Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Lauren Thompson's blog
  • ABC and CBS Ignore Obama Administration Investigating FNC's James Rosen
  • NBC's Gregory Scolds GOP for Comparing Obama to Nixon
  • CBS Highlights Ex-IRS Staffer Who Declares There Were No Politics at Cincinnati Office
  • Monday's Amnesia: CNN Covers Powerball Jackpot Winner as Much as IRS, AP, Benghazi Scandals
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'

Pay Cable’s Race to the Bottom

By Lauren Thompson | June 06, 2012 | 12:32

A  A
Lauren Thompson's picture

Good news for pay cable viewers who like their sex scenes graphic, bloody and spiked with an unhealthy dose of violence. HBO’s original series “True Blood” is set to begin its fifth season on June 10.  

While it remains to be seen if “True Blood” can top a scene from a previous season in which a male vampire twists a female’s head around 180 degrees during a bout of blood-drenched “hate sex,” the promos make clear that the season won’t skimp on the sex and violence.  

Unfortunately, as a pay cable show, “True Blood” is unique only in its vampire theme. Since the premium channels began to produce their own original series. HBO, Showtime and Starz churn out shows laden with wretched characters and repulsive dialogue, all with a heavy dose of pornography and blood-soaked drama. And, as critics have pointed out, as goes pay cable, so eventually will go broadcast programming.

   

So HBO’s “Game of Thrones” featured a savage, sexual torture scene, and specializes in “sexposition” – characters doing monologues that advance the plot while they are engaged in a variety of sex acts. “Spartacus” a popular series on Starz, drew praise from Huffington Post for “generous helpings of graphic violence, orgiastic nudity, and racy sex.” Showtime’s sex-laden historical drama, “The Borgias” hints at incest, and a porn industry editor said of the network’s reality show “Gigolos,” “Please, it’s porn! [T]hey’re showing hardcore sex.” 

The MRC’s Culture and Media Institute analyzed the original series of HBO, Showtime and Starz and concluded:

  • Pornographic sex and bloody violence are found in the majority of premium content, and producers seek to add more in the future.
  • Broadcast TV is sinking to pay cable’s lack of standards as free network channels include more soft-core sex scenes and violent drama in their original series.

 

While the FCC has precise regulations against indecency and obscenity in broadcast TV these provisionsdo not apply to pay cable channels, since the viewer chooses to pay extra for them. 

According to Dan Isett of Parents Television Council, the series “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos” were the catalyst for pay cable’s dark turn, and premium content jumps joyfully into the abyss with each new show. 

“Pay cable defines deviancy for everyone. It is essentially the porning up of popular culture,” Benjamin Shapiro, Breitbart.com Editor-at-large, said. 

‘True Blood’ and ‘Game of Thrones’ – Porn With A Better Script 

HBO hits regularly feature pornographic scenes. “True Blood” has featured characters engaged in orgies, glorified drug-induced sexual encounters, regularly mixed blood and sex and subjected audiences to the scene described above –  television’s goriest sex scene yet. Two vampires (Bill and Lorena) had gruesome hate sex in a blood-bathed bed, with Bill strangling Lorena and twisting her head 180 degrees during sex. Bones crunched when Bill buried his fangs in the Lorena’s neck, and he arose with a bloody face and demonic scream. 

HBO’s actors aren’t bothered by it, or at all circumspect about nude scenes. Anna Paquin who plays Sookie Stackhouse on “True Blood” said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, “I don’t pretend to think that on the 18th hour of shooting anyone on set gives two flying whatevers that I have my tits out.” 

Paquin appeared with fellow cast-mates Stephen Moyer and Alexander Skarsgard on a smutty Rolling Stone cover, which featured all three stars naked and covered in blood, with Paquin posing seductively between the two men. 

Chillingly, this show was nominated for the 2012 Teen Choice Awards, an awards show where the nominees and winners are hand-picked by teenagers. That’s right; children who are probably too young to watch an R-rated film are viewing the violent, sexual mess that is “True Blood.” 

Producer Alan Ball told Rolling Stone that he believed vampires are sex. “I don’t get a vampire story about abstinence. I don’t care about high school students. I find them irritating and uniformed,” Ball said. 

Stephen Moyer, who plays Southern vampire Bill Compton lavished explicit and gory praise for “True Blood” and its undead cast. 

“It's a de-virginization — breaking the hymen, creating blood and then drinking the virginal blood. And there's something sharp, the fang, which is probing and penetrating and moving into it. So that's pretty sexy. I think that makes vampires attractive," Moyer said in an interview. 

Rolling Stone gleefully devoted an entire spread to "True Blood's" sexual deviancy. “On [True Blood] every available orifice is used for intercourse: gay straight, between humans and supernatural beings, and supernatural being on supernatural being, whether he be werewolf, dog, or an enormous Minotaur-looking being called a maenad.” 

“True Blood” is a twisted mess, they won’t be surprised to discover the actors are as demented as the morally bankrupt characters the play. Moyer admitted he enjoyed the show's sexual fetishes. 

“It’s about taking things to the point of where normal frames of society wouldn’t think was an okay thing for a young, Southern girl to do. It’s interesting to think about sex as the search for a moment together which is a glorious combination of orgasm and sexual oneness that might lead to death,” Moyer said. 

The new Season 5 poster touts the slogan “Stake 5” with five wooden stakes dripping blood. The fifth season trailer overflows with blood and violence giving audiences a glimpse of mutilated bodies and characters bathed in blood, and highlights a character saying, “Humans should be farmed like cattle.” 

The wild popularity of “True Blood” paved the way for HBO’s next original show, “Game of Thrones.” The series is a medieval drama, based on George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire” book series, and while the plot drastically differs from “True Blood,” it too features ridiculous amount of graphic sex.

“Game of Thrones” has been criticized even by left-leaning critics at Huffington Post and The Washington Post for its appalling amounts of sex and nudity; specifically for a savage, sexual torture scene where child-king Joffrey forced prostitute Ros to beat another prostitute, Daisy, with a spiked bronze scepter. Joffrey held the two at crossbow-point, and a sadistic smile played on his face as Daisy’s screams echoed across the walls of his bedroom. 

“The show’s relentless use of nudity has become so outlandish,” said Anna Holmes of The Washington Post, “that it often overshadows or distracts from the natural story.” 

HuffPo’s Lorraine Wilke commented, “Apparently the writers and show-runners holding the reins at premiere cable land are bursting to expose every sexual anecdote they’ve ever heard, witnessed, or experienced.” 

“Game of Thrones” relies heavily on “sexposition,” the technique of pairing plot exposition with sex. Lefty entertainment website Vulture tallied the "greatest sexposition moments" in “Thrones,” complete with pictures.  

At the Daily Beast, writer Jace Jacob observed:

While frank sex in HBO shows is common (just look at True Blood), Game of Thrones appears to be placing it front and center … There's been a litany of such scenes: Harry Lloyd's Viserys recounts his family's sordid history to a pleasure slave astride him in the bathtub; Alfie Allen's Theon offers a full-frontal view of his manhood after having sex with a prostitute; there's Peter Dinklage's Tyrion, abed with multiple whores in the series opener; and a scene between Emilia Clarke's Daenerys and her handmaiden turns into a steamy lesbian-tinged sex training sequence.  

Esme Bianco, who played the prostitute Ros starred in her own provocative lesbian sex scene, as an audition for brothel owner Petyr Baelish.  Baelish then delivered a monologue while the two prostitutes graphically pleasured each other. This scene was created for television, and didn’t appear in the books. 

“The [above scene] came out of left field,” commented Ben Shapiro. “To write this scene in, it was obvious HBO thought they needed to add more graphic sex.” 

“Thrones” wrapped up its second season on June 3 and will begin a third season next year.  

HBO’s Original Series – Birthed in Immorality 

HBO’s rush for the gutter began to accelerate with series like “Entourage,” and “Big Love.”  

The LA Times gushed about “Big Love,” saying, “For three seasons, the HBO drama about a polygamist family was astonishing in its narrative agility, able to persuade increasingly devoted audiences that the Henrickson clan — one husband, three wives — was not all that different from their non-polygamous counterparts.” 

“Entourage” happily held up a mirror to Hollywood’s debauchery. The Hollywood Reporter described“Entourage” as “The concoction: fame, money, sex, drugs, parties, more parties, more sex, more fame, more money and then a bunch of detours for everyone else in the entourage to have either a lower-level semblance of the same happen to them or, to prove a point, not happen to them at all.” 

The newest addition to HBO’s sex-obsessed lineup is “Girls,” a comedy written by Lena Dunham and Judd Apatow. In the first episode viewers were treated to a demoralizing BDSM sex scene, as Dunham’s character Hannah was used like a play-thing by her boyfriend, Adam. 

ABCNews.com described the scene as “borderline date rape,” but the awful sex doesn’t stop there. Allison Williams, daughter of NBC anchor Brian Williams, was featured in an explicit masturbation scene. Fellow characters Jessa and Shoshanna regularly have sex and perform oral sex on the show. 

Sex Sells on Showtime 

Showtime loves prostitutes. Two of its original series focus on the trade. “Gigolos” is a reality show which follows five male escorts who service women in Las Vegas, while “Secret Diary of a Call Girl” focused on a female prostitute. 

Salon.com called “Gigolo’s” sexual content a “graphic sign of our times.” Explicit sex scenes are inserted between reality TV-like confessional interviews and Mark Kernes of Adult Video news said “Gigolos” falls into the pornography genre. “Please, it’s porn! If they’re showing hardcore sex, and the theme of the show is sexually oriented, it could hardly be anything else,” he said. 

Historical dramas like “The Borgias” and “The Tudors” trade facts for foreplay, and are laden with gratuitous sex. “The Borgias” chronicles the life of the corrupt Borgia family who rose to power in the Catholic Church and is fraught with bed-hopping and rumored incest. 

“Brother-sister duo Cesare and Lucrezia look like they are mere seconds from making out with each other,” said Morgan Glennon of Huffington Post.

“The Tudors” included a bounty of sex scenes and bordered on a
"soft-core skin flick" in most episodes, and “The Borgias” is following suit. 

“Californicaton” takes pride in showcasing the graphic sexual escapades of failed writer Hank Moody. His immoral landslide included sleeping with a violent 16-year-old girl.  

