Bozell Column: MTV, Both Sleazy and Sour
Once upon a time, women were considered the “fairer sex,” the “better half.” Stewardesses were talented and beautiful. Wives were softer, more gentle. Men fought for their honor. Feminism crushed all of that. It is a testimony to their movement that in today’s post-feminist entertainment media, part of what makes television so corrosive and sour is just how piggish the women have become.
The latest study from the Parents Television Council drives this concept home by going to the ugly center of pop culture: MTV “reality” programming. After studying entire seasons of four MTV shows, the PTC concludes: “Females talked about sex acts more than men, talked about sex more graphically than men, mentioned sexual body parts more than men, and talked about intercourse and preliminaries to intercourse more than men.”
Translation: TV’s women are society’s truck drivers. That doesn’t sound like “reality.” It sounds carefully cartooned to attract viewers.
Sadly, it follows that PTC found that on MTV, male cast members referred to females as “cool” and viewed them more favorably when women displayed characteristics attributed to men (not wanting to linger after sex, not viewing sex as any proof of commitment, not requiring romance prior to sex, and indifference to cheating).
But that emotionally arid and recklessly lascivious behavior naturally also leads to demeaning remarks. On “Jersey Shore,” Mike “The Situation” sneers “Deena calls herself ‘The Holiday.’ I like to call her ‘The Holiday Inn.’”
After reviewing the ratings data, PTC picked the four most popular programs in 2011 on cable among the 12 to 17 demographic, which included that detestable sleazefest “Jersey Shore.” Analysts also viewed “The Real World,” “Teen Mom,” and “16 and Pregnant.”
The PTC’s critics in the press have mocked the idea that anyone would need to study “Jersey Shore” to find it sleazy. The New York Daily News joked, “In equally shocking news, bananas were found at the Chiquita factory.” But what’s new in this study is that not only do the men speak badly of the women on these shows, but the women speak badly of the women, and of themselves.
The overarching purpose for the study was to explore what messages young viewers are receiving through “reality” television. What they’re getting isn’t just non-stop scenes of drinking and premarital sex, but an overwhelming dose of insulting negativity. The top three derogatory terms for women were the B-word, “stupid,” and “dirty.” Those often came attached with profanities. Females were the recipients of an F-word or S-word 662 times, or on average, once every four minutes and ten seconds.
While terms men used for each other were often viewed as complimentary (big man, dawg, superhero, McGyver, winner), women used far more degrading language when talking about other females (rodent, skank, slut, ho, and much worse).
In a PTC video accompanying the study, web surfers can view the poisonous princesses of MTV refer to one another as “trash bags,” “the furniture,” and one woman sneering another woman is a “dirty Chihuahua” she wants to “smack to the side." Only 24 percent of what females said about themselves was positive.
The PTC also verified (yet again) that all this sex and sex chatter has nothing resembling caution in it. Although 88 percent of the sexual dialogue between men and women across all the shows focused on intercourse and its preludes, the topics of virginity (0.2 percent), contraceptives (1.4 percent) and sexually transmitted diseases (two percent) were barely mentioned on these programs. MTV can’t even live up to its own “safe sex” ideology.
MTV doesn’t make these shows to expose “reality” or be educational. They’re quite anti-educational, glamorizing stupidity and paving a way to fame through anti-social behavior. They’re attracting school-age viewers by the millions by highlighting the the most demeaning and crass behavior they can capture on camera.
In an interview with GQ magazine, “Jersey Shore” star Snooki Polizzi lamented that the show leaves a lot of “reality” out of its eyeball-dragging mess every week. “I wouldn't show as much drinking and partying. I would show more of us chilling out and having a good time—which they don't show,” she complained. “We don't even drink those nights, but we laugh all night. They don't show anything but us drinking and hooking up.”
