Sitcom as the Hardest Genre

Among the TV genres, I think hardest genre to create successful products is Sitcoms not only because it is hard to laugh people but also they have to be continuously funny and interesting. It is interesting that Sitcoms are mostly based on pure humor meaning that even the most emotional scenes have some humorous context. For example, I was watching the American version of The Office, which is also my favorite Sitcom, and I’ve realized that I laugh even at the saddest moments of it. Since I get used to laugh at the main character Michael’s gestures and reactions, I couldn’t feel upset when he had to break up with love of his life.

 

(Even he was actually crying because he lost his love of his life, it is obvious that the intention is to make the audience laugh.)

I wonder why there are no sad moments in sitcoms and if the producers make the saddest moments funny on purpose because even the strongest dramas have some humorous context or at least some funny conversations that is included in the scene while sitcoms are completely based on comic events. 

On the other hand, for the dramas, it is usually easy to make people cry with an emotional sound track. I have a Spanish colleague who doesn’t speak Turkish but when we watched the final episode of the first season of Kara Sevda together with her, she was shocked and crying because the main character Nihan was screaming and crying when she heard her brother’s unexpected suicide. The sound track was so strong and Neslihan Atagül's acting was so impressive that my colleague doesn’t need to understand the words to understand what is happening. Anyone who watches that scene would easily cry without knowing the characters and the story. 

(It begins on the fourth minute) 

Based on these two examples, I think that it is really hard to produce sitcoms than to produce dramas. For the sitcoms, audience needs to know the characters and create some connections with them, they are usually local and makes sense only for the people who know the culture. On the other hand, to produce successful dramas seems easier since to make people cry is easier than to make people laugh. 

An Observation on The Seperate Effects of Two Shows on Youth

Reflecting on my earlier school years (namely early high-school and prior) I have realized certain turning points on how my peers behaved, and these turning points were induced by television. (Note that this post is based on the personal observations of my friends and I, so I fear objectivity is out of the question. However, no offence or any attempt at a definition of socially correct behavior is intended.)

One of these turning points is the dawn of Kurtlar Vadisi: The show that suddenly spawned incredible numbers of mafia wannabes. Prior to this show, I recall many boys around my age to have different interests, in their youthful quest to develop a personality. Given the inclination of a certain aspect of Turkish culture, many sought to establish themselves as culturally appropriate badasses, however the traits they displayed, the way they dressed and such were relatively diverse, and many held a variety of interests. It all changed with the popularization of Kurtlar Vadisi - A Mafia Dizi.
All of a sudden, around 80% of the boys in my school, and - based on observations - around 60-70% of boys in Ankara - started to wear black, woolen trenchcoats, started tapping their heads together, instead of the usual kiss on the cheek, were heavily invested in arabesk music.... The most striking aspect of their transformation however was that they actually formed miniature mafia-like communities. They found it offensively odd when someone didn't fit their expectations of a "proper man" (mind you that we were but children), and they mercilessly spurned - and even physically assaulted - their own, had they had done something out of the "ordinary". I remember a boy, who was a fan of a Turkish rock band, that was being chastised by his "gang" for it, and I remember him denying his fascination with the band as if to save his life. This group of would-be mobsters were a friendly bunch just a few years before, who were open to new things, and tolerant towards varieties of ideas. They had suddenly become different people, as if possessed by spirits of the Turkish mafia: Ubi sunt? Many of them, if not all, have still not formed personalities of their truest inner thoughts, because any developing aspect of their youth has been assimilated into a glorified mafia culture. I say this, because I've known the persons that they were, prior to their alteration, I remember how they used to be.

The girls around my age group were similarly effected by a tv show - though not on such a grand scale as the boys - and by a specific character in said tv show, that seemingly altered their personality almost irreversably. This character was Selin Yerebakan from the sitcom Avrupa Yakası. Defined as "Tiki" by society, many girls, who had even a slight inclination, suddenly had a drastic change in the way they dressed, and the way they acted, but above all, the way they talked.
Aspiring to the manner Selin conversed, their speech became the most exaggerated form of articulation possible for the Turkish language. They warped words into forms that sparked an irritatingly unnecassary amount of pink heart shapes floating around a person's mind, their stretched vowels pierced the ears of those that were not too busy trying to "earn their favor".... They were also the epitomy of conformity. They were the ones who'd follow what was supposed to be popular, and behave like popularity was the only virtue a person would need. Like princesses turned queens by Selin's example, they would wear the latest fashion, own the latest mobile phones, and constantly compete in an unforgiving social competition based on superficiality. What seemed interesting however, is that this didn't seem to cost them a single penny. They had mafia money.