The moral standards of pay cable are non-existant, and Showtime producers take pride in how far the network can push any boundary. Ten of its original series are fixated on explicit sex and often descend into violence-porn. 

Showtime’s most depraved series is “Dexter,” which glorifies murder and violence, and (of course) boasts lots of casual sex. Dexter is described as television’s “anti-hero,” a man who at a young age discovered joy in murdering humans. But to Showtime that’s just fine if the victim is a criminal. 

“Our leading man is a serial killer. He constantly obsesses and dialogues with his dead adoptive father. He keeps blood slides and murder weapons and consistently deceives the people around him in order to rack up body counts. The show's very premise inspired protests from groups such as the Parents Television Council. We see Dexter's mania manifesting virtually every week,” "The Atlantic" reported.   

The friendly serial killer next-door even tells his child bedtime stories. In one episode Dexter told his son astory about monsters being slain and chopped up into pieces so small no one will ever find them.

Other sordid Showtime offerings include “Nurse Jackie” and “Weeds.”  

“Nurse Jackie” follows the life of adultering, painkiller addict Jackie, who spends most of her lunch breaks having sex with her lover, the hospital pharmacist who supplies her with drugs. 

New York Magazine described the character: “Double shifts and 80-hour weeks have left her with a bad back, and that has led her to grind Percocet into her coffee sweetener and snort lines of Aderall in the ladies’ room.” 

 As befits late night premium cable, “Weeds” dialed up the raunch. Character speech is laced with profanity, and the heroine is a dysfunctional suburban mom who turned to dealing pot so she could support her extravagant lifestyle. Casual sex and nudity are common. 

Newcomer “House of Lies” is described by actress Kristen Bell. “This show is for fans of sophisticated filth, which I think really sums it up. I was looking for something daring – that’s a better way to put it than provocative and raunch. It’s relevant in the current zeitgest with the whole Occupy movement. All of these characters are wheeling and dealing, showing you behind-the-scenes dirty business. I think it’s attractive, sophisticated filth,” Bell told Huffington Post. 

Liberal Media Rewards Debauchery 

The media loves to highlight the filth of pay cable television. “True Blood” has a long list of awards, including nominations for 12 Emmys and three Golden Globes. Both “Game of Thrones” and “Dexter” were nominated for Emmys in their respective categories. 

“Game of Thrones” and “True Blood” regularly receive positive reviews from both The Washington Post and The New York Times. 

Sarah Anne Hughes, a blogger for the Post, seemed very emotional about the “Game of Thrones” second season closer, “Take a moment. Exhale. Wipe away any remaining tears. It’s not goodbye, just see you later,” she wrote. 

The New York Times’ Gina Bellefante couldn’t get enough of True Blood’s gritty sex. Bellefante wrote, “The sex is served in such luridly voluptuous, viewer-satiation-guaranteed portions that the show feels like nothing else on television, by which I mean television that isn’t available exclusively on $15.99 hotel-room pay-per-view.”

 New York Magazine  raved about the abhorrent plot of “Girls.” “As a person who has followed, for more than twenty years, recurrent, maddening ­debates about the lives of young women, the series felt to me like a gift. Girls was a bold defense (and a searing critique) of the so-called Millennial Generation by a person still in her twenties. It was a sex comedy from the female POV, taking on subjects like STDs and abortion with a radical savoir-faire as well as a visual grubbiness that was a statement in itself,” wrote Emily Nussbaum.

 The Danger of Pay Cable

 “Pay cable can deliver content no one else allows you to have because they make the big bucks in debauchery,” Shapiro told CMI. “The liberalism is obvious. They are happy to be pushing boundaries and take great pride in degrading American discourse. From now on the entertainment industry will be competing at the lowest common denominator.”  

The lack of standards in pay cable is giving audiences a glimpse into the nasty future of broadcast television. Regular cable networks regularly feature ribald behavior and vile rhetoric.  FOX’s “Glee” is a series geared toward kids ages 12-17, but the dark agenda of the show is masked behind a peppy, musical world.   

“To me, ‘Glee’ is more dangerous than ‘Game of Thrones.’ It has a specifically designed political and adult agenda set in a high-school musical world,” Shapiro said.  

A recent episode of “Glee” centered around teenagers losing their virginity and featured a gay sex scene.  

FX’s “American Horror Story” and “Nip/Tuck” were so horrifying that even the cast was shocked at the content, and questioned whether it was appropriate for broadcast TV.    

American Horror Story” featured voyeurism, dual masturbation, and a masochistic minute-and-a-half long sexual encounter between characters. Even the opening credits for the series were set to make the average audience gag in horror, with shots of mutilated body parts and the heads of infants preserved in jars. 

“Nip/Tuck” aired scenes of slutty plastic surgeons engaged in graphic sex. In one episode an incestuous mother/daughter threesome occurred.

 The licentiousness and perversion of premium content is no longer contained to pay channels only. In fact, Ryan Murphy, creator of “Nip/Tuck,” “American Horror Story” and “Glee,” famously stated it is his goal to “remove every barrier to the depiction of explicit sex on TV.” Slowly but surely, he’s succeeding.  

“Pay cable shows like “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City” both air on broadcast television channels,” PTC’s Isett said. While they’re edited they’re still extremely adult. They are bundled into your channels and appear in your TV guide. The problem is how these raunchy, filthy shows are marketed more widely than only on premium cable.”

  • Pornography
  • Culture/Society
  • HBO
  • Lauren Thompson's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

so what

Submitted by walkingdead1212 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 1:21pm.

look I'm all for this site as a watchdog for liberal bias... but I'm not ok with it regulating morality. I'm a conservative, I like all things conservatives like, but I want my entertainment entertaining. with the v-chip and password blocks there is no excuse for any of this content getting in to the hands of children.

Do not make the argument that this stuff has no place on tv. thats a simple fix. dont watch it and it will go away.

were talking about pay cable here. first of all I need cable so thats 20-40 bucks a month... maybe more depending on where you live. then you have hbo which is another 15 bucks. you are talking about "smut" on a second tier of pay television. if pbs was doing this I could see you having an argument, but its not. its on pay tv, a network that people specifically pay to have. I specifically pay to have these shows.

  • Login to post comments

The non-conservative whiningdead1212

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:43pm.


Do not make the argument that this stuff has no place on tv. thats a simple fix. dont watch it and it will go away.  walkingdead1212 believes that freedom of expression ONLY, and ONLY applies to the artist.  The critic has zero rights and must be forced to shut up.

whiningdead1212, people like critics who wrote this piece make it possible for others to change the channel.  You should be more grateful.

You are not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination because you think the First Amendment only applies to certain people.

Regulating morality?  Um, where and how?  

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I don't think he said the

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:46pm.

I don't think he said the first amendment didn't apply to her.

  • Login to post comments

Pedantry, bal...

Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:18am.

Not in so many words. Be he is enraged beyond belief that a critic would say anything.

He is busy defending the right of the artist to freedom of speech but is extremely upset that a critic would say anything about it.

And those types kill me on pages such as this. I would hope that you, of all people, would realize that the critic does a great service. The critic says something along the lines (again, my little pedant, not in so many words) "This show is depraved, and it sucks; I'm changing the channel, this is why, I think you should too." From there, do what the hell you want.

But apparently we have two posters for whom this act is just utterly criminal.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Critics are great, and it's

Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 6:33pm.

Critics are great, and it's always an option to voice a disagreement with that critic.

  • Login to post comments

But...

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:42pm.

Sure, but whining that the critic has no business to say anything and that they all need to keep their mouths shut and just change the channel is ironic, especially when the critic is not calling for censorship.

Again, it's all about people wanting a selective application of freedom of speech. I say it's all good. Hell, critize the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic of the critic for all I care. The exchange of ideas and opinions over anything is a good thing. Don't you think?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Who needs it?

Submitted by Morganfrost on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 1:33pm.

Obscenity, violent sex, sexualized violence, gratuitous nudity, drug abuse, blood, cruelty, savagery... like any good American family man, I can get all that at home. Why go to TV for it?

  • Login to post comments

Who cares?

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 1:41pm.

Candidly, who cares?

If you don't like the content, don't pay for it. Why should something which is a private service have to accommodate what you care for on television?

"The lack of standards in pay cable is giving audiences a glimpse into the nasty future of broadcast television."

Maybe, maybe not. You don't support that position; you simply make it. An intellectually weak argument such as that is what you should be exposing (and generally do a very good job at) not providing.

The good news is I am an adult consuming a legal product in the privacy of my own home. How is there anything wrong with that?

  • Login to post comments

Hypocrisy

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:45pm.

Yet another who thinks the First Amendment ONLY applies to artists and entertainers and becomes VERY ANGRY when critics say ANYTHING at all and are not forced to SHUT UP.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Not Angry

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:04am.

I expressed an opinion different than that of the author of the story. I don't think this should be the focus of NewsBusters. I am not saying anyone should "shut up". I am suggesting that Ms. Thompson's pieces on the media going after Christianity are more in line with what I would expect from this site.

As for the First Amendment only applying to artists and entertainers - where did I state that?

I support the decision of Citizens United. Additionally, I believe campaign finance laws are in fact being used to silence the speech of actual citizens by limiting what they can contribute.

Generally, in internet lingo using capital letters expresses shouting and can infer anger. I don't believe I have done that. I believe I have stated positions based on my opinion, have not addressed the individual posting and have rather focused on the merits of their argument.

  • Login to post comments

Pedantry gets you nowhere

Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:10pm.

You are still extremely angry that Miss Thompson elected to put together this story.

Did you demand she shut up in so many words? No. Did you call for the First Amendment to only apply to critics? Again, not in so many words. But you actions here suggest otherwise.

In fact, applying your own logic, you have no right to say anything about NewsBusters or its content or staff. Don't like it? Shut up and go to another web page. (Again, applying your very own logic.)

As for me, Miss Thompson is doing a great service by telling people that she IS changing the channel, WHY she is, and why she thinks, IHHO, why you should. This is freedom of speech. This is democracy. That's the messy business we call "the exchange of ideas and opinions." (h/t to Rex Murphy) Your behavior here suggests to me that this makes you extremely upset.

NewsBusters can and should do as it damn well pleases, and shouldn't be out to appease you, or me, for that matter.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Clearly

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:23pm.

I am the angry one between the two of us....