This is not to say MTV would end up with C-SPAN if they manufactured this pap with a little more civility. But the network’s callous distortions of “reality” are twisting the minds of young people into avoiding manners, romance, commitment, decency, modesty, and empathy. They’re teaching our children to become mean-spirited, back-stabbing, bed-hopping villains. This Chiquita factory needs to be denounced for putting rot in the bananas.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Camera Time
Submitted by Kleenex on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:34am.
Although society has indeed changed over the years, this channel only represents train wrecks. Snooki answered her own question, who would watch if they just sat around and talked?
Sleasy and Sour
Submitted by NVRAT on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:45am.
Wow, Bozell has hit the nail right on the head with this article. MTV in my opinion, should be taken off the air. MTV really has no intention of showing "Reality" only how sleazy and trashy they would like to see our society. I think that the people at "Saturday Night Live" sort of feel the same way except they lean toward political satires. In any event...they should be trashed.
Do you mean
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:59am.
..........the government should force a show off the air just because some folks don't like it?
Wouldn't that set a dangerous precedence
No, I cant
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:20am.
agree with that. The really sad part is, in our society today, there is a market for this junk. It's on the air because a certain amount of people want it. That's what needs to change - people's moral worldview.
I don't know that NVRAT was
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:32pm.
I don't know that NVRAT was really being serious, it sounded like a rhetorical comment. But I don't think its fair to blame whats on the air only on what people want to see... its kind of a cycle. The public generally thinks whats on TV is trash, but it gets eyeballs because its like a trainwreck where people can't turn away.
Think about how media coverage of politics works. If the media covers a certain politician, people are more likely to talk about him or her. For example, Sarah Palin. The liberal media likes to do non-stories on her because it gets their viewers to get angry about how she's getting too much media coverage. The conservative media then covers her because it gets their viewers angry about liberal sources badmouthing her. She's mostly a media phenomenon these days.
That's why political networks need to exert some type of editorial responsibility, and why other networks need to do the same on other subjects.
Like Jennifer Lopez, the
Submitted by ant on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 2:12pm.
Like Jennifer Lopez, the woman doesn't know the definition of 'over-exposure'.
I partly agree.
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:28pm.
Jerry Springer, the ho's of NJ, most of MTV, all need to be roped off in the 'adult section'. I don't believe you can actively proscribe this crap successfully in its entirety. Much like booze or drugs, prohibition never has worked well. However, you can restrict the access in a reasonable manner.
Generally speaking, even roping off an 'adult section' of the cable or satellite channels would only be partially successful as I know the mental dregs of our society would leave these wide open for their kids to watch anyway. The rest of us have channel locks we can set up and often do.
Actually I am more concerned about the state of our society that we actually have this crap on in the first place.
Hmmmm.
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:49am.
Maybe women enjoy sex just as much as men?
Yea, maybe they like
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:03am.
Being ridiculed and exploited as well. Who knew
From what I seen
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:07am.
The women give as good as they get on this show. If a woman decides to have a potty mouth and have as much fun intimately like a man. More power to her
Ummmmmm
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:17am.
So if your wife/girlfriend/date decides she can have more fun intimately with your neighbor, the mailman, the UPS guy and the teen across the street, you say 'more power to her'?
Probably not
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:19am.
Because she made a commitment to me. However if it somebody else's wife it's really none of my business right?
I think you're missing one
Submitted by ant on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:19am.
I think you're missing one aspect of this article. If a woman wants to be a dirty-mouthed skank, that's her prerogative. The fact that minors seem to be a large part of this audience would suggest some accountability on MTV's part, or we WILL end up with a society of potty-mouthed teenaged skanks.
The problem with this show
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:28am.
Is many adults like me watch it. You are right however that many impressionable teens watch It as well.
That is a problem. It should be up to parents to determine if their kids should watch this show
The Future of our Country?
Submitted by IrateNate on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:59am.
Seriously, how can anyone consider themselves "adult" if they watch garbage like this? Measured chronologically, perhaps. But one has to question the mental faculties of anyone - regardless of age - who would devote a single minute of their lives to viewing trash like "Jersey Shores".