A somewhat pleasant side to observe in all this, was that there formed a harmony between the "mafia kids" who had their parents' money in their pockets, and their demanding "Tiki" girlfriends. The boys would have a popular girl around their arm to show off their social status, and to hold as a reason to pick a fight with another potential candidate or rival, and the girls would have a bad boy who'd give them his undivided attention, and buy them an unnecessary amount of expensive things. Some of them even got married.

Luckily -seemingly -, these changes mostly influenced those who were born around 1991-1995. I say luckily because, even though these masses of specific TV incuded personalities are still around, things seem to have levelled off in later born individuals, at least, to my knowledge.

The question that comes to my mind is, what kind of people they'd be today, if not for those two shows? Would they have been the same indiviuals of a herd, but in a less intense level? Would they have diversified, and have learned to independently practice a sort of non-conforming personality?

I at least take comfort in the fact that - as I said in my previous post - some things like Fox Kids still reside in them. Yet it saddens me that, where they would talk of Fox Kids, or video games, or such pleasures prior to their mental takeover when alone, they will deny any knowledge of such things should but a single person from their world be present.

They may have always had inclinations towards becoming the persons that they are today, or perhaps they were just young people going through youth. However, it seems clear to me that TV gave them - at the very least - a truly powerful push.

Problems of duration of Turkish TV Shows

          In Turkey, generally, duration of a Turkish TV show is between 100 and 120 minutes. However in the world, the duration is really different. For example in America, a lot of tv series' durations are between 20 to 40 minutes. Longer durations cause a lot of problems for actresses, actors and for the people working in the Tv set. In Turkey, a lot of protests happened against the durations of Turkish TV shows by the actors and actresses. Because of the durations, they need to work more on their parts in the scenario and they cannot have enough time to relax. A lot of TV show writers protest the durations.* 
         
          In addition to that, one of the reason of the long duration time is trying to raise money by advertising. Because the costs of TV shows are increased and to balance the cost, the writers wrote some parts just to fill in the time and make it longer so that they can get money with advertisement.**          
          
          In my opinion, the duration is really too long and it has an easy way to understand that, a summary of an episode takes, generally, 45 minutes and after we watch a summary of a TV show, we can understand everything and we do not see unnecessary parts in the summary. However, in an American series the summary part is between 30 seconds to 2 minutes. I think that is a good point to understand and compare the duration problem.

*http://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/kultur-sanat-haberleri/dizi-sektorunde-isyan-bayragi-acildi/

**http://www.milliyet.com.tr/dizi-sureleri-niye-cok-uzun-/magazin/ydetay/2198853/default.htm

Dr. A. or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the ‘’Dizi’’

                I’m famous for my eye rolling among friends and family. I roll my eyes at a lot of things on a daily basis.  Turkish dizi talk, to me, undoubtedly was one of thebiggest turn offs in a conversation- avoid the topic if you want to befriend me! I would swiftly and stealthily move away from the conversation soon as someone said something along the lines of ‘’ Have you seen Ezel last night, man it was so good.’’ or ‘’ Hurrem’s neck piece last night was a stunner!’’. I did that a lot.

The first year in the university, -when I was still a sociology student- I shared a flat with two other girlfriends, Duygu and Tuğçe, from high school.  Duygu and I were doing the same major as well. So, it was basically a -together 24/7 situation- with us three girls. I loved them dearly, and they were extremely clever and talented girls who taught me something new every day. They were my event buddies, we’d chase down cheap tickets to jazz concerts and experimental theater shows. We were new in town and we wanted to get our hands on anything and everything we could. Life outside was good.

 At home, we had this 20-year-old tv barely standing on a nightstand, in the middle of our living room. Two couches and the TV was all we had in there. Every afternoon when they came back from class, they would be glued to the screen, watching reruns o Ask-I Memnu for the 100^th time. Their fascination with these shows baffled me. Once the TV lit up, there was no way you could find me in the living room. I’d tease them about their addiction, and Duygu would respond saying,’’I’m doing this for the sake of sociological research!’’. Fast forward 20 minutes, she’d be crying over the female protagonist’ troubles.  It’s still is a running gag between us. She graduated this June as a sociologist. 

