitarian state doesn't want it's a well educated populace, they tend to be much harder to control, a dumbed down populace is much more likely to do what you tell them and not get involved in pesky protests. The concern here is either people getting ideas "above their station" and wanting more than their current lot, or a posturing exercise by the state to show who is boss.

    23. Re:All power to China by delinear · · Score: 1

      That's amazing. It's like they lifted the story directly from the Onion. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    24. Re:All power to China by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      How do you measure and rate the application of intelligence among the populace? How has this application of intelligence changed in the past 10,20,40, or 100 years? Why do you think that TV is the primary cause in the "dumbing down" of western society? Please, no more dreary platitudes.

    25. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - it's not the fault of entertainment. I'm not a fan of much that comes out of Hollywood - but nevertheless it's not the style of entertainment that has an ill effect, it's the subliminal messaging. Though more to the point, the downfall of the West has been brought about by the increasingly liberal views - to paraphrase another post on this topic - China doesn't need to give us fish and withdraw it when we've forgotten how to fish for ourselves - we do that naturally with welfare and the resulting lack of initiative/education/need-to-aspire that results from having everything handed to you on the condition of not working for it - it is an unsustainable means of living and it's catching up to our society as a whole - hell, why do you think all the KKK members (Bill Clinton, etc) are liberals supporting excessive welfare to minorities.

    26. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      I concur with the sentiment. However, I think you intended to reply to Taco Cowboy's post, rather than mine.

    27. Re:All power to China by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      iq scores _should_ be centered at 100.
      that they are not just gives more people a warm feeling.

      nothing scientific about measuring them anyways, they're just an indicator(there's no authority to do the renormalizing, no authorised UN body).

      but back to the original topic.. if tv makes people stupid, why has literacy rates gone up? why has general knowledge about the world gone up in countries with tv? the lower the tv consumption rates in a country the lower the literacy rate is, the lower the rate is for knowing where on the map some country is.. thing is, "normal" people used to be friggin uncivilized and stupid farm boys just aching for a good lynching back in the day. put a school class of kids on a test with a class of kids from 1950 and guess which scores higher?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    28. Re:All power to China by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      It's not the entertainment industry attempting to dumb people down. They're giving the masses exactly what they're asking for (via ratings). It's the masses continually keeping the bar low (and occasionally lowering it even further) by making the dumbest shows the most popular. Also, when you say "Western", I think you mean "US". Our education system has fallen behind most of the other "Western" countries, and that has nothing to do with our entertainment industry.

    29. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blasphemy of his Noodliness is the real downfall of the Western nations

    30. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      FTFA:

      Editor's note: This post is a satire.

    31. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about anyone I respect that's been to he US says that almost all channels they saw were absolute rubbish. Whilst not an official stat, it left an impression of my view of TV in the US.

    32. Re:All power to China by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1

      Yeah, retrospectively my joke post about him being an idiot would have worked a little better if I'd replied to the right comment. The irony adds a nice twist, though.

    33. Re:All power to China by icebraining · · Score: 1

      IQ scores *are* centered at 100, for the population they were designed against. That population no longer exists, but that doesn't mean we can't test another population (the current) against those tests to get a differential between the original and the current populations.

    34. Re:All power to China by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Even google has been known to change their search results so that each user gets more of what Google thinks the user would want.

      I find that when I use Google at work it's much easier to find technical solutions than at home (where the browser is more locked-down, doesn't allow cookies etc.) Had a hell of a time finding an article with a code example at home yesterday, even when using the exact same search string I used at work to find it earlier in the day.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:All power to China by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      In ~'50s-'70s TV shows the characters all seem much more intelligent than today's Average Joes (or today's TV characters). At the same time a lot of older folks say anti-intellectualism was more pervasive back then, so I doubt the situation was that these characters were an idealization of intelligence. Maybe writers back then were more intelligent and wrote more intelligent characters, who didn't get dumbed down later because there were no focus groups to consider them unrelatable (or "nerdy and faggy" if you prefer).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:All power to China by dokc · · Score: 1

      They may be more intelligent, but that does not mean they are better informed.

      So you say you are better informed? What makes you think that?

      The media industry gets more money giving people what they want rather than giving people what they "should" get. You want "mental junk food" all the time? Sure no problem. Even google has been known to change their search results so that each user gets more of what Google thinks the user would want.

      The media industry brainwashes people so that they "think" that is what they want. "Mental junk food" is cheaper to produce then what people "should" get.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    37. Re:All power to China by dokc · · Score: 1

      How do you measure and rate the application of intelligence among the populace?

      What is intelligence anyway? Can you really measure it?

      Why do you think that TV is the primary cause in the "dumbing down" of western society? Please, no more dreary platitudes.

      Just switch you brain and it will be clear to you.
      (And it's not only western society, obviously it happens in China also)

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    38. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.

      absolute bullshit. if anything is a sign of dumbing down, its posts like yours.

    39. Re:All power to China by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      While entertainment may not cause The Stupid, Fox News most certainly does.

    40. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world needs ditch diggers too? The problem with this sentiment is that the number of ditch diggers the country/world needs is falling as a result of automation and technology.

      This is everyones problem because their inability to contribute anything of value to the economy translates to a reduction in revenue for the government. Internal combustion engines are on their way out. It may take 20 years but a future composed of fuel cells & RTGs is on the horizon. These propulsion systems require greatly reduced mechanical complexity and therefore demand for maintenance services does not look good.

    41. Re:All power to China by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      The problem is we all belong to and read slashdot on a regular basis. We aren't subject to the normal stupidity that goes on in the world. My wife is incredibly intelligent, graduated with honors from one of the hardest nursing programs in the country. But she can't point out a state in this country. Doesn't even know where we live in relation to where we live. It's sad really.

    42. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      You're trolling, right? No one is suggesting that The Jerry Springer Show and such are intellectually stimulating, so indeed no citation is needed there.

      But the "original conclusion" was that an excess of "entertainment" shows on TV contributes to the downfall of the West. That's an extraordinary claim, so why would I accept it without some supporting evidence or coherent argument to back it up? I don't see how watching 3 minutes of Jerry Springer supports the claim that that specific cause-and-effect relationship exists.

    43. Re:All power to China by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I know that this is off topic, but you hit on one on my pet peeves. An opinion is an opinion even if the speaker doesn't know it. A fact is a fact, even if it is wrong. If I say 2+2=5, it is not my 'opinion'. even if I say "My opinion is that 2+2=5." Either way, it is a statement fact AND is false. Facts are true or false irrelevant of whether you or I know it. Opinions are true or false BECAUSE you know it.

    44. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      You obviously work with a different definition of the word 'fact' from me. For me, part of the definition of a 'fact' is that it is true. Otherwise it would simply be a 'statement' (possibly true, possibly false).

    45. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true elitist. "Give me a citation for everything you say, or I claim it's false".

      It's true that a ridiculously high percentage of high school graduates can not find the USA on a map. Whether that's 90% or not, I don't know, and frankly it doesn't matter whether it's 90% or 89% or 51%, it's unacceptable either way. What schools have failed to teach is something you've demonstrated a lack of, and that's critical thinking. They no longer teach HOW to think, only WHAT to think. Your post was useless to read, as all you did was say that his opinions aren't fact over and over again. Why it's modded "insightful" instead of "troll" is beyond me.

    46. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you actually are mentally disabled, anybody can use their brain to better themselves. If you choose to spend your time being "entertained at" instead of doing something with your life (even a hobbty or going for a walk) then that doesn't make you stupid, just lazy. My issues is when i have to pay for that persons choices to be lazy with higher taxes because you couldn't get up off the couch to go for a walk and now need to buy a scooter to shop at the grocery store because your too FAT to walk. Seriously, conditions that are caused by choices you make should not be covered by Health Care and therefore passed on to me.

    47. Re:All power to China by houghi · · Score: 1

      And remember: Those same dumbed down people are electing the people who rule over us.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    48. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cant tell you how many high paying jobs I didnt get because when it came to "which country on this map is the United States of America?", I pointed at the wrong place.

      you idiots are in such a rush to be snide assholes, that you haven't stopped long enough to think.

    49. Re:All power to China by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't care if my mechanic can find the USA on a map either, as long as they kn ow how to repair my car. That has little to do with whether they are dumb or not. I don't car if my mechanic is dumb as long as they know how to repair my car.

