Radios, Television, and the Demise of the People

     To expand on the discussion concerning the history of recording, J1 learned about the history of the radio and the beginning of the television that overall brought the radio to its unfortunate demassification demise. However, rock n' roll and racism is not what I'm going to write about in this post.
     A new fact (to me) surfaced, despite my constant attention being on it multiple times throughout the week. Since television and radio signals are sent using air waves technically owned by the government, they, regardless of what the U.S. Constitution states, can technically control the speech that is thenceforth publicly issued from the television or radio. Although I have noticed the "covering up" of swear words and nudity through spontaneous beeps and small square black boxes or pixelated images, I have never thought about the actual manipulation of it all. I have always just figured these things were issued to protect the viewing rights of younger audiences while they were flipping through channels, when in reality, it is all the doing of the government and FCC.
     If this is true, then could not the government send subliminal (or not-so-subliminal) messages through daily recorded public programs and in between advertisements? Already, many television shows do so in the same manner, sometimes to both children and adults through many different means like verbal and visual clues, references, and, when called for, direct speech to the fourth wall audience. Some can be as simple as "be kind to other kids on the playground," or as complicated as "invest a quarter of your monthly earnings in this company while the stock market is thriving, then pull it out at this time to double your annual income." All are brought forth in simpler terms, however, in ways that audiences young and old can understand sublimely.
     An example of this already happening would be through the upcoming senate elections. Commercials are airing as often as time and space will allow on channels all across the United States. A good amount start out with simple "yes" or "no" questions anyone can answer like, "do you hate tax increases?" or "do you support this president?" They will then proceed to list off certain actions a candidate has taken, but they will refrain from naming the candidate until the end. This tactic is effective because the bias that already may have reached the viewer is not affected by names or faces until the very end, allowing more room for the viewer/possible voter to consider a certain action or decision to make.
     With the way the world is going at the moment, and based off of how the economy is holding up, I would say that later government tactics much like the harmless ones used in television and radio may be used later on. As mentioned in my previous post, change is inevitable (as can again be seen in the Catholic Church's recent decision to accept gay, unmarried, and divorced couples living together while receiving the host at mass services), so this is what the government may result to in the future. Already, many candidates use tactics like these through verbal speech, live, in front of endless amounts of people. This does not mean the government does not have potential to become something better, though, as there is always room for improvement, even in the best. Change may be inevitable for all, but it can go either way, which, some argue, is the best thing about it.