Here’s something you don’t see every day: a high-ranking member of the entertainment media publicly admonishing folks in his own industry. Yet, according to a Reuters article Monday (h/t to Drudge), one of the most successful movie producers and directors of all time is speaking out against excessive violence on television:
Steven Spielberg urged TV networks to be mindful of what they show on the air because of the effect it might have on children, and said programs like "CSI" and "Heroes" were too gruesome.
"Today we are needing to be as responsible as we can possibly be, not just thinking of our own children but our friends' and neighbors' children," Spielberg told an audience Monday at the International Emmys board of directors meeting here.
The article continued:
Spielberg decried on-air promotions for television shows like "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" that showed "blood and people being dissected." He also said that when his favorite TV show of the new season, NBC's "Heroes," showed someone cut in half in the 9 p.m. hour, he sent his younger children out of the room.
"I'm a parent who is very concerned," he said.
Good for you, Stephen. America needs more successful and well-regarded members of the entertainment community speaking out on this issue. Maybe then – along with the kind of outrage from citizens that prompted News Corps’ Rupert Murdoch to cancel the O.J. Simpson book and special – Hollywood will recognize that there are indeed levels of decency that shouldn’t be crossed on network television.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm sure outrage from citiz
November 21, 2006 - 10:49 ET by sarcasmoI'm sure outrage from citizens had a little something to do with Rupert's decision, but the cynical part of me suspects the Brown/Goldman familys' lawyers were looking into this deal & following the money straight back to Rupert's wallet, and that had MUCH more to do with his decision than outrage from ordinary citizens (or even from perpetually-outraged Fox News commentators like Gibson & O'Reilly). At this point, if I were those same Brown/Goldman family lawyers, I'd be going after any loot involved in even the remnants of this dead deal, and Rupert's & Judith's legal teams would both be -- how to put this? -- "quite busy."
JMR
Sarc, Think about how screwed
November 21, 2006 - 11:04 ET by Hunter12Sarc, Think about how screwed up your judgement would have to be to even consider paying that clown for a book about how he murdered two people. "If I Did It", come on! Everyone knows how you would have done OJ, because they had the crime reconstruction to show them how you did do it. I agree that money has already changed hands and that the Brown and Goldman families should start looking for it.
I try to help OJ out every chance I get. Since he can't cover every golf course in America in his personal search for the killer, when I hit the links, I take a look around.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
How long could OJ’s book
November 21, 2006 - 12:05 ET by Red JeepHow long could OJ’s book have been, 2 pages? What would he write? If I did it I would use a gun rather than a knife because it would kill faster with less mess? If I did it I would have done it in a different place? What plan can take more than a page?
While I agree with Spielberg
November 21, 2006 - 11:04 ET by GalvanicWhile I agree with Spielberg's sentiment, it ain't goin' nowhere. The broadcast networks agreed to the viewer warnings in response to Congressional concerns over rising violence, sex, and profanity on television. While they feigned victimhood, the networks were privatley cheering, as they can now air most anything merely be preceding the broadcast with a viewer warning.
And they'll continue to hide behind that system.