And what can be said about the "parenting skills" of any mouth-breathing troglodyte who would allow their child to view such crap?
It's fun mindless entertainment
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 2:10pm.
Like South Park or WWE.
Satire
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 9:27pm.
South Park is only mindless entertainment to those who fail to see the satirical aspect of the show.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why should parents prevent
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 4:20pm.
Why should parents prevent their kids from watching the show if there's nothing really we have a right to judge about it, like you're saying? Some people like finding fulfillment in multiple sex partners, other people like one sex partner. So you're saying there's really nothing bad there that you should prevent your kid from seeing...
Its like people when they say there's nothing wrong with being a prostitute, but then don't want their daughters to get the message that they should grow up to be a prostitute.. or actresses who talk about how people should express their sexuality and not be prudes, and then get upset when nude pictures of them are released, sign restrictive contracts about sex scenes and nudity in films they appear in, and refuse to appear in porno films.
I just find this kind of attitude dishonest. I would rather either people make a decision and say, yes, it's okay for my kids to have multiple sex partners and be prostitutes, or say, no, what's being promoted on television is trashy and not worry about offending people.
Just because its trashy doesn't mean you want the government to censor it.
actually
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 6:53pm.
Nobody wants it for their kids but there is only so much you can do as a parent. what they do after 18 is not up to you and you can only hope for the best
Yea, all I'm saying is that
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:36pm.
Yea, all I'm saying is that if its something you don't want for your kids, don't be afraid to criticize it as a thing general. I think that's honest, not judgmental. Tolerance shouldn't mean people shouldn't speak honestly.
its not something i want
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 9:32pm.
However unless they are hurting somebody else or having a chemical dependence. I accept them for who they are
too late...
Submitted by aloyicious on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:25pm.
... we already ARE a society of potty-mouthed teenage skanks...
Good grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:20am.
See Shawn, I dont "give" that kinda attention toward the woman in my life. If thats "fun" then I guess I aint having any.
Thats fine Boudin
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:25am.
Some people find fulfillment in a loving marriage, others find it with multiple partners until they find the right person. To each their own
If a potty mouth
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:21am.
is what you like in a woman, then more power to YOU.
Potty mouths
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:17pm.
I am not a fan of censorship We have the right to watch or not watch TV.
If we want our children to be virtuous then it's up to us to lead the way.
Thank you Jersey Girl
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:56pm.
My thoughts exactly.
Shawn, You said, "If a
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:59pm.
Shawn,
You said, "If a woman decides to have a potty mouth and have as much fun intimately like a man. More power to her"
And this is exactly the problem with America and the Western world when it comes to women. Too many people believe that equality for women means that women be the pigs, whores, apes, etc that too many men are.
Liberallies
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:21am.
Hey Buddy. Its always good to hear from you i like you Liberalies I think i figured you out. When somebody comes at you head on, you kind of lash back pretty quick with what ever comes to mind
However when people use fact and logic with , you tend to have a self sensor" most of the time" so hear me out
it's not just just people like Snooki. It's women that choose to have sex before marriage. I know how so many here talk about how satisfied they are with their mate. However sometimes women think like men. I don't know of a non smarmy way to say this but Some but not all women just want a guy that can bring her to that special place. Sometimes chemistry just isn't there.
Shawn, So what that some
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 6:30pm.
Shawn,
So what that some women want to act like men when it comes to sex.
1) It does not make it Moral.
2) It is wrong when men do it.
3) It is equally wrong when women do it
4) Take away all of the Morality, as my wife says, you are playing the Russian Roullette with your body! Oh, they use protection, they didn't do this or that thus no way they can get an STD.
The Left wants to regulate what we eat because of healthcare, shoot, using their logic, they should also regulate sex because STD are far worst than any disease you can get from not eating well!
5) We are a society, a culture or more like pop-culture has made it ok for women to act like the pigs, apes and whores that too many men are. Sadly, this is what too many people believe is equal.
