Will Italy Allow the Jersey Shore Cast to Defile Its Great Country?
Because America needs another reason for the world to hate us, we are trying to deport our barely-literate Jersey Shore cast to Italy with a fleet of cameras, enough Ed Hardy t-shirts to outfit Sicily, and the only English-Italian dictionary that these greased guidos will ever need at the Naples club: Their Fists. But, wait -- one obstacle still lies between The Situation and his MTV-sponsored homeland pilgrimage.
The Italian government may not let the MTV cast and crew into the country -- because they have standards. And a strict no-smushing-on-camera policy. And they don't want America to think that they are responsible for breeding the kind of human beings who advocate steroid use and who get arrested on the beach while guzzling margs-by-the-meter in fuzzy slippers.
TMZ reports that the network is already scouting locations and finagling visas for the cast and crew for (what could be) a very special fourth season of the Jersey Shore. The network has even coordinated some sort of gaudy dinner hosted by Vinny's Italian relatives. So, yeah. Your move, Italian government. Are you going to allow Lost in Guido-lation: Italy's Self-Respect be filmed on your land? Fingers crossed.
· Jersey Shore Cast -- We're Going to Italy! [TMZ]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Mama Mia!
There is absolutely nothing to worry about. Have you seen the documentary Videocracy? Italian television makes Jersey Shore look like Masterpiece Theater.
Amen, dead on.
Seriously, Berlusconi's still in charge of all of their television and they're worried about Jersey Shore?
The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.
And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.
As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict, or that 9-11 was a result of that support. Nor does anyone dare suggest that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.
Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan—with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that “multiculturalism” and racial mixing are here to stay and that they are good things.
Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about “managed news” falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers’ influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters—and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.
The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media—television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures—speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world—a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish “Holocaust” tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a “pluralistic,” cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends—and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.
And who are these all-powerful masters of the media?
To a very large extent they are Jews. It isn’t simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.