ten years
November 21, 2006 - 11:10 ET by iveseenitallDecency was lucky to win one this time. Plenty worse is yet to come. Buckle up.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Whoa, if THE Stephen Spielber
November 21, 2006 - 11:19 ET by King of the BritonsWhoa, if THE Stephen Spielberg is calling for less violence on TV, then we must listen. I guess what I don't understand is that many who hate big government nanny-ism when it comes to things like the social security scam, the trans-fat police in NYC, or the anti-smoking movement can possibly support the government monitoring and regulating the air waves. I have a great idea - if you are concerned about what your kids watch on TV, then don't let them watch TV. What craaaaaazy idea - taking responsibility for raising your children!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KOTB
November 21, 2006 - 11:22 ET by Noel SheppardKOTB,
OK. So, as I just asked Sarcasmo in the CBS thread, does your vision of Libertarian television concepts go so far as to allow the four broadcast networks to air anything they want 24 hours a day? Would this include hardcore pornography and snuff films? ns
Yes.Is life so dear, or peace
November 21, 2006 - 11:24 ET by King of the BritonsYes.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KOTB
November 21, 2006 - 11:40 ET by Noel SheppardKOTB,
Do you have any children? ns
Yes, I have three young child
November 21, 2006 - 11:44 ET by King of the BritonsYes, I have three young children. I monitor what they watch / don't watch. I have the ability to lock out channels that I don't want them to watch. Do you need any assistance with your children?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KOTB...what about those who d
November 21, 2006 - 11:54 ET by bassndudeKOTB...what about those who do not have cable tv? Only what is transmitted over the air waves? Using an antena for reception who have no way to lock out the channels? Are you willing to buy them the equipment they need to do that? That could run into some money.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I thought the newer TV sets (
November 21, 2006 - 12:17 ET by dscottI thought the newer TV sets (V chip) could do this with broadcast? Every show should be transmitting a signal that is consistent with the ratings code. Maybe not all TVs do this yet?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
BnD,Not the point at all. T
November 21, 2006 - 12:42 ET by King of the BritonsBnD,
Not the point at all. The point was that you and only you are responsible for what your children watch and how they are raised.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
...
November 21, 2006 - 18:11 ET by MalcorHuh? Buy them what equipment?
The way I see it, wrangling an antenna system is a lot more annoying than just hitting buttons on the remote. It would require more effort on the part of the child to correct minor 'adjustments' in the reception than they would likely find it worth doing. In any case, it's much easier for the parent to control four channels as opposed to four hundred anyway. His point remains.
KOTB
November 21, 2006 - 12:02 ET by Noel SheppardKOTB,
I trust your question concerning my children wasn't meant to be derisive, for if it was, this conservation will stop. Fair enough? ns
NS,It was no swipe at you or
November 21, 2006 - 12:40 ET by King of the BritonsNS,
It was no swipe at you or your children. Although, I am glad at your response to my questioning. My only question then is why do you not bristle at the in-your-face, non-stop assault on your children and parenting that occurs by the government (the very same government we want to protect our children)? For what they do as a matter of business is far, far more offensive to me than you could ever be. Do they not force feed everyone that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? This is decency? So why not pull the restrictions, in the name of liberty, and force people to raise their children and get the government out of that business?
BTW, I only want civil debate and certainly apologize if my comments seemed derisive.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KOTB
November 21, 2006 - 13:18 ET by Noel SheppardKOTB,
"[T]he in-your-face, non-stop assault on your children and parenting that occurs by the government..."
Such as? Could you be more precise? ns
Are you honestly asking me th
November 21, 2006 - 13:37 ET by King of the BritonsAre you honestly asking me this question because you need some proof that the government/FCC isn't in your face about it?
Massachusetts lawmakers proposing a bill that makes spanking your children illegal in JUN 05?
Compulsary government schools teaching sex education, homosexuality tolerance/acceptance, revisionist history, etc. . .
Child access prevention laws enacted in 18 states.
FCC allowing a homosexual in almost every TV show/movie on television but declaring other things obscene.
Honestly, are you questioning whether the government doesn't get in your face about raising your kids? When the government gets into the obscenity business, you end up with the results you get which are opinions on what is and what is not obscene, as opposed to people being able to vote with their money, as the market would allow. I don't need an assembled group of experts determining for me what is or what is not obscene. I am sure you do not either. So why advocate that for anyone?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KOTB
November 21, 2006 - 14:14 ET by Noel SheppardKOTB,
No. I was asking because I wanted you to elaborate for I wasn't 100 percent sure what government intrusions you were referring to. As such, now that you have complied, I can answer your previous question: all of these issues make me "bristle." However, we are a media bias website. That's our charge. Therefore, that's what we write about, and what appears to make us "bristle" most.
Fair enough? ns
NS,And a might fine media bia
November 21, 2006 - 14:26 ET by King of the BritonsNS,
And a might fine media bias website you are. You truly are one of the things that I am thankful for this holiday season. God bless you guys and the work that you do.