      The difference between not knowing how to replace a serpentine belt and being able to find the USA on a map has to do with how often you are presented with the information. You may never have even seen a serpentine belt. No doubt, your mechanic has seen the USA and had it identified to him hundreds of times. Even if all he ever watches is reality TV. This is why being able to find the USA is used as an example of someone being dumb, while replacing a serpentine belt is not.

      If you were shown how to change a serpentine belt 3 times, and still couldn't figure it out, then, yes, you may be dumb.

    50. Re:All power to China by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      For a democracy as our own to function it is necessary for all voters to be educated. You can make good judgments in the voting booth without knowing how to change a serpentine belt, but I would argue that someone who can't even locate their own country on a map is not prepared to make reasonable political decisions.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    51. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you if not for the fact that the Discovery channel is rapidly becoming hillbilly central. Have you noticed the startling rise in motorbike-building, moonshine-making, pumpkin-chunkin, blow-stuff-up shows lately?

    52. Re:All power to China by jpapon · · Score: 1
      That's an interesting point, because if an able mechanic can repair a car but cannot identify the USA on a map, doesn't that mean that professional schools are better than the public education system?

      Or, rather, does it mean that the mechanic had no motivation or desire to learn geography, but has a natural aptitude and inclination towards auto repair?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    53. Re:All power to China by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, at least two companies publish man pages for about every make and model that you can think of. You may not know how right now, but you are capable of following the directions and getting it done in one afternoon. Dumb is saying "I can't", instead of "show me how."

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    54. Re:All power to China by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      So, I am a bit confused. In your system it is possible to have false "facts"?

    55. Re:All power to China by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and it seems highly likely that anyone who is paying attention can identify the USA on a world map once someone shows them where it is. If they can't do that, it is unlikely that they can perform any useful task in society. Such as that of an autoworker. Seems to me the problem is parenting and the education system, rather then entertainment. If you can remember what time your goddamn reality TV shows start, you can remember what the Continental US looks like. The problem is that nobody motivated (or forced) them to learn useful knowledge, so their head is riddled with useless trivia like the names of the cast of the Jersey Shore.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    56. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people are sheep, if sheep watch dumb stuff, they get dumber, if sheep watch educational stuff they get smarter.

      The U.S. government already regulates what you can eat by banning or cutting back on bad for you foods (banning fast food places in ghetto's, getting rid of trans-fats etc..), why not regulate bad for you television. As much as it goes against freedom and democracy this actually sounds like a really wonderful idea.

      I sure wouldn't mind if they banned "Fear Factor" or "Survivor."

    57. Re:All power to China by jpapon · · Score: 1

      For a democracy as our own to function it is necessary for all voters to be educated.

      This is often stated as fact, and yet I don't really see why it is necessarily true.

      A shepherd doesn't need an intelligent flock to have a successful harvest.

      I would argue that someone who can't even locate their own country on a map is not prepared to make reasonable political decisions.

      I agree, but since the USA is a representative Democracy, one never has to make political decisions. They simply have to vote for someone who convinces them they can represent them well... and that convincing requires intelligence, if not in the politician themselves, then in their advisers (a la Bush Jr).

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    58. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      I agree that people don't need citations to back up every claim they make, or what is clearly presented as opinion. But the OP presented one or two extraordinary claims as fact without justification, and in doing so left himself open to challenge.

      I don't make a habit of this, but in this instance I was taken aback by the claims and they really seemed to need some kind of support. It doesn't mean the claims are necessarily false, just that I'm unwilling to accept them at face value. I'd say that's critical thinking in action.

      And I'd still challenge you to find something to support your claim that a high percentage of US high school grads can't find the USA on a map.

    59. Re:All power to China by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      Well said, though I would also agree with AC saying "if sheep watch dumb stuff, they get dumber, if sheep watch educational stuff they get smarter," without bringing legislation in to it. Most of our entertainment is not brain food, but there is, I gather, a peer pressure effect, wherein the water-cooler conversation tends to be about stupid crap, and some people end up watching the stupid crap just to fit in. Looking at it from another angle, stupid crap dominates the social networks. Everyone loves to gossip about celebrity bullshit, but anything relevant to the real world is treated as toxic, like people are afraid to engage their brain on anything of substance.

      TL:DR - Parents, educators, and peers ought to step up and demand more.

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    60. Re:All power to China by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      When you make a statement, there are not 3 types. Fact, Opinion and Statement. Statements of fact, and statements of opinion are both statements. Fact and opinion are adjectives that you add to something being a statement. If I say "The Higgs Boson exists." I am making a statement of fact. Is it true? Maybe. Maybe not. What I say doesn't change whether it exists or not. It's state of being or not is a fact.

      If I say "The Higgs Boson is the best Boson." I am making a statement of opinion, even if I don't really like the Higgs Boson.

      The logic that a statement of fact isn't a statement of fact if it isn't true is how people rationalize that being wrong makes them right. The logic being that if it isn't correct, it isn't a statement of fact, thus it is a statement of opinion, and opinions by their very nature are not right or wrong. Since the statement isn't wrong, it must be right. Hence, if they are wrong, then they must be right!

      Your previous post shows exactly this kind of muddled thinking. Taco Cowboy made a statement of fact. What he said is either true or not true, irrelevant of what his opinion is. If Taco Cowboy never existed, the statement would still either be true or false. Taco Cowboy's feelings on the matter have no bearing on whether the statement is true or false. Thus it is a statement of fact. You think he is wrong, and you think that if he said "In my opinion" at the beginning, it would somehow convert the statement of fact into a statement of opinion, and thus it would magically make it no longer an incorrect statement.

      Not only does being wrong not turn a statement of fact into a statement of opinion, putting "In my opinion" in front of a statement also does not turn a statement of fact into a statement of opinion.

    61. Re:All power to China by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Basically yes. When people used to say that the lines on the surface of Mars were alien canals, they were making statements of fact. It turns out they were wrong. Read a physics book written before Einstein, and all sorts of statements of fact will be stated that turned out to be wrong.

      The simple rule is that if the correctness of the statement is true or false based on the feelings or beliefs of the stater, it is a statement of opinion. If it is true or false irrelevant of the person making the statement, it is a statement of fact.

    62. Re:All power to China by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      For a democracy as our own to function it is necessary for all voters to be educated.

      This is often stated as fact, and yet I don't really see why it is necessarily true.

      A shepherd doesn't need an intelligent flock to have a successful harvest.

      You don't see why it's true perhaps because you are comparing citizens of a democracy to a herd of sheep. That is an entirely wrong comparison as sheep are not allowed any say in how they are governed.

      I would argue that someone who can't even locate their own country on a map is not prepared to make reasonable political decisions.

      I agree, but since the USA is a representative Democracy, one never has to make political decisions. They simply have to vote for someone who convinces them they can represent them well... and that convincing requires intelligence, if not in the politician themselves, then in their advisers (a la Bush Jr).

      Voting for who can represent them best is exactly the type of political decisions I'm talking about. And in states like California there are frequently ballot measures which allows citizens to directly vote on issues in addition to voting for candidates.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    63. Re:All power to China by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      From "A Study in Scarlet", 1886 by Arthur Conan Doyle

      You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

      “But the Solar System!” [Dr. Watson] protested.

      “What of the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently: “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    64. Re:All power to China by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. Since we clearly differ on what is meant by terms such as "fact" on "opinion", I'll try and restate my position without using those terms.

      Consider Taco Cowboy's claim "over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map". I think you and I agree this is a statement of the "The Higgs Boson exists" type, rather than the "The Higgs Boson is the best Boson" type, i.e. it's an assertion that may be true or false, rather than a subjective assessment. I also agree with you that this assertion is true or false regardless of Taco Cowboy's or my viewpoint. Let's also acknowledge that people can hold points of view over these types of assertion, and express as much, indicating it's their viewpoint, e.g. "I strongly believe the Higgs Boson exists".

      The reason I challenged TC's "over 90%" claim, is that he presented this assertion as if it were a commonly-accepted or established truth, ("No wonder that over 90% ..."), and finding the claim implausible, I felt it needed some kind of back-up. Now, TC could have presented it as a point of view, (e.g. "I wouldn't be surprised if over 90% ..."), and while that wouldn't impact the truth or falsehood of the underlying assertion, I think it does make a difference to the overall message. In particular, it wouldn't have been appropriate to challenge the claim by asking for a citation.

    65. Re:All power to China by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Nice quote!

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    66. Re:All power to China by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      If you could post a link to this philosophy or write up with a fuller explanation of your opinion, I would appreciate it, because I can see it as a useful distinction.

