Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
or How To Manipulate Large Populations Using Media
Humans learn values and morals from their peer group. Although these are taught through religion and schooling as well, few people put abstract theory into action and mold their behavior according to prescribed concepts of which behaviors are proper. Much more influential is the behavior and actions of those around them. In the past this meant people would learn from family and friends the values, morals and beliefs which informed their opinions and shaped their behavior. With the advent of television and the subsequent degradation of community and family peer groups have shifted from intimately known live individuals to actors portraying characters. This shift has had the effect of transferring values from scripted characters to the viewer in the same way that values were transferred from family and friends in the past. And that is precisely what the Sabido method is intended to do.
In the 1970′s Miguel Sabido, then vice president of Research at Televisa in Mexico, developed a method based on “character development and plot lines that provide the audience with a range of characters that they can engage with — some good, some not so good — and follow as they evolve and change.” [1] The intention of this method is to introduce characters in a serial drama that the viewer can identify with or relate to. Some of these characters will have positive traits, some negative. Over the course of the series situations and ideas are introduced which pose challenges to the characters and cause them to change their behavior, which the viewer will relate to and mimic. The stated goal of the Sabido Method is to portray “pro-social” behavioral changes, pro-social being defined by people other than the target audience. In plain language it is intended to manipulate the target audience into changing a behavior deemed undesirable. The Sabido Method has been used most notably for population control and HIV prevention in the “third world”. [1,2,3,4].
A more modern terminology for the Sabido Method is “education-entertainment”.[5] Although the Wikipedia entry gives the perception that this is an innocuous, above board technique the application of it is not so innocous. Regardless of the intention behind its use, whether well or ill, the methodology is inherently deceptive and manipulative. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health offers a course titled Education Entertainment for Behavior change which “examines and teaches ways in which education can be subtly but effectively worked into both new and time-honored genres of entertainment to foster positive behavior change and life improvement in both developing countries and local environments. The course develops students’ ability to understand the ingredients of successful entertainment (emotions, empathy, efficacy and empowerment) and how these ingredients can be employed to enhance social and personal health and life skills.” [6]
Like all social engineers these people seem to believe they know best and that the target audience cannot be trusted with straight forward information and so must be manipulated. The World Bank has even developed a project using this method to impart financial knowledge such as using a bank instead of keeping cash at home.[7]
This method is based on the work of psychologist Albert Bandura and his Social Learning Theory, which is a successor of behaviorism. [8]. Social Learning Theory states “People, especially children, learn from the environment and seek acceptance from society by learning through influential models. Social learning theory is a perspective that states that social behavior (any type of behavior that we display socially) is learned primarily by observing and imitating the actions of others. The social behavior is also influenced by being rewarded and/or punished for these actions.”[9].
The publicly stated goals of the Sabido Method are “pro-social” changes such as population reduction, HIV prevention, financial responsibility, etc. However, it seems obvious that this method is also being used for other messages such as environmentalism as in the notorious “behavior placement” concept. [10,11]. A cursory search of the internet for “Sabido Method” or “education entertainment” brings up a plethora of information not included here which suggests that almost all serial dramas on television are used for this type of purpose, ie. intending to influence behavior and beliefs through deceptive manipulation.
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of how Murphy Brown, a fictitious single woman, had her baby, and millions of misguided young women followed suite. And today we have TV characters speaking out against fracking, global warming, evil rich Republicans, and on and on.
Some of this is done by screenwriters parroting what they see and hear in their insular worlds, but it does have an effect on a great many people, many of whom simply have lost the ability to tell fact from fiction. I have a brother in law - a high school teacher - who told me he did not know Indians had a sense of humor until he saw, "Dances With Wolves"...................
More than four out of five (84%) Americans watch prime time TV shows at least a few times a month and half (50%) are regular viewers, i.e. viewers who watch two or more times a week. Among regular viewers who are nearly evenly represented across gender, age, income, education and racial groups:
More than half (52%) report they trust the health information in the shows to be accurate and about one-fourth (26%) say prime time entertainment TV shows are among their top three sources for health information
Nearly half (47%) report learning from prime time TV shows, about the same rate as those who report learning from daytime TV shows (48%)
Nearly half (48%) of viewers report taking action after hearing about a health topic in a TV show (34% for daytime viewers)
Among Black women who are regular viewers:
Nearly two-thirds (63%) report the highest rates of all groups for learning about health from prime time shows (69% for daytime)
More than half (57%) report telling someone about it, one-fifth (21%) report visiting health care places, and 14% report calling for health information after hearing about a health topic in a prime time TV show.
About one-third (34%) report telling someone to do something or did something themselves to prevent a problem after hearing about it on a daytime TV show.