Beat Navy!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
C'mon. We're ignoring the ele
November 21, 2006 - 13:37 ET by tracheostomyC'mon. We're ignoring the elephant in the room. We want to have our sinful voyuer-box and eat it too.
Er. . .something to that effect.
http://www.draftcondi.us/
Tracheostomy,I want individua
November 21, 2006 - 13:47 ET by King of the BritonsTracheostomy,
I want individual liberty and for the government to stop confiscating my money. If, for some, that means allowing one to eat one's "sinful voyuer [sic] box" then so be it. Why do you care? Live your life as morally upright as you possibly can and I won't bother you. Allow others to live their life in the gutter and just please don't bother them. That is being free.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
I see both sides of the argum
November 21, 2006 - 14:04 ET by tracheostomyI see both sides of the argument. I really do. You've made your case clear enough that someone can't force you to "clarify yourself" into a dead end.
If I may sum up, your point is that individuals should simply look to themselves. And I see the merit in that statement. Parents should be raising the children; not the gubment.
However, if I raise my (hypothetical child) in the manner you specify, and at the same time fail to protest Hollywood's influence on my children. . .they will "get" my kids no matter what I do.
Your reasoning has alot of built-in presuppositions. As a child, I was forbidden to watch The Dukes of Hazzard because my mother thought it was an inappropriate depiction of police/authority figures for a five-year-old boy.
So what'd I do? I watched it at Jeff and Chad's house. I envied the kids with the DOH lunchboxes, die-cast cars and underwear.
The point Noel and others are making is where do we draw the line before the culture takes our household with us? Sure we can turn the TV off or throw it away, but we can't raise our kids in the closet either. They'll hear it from their peers.
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
No, of course you cannot rais
November 21, 2006 - 14:22 ET by King of the BritonsNo, of course you cannot raise your kids in a closet, but you are responsible for what your kids watch, do, say, hear, etc. You ask, "Where do you draw the line?" I will make that decision for me and my family. I argue and will always argue for individual liberty and freedom. Some people are not comfortable with that and, even many conservatives want/need the government to be their nanny or others' nanny. I only want the government to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property). I certainly don't want it taking my money so that it can pay someone to tell me what is television worthy or obscene. I can judge that for myself. I expect others to be able to do the same.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Well, now you're just down to
November 21, 2006 - 14:27 ET by tracheostomyWell, now you're just down to repeating yourself. I expected an opposition to my reasoning that the child will eventually be influenced by the culture at large, regardless of how tighly you box them in.
The solution therefore, is to either allow the culture to destroy the child, or to take the war to the culture and the "culture makers" themselves. Parents have a right to speak out also (see Dantheman below at 13:28).
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
You must instill in your chil
November 21, 2006 - 14:49 ET by King of the BritonsYou must instill in your children your values and raise them as such. They will eventually go into the culture wars without your help and you can only be there to support them and hope that they choose the right paths. I don't think that the only solutions are that you let the culture destroy you child or you take the war to the culture and the "culture makers." If your war on the culture and the culture makers involves the government using its hammer to stop others from being free (free to broadcast smut to whomever wants to watch it), then it is wrong. Of course parents have a right to protest, but if their only argument is that instead of government enabling the obscene side of the war it should enable the "moral" side of the culture war, then you have no principled ground to stand on. You are simply in a shouting match against the other side about what the big hammer of government should be used to hit.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
"You must instill in you
November 21, 2006 - 15:16 ET by tracheostomy"You must instill in your children your values and raise them as such."
Agreed. The problem is that this statement fails to take into account the parents your children know. You can't tell for sure nowadays how "in control" the parent down the block truly is.
"I don't think that the only solutions are that you let the culture destroy you child or you take the war to the culture and the 'culture makers.'"
Granted, those are magnified hypotheticals, but if you're proposing a third option. . .let's hear it!
"If your war on the culture and the culture makers involves the government using its hammer to stop others from being free (free to broadcast smut to whomever wants to watch it), then it is wrong."