      However, while interesting, I guess that I do not agree.

      There are no false "statements of facts". There are statements that are false, but these do not include a fact. There are statements that are true, and they may or may not contain an explicit fact.

      "Fact" seems to be reserved for things that have really occurred or are actually the case.

      So to have a statement of fact it indeed has to be true or it is simply a false statement, even if it is not of a belief or opinion.

      Regards.

    67. Re:All power to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you

    68. Re:All power to China by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      True and False are orthogonal to Fact and Opinion as are Fact and Fiction.

      If we go with your your definition, there are no statements that can ever be taken as fact. Can you think of a single statement that can truly said to be a "fact" using your definition?

      Part of the problem is that "Fact" has the same kind of naming collision that "Free" has. The word has more than one meaning, and it is common for people to get confused on this. You are wanting to use the Fact/Fiction form of the word "Fact" (more accuratly called non-fiction) in place of the Fact/Opinion form of the word "Fact".

      For example, when Bilbo Baggins says "I'm Mr. Bilbo Baggins, I've lost my dwarves, my wizard and my way." It is a statement of fact even though it is in a work of Fiction. Whereas When Bilbo Baggins says "Personally, I'd rather be back in Hobbitton." he is making a statement of opinion in a work of fiction.

      Neither of them have actually happened being that they are in a work of fiction. Of course, you can walk past the fiction section of your library into the non-fiction, or fact section. In that section you could find a book quoting Einstein with "Imagination is more important than knowledge.", you are reading a statement of opinion that was in fact stated.

      Yet another example is that I can say "Green is the best color." This is a statement of opinion, and yet at the same time (contrary to what most people have been taught is possible) it is false. That's right. When I say "Green is the best color.", I am making a statement of opinion that is false. How is that? Well, I don't think green is the best color at all. Thus even though the statement is one of opinion, it is false.

    69. Re:All power to China by Maritz · · Score: 1

      A fact is a fact, even if it is wrong.

      Do you mean a "statement of fact"..? Because otherwise I think you're at odds with the dictionary definition - unless we're going to get all philosophical about 'truth' of course...

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. +1 for China on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while we lazy arrived Americans excessively entertain our way to idiocrisy.

  18. Re:That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's true of geeks, but I wonder how true it is of most Chinese. We shouldn't underestimate how much the government can shift media consumption patterns by making access more difficult.

  19. GO China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a country has the backspine to get rid of Television, then it is China.

    Imagine Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly... oh(!) and Democrats... without Television...

  20. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only they did that here. Maybe they would be forced to air something worthy of having cable for.

  21. Vice Taxes by Hadlock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We tax the snot out of cigarettes and booze because they aren't healthy for society... we've had a TV in every home for 50+ years now, and parents are exposing their children to TV from birth... if you can't restrict people's use of TV, you might as well remove the incentive to watch it by making it more informational/educational, rather than an "opiate of the masses".
     
    We ended up with the evening news in a response to a federal mandate that X% be used for reporting the news, how much better off would we have been if we'd restricted entertainment to Y% of the total broadcast time? How would society be if we limited mass entertainment? Would local entertainment like playhouses still be much more successful?

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Vice Taxes by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      if you can't restrict people's use of TV, you might as well remove the incentive to watch it by making it more informational/educational, rather than an "opiate of the masses".

      Exactly, TV in the west is used for this:
      http://abstrusegoose.com/397

      By the way, it is interesting that you mention "opiate", are you aware of the use of opium in China in the beginning of the 20th century?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Vice Taxes by migla · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the leaders want TV to be an opiate and every other kind of drug-analogy to control the masses with. They probably feel the ratio of the opiate of entertainment was pushing the people in a suboptimal direction.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    3. Re:Vice Taxes by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Who was selling it to them? Google "opium war". The Chinese were trying to outlaw western opiates then, too

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Vice Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would mean we were even worse off because the authoritarian shitheads such as yourself acquired even more power over us.

    5. Re:Vice Taxes by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure, I know what was going on. I was just curious if you used the term opiate _because_ it was China.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Vice Taxes by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you want to interpret it, I suppose. Karl Marx invented the meme (Televison hadn't been invented yet, but Religion had), and he was German(!)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Vice Taxes by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      The problem though, is that while your revolution won't be televised, the general population may see other revolutions on TV (or hear of them through various means) and get the idea that they need one of their own (see also: arab spring). The better solution is to just minimize TV usage as much as possible to avoid them getting the idea in the first place. It's no coincidence that college students with lots of time on their hands to debate international politics end up at anti-war protests a lot more than busy parents with newborn children, even though the parents have a lot more at stake to protest.
       
      People will passively absorb whatever's on TV, but a much smaller slice of the population is actually going to wade through the national section of a newspaper every day to figure out if they're getting screwed over by their own government.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    8. Re:Vice Taxes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That part gets me. In what way are local playhouses better than TV? I have been to a lot of plays in my life for one reason or another. Universally, they suck. All of them. From the children's theaters, to the small local theater troops, to the big budget production plays. They are inherently inferior to the same production done in a studio.

      I'm not going to say that you shouldn't enjoy them if that is your thing. Just as I wouldn't tell someone they shouldn't prefer knitting a blanket when they could buy a better quality one for less money at the store. But, there seems to be this obsession with people thinking that reading trash or watching trash live is somehow inherently better than watching trash on a television.

    9. Re:Vice Taxes by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Most modern plays do suck(!). Straight guys don't like plays (I fall in to this category) but if you ask around you can find some good places that aren't too high brow.
       
      There's a great place a couple of blocks from my house called "The Pocket Sandwich Theater" wedged in to the corner of a strip mall, they've been there for something like 30 years. Their specialty is to serve food before hand, and drinks during the intermissions. They only do sidesplittingly funny plays, and the audience is encouraged to throw popcorn at the actors (who sometimes will retaliate). It sort of boils down to scripted slapstick improv, or the sort of thing you might see in a high school theater class. The halloween production last year was some mix of Pirates and Vampires, and the christmas production was some sort of Zombie of Christmas Past deal. Keep in mind that Shakespeare wrote for the common man, there's quite a bit of slapstick humor going on in those too, it's not all boring and high brow (Les Miserables), or flamboyantly broadway-ish (Cats).
       
      Watching trash live implies that you will do something other than watch prerecorded trash when you get home. Play cards, paint, play tennis, post on slashdot -- pretty much anything is preferable to passive entertainment like TV. How thick is the dust on your boxed copy of the boardgame Risk? :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:Vice Taxes by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that you think passively watching low brow crap live is somehow better than passively watching low brow crap prerecorded. It isn't. I asked why people think it is, and you had no answer for it.

      As for my Risk box? The dust is 8 days thick. I have played cards in the last 72 hours, painted in the last week, haven't played tennis live in years, although I have played it on the Wii withing the last 6 months, and I am posting on slashdot right now. Given all that, I still say that live theater is vastly inferior to prerecorded programming.

  22. You would think so, but not so much by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are several online services which offer loads of pirated TV shows and even movies. For example, my wife uses a streaming program called funsion to watch HIMYM, Big Bang and other popular American TV shows.
    As of yesterday, those show are no longer available. This was also the case on the two other alternative services.
    Granted, one can use a VPN tunnel, but most people will not be willing to pay money for a VPN which is fast enough to stream.
    I do happen to pay for premium VPN services, but as I was last in China, it was impressively slow. Enough for real google results and such, but not enough for netflix.

  23. Lucky Chinese by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    I wish we would do the same - starting with Big Brother and Pop Idol

    1. Re:Lucky Chinese by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't you just turn your TV off?

    2. Re:Lucky Chinese by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just turn your TV off?

      he's not worried about himself watching the shows, it's more that he can't go and turn everyone elses tv's off so they wouldn't be entertained.

      philosophical problem, really, what should we do with our time and if being entertained is bad or not. in China I wouldn't be too surprised if it was old school cadre of government channels that had lobbied for these slashes - to keep their tv more popular. it's not like they'd want real news on the telly.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Lucky Chinese by horza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In England they have closed down most community centers, places that used to be used for playing football have been turned into office buildings or parking, nobody wants to go for a run as the air is polluted, the roads are so congested it makes cycling dangerous, travel is expensive, taking up a hobby like photography will probably get you arrested, and why bother learning an instrument as one day you will be able to karaoke to Robbie Williams on stage and become instantly famous without any of that icky hard work?