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of how Murphy Brown, a fictitious single woman, had her baby, and millions of misguided young women followed suite. And today we have TV characters speaking out against fracking, global warming, evil rich Republicans, and on and on.
Some of this is done by screenwriters parroting what they see and hear in their insular worlds, but it does have an effect on a great many people, many of whom simply have lost the ability to tell fact from fiction. I have a brother in law - a high school teacher - who told me he did not know Indians had a sense of humor until he saw, "Dances With Wolves"...................
Turning off TV and not paying to watch Hollywood crap at the movies is a decision that I don't regret.
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of how Murphy Brown, a fictitious single woman, had her baby, and millions of misguided young women followed suite. And today we have TV characters speaking out against fracking, global warming, evil rich Republicans, and on and on.
Some of this is done by screenwriters parroting what they see and hear in their insular worlds, but it does have an effect on a great many people, many of whom simply have lost the ability to tell fact from fiction. I have a brother in law - a high school teacher - who told me he did not know Indians had a sense of humor until he saw, "Dances With Wolves"...................
If you think that Murphy Brown led to an increase in unmarried women having babies, you are just as ignorant as your brother-in-law the high school teacher. Pot meet kettle.
According to that a great deal of people believe fictional shows to be accurate and factual. It's insanity.
That's NOT what the survey shows at all. What it shows is that highlighting/discussion of health issues on television shows influences viewers, which means that television is an effective means of getting out information to a broad cross-section of people, something that's been well-known to advertisers since the very beginning of television.
There's nothing "insane" about raising public awareness of the problems/dangers caused by smoking, STDs, date rape, child abuse, bullying, spousal abuse, hate crimes, prescription drug abuse, etc whether these issues are mentioned on a news show like Sixty Minutes or on an episode of a popular crime show like Law and Order: SUV.
Here is more about Murphy Brown, and the effect fiction has on the behavior of Americans:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — In a blunt warning about the dangers of unwed teen-age motherhood, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said Thursday that television character Murphy Brown set a bad example by having a fictional baby out of wedlock.
With the comment, Shalala echoed sentiments that led to a storm of controversy when uttered two years ago by then-Vice President Dan Quayle.............I don't think anyone in public life today ought to condone children born out of wedlock, . . . even if the family is financially able," Shalala replied when Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) asked her whether the unmarried Murphy Brown was right or wrong in having a child. Shalala's comments came in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on President Clinton's welfare reform plan..................
Bad behavior runs rampant in America. Single women having children caught on quickly, as did rude behavior. There are people, for example, who are quick to use the word "ignorant", when describing someone whose opinion is not shared. Shameful, but true.
And from "The Atlantic:
Quote:
With its affirmation of the liberating effects of divorce and nonmarital childbirth, this opinion is a fixture of American popular culture today. Madison Avenue and Hollywood did not invent these behaviors, as their highly paid publicists are quick to point out, but they have played an influential role in defending and even celebrating divorce and unwed motherhood. More precisely, they have taken the raw material of demography and fashioned it into a powerful fantasy of individual renewal and rebirth. Consider, for example, the teaser for People magazine's cover story on Joan Lunden's divorce: "After the painful end of her 13-year marriage, the Good Morning America cohost is discovering a new life as a single mother--and as her own woman."
I think the premise of this thread, that large populations will follow media, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Here is more about Murphy Brown, and the effect fiction has on the behavior of Americans:
Bad behavior runs rampant in America. Single women having children caught on quickly, as did rude behavior. There are people, for example, who are quick to use the word "ignorant", when describing someone whose opinion is not shared. Shameful, but true.
And from "The Atlantic:
I think the premise of this thread, that large populations will follow media, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really? So, how come "large populations will follow media" on some issues but not on others? For example, why do some many young people continue to smoke, when smoking is almost universally condemned in the media?
FYI, Murphy Brown was on tv between 1988 and 1998. Birthrates for unmarried American women stabilized between 1995 and 2002 whereas they rose before and after that period.
Furthermore, birthrates among unmarried women have been rising in much of the industrialized world. That suggests it's something besides TV shows that are driving the phenomenon.
Sometimes media can be used in ways that are beneficial. For instance, it has decreased smoking among the young, and discussed in this article in the New York Times:
Quote:
The cigarette smoking rate among young people has been declining slowly but steadily over the last decade, and the latest estimates were 15.8 percent for high school students and 4.3 percent for middle school students.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....I don't think anyone in public life today ought to condone children born out of wedlock, . . . even if the family is financially able," Shalala replied when Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) asked her whether the unmarried Murphy Brown was right or wrong in having a child. Shalala's comments came in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on President Clinton's welfare reform plan..................
