13 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMF"Il y a beaucoup de façons de parler de la télévision. Mais dans une perspective 'business', soyons réaliste : à la base, le métier de TF1, c'est d'aider Coca-Cola, par exemple, à vendre son produit.
[b]'TV is but a marriage of triviality and power worship'.
Is this coming down too hard on television's overall contribution to political and cultural discourse?[/b]
[…]
Or pour qu'un message publicitaire soit perçu, il faut que le cerveau du téléspectateur soit disponible. Nos émissions ont pour vocation de le rendre disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux messages. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible."
- Patrick Le Lay : Executive director of TF1
Or translated:
"There are many ways to talk about television, but let's be realistic. From a business perspective TF1's job is to help a company like Coca-Cola sell its products, for example.
But for a TV commercial's message to get through, the viewer's brain must be receptive. Our programmes are there to make it receptive, that is to say to divert and relax viewers between two commercials. What we are selling to Coca-Cola is receptive human brain time."
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka[/i]How do you feel about his statement?
[i]"Il y a beaucoup de façons de parler de la télévision. Mais dans une perspective 'business', soyons réaliste : à la base, le métier de TF1, c'est d'aider Coca-Cola, par exemple, à vendre son produit.
[…]
Or pour qu'un message publicitaire soit perçu, il faut que le cerveau du téléspectateur soit disponible. Nos émissions ont pour vocation de le rend two commercials. What we are selling to Coca-Cola is receptive human brain time."
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseFACT!
[/i]How do you feel about his statement?
Especially these days where you don't need really need the TV for information. The TV is there to make you sit in front of the sofa and lap up what they give you. If you want information, the internet is a far better medium for it.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaBecause it is selective, I concur.
FACT!
Especially these days where you don't need really need the TV for information. The TV is there to make you sit in front of the sofa and lap up what they give you. If you want information, the internet is a far better medium for it.
I also think that it is a spot on statement. Which raises the question:
if traditional media has become a vehicle for advertising, where is
the credibility of the opinions portrayed in those vehicles?
If TV is what Mr. Monsieur says, an opinion presented by any employee
of the TV channel becomes subject to what the main purpose of the
TV channel is.
I actually think it is like that. Newspapers, also, live from advertising,
not from selling newspapers.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by SeitseYep, that is part of the corollary. But I don't think advertising is to blame. You can always ask why is this source providing this information? There are always underlying motives, so skepticism and a variety of sources is the only answer.
Because it is selective, I concur.
I also think that it is a spot on statement. Which raises the question:
if traditional media has become a vehicle for advertising, where is
the credibility of the opinions portrayed in those vehicles?
If TV is what Mr. Monsieur says, an opinion presented by any employee
of the TV channel becomes subject to wh ...[text shortened]... ly think it is like that. Newspapers, also, live from advertising,
not from selling newspapers.