      People do just turn off the television where I live in France. But then they have put in cycle lanes everywhere, cheap transport so 1e will take you anywhere, there are free football pitches, basketball courts, tennis (nearly free), and the council is always organising events and spectaces. One of the biggest days of the year is "Fete de la Musique" where everybody takes to the streets and plays an instrument or sings in any style they want. There is a web site "On va sortir" where anybody can spontaneously propose an event (poker night, dance lesson, walk in the countryside, whatever) and anybody can register to join in, which is very successful.

      We could do worse than steal ideas from the neighbour across the pond.

      Phillip.

    4. Re:Lucky Chinese by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      In England they have closed down most community centers, places that used to be used for playing football have been turned into office buildings or parking, nobody wants to go for a run as the air is polluted, the roads are so congested it makes cycling dangerous,

      Really? This is ten minutes walk from my house: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shibden_Valley_001.JPG And this is an hour's drive away: http://www.lonewalker.walkingplaces.co.uk/walks/day/20080607.htm

    5. Re:Lucky Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could try coming across the Channel and seeing what it is actually like, rather than just making up stuff.

      Seriously, your "England is one smog-clouded concrete wasteland" post is horseshit.

    6. Re:Lucky Chinese by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Because he would still have to live in a world with people who don't think like he does, which is his real complaint.

    7. Re:Lucky Chinese by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my distinct impression.

  24. Re:That's true by msobkow · · Score: 2

    You seriously underestimate the spread of technology in China.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Oblig. Yakov Smirnoff by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Funny

    In China, you watch CCTV (China Central TeleVision), in Soviet Britain, CCTV watches you!

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    1. Re:Oblig. Yakov Smirnoff by Yev000 · · Score: 1

      Heh, that made me chuckle.

      But if you think UK is bad, go try another county (and not just for holiday)...

      Still no excuse though...

    2. Re:Oblig. Yakov Smirnoff by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I live in China, visited the UK for two weeks for a holiday during Christmas, cameras everywhere. By and large, China is not quite so blatant with those things.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:Oblig. Yakov Smirnoff by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      You know what, since I'm blind drunk, I'm going to elaborate on my previous comment.

      I live in China, I am an Australian expatriate, I visited the UK last week. Now, my countrymen several years ago built a Supermax facility called Katingal, since it is in Australia you may snidely refer to it as "le prison de le prison", it was a twisted labyrinth of CCTV cameras that was demolished soon after completion because of complaints from the inmates of it being "too much like driving along the A1" or "akin to visiting St James Park".

      Oh, and another thing (while I'm ranting), my ancestors were British, not English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh, but British. I happened to stumble across London new year parade and saw nothing but Saint George's cross and was up to Edinburgh and saw nothing but St Andrew's Saltier, I went to a China-Britain friendship event and on every table was the Chinese 5 stars on red and the European 12 stars on blue, with no Union Flag in sight. It's one thing that you incompetent pricks can't keep the empire together and let Ireland slip through your fingers after 800 years but now you can't even uphold the Act of Union. I think the difference between a British man like me and the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh like the dregs left on the home islands is that I am actually willing to get off my arse and work more than 6 hours a day without quitting my job to collect a dole check.

      My final gripe is that that why do those who's countrymen died to defend Britain from the last European Union (namely Canadians, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Indian Sikhs, etc.) have to queue for immigration at Heathrow while Germans, Austrians and Italians can just march through like the victorious armies of the Reich. Then the woman at immigration was asking me stupid questions like "you say you're a computer programmer?", "yes", "but you say you live in China?", "yes", "what do you do in China?", "I'm a computer programmer, it's on the form". "Do you have a problem answering questions sir?!?! Do you need to sit down there until I'm ready to speak to you again?!?". I have never had to answer such stupid questions from such a moronic jobsworth in any other country on earth and yet I seem to be one of the few people who have gotten through British immigration and left without conspiring to commit a mass act of terrorism. Seriously, I love Britain, I love it's beauty, I love its history and it is the home of my queen and my ancestors and I would never wish any more harm to befall it. But if you want to feel anything but hatred towards all that is British, get as far away from that island as you possibly can, things have just gone terribly terribly wrong.

      By the way, remember that "Airstrip One was always part of Super Happy Euro Fun Club", Oceania doesn't miss you and I assure you, Eastasia never knew you existed. To quote the Daoguang emperor "Where is England and why does it want to sell us opium?".

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  27. Just like in Star Trek by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

    Heck, I can't even remember anyone watching fictional TV in that documentary.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Just like in Star Trek by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      In 'Enterprise', there's loads of fictional movie watching nights!

    2. Re:Just like in Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had holodecks.

      Also in most of the episodes they were filmed when the characters were on duty and not during much of their down time unless it was relevant to the plot, where you would assume they would be watching their equivalent of TV. So the entire premise of your argument doesn't make sense, anyway, since you could just as easily ask why no one ever watched television on shows like ER or Law and Order, then. Or do you think it is acceptable to watch TV while you're suppose to be working? and if so would this be acceptable behavior on a Naval vessel? being what the Enterprise was the equivalent of in the Star Trek universe.

      Hell perhaps broadcast television was just impractical due to the time it would take to transmit data in real time over the vast distances of space, so they were just limited to whatever was in the ships library and occasional news updates. Who knows?

    3. Re:Just like in Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pick just about any contemporary soap opera and you won't usually see people watching TV in the show either. That's nothing to do with their idea of society, it's just that watching people watching TV is dull and costs more (because you either have to make fake TV for your TV characters to watch, or buy TV for the same reason).

  28. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese government is almost as funny as the South African government.

  29. Someone in the Chinese Communist Party... by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone in the CCP must have seen Jersey Shore, and decided to stop the trend before it's too late.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  30. We'll see if that works... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    given the age we live in it is unlikely the chinese regulators will be able to control it. But perhaps it will have some effect on the character of the country. Who can say. Similar restrictions in US history influenced it's culture.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  31. Liberalism by ksemlerK · · Score: 0, Troll

    First they pass laws to ensure equality among persons given the effort. Next they pass laws to ensure equality among persons regardless of the effort. Next they MANDATE that all people are equal in all aspects regardless of education or effort Finally, they mandate what activities, and what you must do to entertain yourself. After all, it's all in the name of equality. Everybody else has access to this, and watches it, so you must also be reduced to those sole choices. Socialism: Sharing misery equally since 1948.

  32. Re:Right because if one place does it it is ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Difference is, America takes every-fucking-opportunity to say how great they are, that they value freedom and liberty, the "greatest country" in the world. Those hypocrites deserve all of it and more.

  33. Re:That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a Chinese, I really hate those shows. You have no idea how many prostitutes are there on the dating shows.

    just lost my password.

  34. U.S. already far in advance by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The last time I checked out the cable situation a few months ago, the U.S. has already scrubbed entertainment from broadcast and cable TV.

    I am not sure if this was a patriotic move on the part of Hollywood to build a nation of young people who enjoyed more sunshine, or something imposed upon them by government officials afraid of citizens enjoying themselves too greatly as it would seem China has encountered. Either way, the U.S. beat ya' to it China!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  35. State media is magic by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    More news, more education, and endless pony marathons.

  36. Re:Right because if one place does it it is ok by KazW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously I get real tired of the America basing some people feel the need to do whenever anything about another country comes up...

    2) Not everyone on the Internet lives in America. Maybe they are interested in news about other countries, ever think of that? Stop trying to steer everything back to your country. There are plenty of discussions on /. about the shit that happens in America. Don't hijack others.

    You do realize the GP didn't mention America at all in his comment, don't you? It was only you who mentioned America. In essence, you're doing exactly what you said shouldn't be done.

    I'm Canadian, and I had a similar sentiment as the GP. I think _you_ should stop steering the discussion towards America.

    --
    Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
  37. Was that Future English? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

    You seem to have gotten there ahead of us.

  38. China is different. Don't you get that? by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The very fundamental ideals of Chinese society place family and the greater community at higher priority than the individual's wants or needs. I suspect the vast majority of the Chinese people actually don't mind this. Those that do can certainly access media from elsewhere in the world -- technology is wide spread in China.

    You really need to get the image of rice farms out of your heads.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  39. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    State run TV means it's going to serve the priorities of the state. It's not a commercial enterprise out to win the greatest number of eyeballs, but a tool of the government first and the entertainment of the people second.