I could most certainly go to another site. But I am challenging this piece relative to what I believe the mission of this site is. And I happen to like this one. And I generally like Ms. Thompson's writing.

My actions do not suggest anything of the sort you are implying. What you are suggesting is that any opinion which is not in lock step with the stated position of the author is an attempt to silence that opinion and that I believe the author has no first amendment rights. You just can't get there from what I have written.

I am really unclear as to why a difference of opinion means someone is upset?

Have I cast a single aspersion onto the character or motives or intelligence of a single person that I have engaged in discourse with? Most of them have been good natured and had a sense of humor about this.

I haven't demanded anything. I think there are problems with the piece and it should have been more narrowly focused if it was going to be written and appear on this site. I think you are implying conclusions in her piece that do not exist. I have explained that in a post directly to her and above this. I have no interest in rehashing it with you.

  • Login to post comments

What's the problem?

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:46pm.

Laughable, considering you are implying conclusions in her piece that do not exist.

You still behave here as if somehow the evil Miss Thompson is going to come along and take away your cable options, and that she simply needs to shut up and change the channel and not utter a single word of criticism. I merely think she is doing a great service, as do all critics of television, movies and the like. I read what they say and make my entertainment choices accordingly. I am free. So are you, but you are still throwing a fit that anyone on NB has opted to say anything at all about pay cable. I don't get it. If she's not calling for government censorship - what's the problem?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

I'm sorry but I am True Blood fan

Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:11pm.

and cannot wait for Sunday's season premier. However, I do hate myself for loving it so please don't judge me too harshly.

That's just my opinion; I could be wrong. -- Dennis Miller
  • Login to post comments

A lot of words to summarize

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:23pm.

A lot of words to summarize what we already know to back a theory that _might_ occur.

TV = bad. Got it. Anything else?

  • Login to post comments

TV = Bad

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:29pm.

Saw the word 'pay' and didn't bother reading. I'll admit that there is not much on TV I do like and even the few shows I do see at least occassionally slip in some liberal message but I don't have to watch. A pay channel - their business - their dime. In this case people will watch but it is more indicative of the fact that what the studios lack in quality they make up for in sensationalism. It sells - good for them.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

No doubt some of these shows

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:52pm.

No doubt some of these shows go over the top, but there is also some tremendous storytelling going on, too. Not in all of them, for sure. True Blood is just camp, over-the-top everywhere you look. Game of Thrones, the fans of it are not in it for the sex. They love the epic nature of the show, the intrigue, etc.

I don't care for Girls, having watched it a few times. It's self-indulgent, "Oh look how dull my life is", thrills in showing the lead character being treated terribly. (And it's written by the actress playing the lead character.)

  • Login to post comments

tremendous storytelling?

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:19pm.

Perhaps, I don't watch enough to make that judgment. Tudors is the only thing I've seen advertised that looks interesting to me. But I don't watch series very often that require following a story line because my lack of attention span and a schedule that varies greatly prevents interest for more than a couple of weeks.

I remember when I got HBO for free several years ago and watched a couple of their series back then along with a couple of 'new' movies. You could trace the story lines back a handful of English authors that received an updating. The ending to most shows and movies are predictable so all you can really enjoy is the trip. How many times are we going to rip off Shakespeare, Austen or Webster?

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Well to be fair, how many

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:28pm.

Well to be fair, how many truly different kinds of stories are there? Every once in a while you get something truly original, such as Adaptation or Memento, but that's really, really hard to do.

  • Login to post comments

being fair -

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:34pm.

There are thousands of different stories to tell but in truth the studios will only back a few. Any volume of 'The History of Civilization' contains multiple stories to tell if someone chose to do the research.

However, your point on originality is valid. Not because there isn't the opportunity - just that it is really hard. Not only because the work and inspiration involved but because there will be a line of 'experts' telling you it is a waste of time.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Agnostic, Exactly, there are

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:50pm.

Agnostic,

Exactly, there are thousands upon thousands of great and amazing stories to tell, but the big studios will only back a few.

I do believe that we are literally in the middle of the decline of the modern Western Civilizations.

Music lacks originality. Countless of pieces of music are rewrites, with new beat, a few more words.

Countless of movies are reboots, redones of old movies or Movie1, SameMovie2, SameMovie3.

There are countless of great stories to tell, but HBO, Showtimes, Starz, etc. stick with entising the animalistic behaviors of human beings. Sex sells, this is a fact because it appeals to our raw animal instincts. I can guarantee you that Spartacus, True Blood, Giglo, etc. would not be anywhere as popular if they didn't have the pornographic nature to it. this is a sad statement of where we are as human beings in the 21st Century.

  • Login to post comments

Liberallies,

Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:57am.

If you believe we are in the middle of a decline than you are being generous. But the decline that is causing the real trouble in this country is the decline in an expectation of decency and morality. Look at our leadership and the lack of accountability - not only political but in the private sector. Politicians and their associates show little restraint due to their positions. Too many business executives hide behind the cloak of 'responsibility to stockholders' to not make tough moral decisions. Too many people accept what is being done (to some extent I am one) without standing up to be counted in a significant manner.

I could make an argument that the trash that is programmed on TV is just a reflection of what society has allowed in its leadership but it really doesn't matter because it is a chicken-or-egg scenario and defining which is the leading cause will not make either scenario any healthier.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Gotta take issue with you on music

Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 7:50pm.

Yes, Liberallies, music CAN be a very un-creative thing these days. But there IS good, creative music out there. Trust me.

The only thing one needs to do is to go out and find it. Hints: do NOT look at MTV. Do NOT bother finding it on the radio.

But the best, most creative music IS out there, I am happy to report. It's just passed along by word of mouth.

:)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Unsane, Oh, sorry for not

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 1:48am.

Unsane,

Oh, sorry for not being specific. I was talking about pop-music, i.e. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Spears, etc. I am also talking about the depraved and degrading rap and hip-hop music which either is all about taking someone's life or sex with your 'ho and lots of the "N" word thrown in. Radio sucks big time. As I learned a long time ago, radio stations pay songs by artists who have paid the stations off with trips, and many, MANY other perks. The more perks the "musician" gives, the more their idiotic song will play on the radio.

I 100% agree with you, there is a lot of good music out there, but it must be searched and found. The main stream stuff that it is thrown at us, like the HBO, Starz, Showtime garbage is just pure and utter pathetic.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks for the clarification

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/13/2012 - 10:36am.

Liberallies, I agree with that sentiment 1000%. As one who is subject to pop music 8 hours a day at work, I totally agree. Throwing lyrical "content" aside for a second, it all lacks creativity and is utterly mind-numbing. When I grew up on 80s pop music, I don't remembering it being nearly this bad. At least those artists made attempts at being creative!

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

HBO is circling the drain.

Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:40pm.

The further left they go with Bill Maher etc, the faster they'll sink cable.

  • Login to post comments

Who let these trolls come into the room?

Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:44pm.

"Do not make the argument that this stuff has no place on tv. thats a simple fix. dont watch it and it will go away."

Has it? I'm not watching it, but it seems it's gotton worse! The only way this stuff goes away is if we talk about it. and expose it for what it really is. Just like turning on a light in a roach-filled room. Watch them scatter! You can go back to your dark corner of the room, now.

"The good news is I am an adult consuming a legal product in the privacy of my own home. How is there anything wrong with that?"

I'm not sure about the "Adult" part.
Did you miss the part in the article that said that teenagers are watching this stuff? You must be one of them, as you lack the maturity of an adult if you find this sort of garbage entertaining. And I question your intelligence if you have no problem shelling out good dough to watch this trash.

"its on pay tv, a network that people specifically pay to have. I specifically pay to have these shows."

Uhh... no... that would be "pay-per-view". If you subscribe to cable, basically anybody in your household could watch it without paying "specifically" for this kind of entertainment.

Why not watch a good porn film on pay-per-view. You'd probably find it just as satisfying, and wind up paying less for it.

"You don't support that position; you simply make it. An intellectually weak argument such as that is what you should be exposing (and generally do a very good job at) not providing."

responding to...
"The lack of standards in pay cable is giving audiences a glimpse into the nasty future of broadcast television."

So I'll support the argument, then. Just do a review for the past 20 or 30 years of what broadcast television was like then, and compare it to what we have today. Where do you suppose the networks got their inspiration from, eh?

Where do these trolls come from?

"There... Are... Four... Lights!"

  • Login to post comments

Please. You're saying that in

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:55pm.

Please. You're saying that in 1992 network television looked at "1st and Ten" or "Dream On" and said, "There's the future of network TV"?

  • Login to post comments

true dat

Submitted by walkingdead1212 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:30pm.

yeah I thought the same thing.

  • Login to post comments

Canuck,

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:06pm.

In many respect you may be correct as last night alone I saw full male nudity from behind in prime time on a cable channel while I was working upstairs and then sometime after 11pm there was a nude woman from the waste up profiled just enough to not show nipple. 

The shows were on to provide background while I was working on something else but I was not particularly pleased with the concept of this being on regular cable. That being said - if the price of deciding what I want to eat, drink, read, watch or where I want to travel is that there is going to be racy scenes on TV that may be offensive to those that chose to watch - then it is a price I will pay. As far as children go - there is no good answer and while I certainly wouldn't want my child exposed to some of the scenes described above I'm not prepared to go the censorship route yet - at least on the limited access channels.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Troll?

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:07pm.

I didn't attack the author, I attacked the argument - just as I will attack your argument.

"I'm not sure about the "Adult" part."

Really?

"Did you miss the part in the article that said that teenagers are watching this stuff? You must be one of them, as you lack the maturity of an adult if you find this sort of garbage entertaining. And I question your intelligence if you have no problem shelling out good dough to watch this trash."

I am not responsible for what parents allow their children to watch. I must be a child? I do find it entertaining and I don't ask you to. Your position of telling me that the television I pay to watch is logically akin to Michael Bloomberg forcing everyone to drink a soda size of his choosing and not of their own.

The last time I checked the money I make is mine and it is mine to dispose of however I see fit.

But you are at least intellectually consistent in telling me (A) what television I should be allowed to watch; and (b) how I should earn my money.

"So I'll support the argument, then. Just do a review for the past 20 or 30 years of what broadcast television was like then, and compare it to what we have today. Where do you suppose the networks got their inspiration from, eh?"

You are presumably not the author and my comment was directed at her; your support of her argument does not make my criticism any less valid.

