You recently been abroad? By necessity you had to spend a week inside a cave in central Italy? Tested fallout bunker? If your answer is "no", then surely you will not be able to escape the Festival of San Remo and the polemic that have penetrated and colonized the entire information system, with its large meshes.
Here I do not care to enter into discussions about characters, Lyrics or text me no lies I want to poison further. What I would like to express my opinion with respect to the subject (now grazed by Aldo Grasso, in his article in the Courier) of "direct democracy" of Tv It has been overwhelming - and the surprising results-televoting of viewers who, with simple phone calls from home, they ousted the role of juries and competent experts in the field, changing with violent resolve their decisions. It is thus presented in its real form, the dictatorship of the viewer, who, after leading indirectly to the fate of programs and schedules with the law Auditel advertising, can now finally the era of reality television, with a simple phone call to impose his own discretion, even on television content.
The question I ask is simple: just give the holder of the scepter-remote control that much power? The problems that arise are two and those that define it: the wisdom of the crowd and the real democratic deficit, interconnected nature of things to each other.
If it is true that television is built for consumers (mainly of "electorate" in the world market) and it appears to be more than correct the same to determine the product to be consumed, it is also worth mentioning that the masses are these decision-makers are almost sempre irrazionali, e che molto (troppo) spesso le persone agiscono contro i propri stessi interessi. Basta ricordare esempi tratti dalla politica internazionale e dalla storia. Sono state libere elezioni effettuate da liberi cittadini, quelle che hanno dato espressione a regimi quali quelli di Hitler in Germania, Hamas in Palestina, Putin in Russia. È per tale motivo che nel mondo del mercato(concorrenziale, si intende) i consumatori hanno la libertà di esprimere le proprie preferenze rispetto all’offerta, ma sono i produttori a determinare quest’ultima, in base a indagine accurate della domanda effettuate da esperti. Nulla è lasciato al caso, che poi nel mondo reale coincide con la volubile volontà del singolo.
Il secondo problem is intimately connected to the first and his descendant, the actual capacity of consumer-voters to express their own desire, without being influenced by unseen forces outside. In other words, true democracy is that of remote voting? Think about it: if you live in a world where you can not refuse to assimilate this information because you "flesh out" from all over and you find yourself, in spite of yourself, to participate in debates that do not belong to you, what is the real space your decision-making autonomy? That which expresses a vote is truly "yours"?
The world of television increasingly resembles a sphere of glass (opaque), where what really happening outside - the reality-does not have the ability to filter, what, however, happens inside is a mechanism that is self produced and self-activated. Everything is built in that space is made to reproduce indefinitely without stopping, and to fill every hole. Even those in your thoughts. What
TV today? There is a reality, led by former participants of reality, which is what happened in another reality. The area of \u200b\u200bcriticism is left to the so-called commentators hired, driven by pseudo-authors to fuel the controversy without making it out of the initial context. In short, a reality no contact with reality. The trouble is that when you turn on the TV and run into the ball (our daily matrix?) begin to absorb its logic and its mechanisms. No longer enough to the red button on the remote to choose to exit.
Where is then the place of your will?
Long live Scanu, Filiberto and Friends
Gianluca Frattini
0 comments:
Post a Comment