    It's not unlike the emphasis the CBC placed on their programming mix when state-run TV was the only option in Canada. I saw a lot of documentaries, docu-drama histories, and educational shows when I was young.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  40. Re:Right because if one place does it it is ok by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I just love hearing how awful popular entertainment is from people who buy Space 1999 on Blu-Ray, think Firefly was the pinnacle of western civilization, and just never seem to get tired of zombie shows and films.

  41. Not about taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real idea here is to leverage television as a tool of propaganda - Hu Jintao more or less laid it all out in a recent series of essays. The government believes that wanting the sorts of things western countries wants erodes their ability to influence public policy, so they're steering the boat back around. The earlier move to block most science fiction time-travel shows was another example. Sci-fi is a great tool for political discourse, which is a no-no on the mainland.

  42. Interesting... by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

    Most people view this as a good thing, yet they some how don't think China will shape what people watch based around how they want to condition them. No sir, China is just out to cancel all forms of reality TV and badddd programing. They're going to show their kids Sesame street from now on too!

    1. Re:Interesting... by thejynxed · · Score: 2
      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  43. Re:FCC Should take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things...

    Oh man, that made my day. Bravo

  44. a trend toward low taste by Barryke · · Score: 1

    'The rule, first announced in October, is targeted at what Chinese regulators have called "excessive entertainment and a trend toward low taste," to address the rise of talent shows, dating shows and other such programming

    I could not agree more.

    Disclaimer: I have a dislike for shows, i'll have me some non-fiction documentaries or fiction comedy instead.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  45. That Seals It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was ever any doubt China was going to overtake the west it's gone now. :)
    I have no idea how Chinese kids grow up but the vast majority of western kids spend their time playing FPS games and watching junk TV...which is pretty much what I've been doing for the last decade and a half, and I know it's turned my brain to mush.

  46. Re:That's true by wisty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny story - the spread of technology in China is almost guaranteed to topple the idiots running North Korea. Firstly, it's made most Chinese despise the North Korean government, which makes the Chinese - North Korean alliance a bit of a farce. Everyone except North Korea (who think China is still their friend) knows that China's only concern now is whether or not it suffer any collateral damage (i.e. bombs, shells, or fallout falling on Chinese soil), and how to deal with the refugees.

    More importantly, North Koreans buy black-market goods from China. This includes iPod clones, many of which will come sold pre-loaded with the best Korean entertainment videos, all of which come from South Korea. It's getting harder and harder to explain that they are so superior, when all the South Korean shows are about families which are 10X richer than the families shown in pro-North propaganda.

  47. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if the vast majority didn't mind, they wouldn't need banning as they wouldn't have any viewers, while in fact these bans are a part of a war for viewers.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  48. Utopian China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curbing reality and dating shows?
    Wow China is turning into an utopian society.
    I fcking hate reality and dating shows.

  49. You are misinformed by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    If a vast majority was like how you say the highest rated shows would be educational and news. Yet it seems the highest rated shows are entertainment based.

    Hmm, it seems that humans everywhere are the same .. who'd have thought?

  50. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The very fundamental ideals of Chinese society place family and the greater community at higher priority than the individual's wants or needs. I suspect the vast majority of the Chinese people actually don't mind this. Those that do can certainly access media from elsewhere in the world -- technology is wide spread in China.

    buddy, you need to come over here for a few months before you start rhapsodizing about Chinese family values. This place is just an experiment in too many people with too few things and too much capitalism. I read the Communist Manifesto in a Hangzhou Starbucks while kids driving parent's Porsche order 100 Yuan of crap and outside a guy is spooning real crap into a bucket. Marx had it right, the capitalist society breeds its own destruction. Its not the utter lack of anything cultural or the absolute destruction of the air quality but the selfishness I see in every chance encounter that is magnified by the world's largest gap between wealthy and impoverished (guess what other country has this type of imbalance?). They have lived too long in a feudal society in abject poverty with literally millions of people starving around them. What you call "greater community" I call mob mentality. What you say is prioritization is really a lack of opportunity. There are no fundamental ideals in China, Mao fixed that, just pure capitalism with a totalitarian veneer. Just watch the wealthy do whatever they want here and turn back into the KMT leadership.

  51. Going against the grain by Melacon · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to Bread and Circuses for keeping the population in line? It has worked up to this point, why change it?

    1. Re:Going against the grain by Magada · · Score: 1

      There comes a point when the circus entertainers start miming the fact that the emperor has no clothes. At that point, the plebs, who are already pissed off because a steady diet of bread and olive oil ain't exactly fun, decides the Imperial Gardens have fruit which would be a nice source of variety in their diet.

      Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but it is the best way to explain it.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  52. It's a sad, sad day by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...when you get better and more interesting TV programming in a communist country than in the free world.

    I weep for humanity.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  53. Not all of the statements are hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "trend toward low taste,"

    Seems to be a pretty accurate description of mainstream TV.

  54. Um...bad news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So either (a) their brains will rot more slowly or (b) they'll need to refine already formidable hacking skills to get around this b.s. and just watch shows from another country instead? Or, perhaps the more terrifying option...home movies... O.O

  55. and you consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these CHICOMs good trading partners?

  56. Re:That's true by TheLink · · Score: 1

    When I went there for a short while I found that while most can speak Taiwanese (Taiwanese Hokkien) they seem to default to Mandarin a lot more. That may be because I was in Taipei?

    They use a different script though- "Traditional" vs mainland China's "simplified" version.

    --
  57. And Yet by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We still see video of people falling over themselves weeping when Kim-Jong "mentally" ill dies. Not to say that those videos aren't at least partially staged, but some "undercover" video has leaked out of NK showing that at least some of the weeping, wailing and carrying on was genuine. (I apologize for not having a link ATM. Search on YouTube. It's there.)

    Not to say that the new regime isn't weak, it certainly is. But not so weak that ipod clones are going to topple them anytime soon. We see how well "westernization" has "toppled" the communist Chinese government. (IE: Not at all) If Kim-Jong Un decides to modernize and westernize following the Chinese model, Korea isn't likely to see unification anytime in the next century.

    Sadly, there really is only ONE way to absolutely topple a government of any stripe. That's with violent revolution. The only way that Korea will unify is if SK invades and defeats NK. With NK's recent round of sabre-rattling, that's looking more and more likely every day.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fall of the Soviet Union would seem to disprove this notion.

    2. Re:And Yet by delinear · · Score: 2

      You can't necessarily believe even "undercover" video shot in a state with such a police state regime. That could still be faked grief for the benefit of snooping neighbours or secret police. And does anyone really believe China is still on board with communism? Authoritarian I get, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand - they're very market driven these days, they may pay lip service to communism but they're actually about as communist as we are democratic (i.e. broadly so but happy to ignore the fundamental principles whenever it suits them).

    3. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be suprised if such scenes happened. I remember the reaction in the UK when Diana, Princess of Wales died.

    4. Re:And Yet by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China knows how to topple a civilization just fine. Give them free fish for years until they have forgotten what a fishing rod is and their children have never seen one, then withdraw the fish. That's how they're beating the west.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:And Yet by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fall of the Soviet Union would seem to disprove this notion.

      No, it would not at all.

      Note that what happened to the Soviets was NOTHING like what happened in China. In the Soviet model, (Perestroika) over a century of oppression was simply dropped and a totally closed society was suddenly and without warning thrown open to the world. The ensuing reaction was almost predictable; Complete chaos and collapse of the Soviet regime.

      Let us not forget that there WAS some violence that followed. Unfortunately for the soviets, their military decided to side with the people over the government. Tanks showing up at the gates of the Kremlin to close down the government rather than defend it ended the revolution with a victory for Freedom rather quickly and mostly bloodlessly.

      The Chinese noted these events and decided that they wanted nothing to do with it. Remember that the Tienanmen Square incident was right around the same time. For a short time it appeared that Communism was collapsing all over the world all at once. (it was a great moment to live in, let me tell you.)

      Sadly, the Chicoms had no intention to go quietly. They had a very different relationship with their military, and the military rolled Tanks into the square to defend the government and drive out the protestors. The crackdown afterwards was BRUTAL.

      I had a college roommate who was in Tienanmen Square that day. Afterwards he fled China and was accepted into the US under political asylum. He told me how many of his friends "disappeared" before they could escape. That's how bad it was in those days.

      The Chinese later began to loosen things up, but only incrementally, and ALWAYS under government control. Even after foreign companies were allowed in China, it was always under very strict rules. If you didn't play along, they booted you out. (even McDonalds got kicked out.) Over time these rules have loosened, but control has always been in the governments hands.