I still have no idea where the networks got their inspiration from. No one has yet to identify a network executive that has indicated their inspiration for show X came from pay cable.

This site should remain focused on its core mission - exposing the hypocrisy of the left in media today.

Note - in not one of my responses did I challenge you personally, your intelligence or your taste in television. I challenged your ideas.

  • Login to post comments

Perhaps you should acquaint

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:23pm.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with all facets of the Media Research Center, including the Culture and Media Institute which exposes liberal media bias in today's culture and also posts on Newsbusters.

  • Login to post comments

I don't get it

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:48pm.

You have a very severe problem with the concept of freedom. Why do you think it applies to some and not to others? Why do you think Miss Thompson has zero freedom of speech?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

way to be a jerk

Submitted by walkingdead1212 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:29pm.

ok you asked for it

yes if you dont watch a program, it doesnt exist. thats why I dont complain about basket ball wives, or jersy shore.

your not sure about the adult part? well I am sure about your condescending part. teenagers watching this? really? do you have any idea what teenagers do/know/have done? were you perfect as a teenager? did you not smoke, drink, do any drugs even once just to see?

second of all did you miss the part where I talked about the V-chip and password blocking tv shows? you can do that. its on every cable box made since probably the late 80's.

dude... I pay specifically for those shows. I do. I get more programming, but I pay for those shows. the movie list for hbo sucks these days. stars has better movies.

why no watch porn? you say I would wind up paying less? no not really. I actually like story telling. believe it or not (and I'm sure you wont) a lot of these shows like game of thrones, the early seasons of true blood, boardwalk empire, spartacus, magic city all have great story lines to go along with the visuals. I would watch these shows without the sex, but not the violence.

you make the weak argument. my argument has always been, if you dont like it dont watch it, and dont tell me what not to watch. it hurts no one.

if you dont want your teenagers watching, thats what the block button is for.

  • Login to post comments

You guys must really like living in the dark.

Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 5:11pm.

Tell me... How is it possible for you guys to see in the dark... Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The correct answer is that you can't. Obviously. The truth sucks, doesn't it?

I was approaching from another angle: Tell me... How many shows do you see on network TV these days along the genre of Father Knows Best, or even the Brady Bunch for cryin' out loud.

You're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the type of shows we watched in the 70's like MASH or even All in the Family, and the crap we're getting today?

Then you truly are blind, and what's worse... You don't even care. You must really like living in the dark.

No, I'm not arguing in favor of censorship, but I don't want you clowns to shout us down just because we don't like the putrid garbage you seemingly enjoy. So we SHOULD talk about it, but you guys just want us to shut up so this could go away and you can continue to enjoy your trash with a justified clean conscience.

No, I didn't miss the V-Chip part. How reliable is that technology anyway, Hmmm? And just because you've chipped it, what's to guarantee that the kid's aren't watching over at a friend's house? You obviously missed MY point that teenagers ARE watching this stuff DESPITE the V-chip, or did you miss reading that little tidbit in the article?

So how, prey-tell, can a parent supervise what the kids watch 24/7??? I suppose it's the parent's fault if the kid sneaks around without their permission. Yeah... sure... we've all done some stupid things as kids, but the "adults" today, like you, are telling these kids that it's actually OK to watch this crap!

And finally, no, YOUR PAYING THE PROVIDER! You are not SPECIFICALLY paying for the show itself! Sheesh! and they call ME a...

"There... Are... Four... Lights!"

  • Login to post comments

Mr. Canuck

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 5:34pm.

And you certainly are not dumb. You make some good points:

"Tell me... How many shows do you see on network TV these days along the genre of Father Knows Best, or even the Brady Bunch for cryin' out loud.

You're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the type of shows we watched in the 70's like MASH or even All in the Family, and the crap we're getting today?"

I don't think the shows you cited necessarily were better than the TV today. I ask you to allow me to generalize as I don't have a great deal of time to get into each one - and mercifully I am not old enough to have a great memory of each of those shows.

First, none of those shows were on pay cable so you are largely comparing apples to oranges.

Second, those shows glossed over a lot of things in society and sugar coated very challenging issues - with perhaps the exception of All in the Family.

"but I don't want you clowns to shout us down just because we don't like the putrid garbage you seemingly enjoy. So we SHOULD talk about it, but you guys just want us to shut up so this could go away and you can continue to enjoy your trash with a justified clean conscience."

I don't agree with this characterization of this conversation. I disagree that Ms. Thompson's article is appropriate for Newsbusters. Sure, you can argue that the rest of the site focuses on showing the left leaning bias of the media - and most of her pieces dealing with how unfairly Christianity is treated by the media are quite good. But this is a legal private product. You can't like tobacco or alcohol keep things from minors in all instances. And I don't approve of them having access to them.

But that isn't the argument here - the argument is that pay cable is full of terrible content. Ok, I agree for the sake of argument.

And?

Don't watch. But why shouldn't I be able to?

To suggest "it's for the children" and therefore I shouldn't have access to something is nothing less than ripped from the playbook of the left and from those who would keep ideas from free thinking adults.

Merely because something is inappropriate for a child, and some child somewhere might one day have access to it does not give license to take it away from the adults who want it.

As for a - clean conscience - well mine is busier with other issues than pay cable.

"So how, prey-tell, can a parent supervise what the kids watch 24/7???"

I look forward to the plan you are going to produce that will save all the children from all the ills of the world.

"And finally, no, YOUR PAYING THE PROVIDER! You are not SPECIFICALLY paying for the show itself! Sheesh! and they call ME a..."

In fact my itemized bill which includes a separately stated charge for HBO and Showtime which are set by those networks is really nothing more than a pass through. I am paying for the network. When HBO goes to Bill Maher 24/7 then I will stop paying for the network. But until then I chose to watch TV that deals with adult themes, violence, sex, morality, religion and all those other big issues. I have no interest in watching the muppets. That's why I pay for pay cable.

  • Login to post comments

To be fair...

Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 5:50pm.

the muppets are pretty great too. MahnaMahna.

  • Login to post comments

Nowhere in this article have

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:02pm.

Nowhere in this article have I stated we should censor pay cable. The entirety of the story is devoted to highlighting the filth on pay cable and then making the point that its lack of standards are bleeding into broadcast television, and directly affecting younger audiences. True Blood is up for the Teen Choice Awards which is affiliated with Nickolodeon and airs on FOX. Kids from 12-18 watch these channels.

The left loves to reward the debauchery of pay cable and market it to younger audiences. There is your media bias.

Last time I checked you weren't my editor, but thanks again for telling me how to do my job.

  • Login to post comments

Lauren

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:08pm.

Good answer! Some of this crap is marketed toward teens, such as True Blood.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Just curious, how do you know

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:22pm.

Just curious, how do you know the political affiliation of those involved in the Teen Choice Awards nominations?

  • Login to post comments

Seriously, balboa? You're

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:35am.

Seriously, balboa?

You're going to nitpick the research but not comment on the fact that an overtly, beyond disgusting sexual show like True Blood IS in fact being marketed to young kids?

In a few strokes of a keyboard you could have found out for yourself, but instead I have to spell it out for you.

FOX and Nickolodeon run the Teen Choice Awards. They have a long history with embracing lefty idealogy, and the FOX blatantly leans left. Does the show 'Glee' ring any bells? Oh, and remember that utterly vile lesbian scene in "Black Swan?" That's been nominated in the past too along with other completely inappropriate movie scenes, music etc...

The entire thing is fueled by Hollywood. Hollywood is made up of a bunch of raging liberals.

Have I cleared it up for you? I sure hope so.

http://www.mrc.org/search/apachesolr_search/Teen%20Choice%20Awards

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/01/07/nicks-big-green-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2011/01/28/bozell-column-good-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/06/14/nickelodeon-game-s...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2009/12/05/bozell-column-degra...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/colleen-raezler/2009/03/31/nickelodeon-give...

  • Login to post comments

I don't think True Blood is

Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 11:46am.

I don't think True Blood is an appropriate nomination for the show.

But it doesn't look like you have an answer to my question other than generalizations.

  • Login to post comments

I presented you with a

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 11:52am.

I presented you with a plethora of evidence. You're choosing to ignore it. Good day to you.

  • Login to post comments

I was looking for something

Submitted by balboa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:03pm.

I was looking for something specific that shows who it is that runs the nomination process for the Teen Choice Awards.

  • Login to post comments

~Judging by what gets nominated

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 6:09pm.

Obviously a bunch of stick up their @ss Puritans who vote straight ticket Republican.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Yet

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:18am.

are you not arguing that pay cable bleeds into broadcast television and "something" needs to be done about it?

What is that "something" that you suggest.

You are correct I am not your editor. But I would make the following suggestions. And I am being selective in issues: I would have focused on The Teen Choice Awards and True Blood - as that is the show being featured focusing on teenagers.

Yet you took the opportunity to take a massive swipe pay cable in general - and yet at the end of your piece go after Glee as being the real danger. I think a piece on Glee which is on broadcast TV would (and I agree as to your conclusions about Glee) be far more valuable as it is available on basic cable.

While you may not like that these shows have been nominated for Golden Globes and Emmys, well sorry, those are adult award shows.

Does the Left enjoy debauchery on pay cable any more than the right? Maybe, maybe not. The opinions of a handful of editors of online blogs and website does not a consensus makes.

Certainly the Left dominates Hollywood. But the last time I checked Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis weren't remaking old time classics.

More interesting would be what is Fox doing having True Blood on The Teen Choice Awards when True Blood is a product of HBO owned by Time Warner. Not a cross promotion that makes sense.

I think your issue with True Blood on The Teen Choice Awards is a fair topic - but that really wasn't your article was about. It was more broad than that and dealt with matters which, again, in my opinion are not core issues for this site.

I invite you all to have the last word.

Cheers.

  • Login to post comments

The piece is written to

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:59am.

The piece is written to highlight the rot that has become our culture. Pay cable is contributing to this.

Journalism is also about timeliness. When the Teen Choice Awards gets closer I'm sure there will be a story on it.

  • Login to post comments

Lauren

Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:09pm.

"The piece is written to highlight the rot that has become our culture."

Excellently and concisely stated.

Lauren, the likes of balboa and the "NYCMiddle" dude/dudette will run you in figure-8 circles for eternity. That's the sickness of being an indoctrinated, modern-day liberal.