6) I know human nature. It would be silly to deny it, but we can't act on our human impulses and animal instincts. The sexual revolution has brought STDs, broken families, destroyed the life of children, millions of babies aborted. I know you don't like to hear the latter, Shawn, but it is true. What you advocate when it comes to sex has a direct correlation to babies ending up aborted. This alone should send chill up your spine.
I am not looking to pick a fight with you. Just saying it how it is.
Good to talk to you too. I have not seen you around in a while.
Sorry I do not find it immoral.
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 10:22pm.
finding somebody that you want physical chemistry with before spending the rest of your life with them is okay in my book. You are right that there are STDs and abortions, but my opinion is a person should be responsible and use birth control.
What has that got to do with acting like a cheap whore?
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:29pm.
Your point it moot.
No it's not
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:24pm.
If a woman decides to sleep around and enjoys their life I am not to judge. Not everybody wants to settle down with one person. Some folks like variety.
Shawn, so, you are saying
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 10:00pm.
Shawn,
so, you are saying that for women to be equal to men, they must act like the whores, apes that men are.
Just because some folks like variety it does not make it Moral or Right.
No Sir
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:19am.
I am saying if they decide to live their life enjoying the physical nature of a relationship, it does not bother me.
I also do not find women that want to save it before marriage prudish either, it is something to be respected and admired.
Life is too short. I just wish more women had the common sense to use birth control, it would really limit the pregancies and disease to a small minimum.
Yes I know, abstinence is works 100 percent of the time. Hey for me, I am glad that I I had fun before marriage and to me, knowing what I was missing is totally worth the risks I took.
Shawn, Life is too short?
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 6:23pm.
Shawn,
Life is too short? So let's go take every single risk that we can take. Why stop at sex, why not drugs, why not any other harmful action, right?
Birth control? So in other words, let us not take responsability for our actions. And sadly, this is what we have come to do as a society. Invent things that no longer forces us to face the consequences of our animal like actions.
Yes, for you it was worth it, but it does not make your actions Moral.
I wish women had the common sense to keep their legs closed and men to keep their pants zipped up until their are adult enough to take responsability for their actions. What you advocate is what has led to broken families, kids suffering, depressed men and women, suicides, etc.
The sexual revolution, Shawn, has been and is a complete and utter disaster. It has tore a whole through our family and it is destroying this nation. Just look at Europe and the cultural and economic mess that it is.
You say that your sexual fun was just that, let me ask you, are you 100% that you did not leave any of the women pregnant? are you? are you 100% sure that none of them murdered a baby that you left her with? How many broken hearts that you leave behind? how many women did you leave feeling empty and feeling worthless?
hardly a heartbreaker
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
You give me too much credit LL :-)
"Birth control? So in other words, let us not take responsability for our actions"
What responsibility? if one of both parties are not interested in getting married, why not just enjoy the memory? I am 99.9 percent sure I did not get anyone except my wife pregnant
Sorry bud, I do not consider a woman that has sex before marriage loose or a whore, they just want to find somebody they have chemistry with.
eMpTyV
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:12am.
For shawn, absolutely nothing in life has meaning including life itself: all are extremely CHEAP.
Anyways, here is Steven Wilson's take on MTV. Starting at 1:18 if you want to over some of the interview. I think it says it all and summarizes why I have stayed away from MTV for quite some time now.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Feminism has probably been a
Submitted by ant on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 10:59am.
Feminism has probably been a greater conquest for the college-age male than any other demographic. Unfortunately that age group is growing to include college down through the sixth grade.
Feminists Hate Me for This
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:00am.
I often say that in each society men get the women they want. Earlier in America, men wanted women who would be good wives and mothers - and that's what they got. Now American men want women who are free and easy, and boy have the women delivered.
A few years ago
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:27am.
our local newspaper did a story on some female Army officers at Fort Belvoir. They were doing some sort of training in the field with the male officers. The story seemed to center around and emphasize the masculinity of the women officers. There were pictures of them smoking cigars and the big joke among them was how they got to relieve themselves in the woods just like the men.