Is it wrong if the population gets involved and elects representatives; supports bills to stem the moral tide in broadcasting??? Is it "just plain wrong" in your opinion, or is it wrong for a reason?
"Of course parents have a right to protest, but if their only argument is that instead of government enabling the obscene side of the war it should enable the "moral" side of the culture war, then you have no principled ground to stand on."
Why? Are we now taking some kind of stand for relativism?
"You are simply in a shouting match against the other side about what the big hammer of government should be used to hit."
I actually agree with this tactic, but you seem to be depreciating both sides equally. Who would you favor in the shouting match if the "big-bad gubment" wasn't involved?
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
The problem is that this stat
November 21, 2006 - 15:31 ET by King of the BritonsThe problem is that this statement fails to take into account the parents your children know. You can't tell for sure nowadays how "in control" the parent down the block truly is.
Whose problem is that? Yours or everyone's? I argue that it is my responsibility to know where my kids are, who they are hanging out with, what their parents are like and what they allow, etc. I have been advocating my "third solution" all along in that you are responsible for your kids and their education, growth, maturity, etc. That is it. As far as allies in this culture war, I will surround my children and my family with others who believe as we do to help that. But as far as electing representatives to wield the government's big hammer on my behalf, while I agree it is really your only choice in our current system, I think that it is wrong for government to wield its big hammer for anyone but for individual freedom. Our governments only exists, as stated by our founding documents, to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). The Constitution lays out what specifically our federal government can do in order to promote the general welfare. Outside of that, I don't think that there is a government solution to the culture war problem. I am not taking a stand for relativism, I am taking a stand for individual liberty. I should be free to live a sinful lifestyle and teach my children to live that same sinful lifestyle should I choose. You are free not to. We are both free to do as we please as long as our exercising our freedom does not require others to act in support or inhibit their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That is what being free is about.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
1. You can't plug all the lea
November 21, 2006 - 16:15 ET by tracheostomy1. You can't plug all the leaks in your individualist "turtle theory". Even the old order Amish would laugh at this reasoning.
2. Liberty is stifled when we say "liberty to sin", because of the current debate as to what is a "victimless crime" and what isn't. Can my child become mentally/emotionally damaged from watching NBC's Heroes? I believe so.
3. Life is stifled when you advocate an individually driven culture that naturally seeks to ignore STDs and the concept of sexual fidelity. If it is not stifled outright, then it is certainly slowed. This is only one example of how choosing to damage yourself damages others. Just as saying goes "misery loves company", so also we should include sin enjoying company even more.
4. If pursuit of happiness is not completely stopped by unrestrained individualism, then it is certainly slowed in both the workplace and in our volunteer pursuits. Do I have to make an exhaustive list now?
Unrestrained individual liberty is not true liberty. It is societal chaos.
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
You should then just go on re
November 21, 2006 - 16:32 ET by King of the BritonsYou should then just go on record as saying that you are not an advocate of freedom or liberty, but a decided upon freedom restricted by the views of those who think that they know best. You are an advocate for the current system. Liberty be damned. Well, then, you are no different than the liberal whose "religious views" and views on tolerance are the opposite of yours. You want the big hammer to hit them. They want the big hammer to hit you. Neither of you have principle to stand on other than your own views, religious beliefs, or traditions. Certainly not the principle of freedom. Both sides are tyrannical.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
"You should then just go
November 21, 2006 - 16:50 ET by tracheostomy"You should then just go on record as saying that you are not an advocate of freedom or liberty, but a decided upon freedom restricted by the views of those who think that they know best."
Man, you got a really vague concept of "freedom" and "liberty". Are you arguing that freedom and liberty are in and of themselves both limitless and without any need of guidance, sense, or moral tact?
And theoretically if we (as a politically active base) elected leaders that decided these views, then we as a people are still held responsible for our actions and therefore. . .not restricted in any way by our government.
I advocate a government limited by a well-informed electorate that places representatives of their choice in power to make decisions.
"You are an advocate for the current system. Liberty be damned."