A slight aside, as a NY'er myself, any of my brethren proclaiming to be down the "middle" is not to be trusted on the middle part. At all.

With the exception of perhaps my brother, who doesn't get outwardly offended being called a left-winger or liberal, all the others go out of their way claiming they reside in some other sphere -- something in the middle, something "not about left or right", yada yada. Then, as you peel away at each issue, every. single. stand. they take is one of liberal progressivism.

- NYCRight Shy

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

I fail to see how

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:17pm.

I am a liberal based on my questions. Are suggesting that only by agreeing with the author of this piece one is a conservative? And it is not a circle when you are asked two questions which you actually never answer.

NYCmiddle actually refers to when I lived in mid-town it has no bearing on my politics.

God forbid anyone actually be consistent and not want government in my bedroom, my wallet, in my big gulp or my TV.

Edit: Your music is pretty good. Enjoying it on iTunes now.

  • Login to post comments

NYCMiddle

Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:44pm.

Re: my music, thanks :)

Now the big question.... Are you a liberal? What is your political bent, in one or just a few words?

And, again, none of this is about "government in my bedroom". It's really just not, and I think, deep down, you know it's not. It's people's concerns with the steady decent of culture and the disappearing of refinement -- that affects the quality of life of every living human being -- over the past bunch of decades, starting with the beginning of "pop" culture and TV, the revolution of the 60's, etc..

- mr-shy.com

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

Let me guess...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:54pm.

Conservative/libertarian

Jer

  • Login to post comments

My guess

Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:56pm.

I have no idea but obviously deaf and dishonest.

(just kidding shy, just kidding)

  • Login to post comments

No I am not a liberal

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:33am.

I do think however that it is fair to say that the conservative or liberal labels are overly broad and problematic.

As I said in my post which you responded to: I want government out of my life in all aspects. And I am consistent in that.

But to answer your question straight up which is all I have asked for:

Hawk on defense - Assad would already be plant food in my world.

Stay out of my bedroom - both liberals and social conservatives. Don't tell me being gay is great or special - I don't care either way. Don't tell me what I can watch on TV.

Fiscally conservative - I am debt free and detest the bailouts of banks and homeowners and Detroit.

All short generalizations which I am sure can be picked apart.

***

If you want to make an argument that society has changed and it is declining. Ok, fine. I don't think this piece by Ms. Thompson did that. I think she through a bunch of things together which were mismatched (and I have gone through this before in other posts) and do not necessarily follow one another. I would also make the observation that some of her depictions of the shows in this post and her standalone post on Girls where either a misinterpretation of the show or factually wrong.

I would offer this challenge since you questioned this isn't about what is going on in my bedroom. I used an expression that was a bit narrow. It is what is going on in my home. All I am asking Ms. Thompson to answer is what does she mean by "standards". I want to know how these "standards" work. And while I withhold judgement (although I won't hold my breath hahah) I don't think anything that puts a limit on something which is a legal product for me to have - ala a Big Gulp should have limitations.

And no, I don't think children should be watching True Blood for the record.

I have a day in Central Park to enjoy. I hope you all enjoy your day.

  • Login to post comments

Sure, the '70s, which brought

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 7:06pm.

Sure, the '70s, which brought us quality TV like Charlie's Angels, Fantasy Island, and Three's Company. :-)

I know right now there aren't a lot of family-based shows, and there are any number of reasons why. But TV is cyclical, and they'll come back.

And look what happened to FNL, a great show with strong characters, strong family unit: nobody watched (I did!).

  • Login to post comments

The problem

Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 7:59pm.

with these debates is that folks tend to compare the best of one generation (say, Mary Tyler Moore) with the worst of the current generation (Jersey Shore, for example). Which is not a fair comparison. There was plenty of crap tv back then too. There's only "more" crap today because there are far more channels. The flip side of that: there's also much more great tv!

  • Login to post comments

Huh?

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:49pm.

Great TV? Only to those who want to sit still ALL THE TIME. Not I.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

BosTarus

Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:34pm.

First off, the perfect call on the best of hay day's TV -- Mary Tyler Moore! :)

But what this piece by Lauren is calling attention to is the real smutty, sex-obsessed/referenced and very-dark culture -- the overall decadence and "rot", as she puts it in another post -- that's now mainstream and acceptable -- and so often critically acclaimed -- and filtered throughout all of today's programming in some form (subtle or otherwise.) And I'm talking about basic primetime channel stuff.

Name a few of the good, non-crap shows of today, in your opinion.

- shy on tv

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

balboa

Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:52pm.

The big change happened during the 70's. The early 70's vs. the late 70's was a big leap in upped-decadence and smut/sex references on TV -- all a result of the 60's sexual/cultural "revolution" seeping it to mainstream.

And that seeping/creeping of further envelopes being pushed by media (like critics and awards shows, in advertising everywhere, whether it's HBO or basic TV) is what this very RELEVANT NB piece by Lauren touches on.

"Charlie's Angels" and "Three's Company" started in 1976/77. And "Fantasy Island", huh? Hokey, yes. Smutty? No. Basically good, uplifting, very-70's in style entertainment with funny characters in it.

- shy

Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent

 
  • Login to post comments

More Trolls Appear When ObamAA+ is in trouble

Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:53pm.

It used to be they would wait weeksOr even month before suddenly making their first post. A post chock full of Lib Talking Points.

Now they are only waiting hours or even minutes.

ObamAA+ must be in deep trouble. Whenever the old Soviet Union had a very embarassing problem, they would make an extra special effort to jam Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. In the same vein, ObamAA+ activists head to the blogs whenever he is in trouble.

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

While I agree with most on

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:43pm.

While I agree with most on the, "It is paid television". My worry is when my son or daughter goes to a friend house and they have this filth on.

A lot of people are saying here, if you don't like it, don't watch. This is exactly what I do. However, what happens when my kid goes over to the house of someone who does have this dumb down, full of sex stories on?

I will admit, I saw the first season of True Blood, but the story telling was bland, it was all about the sex, sex, sex, sex and then....some more sex. Sorry, it gets old, but HBO, like everyone elses knows, sex sells.

Today, I don't have cable television anymore. It was a huge, HUGE waste of money. I just don't understand people who pay to watch television. Yes, I look back at the days I had cable t.v. and say, "what the heck was I thinking?!"

But it is a great point that is made by Laura Thompson, even non-paid t.v. is getting raunchier and raunchier. And yes, True Blood and the rest of the cable shows are pornography with somewhat bit more sophisticated cameras.

  • Login to post comments

Your concern re: your childres

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:49pm.

is completely valid. (And I am sure that since I validate your views it makes it all the better. :) )

All I can say is that it is the responsibility of you as an adult to speak to the other adult(s) at that house to ensure that your child won't be able to view such material.

The same thing goes for access to firearms or alcohol.

The correct answer is not to take away a completely legal choice for adults who, should they choose to, have every right to watch what you don't want to.

  • Login to post comments

NYCMiddle, Yes, and I do

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:56pm.

NYCMiddle,

Yes, and I do that and I speak to the parents of the kids my children make friends with. They know my values and what I expect when they go over to their home. However, I have caught a few of these parents lying to me or pretending that they agree with me and then my son or daughter will come back and tell me the things they saw at that home. Of course, my children will never go to that individuals home, yet the harm was done to my children.

While it is great that an adult has a choice to watch what they want, your rights of as an adult to watch what you want do not superceed the rights of my children!

You do not have the right to watch what you want at the cause of my children or that of anyone elses. Freedom comes with responsability. Freedom does not mean doing as you please. Freedom does not mean having countless of choices.

  • Login to post comments

Freedom

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:02pm.

Then do not send your children to my house.

It still is my house.

And that is the issue - imposition of "your" views on "my" television. Or "my" guns. Or "my" big gulp. Or "my" [Insert X].

If as a society this is the most pressing issue we have to resolve then I will gladly give up HBO. But it isn't.

  • Login to post comments

NYCMiddle, Yes and don't

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:13pm.

NYCMiddle,

Yes and don't worry, my children won't be going to your home any time soon.

However, what you failed to see is that HBO, Starz, Showtime programing is just part of a much bigger picture. The decline of Western Civilization. When shows have to appeal to our animalistic nature, instead of our intellect to be watched, sorry we are in trouble.

And I can also turn it around on you, YOUR imposition on my children, on my values so that you can have your almighty show and watch it while you are enslaved by HBO, etc and you keep on believing that somehow you are excercising your Freedom.

as I told a friend who gave me the same arguemnts as you, if you are so Free why don't you turn off HBO and the rest of the cable garbage and go do something productive with your life. Volunteer, play sports, etc. It took this challange for my friend to realize how little freedom he had.

Watch HBO and the rest of that garbage if you will, but please do not insult anyone's intellect, including your own, by claiming that you are excercising your freedoms. You are being used, your freedom is being squashed and these shows are appealing to your most addictive, animalistic human nature, sex. I hardly call this freedom.

  • Login to post comments

Yes

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:17pm.

I am in fact a slave to HBO. The rest I have already addressed and I am not going back over again.

But I will respond to this:

"if you are so Free why don't you turn off HBO and the rest of the cable garbage and go do something productive with your life."

What basis do you have to believe I am not already? Maybe I can do two things at once...

Good day.

  • Login to post comments

NYCMiddle, So, while you are

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:23pm.

NYCMiddle,

So, while you are wasting away watching HBO you are playing sports? volunteering? etc? LOL You'll be the first human being in the world who can watch television and play sports and volunteer all at the same time.

The day I decided to turn off the television and do much more with my life it was amazing the extra amount of time that I found!!!

At least you admit you are a slave to HBO, thus agreeing with me that you aren't excercising any freedoms by watching the filth found there.

Just remember, your freedoms end where my freedoms, where the freedoms of my children start. Freedom doesn't mean doing as you please and the rest of humanity be damned because you paid for whatever you are doing.

Have a wonderful day! and turn off television, you will gain back countless of braincells! LOL

  • Login to post comments

And the day that I realized

Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 5:13pm.

And the day that I realized that there was nothing shameful about watching tv it was amazing how liberating it was! There's nothing different about watching tv, than there is watching a movie, listening to music, or reading a book. In all mediums there is trash, and there is "art".