Our society is upside down. Men wanting to be effeminate and woman wanting to be masculine.
Personally, I wouldn't have a cigar smoking, cussing woman in my life. And yes, I know I'm a fossil. And I'm OK with that.
welcome to our club fellow fossil
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:18pm.
I am a child of the 50's, thank goodness.
While I did some of the usual stupid things a young man will do I was brought up to believe there is moral absolute right and wrong, that you marry one woman, that you raise your children to understand there are rules and punishments for breaking them, sports ARE about the score but also about sportsmanship.
The current crop are nothing but infantiles. They are generally self centered and stupid. They are about feelings versus facts. There are however, bright lights in this darkness. You'll find most of them wearing the uniform of the US military. Which, of course, is why the libtards want to destroy the military. It's everything they are not - adult.
Hail and well met fellow fossil. (*grin*)
I think that Pop TV has
Submitted by goon on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:51am.
I think that Pop TV has become a platform for sleezeballs and dirt bags.
I don't think Bozell even
Submitted by wiwf on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:58am.
I don't think Bozell even liked MTV when it was still Music Television! All these rockers singing about sex and drugs, and pants below the waist. Also, Jackass was on then too.
what's the title of the photo.... ho's on parade?
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:10pm.
Seriously, would you date or marry a girl who dressed like that (except maybe for Halloween)?
Date or Marry?
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:14pm.
What century are you living in? They don't do those things anymore. Instead, they hook up and shack up.
Brent is over the target
Submitted by creekrat on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 12:15pm.
Probably get some flak too !
Societal entropy,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:00pm.
The rapid decay of society is directly proportional to the desire of liberals to reduce all mores and morals to their lowest common denominator. The entropy can not be stopped, only slowed. It's the voices and effort of Conservatives that fight to impede this decline. Abortion dehumanizes life. Drug use destroys society. Homosexuality destroys marriage between a man and a woman. One can see how rapid and devastating this entropy can be by witnessing the recent OWS filth and degradation of our cities. If anarchists had their way with society we all be reduced to this level of human and civil disgrace.
Today's television programming would give my 1960's grandmother a heart attack had lived this long. Better that she never saw the destruction of the family and the individual that it has wrought. Rather than using programming to advance society, to illuminate knowledge, to instruct and provide beneficial concepts we are left with the choice between Snooki and 30 Rock. I gave up on TV years ago. I now peruse the library and read books that can enlighten.
Good Term for a Bad Situation
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:50pm.
Societal Entropy. I'm going to remember that one, and think it through some more.
To hear Bozell carry on about
Submitted by fitzfong on Sat, 12/10/2011 - 5:44pm.
To hear Bozell carry on about this, you'd think the remote control was never invented.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
You don't have to click
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 7:11pm.
You don't have to click 'post' either.
Really? I don't have to?
Submitted by fitzfong on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:00pm.
Really? I don't have to? Thanks, Gladys.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Really? Bozell can't change
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:35pm.
Really? Bozell can change the channel? THANKS, HYPOCRITE.
"Abner, Abner! Come look out the window! Brent Bozell is criticizing television shows again!"
1st Amendment does NOT apply to critics
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:03am.
I will never get these people who claim to believe in absolute freedom of speech, but throw a fit if Mr. Bozell takes the time to tell us why he is changing the channel and why the rest of us should. IF people like fitzfong truly believed in freedom of speech & expression, they would be thanking Mr. Bozell for performing a great service.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What "service" in this case
Submitted by fitzfong on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:08pm.
What "service" in this case is Bozell providing? Seriously, if you can't determine what content is and is not appropriate for your kids without Brent Bozell and his merry band of PTC busybodies holding your hand and lobbying regulators on your behalf, I'm not sure parenting is your thing.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Maybe your problem is freedom
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:25am.
Please show me where in this article he has advocated censorship.