After I quit my major and moved out, I didn’t get a TV for my new flat. It’s been 5 years without a TV in the living room. To tell you the truth, it has been a relief. Seeing the news and all the ‘’cheap, meaningless content’’ really worked my nerves up. Being brutally honest and self-critical here - I had an elitist approach to the matter.  On par with the decades old discussion of high and low culture, I deemed them low culture and didn’t bother. As a person who doesn’t even own a TV set at home, I must admit that my dislike of the Turkish dizi genre was uninformed. It was a strong dislike nevertheless, which looks bad on my part. How can you know that you don’t like it, if you’ve never really tried it, right?

  First of all, the most important reason of my aversion came from how it made zombies out of people. They would lose touch with reality. We live in a country of crazy fans that put down obituaries in the newspaper for a fictional character. (See link: http://www.iha.com.tr/haber-kurtlar-vadisinin-cakirina-taziye-ilani-17754/)  As a country, we lack the education that would help us make good choices when it comes to content. These days, they teach kids in elementary school something they call ‘’Media Literacy’’. I suppose that’s step towards aiding the problem. Secondly, it is actively, knowingly used to manipulate and numb people. So, it’s not only on the viewers.  And finally, I didn’t think anyone in the industry was actively working on producing better works. Whatever sells was and has been the motto for a long long time here.  Bad/trash Tv had become a reality of our lives, forcing its way in – just like the atomic bomb. It’s repercussions freak people out. Nor the viewers nor the producers of the content are willing to give up their guns. The rest of us, who find this repulsive, still must live with the fact. It’s always there in the background, literally and figuratively, making itself felt and known deeply.

Despite this, upon taking this class, I realized that there is more than one way of looking at it. Especially since it has become a global phenomenon, I’ve seen how it provides a ground for cultural exchange. And seeing how the global markets work and how other countries do, I cannot get away with putting all the blame on the people of my country anymore.  I also decided to give some credit to producers for their attempts at trying to reconcile the high and low culture. These past 10 years a few of our biggest TV hits have come from direct adaptations of very valuable literary works.

                 I still find their addictive qualities very numbing and dangerous, yet I’m also beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  Even though I still find no joy in watching them myself, I understand that if there is anything I could do to improve and/or change them, I need to learn about them first. Get familiar with their ways and tried and true formulas and knock them from the inside is MY motto for now. I’m looking forward to expanding on these ideas with the help of this class, and, I hope to become less of a stranger to a phenomenon that has power over even my closest friends. 

The Importance of the Audience Measurement for TV Sector, Case Study: Responsible Measurer Change in Turkey, 2012

In 2012, Turkish Media had a huge quake when the main governmental broadcaster TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Corporation) filed a claim to Competition Authority about TİAK(Television Audience Research Committee) and AGB Nielsen, television audience measurement responsible company since 2006, for the problem of compromised test subjects of television audience measurements. The case was concluded as decision a change of the measurement responsible company and some renovations in TİAK. After the tender in following months, the new measurer of Turkish Media became Kantar TNS Turkey. 

The new measurements of the media was based on a new SES system. SES is the socio-economic status of the people in measurement sample which increase the reliability of the result. System categorises the people as A, B, C1, C2, D and E in the order of level of education (not only a subjects itself, but also their parents he/she grown with) and income level by also considering profession, property, the type of house living in, etc. In order to be more descriptor, the one of these groups some specifications is given below. 


Group C2

• More than 4 people live in the house, even they have similar number of children with C2, families who have 3-4 children predominate.

• The goodman and his wife’s education level is elementary school. 

• More than a half of the group read newspaper.

• Homeownership rate is same with D and E: 65%, living room’s floor of the household is generally screed, usage of chandelier is less than one-fifth of the group. 

• They leave their shoes at the out of the house entrance door. 

New SES system changed the definitions of the categories and their distributions in the sampling. The changes of the rates of groups are from 21% to 11% for A and B, from 67% to 53% for C1 and C2, from 12% to 36% for D and E. As it can be seen easily, the new rankings says Turkey has a lower educational and wealth level which is highly questionable. Rather than comparing these with the real distribution of the society in terms of socio-economic status , which is also an important subject to focus, effect of these numbers should be discussed.