You can harp on the sex and the violence all you want-but don't assume that those elements' inclusion in many of these HBO shows means the shows are designed for idiots. You're not losing braincells watching Game of Thrones... in fact, your average, knuckle-dragging Jersey Shore fan wouldn't be able to make it through half an episode. So please don't assume that sex and violence necessarily make the shows stupid.

I'm a grownup, and I'm ok with some sex and violence in my entertainment. If I wasn't, I'd watch something else.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks for clearing that up I never knew Non-Verbal Jazz

Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 7:34pm.

was porn.

Wow a list of porn stars...

EDIT..THIS Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Bos Torus, Bos Torus, Who

Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 9:48pm.

Bos Torus,

Bos Torus,

Who said watching television was shameful? You feeling guilty or something? LOL

Reading a book is the same as watching television? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you can't be serious, can you?

It is a fact that the more you read your vocabulary, your writing skills, etc, etc. improve. Hmmm....can you say the same about television?

When you read you use your imagination. With television you are spoon fed everything. Leave it to Liberals to love television, you guys love getting spoon fed how to think.

Americans used to read over 100 books per year. Today, the average American reads 1 book per year! And Western Civilization is in full decline. The average American living today is clueless that today is D-Day. One of THE most important days in Western Civilization. Why? Because television didn’t tell them it was important.

Yes, sex and violence makes shows stupid. 10 times out of 10 showing the full blown sex and violence is completely unnecessary. Sex sells and this is the reason why HBO, etc. put it in. If you can’t bring an audience with an intelligent, well written story what do you turn to? Sex and violence, both sell. These appeal to our animalistic nature. It is using the worst in society to get bodies to watch ridiculous shows.

And listening to music is the same as watching television? Again….BWAHAHAHA!!! Obviously you neither read nor listen to music, if you did, you wouldn’t be saying such ridiculous stuff. I can listen to music an drive, last time I saw an idiot watching television and drive, they ended up in the back of a McDonald’s Restaurant.

There is nothing wrong with watching a show here and there, but the average American spends 4 hours per day watching television. That is 9 years of their life glued to their television set! Talk about wasted time! 9 years that you could have used to help someone else, donate your time to a cause dear to your heart, helped family, get in shape, play sports, read countless upon countless of books.

Sorry, most of television today is 100% garbage and useless. Most shows are written for the simple minded who are easily attracted to the sex and violence.

  • Login to post comments

Oh boy

Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:32pm.

where to start...

First off, haha, yes. You got me. You're right, listening to music is a different thing than watching tv. Clearly I wasn't aware of that. Heh. I'm completely aware that listening to music is a different experience than watching tv or reading a book. What I meant was (and I don't think this was too hard a concept to grasp) that as far as ingesting media goes, the quality-to-crap ratio is the same in any medium. Some people are bigger music fans than movie fans. Some people read a ton of books and don't watch any tv. Some people read comics and watch movies but hate tv. It doesn't matter. Whatever art you like is the art you'll ingest. That's what's the "same". And the experience, though uniquely different for each medium, fills the same "hole" in your brain.

And, yeah, I'm completely serious that reading is comparable to tv. I don't subscribe to this antiquated notion that reading a book is an inherently superior task to watching tv. I'll give you that slogging through Joyce's "Ulysses" requires far more intelligence than watching the Jersey Shore or Wipeout. However, you're fooling yourself if you think it requires more intelligence to read "50 Shades of Grey" than it does to understand and appreciate something like "The Wire".

Like all things, there is smart tv, and there is stupid tv. There are smart books and there are stupid books. Smart music, stupid music. This occurs in all artforms. And in every art from there is Good smart, and bad smart. Good stupid and bad stupid.

And, yeah, I'm sure Americans used to read 100 books a year... you know why? Because it was the sole form of entertainment available to them! Now books have to contend with tv, movies, music, comic books, video games, the internet... there's alot out there, so naturally every art form will have a smaller audience. It doesn't speak to this "clearly obvious" decline in Western Civilization.

And I was aware that yesterday was D-Day... just as I was aware that the C.S.S Virginia (the Merimack as history remembers it) was scuttled a few weeks ago (May 11th) because I enjoy history. But I don't fault alot of people for not knowing the date of either event, because it's not knowledge that they enjoy or need. I'd fault them if they had never heard of D-Day, but knowing exact dates isn't too crucial for surviving in today's world. Unless you're a historian or a teacher, that knowledge would fall into the realm of trivia. You can be an intelligent person and not know dates or geography or whatnot. Stephen Hawking may have forgotten that it was D-Day-but I doubt you'd call him stupid for it.

Anyway, this is all far from the point. Your assumption that watching tv is an inherently stupid and passive task betrays a lack of understanding of much of modern television. And there are plenty of great works of art that deal with Sex and Violence, and that does not make them stupid. The Rape Of The Sabine Women is no less impressive because it addresses a violent and sexual portion of history.

  • Login to post comments

Also

Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:51pm.

for the record, growing up I learned a hefty chunk of my vocabulary from comics and tv-that's not the sole dominion of the published word.

  • Login to post comments

Bos Tarus, Oh boy...where to

Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 11:54pm.

Bos Tarus,

Oh boy...where to start with you. Sad how you Liberals think.

Sorry, I can put a well read individual against an individual who is well versed on television shows who doesn't read and I can guarantee you that the well read individual will destroy the t.v. moron on spelling, grammar, history, science,math etc., etc., etc.

You are speaking pure and utter nonsense because you love watching television.

The only reason television wins over books is because people are lazy and they prefer to be told what to imagine rather than reading and using their brains. You can spin it all you want to feel comfortable with your television obssession, but it does not make you right. Study after study shows that the parts of the brains that have to do with imagination, etc. are not active while you watch television. Study after study shows that television is a passive activity.

If you honestly believe that the only form of entertaiment before was books you know less history than my 8 year old son.

The content in television plus the amount of ridiculous hours spent by the average American is a clear sign of the decline of Western Civilization. Why is it that you Liberals are so desperate to deny the fact that Western Civilization is in decline?

Your assumption that I believe that watching tv is inherently stupid is further proof that you do not know how to read and comprehend. The vast majority of television today is stupid and lacks any form of intellect, but by no means do I believe that merely watching tv is stupid. Thanks for being such a predictable Liberal and claim that I said things that I never said. However, watching television IS a passive activity. Only a television obssesed person who feels guilty about how much tv they watch would claim other wise.

Now, the fact that you believe that a television show can be compared to a great work of art shows how obssesed you are with television. This claim by you is just simply laughable.

Look up most studies on the effects television watching has on people. I know you may find it antiquated, oh "sophisticated" "new age" Liberal, but studies 100% disagree with you. Television IS a passive activity which if watched too much, turns you into an idiot.

http://www.mathmagic.ca/math-crisis/tv-hinders-math-achievement/

http://www.schoolfamily.com/school-family-articles/article/3750-too-much...

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400597/Is-Television-Harmful.html

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/17/watching-too-much-tv-as-harmful...

Do I believe all tv watching is stupid and harmful, of course not. Do I believe that most television shows today are idiotic, moronic, geared towards an audience who knows next to nothing, has very little imagination, is lazy and likes to be told what to think and how to think it, yes. Do I believe that today's shows use sex and violence, appealing to our most animalistic instincts? yes. Do I believe that there is some great television, yes I do, but it is rare to find.

By the way, most Americans do not know what D-Day is regardless of the date. By the way, did you know that d-day was the name given to all major landings in WWII and before, but it became a proper noun with the invasion of Normandy, France? I can assure you that I didn't learn this fact by watching "Band of Brothers", one of the few truly great televisions series. I also didn't learn this fact watching "The Longest Day" or "Saving Private Ryan".

Ever read Lord of the Rings versus watching the movie? Movie was good, but book was great!

C.S Lewis' series of Narnia, read the books, watched the movies. Movies good to mediocare. Books? Amazing!

Bourne series. Read the books, watched the movies. Books amazing, movies pure garbage based on the books.

And this is what you will constantly find. Books are better, smarter, give you much more insight into the characters, the story, etc. Are there stupid and ridiculous books full of sex and violence appealing to our animal instincts of course these are out there, but these are not as many as the good and great books.

But shoot, if it makes you feel not antiquated, cool, in, part of the in-crowd to believe that what you may consider a great television show can be the same as a great work of art, a great piece of music I am no one to take you way from your pretend world.

How old are you, 15? You have to be in order to believe the nonsense you typed above.

  • Login to post comments

Your points

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:06pm.

Your points are diminished by personally attacking the person you are responding to.

  • Login to post comments

Thread Referee

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 8:06pm.

Great. Now NYCMIddle has appointed himself Thread Referee.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Shameful?

Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:55pm.

And there is indeed nothing shameful about watching TV. I just don't get it.

On average, I watch "Squawk Box" in the morning, a sporting event every so often (though I usually listen to radio), and maybe local news to see the local weather. And that's it.

I cannot feature sitting on my ass for hours on end watching TV.

Anything shameful in it? No. To me, I just don't do it. To the point where people think it's weird. One guy I worked with thought I was a certifiable nutcase because one thing I almost never do when I get home is turn on a TV. He was running around the office talking about what a weirdo I was because I never opted to do that when I got home. And still I do not.

Sex and violence on TV is blown away by how much you can find in an average history book.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Uns

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:59pm.

That guy was freaked out because your using brain and it scares him, as he's not quite sure what his is for.

I agree about the sex and violence in history. In fact I was annoyed when I watched "The Tudors" because they changed history. As if there wasn't enough sex and violence in Henry VIII's reign...

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Cajun has a question*

Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:10pm.

Have you guys noticed how liberals always show up en masse on threads about porn or abortion ?

And I am going to pm drsam for info on vampirism. I always thought it was another " varied expression of another sexual perversion ".

  • Login to post comments

I noticed that too Caj

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:14pm.

Defending the right to watch porn seems to be very very important to some, regardless of the harm it causes.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Go easy Caj

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:20pm.

You'll attract shawn

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

True coco*

Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:48pm.

But we could change the title of the thread.....;-)

  • Login to post comments

Amusing

Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:21am.

Oh, that whole thing was quite amusing. For months the only thing he could talk about was "What's the first thing you do when you get home? Turn on the TV, right? Unsane does not do that!" I simply am not the most creative guy out there; I cannot be the ONLY one who doesn't immediately turn on the TV when I get home from anywhere... :)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Unsane, Don't worry, you are

Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 11:03am.