Before you scold and lecture me or others on whether or not they should be parents, you ought to consider that freedom isn't YOUR thing. I'm all for whatever MTV shows on their channel - electricity doesn't flow through my TV all that much anyway. But I, unlike you, thinks freedom applies to ALL. MTV shows what they want, Mr. Bozell says what he wants about it.
But not you. The same freedoms you insist belong to MTV simply don't apply to Mr. Bozell. To you, his job is to SHUT UP. Freedom does NOT apply to him at all.
The service he provides is letting us all know WHY we should consider turning off MTV.
Your having a problem with that makes you a major hypocrite at best.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Apparently you ignored my
Submitted by fitzfong on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:47pm.
Apparently you ignored my original comment and, in a manner that can only be described as "half-cocked", descended into a pathetic tirade about how my comment (or the attitude behind my comment, or something else, maybe you know, but I doubt it) reflects a wish to infringe upon Brent Bozell's freedom. A more clumsy attempt at pretzel logic would be hard to find. You've made up the claim that I believe Brent Bozell's "job is to SHUT UP" out of whole cloth. Bozell, like anyone else, is entitled to express his concern in the marketplace of ideas. However, in his wholehearted advocacy of PTC and its all-too-frequent proclamations, he moves from exercising his own right of free speech into employing the government to limit the speech of others.
And I renew my point: if you can't figure out on your own why to consider turning off MTV and you need Brent Bozell to act as your spam filter, do you need him to go to the bathroom for you, as well?
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Hiya Fitz
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 12:01am.
If the PTC had any influence they would be scary. Unfortunately for Mr Bozell, the PTC has as much influence as Howard Dean :-)
Good to see you, Shawn. The
Submitted by fitzfong on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:03pm.
Good to see you, Shawn. The scary part is that the PTC doesn't see in itself what it clearly sees in the pressure groups is often opposes.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Fitzfong, Why does it bother
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 6:37pm.
Fitzfong,
Why does it bother you so much that Mr. Bozell write his opinion about what is on television? Honestely, I am not getting it.
If you do not like his writings, well, don't read it, right? why does your philosphy only apply to television and others?
Why opine about it? and you can opine on Mr. Bozell's writing, but if Mr. Bozell opines on what is on television his a busy body attempting to influence the FCC? Are you not trying to influence your government too? Why can you influence your government and not Mr. Bozell?
You mock Mr. Bozell, insult him for attempting to do what we all do, including you, influence our government. So, if Mr. Bozell is all the insults you threw at him for attempting to influence our government, are you not the same insults since you also attempt to influence your government?
As much as you are criticizing him, which is within your Rights, does he not have the same Rights as you? Why mock him?
and what service? maybe for you, since you disagree with him, you do not see the service, but it is the same service that the New York Times, NPR, San Francisco Chronicle, etc provide. Inform the public that reads their material, right?
Liberallies, You're
Submitted by fitzfong on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:17pm.
Liberallies,
You're conflating what I wrote. As I said in response to someone above, I have no objection to Bozell opining about what is on television. What I do object to is the purpose of this article. It is not simply to opine about a trashy, lightweight television show on MTV, it is to promote the findings of the latest "study" by the Parents Television Council...and, in turn, to drive traffic to the PTC's website where you can learn how to use heavy-handed, leftist tactics to pressure government and harass advertisers into limiting the free speech of others.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
You actually take the
Submitted by fitzfong on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:21pm.
You actually take the position that my comment regarding Bozell's nanny crusade is the equivalent of this (straight from the Parents Television Council website...the very same outfit that Bozell is advocating in this piece)?
The PTC’s efforts focus on holding advertisers accountable for the content of the programs they sponsor, holding the FCC accountable for enforcing existing broadcast decency laws, pushing for the unbundling of cable packages so that consumers are not forced to pay for content they find offensive, and restricting children’s ability to purchase Mature-rated, or Adult-Only-Rated video games from retailers without a parent or guardian present at the point of sale.