These whole effort to understand whose watching what has a particular objective: commercialise audiences. Broadcasters funds are highly lean on the advertisement revenue in Turkey similar to most of the countries. Therefore, productions of them focus on to get high ratings, which means production appeals to lower class of the society in Turkey will get more rankings at the end, even an upper class production is watched as much as the other. This situation leads the whole sector to be a lower class feed for making money day by day.  

The other problem these numbers bring is firms that target the A and B segment of people are generally bigger companies produces high quality products. When the society is placed as a mainly lower class, then these companies don't serve their services int he country and don't open their advertisement budgets to broadcasters.

In short, these manipulated numbers blocking broadcasters advertisement chance arising by most of the A&B group targeted organisations, companies and brands and forcing the television sector for serving to uneducated and low income level people to fill their pockets. 

What makes a Quality Television?

PART I

Since my teen years I’ve seen many series, that I liked a lot. With How I met your mother, I had a  serious connection with the characters, I enjoy seeing the scandalous lives of Manhattan's elite in Gossip Girl. Maybe my favorite one was Veronica Mars a teen detective drama with highly realistic and fun and exciting content and also amazing shootings that even give me an aesthetic satisfaction from the contrasts between black, green and red colors dominantly used in the series. And I still remember it more than the occasions within the series.

However I would never consider them as a Quality Television. Maybe its because, I compare them todays shows and it might seem unfair to some. But if its the quality that we are comparing there shouldn't be an age or time for that. Maybe there shouldn’t even be a form difference, since we even start comparing some good series with the best movies of our time.

So its not necessarily true that good production and technical facilities produces high quality and vice versa. This makes me believe that technology used is not as important as content. I believe whats important about technique is how its in harmony with the rest of the plot, sounds and environment tried to be created. All in all, what kind of taste it gives to the audience and what thoughts and emotions it provokes.

When we compare the some old series and with new, form seems important but also tricky. All in all, we all love seeing scenes that seem impossible to produce or scenes that take place almost in our living room because of the high definition or camera used. Its tricky, because it reflects another kind of quality that technology brought to us more than aesthetics and far more than art.

The legendary TV drama, Twin Peaks directed by David Lynch that has started to air back again recently is a solid example for that. To fit the environment and time span told in the story, director adopts an older technique, a lower resolution even the credits has a sense of nostalgia. This increases the sense of reality and harmony of the show and makes it even more successful rather than decreasing the quality.

But harmony is not the thing that makes some shows better than the other. And also its not always a necessary criteria to be met considering the shows like Game of Thrones. I start to believe more as I move further in this topic that Quality Show is a combination of different assets in different shows that is unique to that show.

Obviously harmony is not the most important asset of Twin Peaks and many other great shows like Game of Thrones, Lost and some shows that does not perceived great by many but I personally like and put in the classification of Quality TV.

In the second part of my post, I will focus more on the assets those shows have their contents and what specifically makes them Quality Television.

The Rise of Fox Kids, and The Unification of a Generation

In 1997, there wasn't much to talk about in terms of TV programming, at school. The most exciting thing about our lives was to come home from school and watch the adrenaline fueled masterpiece with racist undertones that was The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. However, it was only 20 minutes of our afternoon, and after that, it was a real struggle to find something on TV that - as a small child - one could enjoy as much as the rangers. Nickelodeon had disappeared.

Then, one day, rumors started floating around, of a new TV channel, that exclusively aired awesome cartoons, all day everyday. The rumors had even reached my parents in their workplace, and one day I asked my father to seek this fabled channel.

I remember the first time I beheld the magic, the moment that I set foot on the fabled land, and saw that big red and yellow logo on the top right corner of our TV: Fox Kids.

After that nothing was the same. 
Life was FOX Kids all day, every day, not only for me, but for every child in Turkey, who was fortunate enough to own a TV and find that channel. The most commonly asked question among children was "Do you have Fox Kids?". It was more common than "Do you have internet?" or "Do you have a computer?"