      What westernization they have allowed has always been with a single goal: To keep the people COMPLACENT. Give them minor luxuries, allow them to keep a small modicum of their natural freedoms and let them get comfortable and lazy. Otherwise, keep them too busy working and living their lives to have time for revolution. (Why do you think they have essentially created an "Island" Internet via the "Great Firewall of China"? To keep revolutionary ideas out while still allowing controlled financial interaction with the rest of the world.)

      It's an ingenious formula and has worked very well to keep the Chicoms in power. If NK decides to follow this model, don't expect a revolution.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    6. Re:And Yet by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You will weep and wail genuinely if the consequence of not doing so is to be punished.

    7. Re:And Yet by snookerhog · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That is what happened when Mao died. Everyone HAD to cry.

    8. Re:And Yet by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I have no problem accepting its genuine grief. In a state with tightly controlled media, no internet access, no travel, and a sophisticated propaganda machine, all those that don't live near the boarder quite likely don't know any better.

      From their perspective everything they have, what little they do, is a gift from Dear Leader, they have no idea what he has denied them. They don't know have abusive, and capricious his system of law is, because as far as they are concerned its either that or law of the jungle.

      Its all a matter of perspective.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling that many people in China will object to their favorite programs suddenly being gone. They might not speak out against the government, but maybe this will sow some seeds of discontent. Hopefully the Chinese government keeps making decisions like this that hurt the common man in China, and maybe the Chinese people will start working to change the system. I guess it's somewhat wishful thinking to hope that TV saves the world (at least the Chinese world), but everything starts somewhere.

    10. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except their not. they're beating themselves.

    11. Re:And Yet by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Are you batshit fucking CRAZY!?

      They
      Have
      NUKES

      They are sovereign. If South Korea invades, millions of people die. Instantly.

      Also, just as a counterpoint, the Soviets fell apart on their own without violent revolution. It's not like they all died, but they're no longer a superpower, their ways changed, and for a long while it was pretty shitty over there.

    12. Re:And Yet by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There is really no way to tell from here whether it is real, or really well faked, undercover videos notwithstanding.

      Nevertheless, there are always a certain percentage that "Drink the Koolaid" and absolutely believe. These ones are often the ones with their hand on or close to the reins of power. ipod clones won't do diddly for them, and the rest of the Norks are either in the military (but I repeat myself) or too poor and half-starved to care about ipod clones.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    13. Re:And Yet by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Ok,

      First of all, Calm down.

      Secondly, you seem to be making some assumptions.

        - You seem to be assuming that I want a war in Korea. trust me, I want nothing of the sort. I just don't see reunification happening without one.
        - You are taking the nuke capability of NK far more seriously than most world leaders do. Having a nuke warhead is one thing. Reliably being able to deliver it to your enemy is something else entirely. So far the Norks have failed to show a reliable delivery system, and the Soks know this.
        - My comment was oriented towards debunking the false idea that communist and authoritarian societies will automatically collapse without violence once western influences creep in. This is clearly untrue, and China itself is the prime example of this.

      Regarding the Soviet Union, see my comment below.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    14. Re:And Yet by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      I find it hard to believe that after years of oppression, removing TV shows would incite the people to revolution. But you know what I could actually see this happening. People want what they want. Since I'm for the US, I hear people complain all the time about stupid things like TV programming and the like.

    15. Re:And Yet by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is false. My parents were there.

      They cried, because in a tightly controlled country with government media, the loss of your leader is like losing a family member. It's like losing the person the entire country, and you yourself, relied on. They cried because they were at a loss as to what to do. It's losing the person running the country, the only person capable of doing so (or so they believed), and having certainty replaced by uncertainty. If you're a believer, it's like losing your prophet.

      That might not have been the situation for everyone, but for a big percentage of the population, it was entirely genuine.

    16. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting how you say in one statement that the only way to topple a dictatorial regime is with a violent revolution (which I understand to be from within) and if SK invades and defeats NK (i.e. from the outside). This is quite a difference. I believe the only lasting way for a regime to change is for the people of said country to organise themselves and defeat their government, because the effort spent and lessons learned while organizing themselves is what carries the country in the following years. Revolutions which are orchestrated from the outside tend to put an organization in place which is not strong enough or experienced enough to deal with the leftovers of the ancien regime and give rather unstable countries (hello Afghanistan, Iraq, ...).

    17. Re:And Yet by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      twas written:
      What westernization they have allowed has always been with a single goal: To keep the people COMPLACENT. Give them minor luxuries, allow them to keep a small modicum of their natural freedoms and let them get comfortable and lazy. Otherwise, keep them too busy working and living their lives to have time for revolution. (Why do you think they have essentially created an "Island" Internet via the "Great Firewall of China"? To keep revolutionary ideas out while still allowing controlled financial interaction with the rest of the world.)

      Twas re-written:

      Western culture has always been a single goal: To keep the people COMPLACENT. Give them minor luxuries, allow them to keep a small modicum of their natural freedoms and let them get comfortable and lazy. Otherwise, keep them too busy working and living their lives to have time for revolution. (Why do you think they have essentially created a hyper-reality of garbage that festers under the delusional notion of it being "culture" and "What the people want"? To keep revolutionary ideas marginalised and objects of ridicule while still allowing controlled financial strip mining of the rest of the world.)

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    18. Re:And Yet by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, kind of like what happened to parts of Africa?

    19. Re:And Yet by jandrese · · Score: 1

      If you live in a police state with spies everywhere where the punishment for insufficient grief might be a trip for your whole family to the prison death camp, you'd better believe you'd play up the death for all it is worth, especially if there is a camera nearby. While I don't doubt that there are true believers in North Korea (a whole lifetime of propaganda works!), it's impossible to get an idea of the numbers with the information we have. Even if the regime were to fall, the whole country would be an unbelievable mess for years to come, probably generations. You can't undo that level of racism and paranoia overnight. It takes a concerted effort from the whole society to root out that sort of damage. In the US we're still feeling the effects of slavery almost a century and a half after it theoretically ended, especially in the south. Granted, the institutional racism lasted much longer, but even that is supposed to be over. The situation in Europe is perhaps even more depressing, with deep seated and unspoken racism swept under the rug year after year so they can put on a happy face for the rest of the world.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:And Yet by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Batshit crazy would be launching a nuclear attack just across your border. Those things are not designed to be used on small neighboring countries. If they hit Seoul, Pyonyang will suffer the effects. Launch anywhere near the coast (remember- it's called the "Korean peninsula" because it's all coastal) and you're poisoning a major aspect of your own food supply. Even if they had launch capability (they still don't), those things might be nice for negotiating or political posturing (mostly by US Republican presidential candidates), but strategically they're worse than useless- they've been a huge liability.

      The more pressing issue is that NK is far more militarized from a conventional standpoint, with nearly as many active military personnel as the US. There's a reason the US needs to back SK- they couldn't survive an invasion by NK on their own. And the NK regime hasn't yet been crazy enough to play chicken with the US.

    21. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were brainwashed since childhood you'd be weeping too.

      Those that are not know they are being watched.

    22. Re:And Yet by snookerhog · · Score: 2

      Thanks for sharing your experience. I totally agree with what you said about uncertainty. School kids in Shanghai were disciplined for not crying. That is first hand experience.

    23. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope you like high computer prices, because South Korea with Samsung, VIA, Hynix, LG, and dozens of others all have their headquarters and Fab in "first strike" distance from the North Korean boarder... It's under 100 miles away. Pretty much a third of the world's high tech fab (LCDs, Ram, flash, etc) would be wiped out overnight.

      Then NK with 1 million infantry simply rushes the border and sacks whatever's not smoking rubble. They have nothing of value to compensate for the damage they would cause even if SK did "win".

    24. Re:And Yet by wisty · · Score: 1

      If NK decides to follow this model, the world will be a much better place. I mean, it would kind of feel good to see the US and South Korea pulverise the North Korean troops, but then you'd realise that they were mostly just brainwashed conscripts.

      It kind of sucks that your roommate and his friends got screwed over, but compare Chinese GDP growth to Russia. Over the last ~20 years, China grew steadily for a decade, then shot up like a rocket. Russia went backwards for a decade, then shot up a little less. Russia is still richer (per capita), but it came off a higher base. Between 1990 and 2000, Russia's economic growth (and presumably improvements standard of living) looked like China's in the 60s. You can't call that "fortunate".

    25. Re:And Yet by sorak · · Score: 2

      This is false. My parents were there.

      They cried, because in a tightly controlled country with government media, the loss of your leader is like losing a family member. It's like losing the person the entire country, and you yourself, relied on. They cried because they were at a loss as to what to do. It's losing the person running the country, the only person capable of doing so (or so they believed), and having certainty replaced by uncertainty. If you're a believer, it's like losing your prophet.

      That might not have been the situation for everyone, but for a big percentage of the population, it was entirely genuine.

      Interesting. Simply knowing that there is one guy in charge, who could lead you to prosperity, or run your country into the ground, one who might have you arrested tomorrow, simply because he does not like your attitude, and that, under this guy, things are running smoothly. Now, he's dead and some stranger has that power. Considering how worked up people get about Presidential elections in the US, I could see how this uncertainty alone would make for a stressful situation.

    26. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still see video of people falling over themselves weeping when Kim-Jong "mentally" ill dies. Not to say that those videos aren't at least partially staged, but some "undercover" video has leaked out of NK showing that at least some of the weeping, wailing and carrying on was genuine.

      And at least some of the weeping was because people were being watched. From DailyNK (http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk01500&num=8633):

      According to the source, the authorities were intending to make sure that mourners were visible at every step along the hearse’s journey and that those attending not be wearing hats, gloves or scarves even if it was snowing. Residents were warned, the source said, that “behind every line there will be people watching.”

    27. Re:And Yet by EMeta · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. What are they giving us analogous to free fish that they could later withhold? There's very little manufacturing or textiles done in China that isn't done by its neighbors. We still do buttloads of manufacturing in North America that they don't have even vaguely regional control over, much less Europe. Further, a China without 100s of Billions in exports to the west is a pretty weak country.

      After some googling I see that our trade deficit to them is around $250B, which is about a third of their entire federal budget. And that's just us, not the rest of the west.

    28. Re:And Yet by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Kind of like people using Microsoft operating systems throughout the 90s. They had no idea that something better was out there.

      -flamesuit ON-

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    29. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. What are they giving us analogous to free fish that they could later withhold? There's very little manufacturing or textiles done in China that isn't done by its neighbors. We still do buttloads of manufacturing in North America that they don't have even vaguely regional control over, much less Europe. Further, a China without 100s of Billions in exports to the west is a pretty weak country.

      How about a stainless steel thermos bottle? Not plastic, not glass, not aluminum, but steel? Got any of those? Amazon doesn't.

        How about pots and pans (lids included)? Analon fails the former, but Allclad comes pretty close. That's 1 company, and they charge 10x as much for a set (a nice set granted, but 10x?)

    30. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stockholm syndrome. Google it up.

    31. Re:And Yet by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      From their perspective everything they have, what little they do, is a gift from Dear Leader, they have no idea what he has denied them. They don't know have abusive, and capricious his system of law is, because as far as they are concerned its either that or law of the jungle.

      Exactly. The cult of personality is extremely strong and has been orchestrated very well by the Kim Jong xx's. I think that NK has managed to firmly alter the populations' world view and they know no better. The comparatively slow osmosis via the borders will eventually have an effect, but I reckon that will take many years.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    32. Re:And Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are you going to topple the USA government, dump the Demos and Repubs and bring the government back to grass roots representation? I believe the country is too big to be run by a central government. Could the country have a political structure with 4 areas: North, South, East, West, and these areas meet to decide country wide legislation and defense strategies? True this re-organization would see a population migration from poorer areas to richer, but that migration could be eliminated by some form of tax equalization.

    33. Re:And Yet by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      ok. Calm.

      Sorry, but you sounded like violent war by the south invading the north was the only way. "what must be" sort of thing. Peace is good.

      Also, I contest your example of China. They're communist in name only and have moved on to capitalism, albeit with a large amount of state influence. They are still pretty authoritarian, but honestly they're much better then under Mao and his forced culture parade and people disappearing in the night. Things could be better. A lot. And this news is surprising as it's an attempt at putting the genie back in the bottle. China is developing a middle-class. Slowly but surely. Give them time and they'll be as fat and lazy as all the other first worlds. These attempts by the government at controlling culture is a throwback to darker days, and they're doomed to failure.
      But the China of old is dead and gone. The China of today is more like the west than old Soviet Russia. So... I guess you're right. Their society didn't collapse. But it changed. And that's close enough. And hey if North Korea decides to change rather then be overthrown, that's great.

      From your views on North Korea, China, and the history of Soviet Russia, it sounds like you're still hunting for commies. Give it up man. Move on.

  58. Like, WOW! A test cut for economic suicide. by meburke · · Score: 2

    There are 'way too many entry points to this discussion. The mass hypnosis of TV and movies undermined Japan's post-war program for a stronger Japan, by "Americanizing" Japanese values. American "reality" TV fosters a view of stupid, immoral Americans, but it also shows the vast difference in wealth between the two nations. This must be a threat to Chinese Government-approved values and economics. Now, 2/3 of the people in Chines TV may be "out-of-work" in whatever way a government-subsidized "production" can exist.

    This puts one of China's leading-edge economic industries about where the United States was in 1921.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  59. Too heavy handed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a completely unnecessary move. China should learn from America and just let the entertainment industry remove excess entertainment from TV themselves.

  60. TV is regulated everywhere by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Television is regulated everywhere in the world. TV channels being a finite resource, a free market of channels couldn't exist, thus regulation is required. What programmes can air and when, the amount of ads etc. And while some would say that China's regulations are overextensive, I think that a tightly government-controlled TV is still better than one controlled by the Big Media cartel. The customers don't really decide anything, the success or failure of a show is determined by survey groups of a few dozen. The problem with Chinese TV regulation is not the ban of low-quality shows, but the ban of politically sensitive topics.

    1. Re:TV is regulated everywhere by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      > TV channels being a finite resource, a free market of channels couldn't exist, thus regulation is required.

      Except for the fact that in most countries, terrestrial broadcast TV is now commercially-irrelevant, and satellite capacity is mostly a function of available capital to launch satellites and how big of a dish customers will tolerate (bigger dish = ability to shoehorn more satellites into a given arc of equatorial orbit). A 75-ohm coax cable can carry several hundred HD channels, and thousands of SD channels. Upgrade to fiber, and you're basically talking about enough raw bandwidth to let every customer have multiple on-demand HD channels of his own. 25 years ago, orbital slots were in high demand. Now, with spot beams roughly 100km diameter, all you need is a more expensive satellite and/or bigger dish with greater selectivity & gain to make any perceived "shortage" of channels or orbital slots an academic abstraction.

  61. strategic error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a strategic mistake. Western societies learned, long ago, that a distracted populous is less likely to revolt. Circuses and Circuses.

  62. We can solve the "excessive entertainment" problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could probably help with the "excessive entertainment" problem - just start exporting MTV's reality shows over there. After a couple weeks of "Road Rules Real World OMGWTFBBQ Challenge Cross-Country Millionaire", the Chinese won't even want to turn their TV's *on*...

  63. Re:That's true by DarkOx · · Score: 0

    Taiwan is not progressive nor does it mirror the midset of the Western World. I don't know where you go that idea. Sure they are "friendly" with us here in the USA, and I guess are "progressive" in terms of civil, and human rights compared with China, but they are a long way from what we think of as progressive.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  64. Entertainment ? by morcego · · Score: 1

    to address the rise of talent shows, dating shows and other such programming

    Does that even qualify as entertainment ? I figured those were religious programs you had to watch to pay for your sins.

    --
    morcego
  65. Infinite Jest by Guppy · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize that it is actually possible for a government to decide their people are having too much fun.

    What us westerners don't realize, is that the Chinese programs have become so excessively entertaining, they are in danger of creating "The Entertainment", and are banning such programs to ensure their own survival!

  66. Re:Right because if one place does it it is ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you don't speak Chinese then? If you did, you'd be able to compare news networks in the US to CCTV1 or CCTV2 for a while and actually see who bullshits and boasts more. Don't let your single-minded focus on the US keep you ignorant of the greater bullshit going on around the world.

  67. FCC does not have control of content of cable / sa by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    FCC does not have control of content of cable / sat channels.

  68. China must need the satellite space for spying by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    So now they have to cut down on the TV channels to fit it in.

    1. Re:China must need the satellite space for spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must not let there be a bandwidth gap!