Unsane,

Don't worry, you are not the only who doesn't turn on the television when you get home. I grew in a home where television was only for special occassions.

I will admit that when I went off to college, television became a much bigger part of my life, but now that I am in my mid-30s, I have done everything to push it aside. I rarely, if ever turn on the television when I get home. I am growing my bookshelf library and I am doing everything within my power for my children to love books much more than they will like to watch television.

When soccer is on, especially the World Cup or the Eurocup, which starts this Friday, yes, you'll catch me watching more television than usual. Or when political events, Presidential debates, etc. are on.

I just find 99% of televisions shows to be bland, for the simple minded, appealing to our sexual and violent nature. I just don't get what is the infatuation with Liberals and the "art" of sex and violence on television shows.

All this being said, we can all watch what we want, but we should also becareful and be mindful of those who reside in our homes or those whom we have invited to our home. As we have seen in this thread, sadly, too many people believe that Freedom means doing what you want, when you want, as you please. I was even call "Fidel", by wacky CKC, for making such a claim. Further proof that people do not read! Our Founding Fathers had it very clear, All of our Freedoms and Rights end where the Freedoms and Rights of others begin. But that is not on television so people simply do not know.

  • Login to post comments

Soccer?

Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:14pm.

I watch soccer when I am suffering from insomnia. :P

Interesting how people use TV. My parents are at the other extreme: at their house, the TV is on practically on the time. Doesn't matter if my parents think what they are watching is bad; they reverently watch anyways. My sisters don't watch that much TV though they watch more than I do. And most of my friends and people I know have their favorite shows but are far from inclined to watch TV constantly.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Unsane, LOL...yes, I think

Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:41pm.

Unsane,

LOL...yes, I think you and I had our soccer talk a while back! LOL Man, I love, love, LOVE soccer. Can't get enough playing in and can't ever watch enough of it.

Now put me to watch the game of baseball and i fall asleep so fast. Boring!

I know families who will have the television on all the time, but 9 times out of ten, they use it for background noise. Which is great until a show on cable television comes on which is full of sex.

My parents rarely watch t.v., but they have an awesome LCD 70"+ that they put to good use when our family gets together. We are large, 7 siblings, all married, but one and my parents have 20 grandchildren, so far.

I had a favorite show, "Smallville" (i love DC Comic and Marvel Comic based movies and tv shows), but after that show finished, I only watch soccer and news. My wife loves her Spanish novelas, but even she will spend only an hour or so a day.

  • Login to post comments

Unsane...

Submitted by Jer on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:49pm.

While I'm thinking about it, hats off to the Spurs. Classiness in defeat exhibited by a class organization. And, OKC has finally made a believer out of me.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer...

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:53pm.

Late to the party, but seeing the Spurs flame out was nonetheless gut-wrenching.

If you haven't yet, check out the piece on #21 in a mid-May (forget exact date) edition of SI. GOOD reading about one of the most enigmatic, yet perhaps greatest, basketball players of his generation.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Good evening Unsane

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:18pm.

Thanks for posting that. I haven't turned my TV on in four years so I must be a raving lunatic. I guess I'd better get professional help.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

"You do not have the right to

Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 6:22am.

"You do not have the right to watch what you want at the cause of my children or that of anyone elses. Freedom comes with responsability. Freedom does not mean doing as you please. Freedom does not mean having countless of choices."

Well said, Fidel.


 


  • Login to post comments

ckc1227, I am afraid to ask

Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:53am.

ckc1227,

I am afraid to ask such a simpleton like you, but care to expound on your "intelligent" comment?

Hmmm...last time I checked in the United States of America we all have freedoms and rights, freedoms and Rights which end where the freedoms and rights of others begin.

but you go ahead with the "intelligent" reply. You poor simpleton.

  • Login to post comments

"“Californicaton”

Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 6:19am.

"“Californicaton” takes pride in showcasing the graphic sexual escapades of failed writer Hank Duchovny. His immoral landslide included sleeping with a violent 16-year-old girl."

A violent 16 year old that he didn't know was 16 until some time after. The violent part he found out during, lol. And the character name is Hank Moody, not Hank Duchovny. The actor's name is David Duchovny.


 


  • Login to post comments

Dexter is one of the best

Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 11:07am.

Dexter is one of the best television series ever produced.

Is this the same site that has posted a political cartoon of Mayor Bloomberg being a nanny for deciding for everyone else what they can and cannot eat? It's a little hard fighting the nanny state when you are promoting the nanny state. By continuing down this direction of dictating what people are allowed to watch on TV you are opening the door for Leftists to dictate what you are allowed to hear on AM talk radio.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
  • Login to post comments

Yet another who thinks freedom selectively applies

Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:16pm.

Rusty is another who thinks that the critic has no freedom whatsoever...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

critic

Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:45pm.

is it okay to criticize the 'artist' but not the critic?

Besides all I see here is the call for people not to extend criticism to censorship and while no censorship has been called for - it quite often happens that people see the worst case scenario when no other avenues are given. The stated problem is quite correctly acknowledged - now what to do about it? So far only two ideas have been floated: 1 - complain on a blog 2-don't censure.

neither offers many answers and about all I can think of is teach your children well and hope that what exposure they get is tempered by your dialog. As a father I know this to be a pie-in-the-sky philosophy but if we don't want censorship then we need to do everything else we can to negate negative messages.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

How I see it

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:58pm.

Agnostic, here's how I see it. I would think that NYCMiddle, Rusty, and other posters here would be lining up to PRAISE Lauren Thompson for this article because it gives some insight on what goes on in the world of pay cable and thus allows people to make more informed decisions on how to spend their entertainment dollars.

HBO does what it does, critics do what they do, and the public goes from there. A great way for society to operate.

Yet those aforementioned jokers are absolutely throwing a fit, complaining about why Miss Thompson would write anything at all on the subject! Oh, why can't she just shut up and change the channel if she doesn't like it?

It is that attitude that has provoked my reactions, nothing more, nothing less.

I thought libertarians/conservatives were all about informing the public better so that they can make better choices. Unless it's your favorite show under fire, I guess. Or if the criticism comes from a particular angle...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Indeed Unsane

Submitted by TempusFugit on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:54pm.

And if anyone who doesn't like what's on TV can change the channel, then anyone who doesn't like Lauren's columns can go to a different article...or a different website

In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock! - Orson Welles
  • Login to post comments

Perhaps,

Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 10:23am.

Or it may be that some people, especially males, tend to look at problems as something that needs to be solved. So given no other direction - assumptions were made and there was a reaction to limit corrections to something less than censorship.

What are the possible corrections for this issue:

Advertiser bans rarely work on conglomerates with successful products

A boycott of the shows - we are not their target audience

Change society so that the product is unwanted - while this article is a step in that direction, my personal beliefs are that the studios have decided they are more than happy directing all their attention to 40% of the population (plus overseas) or less as long as they are content with the product. 

Censorship

 

It is hard to see a realistic alternative to censorship in removing this type of programming and is probably why some peoples' thinking process jumped straight to that conclusion. 

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Well, Rusty perhaps if you'd

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:18pm.

Well, Rusty perhaps if you'd taken the time to actually read the story you'd see that NOWHERE does the article call for the censorship of pay cable.

It is a commentary on premium content's filth, and showing how pay cable's indecency is seeping more and more into regular television.

  • Login to post comments

Ms. Thompson

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 1:12pm.

You miss Rusty's point in its entirety.

Its just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

But I ask you to answer this Ms. Thompson - you say you wouldn't censor pay cable. Ok, given that you see pay cable as a problem what is your preferred solution to that problem?

Unsane, I am sorry but you come to conclusions which have no basis based on what Rusty stated.

  • Login to post comments

What was the point?

Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 1:22pm.

Please explain what you got out of that?

  • Login to post comments

His comment above stated that

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:37pm.

His comment above stated that my article is calling for the censorship of pay cable, which it does not. So no, I didn't miss his point.

While I do not agree with the ethics of pay cable, my problem does not lie with the networks themselves. People pay for premium content, pay cable delivers the raunch they pay for. That's their choice.

My problem, as stated numerous times in the story (and practically all my comments), is with the bleeding of pay cable standards into network television, and the direct marketing of adult shows to younger audiences.

What I'm baffled over is this constant squabble over my critique of pay cable's filth instead of the concern for America's young minds, and how this content is easily available to kids that are much too young to view such shows.

Instead of bemoaning my criticism on pay cable's vulgarity, people should be talking about Ryan Murphy's disgusting goal of "breaking all boundaries of explicit sex on television." Slowly but surely this is coming to light, but ya'll are so busy arguing over my rights to critique this show that you're completely missing the danger.

  • Login to post comments

And I ask you again

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:43pm.

point blank: since you do not favor censorship what is your solution to this problem?

And when you defer to standards for pay cable: what does that mean?

As an aside Ryan Murphy has nothing to do with True Blood or the Teen Choice Awards. You are mixing apples and oranges - pay cable and broadcast cable.

If you aren't going to censor what is your solution?

Or are "standards" really censorship?

And you do miss Rusty's point. You point to raunch on pay cable as offensive and call for "standards". His point is that the Left will make the same assault on the Right on AM radio where they are dominant.

  • Login to post comments

The baiting isn't going to

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:48pm.

The baiting isn't going to work. I've argued my points, you've read my article, you know my opinion. Good day to you.

  • Login to post comments

It is not baiting

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 2:55pm.

You claim to oppose to censorship. Fine, I take you at your word and you argue for "standards" instead.

I am asking you what those standards would entail? So I am actually unclear as to what you mean and what you would implement to stop the bleeding of pay cable into broadcast cable.

Is that so hard? You never get to the heart of what that actually means.

That is what I would like to know.

As a curious aside Ryan Murphy works on the broadcast side of things and it is his stated objective to bring more sex to TV - where is the pay cable connection? I didn't see a quote in your article linking to his goal to what he watches on pay TV....

  • Login to post comments

Oh yeah, you're baiting now.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:09pm.

She already told you to piss off, and you keep going.

Find another thread, pal.

  • Login to post comments

Thats nice

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:15pm.

and she doesn't have to respond. Just as she has not yet responded to my questions.

  • Login to post comments

I did respond to your

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:25pm.

I did respond to your questions, they just happened to be answers you didn't want to hear.

This will officially be my last post on the subject as talking to a brick wall no longer thrills me.