No, I agree that the current system is flawed and needs fixing. And that's "Unrestrained liberty be damned" to you, thankyouverymuch. =D
You have no idea where I'm coming from. You seem to think regulated freedom is no freedom at all. Yet you never stop to ask, "Well okay, is all regulation oppressive?" No, you still fall at the feet of this idealized concept of liberty that only looks good on paper.
"Well, then, you are no different than the liberal whose "religious views" and views on tolerance are the opposite of yours."
That conclusion would be true if the liberal were also right of course. =D
But then everyone can't be right now, can they?
"You want the big hammer to hit them. They want the big hammer to hit you. Neither of you have principle to stand on other than your own views, religious beliefs, or traditions."
True. See above.
"Certainly not the principle of freedom. Both sides are tyrannical."
Ah, but then how is "freedom" a principle unto itself without lending itself also to individual chaos? If everyone was left to determine thier own moral code individually, how is this any different from anarchism in practice? What exactly is your definition of liberty/freedom?
And why should I follow your absolute definition of it if you truly believe this?
-PJ
http://www.draftcondi.us/
My friend, it is not I who ha
November 21, 2006 - 19:37 ET by King of the BritonsMy friend, it is not I who have the vague concept of liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom is absolutely being free to do as I choose whenever I choose so long as my actions to not harm anyone else - their life, liberty, or property. Anything other than that is not true freedom. You advocacy is someone else's tyranny because it is only based on your "common sense," you religious views, etc. and it will ALWAYS be in conflict with others. The only true definition of liberty is for each man to be free to succeed, fail, or whatever. Liberty is INDEED a concept unto its own. I cannot stress enough that government is a necessary evil, but must remain limited and very restricted (just like our founding documents spell out). When the government starts telling me what is obscene, that I must attend school and that I must be "certified" in subject x, y, and z, that I cannot build an addition on to my house without its permission, that shoot a bear that is eating my trash, that I must have permission to catch fish out of a creek that flows through my property, that I must pay a person who provides a service to me a certain amount of money, that I must give the government x amount of money for my own retirement (that the government says I have no right to, by the way), or that I cannot cut down trees on my own property because there is an endangered bird that has been spotted in the area - these are all ramifications of the limited liberty and conditional freedoms that you advocate. Why should you follow my definition of liberty? You don't have to - that's what being free means. But please don't force me to follow your strange, conditional form of liberty.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
double-post
November 21, 2006 - 16:15 ET by tracheostomydouble-post
kotb--children
November 21, 2006 - 18:21 ET by misterbillNo sarcasm intended--where do you find the time. I am retired now, but when I was working, so was my wife. My son was, for a while, a latchkey child for about 1 1/2 to 2 hours each afternoon. We had no idea what he was watching. We could not monitor his every waking moment. Again, I am quite sincere in my question. Later, in his teens, he had his room on the terrace level, one floor below ours. We had to trust him. Also- very important- we really did not know which shows were really bad for him
PS in Massachusetts about 20 years ago, an MIT engineer fixed his TV set so that Public TV was the only channel his children could watch. Is that what you mean???
I guess the only way to make
November 21, 2006 - 19:49 ET by King of the BritonsI guess the only way to make my point here is to ask you a question in return - did you require state assistance or assistance from anyone else to raise you child? Could you not tell your child not to watch TV? Couldn't you just get rid of your TV if you didn't trust your child with it? Couldn't you lock it up?
Do you feel that it is better to open the door to the government to determine what is best for you child to watch on TV? Because when you do that, you also open the door to the government to determine what is best for you as well.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
so your solution is all or nothing
November 21, 2006 - 19:51 ET by LionKingYour solution is all or nothing. If you want some good , you must also accept the bad.
KOTB trust
November 21, 2006 - 20:18 ET by misterbillKOTB never said I didn't trust. I said we had no way of knowing what he watched for an 1 1/2 hours per day. I doubt it was anything harmful between 3:30pm and 5PM. However , you seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked you how you manged to monitor your child's viewing habits. You seem to have taken my question as a challenge rather than an information question. You needn't bother to answer any more under those circumstances.
