Isn't it ironic that

[kandrathe]

Chesspiece_face "It's less a question of people finding things interesting and goes back to the blending of marketing and information based programing."

In other words, the customers of the media are the advertisers, and not the public? That may well be true, but it doesn't turn the public into innocent victims. There would be no commercials, if there was noone watching them. As long as you all keep buying every gadget that comes available, things won't change.

Consumers are more powerful then they realize. You don't even have to boycot a product completely, to make your wishes felt. If just 10% of all customers would buy only 10% less or elsewhere, a company would see its business go down by 1% already. That's quite a lot for the big ones, and certainly enough to make them rethink their strategies.

There is a difference between content and advertising. The content is chosen for its ability to attract lucrative advertising to that time slot. My kids watch "Ben 10", but end up asking me to go buy them "Cocoa Pebbles". Also, don't confuse entertainment for enlightenment. Even news programs have given up on enlightenment, as it is not entertaining. So in our world today, Lindsay Lohan's hoohoo exposed is news, but genocide in Rwanda, or mass starvation in Darfur is boring.

I think your argument about boycott is also moot, since advertising is everywhere. Even TIVO has jumped into bed with the advertisers. To affect 1%, you would need to convince 648,000 households to unplug from cable or boycott any products they saw advertised. 58% of Americans are connected to the cable networks, who raise $29.6 billion from advertising, and $75.2 billion from subscriptions. They could buy or rent DVD's or video tapes for movies, but would be disconnected from big events like "The World Series", or "The Presidential Debates".

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association has some statistics.