  69. Re:That's true by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    Mandarin is as popular as it is in Taiwan because when the KMT came after the Civil War they used their position of power to actively suppress indigenous culture in an attempt to remake the island into a bastion of Han culture and unify identity. Even after that ceased a few decades later the momentum has remained, especially and unsurprisingly in the urban areas.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  70. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by poity · · Score: 1

    Now why would these shows need to be taken off the air if they weren't popular and the "vast majority of the Chinese people actually don't mind this"? The fact that they needed government interference in order to curb their growth suggests that your premise on the "very fundamental ideals of Chinese society" is wrong, because what people consume in entertainment is a reflection of the evolution of the fundamental ideals of any society.

    I'd venture that the traditionalists/conservatives in China don't mind this, but the young people -- those who are and will continue to be the engine for liberalization -- will not. How would you react if Republicans wanted legislation to take The Bachelor/Bachelorette, The X Factor, or Big Brother off the air because they do not promote the "fundamental ideals of American society" like a nuclear family, patriarchal society, or heterosexuality? I suspect, if such a thing were to happen, you would be far more conflicted with your support than you are right now.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  71. lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the time I got this far into the discussion, I had to scroll back up to recall what the original slashdot post was about.

  72. Re:Right because if one place does it it is ok by baKanale · · Score: 1

    Big Brother was originally conceived of in the Netherlands, and has over 40 national or regional variations. Even if the GP is American, everyone from the UK to the Philippines can relate to his comment.

  73. Re:That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DarkOx is right: sluttier outfits does not make you more progressive.

    China goes out of its way to censor anything in Chinese. Taiwanese programs, particularly news programs, can be really hard to find on China's Internet. South Korean and Japanese shows have more leeway because they're not Chinese.

  74. Re:FCC Should take note by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Fits in a sig too!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  75. Please, China, come fix US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we get the Chinese to apply this to US television and get rid of the Kardashians? /oh wait, they said excessive *entertainment*.... didn't think my cunning plan all the way through.

  76. Re:That's true by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you've never been to Taiwan because you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Taiwan, in fact, is considered to be the most progressive nation in Asia.

    But then I'm not sure what your criteria is for being "progressive". There are high profile women there running corporations. They've had a female vice-president and a woman is currently running for president and doing fairly well. The people there are very open-minded and great towards foreigners. They've got good labor laws and they offer more holidays than we get in the US. And they have a decent nationalized healthcare system, although not nearly as problem-free as PBS documentary from several years ago claimed. The major cities have a good public transportation systems and a couple of years ago completed a high-speed rail line that crosses the nation.

    So how are they not progressive?

    One thing you need to understand is that Taiwan is NOT China.

  77. Re:That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever believes that cinema or TV programs are representative of the way in which people live in the country where they were made is a moron.

  78. Re:Great idea, China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y U ALWAYS MOD DOWN ANTI-CHINESE POSTS!?

    Seriously: What are you people afraid of? Or is Slashdot hosted by the Chinese government now? Fucking explain yourselves!

  79. I'm so tired of hanging out with China by sootman · · Score: 1

    He's always looking down his nose at us fun countries, going on about how he doesn't watch TV. Canada and Australia are much more fun.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  80. Re:FCC Should take note by kelarius · · Score: 1

    Great suggestion, thanks!

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
  81. Some might say... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... that they're only following the lead of Hollywood. Between the rise of the so-called "reality" shows to the excessive use of the laugh track in current sitcoms (Example: Star of the show enters room: "Hi guys!" [uproarious laughter]. Me: [click]) it seems that most entertainment has already been removed from American television. Frankly, I'd say that the Chinese are fairly late to the removing-excessive-entertainment game.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  82. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The very fundamental ideals of Chinese society place family and the greater community at higher priority than the individual's wants or needs.

    Interesting how the conservative christian in the United States share the same ideals as the Chinese, and they also share the same hate for each other.

    American Conservatives believe in censorship for a better society, and so do the communist Chinese. The American Conservative believes in family values, and so do the communist Chinese. The American Conservative believes in a strong Law and Order government, and so do the communist Chinese. The American Conservative believes in the War on Drugs, and so does the communist Chinese.

    With everything that the American Christian Conservative has in common with the communist Chinese, you'd think that there would be no reason for all the hate, and every reason to pat each other on the back.

  83. Mod Parent Up by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

    Having a 17yo (physically maybe, mentally certainly) tell anyone they are dumb, sheep, idiot, insult o' the day because they like or don't like _____ really gets old on /., almost as bad as hearing made up facts and uninformed opinions. I don't care for reality tv, and therefore don't watch it. One of my best friends, a PhD in medievel lit who works in a technical field, happens to like COPS (particularly when they are using dogs!) but it doesn't make him an idiot in my judgement. Perhaps a few more of the "they're idiots" crowd should try to broaden their horizons. Work on understanding and appreciating rather than just being a counter-idiot.

  84. +1 Terrifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And remember: Those same dumbed down people are electing the people who rule over us.

    Sometimes the mod point system really needs new categories.

  85. They need more American TV programing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wont have to worry about it being excessive, It has almost no entertainment value at all.

  86. Do Chinese viewers even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure that the boom in these kinds of shows is driven by competitiveness between the producers of these shows, and not audience interest.. Let's face it, if you feel disenfranchised as a viewer , with limited choice in favor of this shoddy "reality TV' crap.. think how much more the average Chinese feels.. I suspect a higher up member of the party took offence at the Chinese version of this druck, and since traditionally the leaders have felt obligated to "defend" the culture there, acted on it.. Although this can have disastrous consequences, such as in Mao's 60's 'revolution' , I'm not so sure this time it's such a bad thing.. It's not like they can't find that kind of stuff if they really want to...

  87. LESS entertaining? WTF? How?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just spent 3 weeks in Shanghai and CCTV (the government TV networks) is easily the dullest I've ever had inflicted on me. CCTV5 just kept showing olympics highlights 24x7 with a short break for Dragon Boat Racing which was interesting for about 10 minutes. I'm not sure how they could make it "less entertaining" than it already is.

  88. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must say that I approve - there's more and more crap on TV these days and even historically good programmes like the BBC's Horizon have gone downhill - more filled with dramatic music and camera shots than with good information.

    No wonder the Chinese are doing so well - they *can't* rot their brains watching trash TV and they also have Tiger Mothers! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12249215

  89. Thank god for Chinese social engineer oligarchs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder the Obama administration, especially some of his czars (that have publicly praised Mao, (a blood thirsty tyrant that murdered 65 - 85 million ungrateful non conformists) and would like to see the USA (and the rest of the world) follow the Chinese model of governance. ........The Chinese social planners really know how to spot over entertainment when they see it, and thank god, the lord know we all need to be protection from that sinister plot.....Whew! that was a close one, would have never figured that out myself so thanks for looking out for me wise and filthy rich Chinese oligarchy dudes.....You can't be too careful though, now you going to have to round up all the "Over entertained losers" and execute them,. Now it's your time to shine and spring into action and sell their organs. How clever you are by harvesting them in your hi tech mobile specially out .outfitted ambulance's that keep the "meat" fresh on the way to client (I heard that you sometimes kill those terrorists in the ambulance on the way.....Tricky tricky.......Keep up the good work comrades, you'll get that Dali Lama one of these days (If not in this life time, maybe in one of his others.

    Thanks again dudes
    Sincerely,
    Almost too entertained

  90. Re:China is different. Don't you get that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't murderers, they are just "DIFFERENT".. Your kidding, right?... I think the Chinese that were dragged out of their homes by the brainwashed youth shock troops then burned alive on spits or buried alive wouldn't get it either.....That's where the brilliant agenda of our govt education social planners blossoms...No right, no wrong, no absolutes, no stable relationships, kids turned against their parents, separated from national heritage, history revised.....We then end up with citizens that say things like the above....The Chinese are murdering and torturing their citizens, and the good ole USA is killing everyone else's citizens, and now they have their sights on the American people.... Both are criminal actions...Do yourself a favor and Google something like similar to "Ex- Hitler youth sees same patterns unfolding in America OR Holocaust survivor speaks out, America on the path of WWII Nazi's, OR Russian survives gulag, tells US citizens don't make same mistake, regrets not fighting back....BE creative, these WISE testimonials are coming out of the woodwork with each stroke of Obama's pen.

  91. Still playing catchup by muirnin · · Score: 1

    The US cut 'excessive entertainment' from TV in the late 80s, and removed the last vestiges of entertainment by the mid 90s, leaving today's mix of reality shows and other garbage as the only things on.