And why in the name of heaven would I seek state assistance? I raised no issues re: using the government. (Heaven forbid.) I guess I just plain don't understand the tenor of your response .
I manage what my children wat
November 21, 2006 - 22:10 ET by King of the BritonsI manage what my children watch on TV because my wife stays at home with them. That is a choice and a sacrifice we have gladly made (I am in the Army and am certainly not rich). They are young enough now that I don't have to worry about them going to a friend's house to watch, and I hope, by that age they will have developed enough of a sense of right v. wrong to know it, at least when they see it. I am not naive enough to think that they will not be exposed to what is out there. My only point in all of this is that I do require or want the state dictating standards. My response was not a challenge of your ability to parent nor was it meant to offend. It was, as is this response, meant to question why it is the role of the government to determine what can and cannot be broadcast over the airwaves. I cannot begin to fathom why it became the role of government to do these things.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
TV Violence
November 21, 2006 - 11:32 ET by pocomocoTypically liberal, Hollywood preaches ' do as we say, not as we do'.
They advocate gun control, then produce movies that, each night, look like 'Gun Fight At The OK Corral'.
Their hypocrisy is never-ending.
Totally!
November 21, 2006 - 18:04 ET by RightWiredget violence off tv!
unless NBABCBS is re-running Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan, uncut, for the umpteenth time, then it's ok.
Hypocrites.
RightWired.
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan
Speilberg didn't make those
November 21, 2006 - 18:18 ET by balboaSpeilberg didn't make those two movies with TV in mind. They weren't made for TV.
One can only hope that Spiebe
November 21, 2006 - 12:14 ET by dscottOne can only hope that Spielberg continues to "set the example" by producing family friendly movies. It boggles the mind to think that hollywierd can produce garbage and make money doing it. Everyone knows that family friendly shows and movies have a higher profit margin than the sex and slasher programs they produce. Where is the business sense in producing razor thin profit margins?
Censorship will occur in one way or another, either through the power of the purse or legislation. The fact that shows are rated according to violence, sex and profanity content is a form of censorship that supports the individual's right to choose. Additionally, sponsors are also a form of censorship since they base their monetary support of a program via commercials on ratings and demographics. The biggest enablers of crap on TV are the sponsors who are guessing that a certain type of show will appeal to their target customer for their product. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in personal responsibility, someone is buying the products based on seeing that commercial from that show, if you don't buy, they cease to advertise using that type of program.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Works For Me
November 21, 2006 - 12:58 ET by acumen"Hollywood will recognize that there are indeed levels of decency that shouldn’t be crossed on network television."
More decency on TV? Works for me. A good place to start would be eliminating the hate-Bush, hate-conservatives, hate-Republicans, hate-America talking-head shows.
Yes, I agree with this. Th
November 21, 2006 - 18:35 ET by BlameTheMediaYes, I agree with this. The problem is, whose level of decency? I mean, we don't want to see anyone having sex before marriage on tv... but can every person on this blog honestly say they were a virgin until they married and have only had one partner their whole life? Is divorce on a show morally indecent? On I Love Lucy they couldn't say the word pregnant. Look how horribly far we've come. I guess it would be hard to find the line. Somewhere between I Love Lucy and CSI. When I think of people finding this line it makes me think we'd have to watch Barney and the Teletubbies 24/7. Give me a gun.
How about middle ground? D
November 21, 2006 - 19:53 ET by Conservative VoiceHow about middle ground? Do we really have to make TV so real? Couldn't we make shows that are uplifting, funny, and has old fashion values...or is that just limited to reruns on nick at night? It use to be that in the old days they would hint, and everyone who knew what was up figured out the rest, now a days they remove all doubt and it leaves me with the choice of turning it off because I don't want to be surprised with my kids in the room.
Some shows exist with those e
November 21, 2006 - 20:37 ET by balboaSome shows exist with those elements already.
Hmm, you could have your kids
November 22, 2006 - 10:36 ET by dscottHmm, you could have your kids just watch PBS, which is fairly safe, not completely, but the best you are going to get. Of course this will upset all the Libertarians. