Fifteen years ago, if you wanted to view old episodes of Life is Worth Living, the Bishop Sheen program, you had to have access to some archive hidden the basement of some church somewhere. But thanks to YouTube we can see those old shows and listen to his earlier radio programs anytime, at our leisure. But I wonder, was radio ever considered an opiate of the masses, and if not, why not? Old radio programs required you to sit down, listen, and pay attention; they weren't background noise.
Those old radio programs, at least some of them, hold up quite well compared to current television fare, Many years ago I received a gift of a bunch of CDs from a company called Old Time Radio which had dozens of programs and they were great to listen to, and very engaging. Many of those old programs are probably on YouTube now, as more and more old recordings are discovered and uploaded, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I often get the sense that the more things change the more they stay the same, a lot of old wine in new bottles.
But television isn't television anymore, with programs only available at specific times and provided by a small number of networks. If you missed last night's episode of Bonanza, well, tough shit; maybe you can see it in a rerun. That model changed with the advent of VCRs and time shifting, giving the viewer an option to do other things rather than stay home to see a particular program at a specific time. It's even better (or worse) now; you don't have to record anything because it's all online, part of the expanding ocean of viewable content.
-----
If television was the opiate of the masses, then the internet must be the methamphetamine of the masses. How can we make any sense out of the stupendous amount of information available, much of which is unreliable and lacking context? The expression "going viral" is apt, certain ideas spread quickly and relentlessly like a pandemic and are no more than unsubstantiated rumors. You've probably seen (or read) The Ox Bow Incident; that's what comes to mind.
Maybe someday there will be a filter that screens out the misinformation so we don't get so worked up about nothing, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be hacked.
-----
Okay, Uncle Ken, exactly what do you mean by "income inequality?" I hope you don't mean that everyone gets paid the same regardless of their job or occupation; that's just goofy. If you mean that pay should be equal for everyone with the same job title, well, I'm not sure if that's fair, either. Suppose you and I have the same job title and responsibilities and get paid the same. But you are doing a much better job than I am; shouldn't you get paid more? Then there are other subjective factors which are difficult to measure. Sure, you're outperforming me, but the other folks in the shop like me better because you're a cranky old fart who doesn't get along with anyone. Then there's the fact that the boss is your uncle, so now we're back to square one. How do we factor everything to make a fair and equitable pay structure?
Or does income inequality mean that some sectors are grossly overpaid while others are underpaid? That's a tough nut to crack, and you have to follow the money. If some paper pusher, or athlete, or entertainer, gets paid millions it's only because it's worth it to whoever or whatever is paying the bills. Then there is the factor of real versus perceived value to society. Teachers, farmers, fast food workers, and just about anybody else are more valuable to society, in my opinion, than any celebrity or athlete I can think of.
But that's not completely fair, either. Sure, some barely literate college dropout is earning millions of dollars playing with a ball, but he's spending a lot of money, too. Those big houses, fancy cars, and extravagant lifestyles keep a lot of people working. Besides, a lot of careers are short-lived. They make big money for a short period of time and then it's over. Celebrities, too, have a short shelf life, some not short enough. I don't like it, but I can't begrudge anyone making it while they can.
-----
Mr. Beagles mentioned the ridiculous CEO salaries, and I agree. In the US, at least, they are insane. European CEO salaries are much lower and I'm not sure why; they seem to be doing at least a good a job as their US counterparts, if not more so. What really grinds my gears is that, after running a company into the ground, a departing CEO sails away on the golden parachute. There's been a lot of that lately, but maybe executive salaries are based on perception and not performance, all part of the rigged system.
No comments:
Post a Comment