  • Login to post comments

So I challenge your position

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:39pm.

and in exchange I am called a brick?

Have I questioned your intelligence, your motives or called you a name?

All I am asking for is for you to advance your position by explaining how you plan on solving a problem which you believe you have identified.

What do you mean by "standards"? How will you implement them?

Or is it just easier to say you have answered my question with a vague response of pay cable bleeding into regular broadcast TV?

You waded into this by responding with generalities - I would like specifics.

PS: What happened to your piece on the Michelle going down? It is no longer on the site.

  • Login to post comments

It's not the responsibility of Newsbusters

Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:40pm.

To provide solutions. They bring up issues for discussion. Badgering the author to solve the problem strikes me as trolling.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

It wouldn't

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:46pm.

be badgering if she would answer the question.

What "standards" is she suggesting? How would they be implemented?

When I hear "standards" when it comes to communication - in any forum I think such a response smells of censorship. She claims it is not censorship so I await her clarification. Or she won't.

She is free to never respond to a single one of my comments. It doesn't make my comments or her comments any more right or wrong because she doesn't.

There are elements of her argument that are very worthwhile.

  • Login to post comments

No, not answering a question is not badgering

Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:47pm.

Repeatedly asking a question is badgering.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

She has offered you a lot of info,

Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:56pm.

You havent even provided a coherent complaint.

Why dont you offer your ideas, so we can all start asking you dumb a$$ questions?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Now you're just fishing.

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 3:56pm.

Now you're just fishing. "Brick wall" is a common metaphor used in every day speech. You seem intelligent, I trust you know the definition of metaphor.

Your entire dialogue has served to question the motives behind my story. I politely answered your questions, and when you didn't like my answers you kept berating me. When I refused to answer questions that had absolutely nothing to do with my story you still didn't like it. When I politely bid you good day that still wasn't enough. If you don't like my answers then tough. I don't have to cater to your needs.

You can play semantics all you want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy into your baiting. (Deny all you want, it's what you're doing.)

There is no sense in beating a dead horse. (And just so we're clear here, you're not the dead horse.) Once again, good day to you.

  • Login to post comments

Mewling and puking

Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 8:03pm.

Actually, I in fact have a base. As Lauren Thompson pointed out, Rusty accused her of censorship when she in fact lofted no such call. Both you and he have a knee-jerk reaction any time a critic says anything negative about a work of art and it is in fact you and your merry band of critic-hating cohorts who have no base.

In fact, given your other posts on other threads, I would say that in fact, you want to appoint yourself Censor, and approve/disapprove Miss Thompson's writings.

You are still mewling and puking (h/t, The Bard), extremely upset that critics exist and that yes, their rights are protected under the First Amendment, just as the producers of these silly pay-cable shows are.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Lauren, what happened to the Obama "porn" joke thread?

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:05pm.

It seems to have gone missing.

Was there a reason for taking it down? Because he said it....and I think he meant it just the way it sounded. Check out the video (#105 on my list, below). IMO, it was just like his "Al Green moment".....preplanned, rehearsed, and done for the cool factor. Which makes it even more disgusting, IMO.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

I'm not sure. I'll look into

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:15pm.

I'm not sure. I'll look into it.

  • Login to post comments

Mucho Gracias

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:34pm.

His disgusting comment is all over the blogosphere, there's video...it's not like it was made up or anything (like most of his stories).

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Hopefully its disappearance was due to the fact that

Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:14pm.

despite the overwhelming urge to believe the absolute worst about a despised President--and that if a quip he utters is susceptible of dual interpretations, one benign and the other offensive, by all means choose that which portrays him as an immoral slug--the NB staff nevertheless realized the "Michelle engaging in lesbian sex" inference badly flunks the application of common sense test.

That the President would deliberately and publicly joke about his wife performing cunnilingus on Ellen Degeneres--for the ostensible purpose of being considered "cool" by this particular audience--is beyond preposterous, even more so than the absurd notion he was not-so-slyly giving the finger during taped campaign speeches four years ago.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer, Yet you have zero

Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:23am.

Jer,

Yet you have zero problem believing that Geroge Allen said Macaca and is a racist, right?

Your hyperpartisans indignation and outrage is quite laughable.

You are accusing NB and NB posters of what you have done with Republicans/Conservatives like George Allen!

  • Login to post comments

Laugh your butt off, Liberallies...

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:46am.

but don't put words in my mouth.

I have zero problem believing George Allen said 'macaca' because I heard him say it and he admits he said it. But I don't believe he is a racist and I didn't even remotely hint that he is.

I said he dug his own hole by virtue of his and his staff's equivocations and differing explanations over the course of a week. If you believe that opinion is an example of hyperpartisanship, that's your problem.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer, Yes, sorry, he did say

Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:36am.

Jer,

Yes, sorry, he did say "macaca". Which has nothing to do with the racist term, "macaque", the latter which he NEVER said. The grave was dug by the hyperpartisan left wing media, like the Washington Post, who relentlessly went after George Allen over a word he made up to call a young man who worked for Webb and was stalking Geroge Allen.

The media went after Allen and claimed his use of the word "macaca" proved he was a racist. The real term is "macaque" and Allen had every single right to defend himself against the racist accusations from your beloved Left and Left wing media. Allen never denied using the word 'macaca" what he did is vehemently deny it was racist. Only you would claim this defense is digging your own grave. Only you would claim that the media relentlessly pushing the story day after day after day means Allen dug his grave. WOW! 

Of course, the media didn't do the same to Hillary and Biden when they said racist remarks about Indians living in the USA.

I don't believe your opinion is hyperpartisan, I know it is! 99% of what you write here on NB is ridiculously hyperpartisan and you are too partisan to see it!  LOL What is amusing is that you love to deny this fact, that you are a hyperpartisan ideologue and you constantly attempt to paint yourself as a Center Left type of guy. 

You have ZERO problem believing that George Allen dug his own grave because he defended himself from racist accusations, yet you can't believe that your beloved President Obama would be a classless moron who would use his wife for a sexual joke. Nah...but you are aren't hyperpartisan. LOL

Your beloved President is so classy that he literally pals around with known home-grown terrorists, but shhhh....don't tell anyone. Speaking the truth about William Ayer's close friendship with Obama is considered taboo, you know, even though Obama began  his very first political campaign at the home of William Ayers. But heck, this President, who hangs around with known terrorists who today are millionaires is quite "classy.

By the way, don't get upset at me because I shined a light into your hyperpartianship  

  • Login to post comments

Listened to Glenn Beck today.

Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:43am.

He echoed the same sentiments.

And as for the finger thing - we have been over that. But as usual, I have to link out to show I just ain't makin' up crap.

Tips for Public Speaking

6) Kinesthesis: watch your hands; keep them on the podium or behind your back, or at your side and absolutely out of your pockets. Keep your feet solidly on the floor. Do not touch your face. Try to stand straight. You might even try to smile a little!

+++

Speaking With Your Body

Hands
Shape things with your hands, making circles as containers and holding precious ideas between your fingers. Think about how people can see you and do things in profile when your hands in front of you may not be seen.

Generally avoid putting hands below the waist as it draws attention to the nether regions. Also do not touch your face or head.

+++

2. Don’t excessively touch your face or hair.

Classic Kristen Stewart move. Her favorites are touching her forehead like she’s checking her own temperature, grabbing the top of her hair as if she’s trying to make it look even messier than it already does (I think this is how she styles it), or tucking her hair behind her ears three or four times. Don’t do this. Even if you’re nervous, try to keep your hands away from your face, unless you’re about to sneeze on someone.

+++

Only an amateur would touch his face. Wait. Someone should write a book about President Obama and title it - The Amateur.

If only people would listen to me and realize I just ain't makin' this crap up.

  • Login to post comments

Just show me the videos... no worries here they are.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:11am.

HINT: be sure to mute all them videos, however the ruskie one sounds fine..

A Newsbuster channel special.

A salute for a Hero..

the ruskies reset the button

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Golly, Vet...so Glenn AGREES with me?

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:10am.

Well, GMTA, etc. etc.. Now I'm sorry I said some mean things about him in recent months. Previously, I had complimented him, but then he went just a little bit overboard with all of the America Is Doomed and the Impending Tyranny stuff and it got tiresome. I guess I'll cut him some slack. [I'm sure he'll be relieved.]

By the way, I skimmed all of the public speaking hints--especially keeping your hands away from your face. But what if your nose--or an eye or ear--is really, really itching?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

You went to boot camp.

Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:16am.

It is an urge that can be suppressed. Just like the urge to cough.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, well I tried but failed to suppress the overwhelming urge

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:26am.

to close my eyes very early one morning for which I was immediately busted by the Ass't Drill Sergeant and spent the evening cleaning the latrine.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:17am.

We know you like to make excuses for yourself but we still doubt the INSIDE of your nose is that itchy.

  • Login to post comments

sentry...I try to live my life adhering to the principle

Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:33am.

that you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Amen Jer

Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:35am.

Amen.

  • Login to post comments

Your honor,

Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:03am.

Your honor, her husband backed up right into the knife she was holding and since he was so stupid he did it six times. She is in no way responsible for his death, he brought it upon himself by his own carelessness.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

Nah Jer, It's more of longing for the back of Larry Sinclair's

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:33am.

Limo...

Berry the butt territory and it's all about him...And once again it's about how all the people around him that never ever measure up (er,all the way down). Obviously by the lag in Berry's words; Larry is still missed, by the rainbow halo humping BtB.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Your points

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:02pm.

Your points are diminished by personally attacking the person you are responding to.

  • Login to post comments

Who is this comment directed

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 2:30pm.

Who is this comment directed to?

  • Login to post comments

@LT

Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:06pm.

iPhone error - reposted above in context.

  • Login to post comments

The glory of the iPhone. I

Submitted by Lauren Thompson on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:37pm.

The glory of the iPhone. I swear, autocorrect is my greatest enemy.

  • Login to post comments

~DYAC

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:50am.

Funniest site on the internet.

"Actions speak louder than wombats!"

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
  • The folly of 'do something' liberalism (Patriot Update)
  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Oops! CNN Commentator Falsely Accuses Okla. State Rep While Trying to Score Liberal Points on Tornado
  • Sen. Whitehouse Blames GOP For Okla. Tornado, Storms, Rising Seas, Etc.
  • On Leno: Kids Ask Obama the Darndest Questions
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use