It is one thing to simply complain about program content on television. It is quite another to use "the children" as a human shield to push advertisers and government to enforce heavy-handed restrictions on content you find objectionable. Somewhere along the way, our culture has blurred the lines over what constitutes a "right". Healthcare is NOT a "right", neither is television. If you don't like what is on television, you have the opportunity to change the channel or not to watch television at all. Last I checked, the marketplace provided quite an array of alternative leisure activities (books, board games, family interaction, the internet, etc.) that did not require the government to enforce the taste preferences of the few on the many. If Bozell and the PTC represented the views of more than a minor fringe of the marketplace, they wouldn't have to pressure advertisers and the FCC to tailor content to their sensitivities...the marketplace would take care of it on its own. But if we've learned anything from the anti-smoking and union boycott campaigns, it's usually easier to use children as victims and government as enforcers to advance your agenda than to make your case and convince the public that you're right.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Selective application of freedom of speech
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:00am.
To hear you whine you would think freedom of speech never applies to critics.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yeah, you might want to learn
Submitted by fitzfong on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:26pm.
Yeah, you might want to learn what the difference is between a "critic" and an advocate for additional government regulations/greater government enforcement of "existing" restrictions. But nice try.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Hypocrite
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:29am.
Um, please show me where in this article he has advocated censorship.
You are just another hypocrite who thinks freedom of speech and expression only applies to certain people.
Let me guess, you are going to appoint yourself as the person in charge of determining who it applies to?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
By the laziness and stupidity
Submitted by fitzfong on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:22pm.
By the laziness and stupidity of your response, one can only assume that you are ignorant and have allowed your emotional imbalance to write a check that your intellect can't cover. The article is your typical hyperbolic press release, not specifically to advocate censorship within the narrow confines of the piece, but to announce the findings of the "latest study" of the PTC...the slippery slope toward that end. Substitute a few words (e.g. replace "Jersey Shore" with "Fettuccine Alfredo", "intercourse" with "consumption", "society's truck drivers" with "heart attack on a plate"), sprinkle in couple of hand-wringing cliches about "the children", and you've got a Center for Science in the Public Interest PR dump. Like a Michael Jacobson fax about Mexican food, the article itself is designed to drive traffic to the a website so that people can learn how to harass advertisers, regulatory agencies and elected officials into limiting others' access to content PTC finds objectionable...and you even get the invitation to donate to the cause so that PTC can continue to operate its battery of VCRs to cherry pick the dirty bits from prime time and cable television shows so that a small, but loud chorus of scolds can use government to impose its will on a market that doesn't cater to its whims.
And, seriously, next time spare yourself the embarrassment of getting caught projecting what other people think. You've never met me, you don't know anything about me, and you obviously haven't the first clue what I think. Save your amateur psychologist bit for someone who can't see it for the transparent non sequitur that it is. It makes you look like a hack. On second thought, in the interest of freedom of expression applying to everyone, feel free to practice your Dr. Phil routine...as long as you tolerate the inevitable mocking that will follow. It's only fair.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Fitzfong, I almost agree,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 6:13pm.
Fitzfong,
I almost agree, almost...however, maybe you can tell everyone what you would do in this situation.
So, I have no cable or regular televison in my house. I have Vudu Plus and Netflix all password protected and the movies that can be seen by my 7 and 5 year old kids must be rated PG or G. My wife and I have absolute control over our internet and we have installed filters that block any and all garbage as well as it records anywhere and everywhere you go on the internet as well as it records all IMs sent and received. We have done exactly wha tyou advocate, which I agree with. If you do not like it change the channel. My wife and I not only changed the channel, we completely gave up on cable television and regular televsion. However....
then my child goes visits someone's home. In that house, the family does not have anywhere near the restrictions and parenting control that we have. The parents seem trustworthy, the children seem well educated, polite, good, moral, etc. But kids will be kids. Or more like human nature will be what it is if left uncontrolled. And they start looking and searching and boom...shows like Glee come up, or Playboy, or PanAm or they go on the web and find things inappropiate for children. What then? Honestly, what then? And I do not find out until my son is 18 and he tells me of all the bad things they did at their friends' home that they could not do at mine.