The cartoons of this channel was all kids talked about. Every whimsical reference was related to one of the shows, the most prominent one being the "Wisconsin kay canavayı" (The Wisconsin Snow Monster, with a child's wisp tongue) from the show "Life With Louie".
To this day, everyone in my generation talks about shows like Eek The Cat (and The Terrible Thunder Lizards), Mad Jack The Pirate, Spy Dogs, Room 402, X-Men, The Amazing Spider Man (and the theme songs of the final two)... But the thing is, we all remember the Turkish names, and lines of these cartoons. Make anyone from my age group watch these shows in their original language, and it simply does not click. Our many adventures with these cartoons, and all the characters we've come to love and memorize lines of were in Turkish.
However, the way it brought us together back in the day, has not lost its power today. One can still spark a deep conversation about those times, and talk for hours and hours...

Louie Anderson himself is aware of this. In an interview he said something along the lines of "I found out that I had a special place among Turkish audiences, but I never could've guessed the extent of the place my cartoon had in their lives".

There are so few programs today that can even reach the hights of Fox Kids. I've wondered if this seems so because Fox Kids was such a dear and well timed presence in my life, however, with the advancements in animation technology - and thus the decline in effort in making cartoons -, and the seemingly mundane topics of kid's media, I decided to introduce my cousins (3 of them who were under the age of 10 at the time) to Fox Kids' media. They absolutely loved it, and suddenly found the content that was available to them on TV to be mediocre.

Fox Kids not only created a sense of community, it provided an entire generation with common grounds with bonds everlasting. Common grounds which still exist today. The only thing that was able to divert our attention from that magical channel was 20 minutes of Pokemon, until it was cancelled, and Nickelodeon, which went to sleep at around 8pm.
Recently a group of people started uploading the cartoons that were aired by Fox Kids (and later Jetix) to a video streaming site, and now many people in my age group, who are aware of this great act of philanthropy is filled with bittersweet nostalgia.
 
If I could still watch Fox Kids on TV today, I have no doubt that I would, because when it comes to Fox Kids, age truly doesn't matter.
Lapacı is not forgotten.

  

Italy's It-Girl: Mina

Watching Mina’s music video Ancora ancora ancora for the first time, I remember me and my friend were laughing so hard to her gestures and the overly dramatic attitude without knowing any background story with the today’s perspective. Now the historic context in the back of my mind, her attitude in the video mean so much for me and I find it very iconic. 

Growing up as a rock’n’roll girl, Mina Anna Mazzini occupied the Italian music for fifteen years until now and her success is mostly by the dint of her TV appearances on RAI. Like the most of the Europe, in Italy, there were only the channels RAI and RAI2 until the 1960’s. RAI channels were and still are directly controlled by the parliament as public service broadcast. In 1961, Mina gained public recognition with the song Il cielo in una stanza which was featured in the musical movie, Io bacio… Tu Baci and eventually she became the co-host of the show Studio Uno on RAI. She performed several songs on Studio Uno and got more and more famous among Italy until 1963. In that particular year, Mina got pregnant by the actor Corrado Pani who was separated from his wife but still married, she refused to hide her affair and this caused to a scandal which led to her ban from RAI which is dominated by the catholic delegates in the parliament due to the moral excuses. After the ban, her career started to shatter, she couldn’t get her contract renewed. Her label betrayed her to avoid the political pressure. However, the public was already lured by her talent and unique charisma and due to the public demand RAI, invited her back to the program Studio Uno and she continued to ascend.

After the ban and the accusations that followed the ban, she embraced the role of it-girl which was given to her by the media and the political authorities. She shaved her eyebrows, made songs about love affairs, smoking and even the Satan, basically most of the taboos by then. In her song Sacumdi, Sacumda, she teases the religion by flirting with the Satan and in the video she carelessly dances in front of a fire. She knew who was against her and surely, the song was a statement, it was immediately banned. In her video for the song Viva Lei, it’s not hard to notice that she poses as a winner against the Italian State and her glances at the camera are much like a threatening. The man she was talking about in the song can be interpreted as Italians who were afraid of her courage once and tried to shut her down. She named one of her albums, Salomé referring to the character in the Bible with the same name who depicted as the most perverted person, full of worldly desires. In the cover of the album, she posed with a beard on.

She took part in Barilla’s Carosello’s and worked with lots of famous Italian directors and architects for the short video clips for these Carosello’s. Carosello is a commercial method in Italian TV to avoid the tough restrictions on TV ads. They presented the labels with short comedic sketches or music videos. In 1978, she got retired both from TV and live performances and secluded herself from the public. She still continues to produce music but doesn't serve any visual content. As an odd detail, Turkish star, Ajda Pekkan's almost all famous songs are covers of Mina. 

I find her struggle important because it demonstrates how it’s likely for the free market occupiers to win against the oppressive states. Mina got her support from the protestant Italian public who actually runs the country’s economy at any field and knows how to enjoy a sensual, talented lady who is free as men are. It's an instance on TV, but the same success can be achieved on any field. It's not possible to impose any 'ethics' on TV if no one watches it.

So that’s why, the video clip that I’ve mentioned at the beginning of this post, Ancora Ancora Ancora means a lot for me. The video was her last TV appearence in 1978. In the video she embraces the pervert role, the media and the political authority which I prefer to call as phallus, and in a way reproduces it proudly, being provocative and alluring. It’s the celebration of her victory, with the flirty, passionate attitude that gave her an authentic presence. This type of an image of a strong woman was really new to italian media by then and it made the public even more curious avbout her.

My grandmother versus Survivor team

I have not had a television since I came to the university - in fact, for five years. So I've already forgotten many of the habits that TV actually brought with us. For example, when you come home, just turn on the TV to make a sound, as if it were a living being. Or I do not have the habit of planning according to the schedule of the program I like. So I'm just an observer in this TV world.
 But in this writing, I want to talk about my grandmother who started living in television. I chose her because I thought she was not alone with her own context and feelings.

My grandmother versus Survivor Team

First of all, she lives in Survivor Island! She watches this broadcast almost every night for at least four hours. In addition, noon is watching another program, which is another format but also related to the island. She takes care of the island only 7 hours a day with a round account. (The daytime is sleeping and eating.) In the evenings, she never falls asleep and watches with all her attention. All of these processes are now affecting the whole mood of her routine. For example, the character is now able to speak for her. Or she can be very frustrating during competitions.Or she could be very upset if she lost one of her teammates during the election! 

But these are actually situations that many people have. But most of the time we do not even notice it. It sounds funny to me that my grandmother lived in a very clear way. It's always a matter of loving characters, sharing them, or putting ourselves in their place.

''SILA''
 and her hairclip

 For example, we sometimes see thousands of young girls who want to be in that girl's spot while watching a series about romantic love. Then the ornaments are sold on the market. That's why we want to be like him, to be in a romantic love. We want to look like him. In fact, we communicate with the character. These characters actually give us new possibilities in our inner world. We can make new dreams. We can live new adventures. It does not matter whether it's real or not. If we really can believe, we can race against the fame in Survivor.

Media Manipulation

When I think of the TV studies and its complex relation with culture and society, it is impressive how TV has a huge impact on individuals. I want to discuss and hear about your suggestions to which I see as the biggest problem for the media industry and its relation with society: Manipulation that usually comes from the authorities.

Like almost everything that is in the middle of different notions, TV has pros and cons. I, of course, admit that, it makes us to be aware of the happenings in all over the world enabling easy access to all kind of information. But it’s also dangerous depending on how it is used to convey information because it is so easy to manipulate mass cultures.

I started to see the manipulation as the biggest problem of TV industry and started being suspicious about the things that happened in the past only when I personally exposed to it; it was the first week of Gezi Parkı protests; I was there with my mom sitting and showing my support for something that I believe in. It was the next day when I was shocked with the news because media was reflecting the whole thing from a different viewpoint. They were not showing the ones who sat there without using any violence. All the news was saying that participants were provokers and terrorists who aim to create conflict. News were not only reflecting the happenings as the product of violence but also they were discriminating; Aiming to manipulate conservatives, news were showing drunk people in the Park saying that supporters are disrespectful junkies. 

I’m not saying that there wasn’t any violence at all, but it was for sure not a movement that is "based" on violence. But all the media did reflect it in a totally different way and my grandma (and I believe so many other people) who doesn’t have any Internet access but TV was saying that people who support that movement are actually harming the streets and using violence against the policemen.

Nowadays, we have the chance to double check the news from Internet but in rural areas where Internet is still a luxury, it is impossible to learn about the things as they really are. 

This realisation is annoying for me because those were what made me who I am today; The political standpoint, traditions, religious views and all my preferences in life were partially based on the way I see the world and TV was the strongest and most popular tool for me to rely on when I was growing up. So my question is "How can we be sure for the things that we saw on TV until today?" and "What if the government of past times also used TV for manipulations to protect its own existence?"