or how about this, which happens too often. I am watching an NFL game at a friends house. My 7 year old son is with me watching the Bears in overtime being defeated by the Broncos when all of a sudden a racy commercial with half naked women comes on or a comercial about Viagra comes on or a comercial for Glee comes up showing two boys kissing. Then what? My son sees all these because I left for a washroom break. Are you ok with this?
I am not using the children to conjure up emotion or support. I am using, however, facts. Stuff that has happened. Do you have any children? By your writing it looks like not, but i am may be wrong.
You speak of a small minority attempting to force the FCC to do things. But geez, the fact is that a small minority has pushed the FCC to accept inappropiate language for kids during prime time and earlier in the day when young kids could be watching (oh yes, of course, the simple, change the channel answer, right? So, what if I am not in the room) A small minority has pushed for naked women and men to be seen on television and sexual acts to be shown on regular television. I was watching Battlestar Galactica from Netlflix last night and I was shocked at what the SyFy channel was allowed to get away with! But since they didn't show nipple or a woman's or man's private part, it was ok, but they showed as much as the FCC allows which is everything, but...
At what point do we as Americans take responsability and demand that the FCC do its jobs. I am a very small government Conservative, but I am not an individual who believes any regulation by government is bad.
I am not looking for a fight, just an honest answer from you.
Liberallies, I appreciate the
Submitted by fitzfong on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:00pm.
Liberallies, I appreciate the concerns you have about protecting your children from the various threats that society dishes out from day-to-day. But with all due respect, the attitude you're expressing is exactly the reason people like me are so cynical and skeptical about the tactics of pressure groups like the one Brett Bozell endorses. Much as we'd like ourselves and our loved ones to be shielded from dangers of all sorts, it's simply impossible to guarantee that security at all times, especially when family members are out of direct sight. And it's unreasonable to expect government to regulate the activities of others to at best bridge a gap that cannot be filled.
If you regulate automobiles out of existence, you can be relatively certain that the neighbor's kid isn't going to get hit by a car in his lifetime. But that doesn't mean he will never get killed or injured walking to school. He could fall in a manhole, get hit by a flying projectile or get attacked by a predator. Meanwhile you have restricted others from using something that benefits their lives in the name of protecting children from something that could hurt them. In a similar sense, you don't want to subject your children to material you find objectionable. Television contains some programming that is useful to some, but objectionable to you. While you're under your own roof, you can regulate what comes in. But when you expect government to step in to restrict the content of a television show or a commercial to accommodate your sensitivities while your child is outside your supervision, you're simply demanding too much.
Not everyone shares your particular values. And no government is able to prevent your children from being exposed to material you find objectionable when they are out of your supervision...nor should it be. It would simply be impossible for television or any other media to exist, if, instead of reflecting the tastes of the marketplace, it was forced to conform to the various standards of often conflicting pressure groups. In the marketplace, producers/distributors who fail to reflect the tastes of the market (i.e., who cannot draw a large enough audience to generate advertising revenue) get punished for their failure by losing money and/or getting their shows canceled. But special interest groups like NOW, Rainbow/PUSH, CAIR and even PTC often insist on regulating the content of specific programs to cater to their particular tastes and sensibilities rather than creating (or finding already existing) programming that better reflects their desires. And, as your beer commercial/Viagra spot example shows, your concern even trickles into wishing limitations on the content produced by the underwriters of certain programming...the money that provides you with the entertainment you want.
To borrow the expression: the solution to bad speech is MORE speech. The way to ensure that you and your family have access to the most enjoyable content available is not to limit the availability of the content that others enjoy, but to gravitate to the material that enriches you. If enough people share your tastes (and they most certainly do), more and more content will be available to meet your demands.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best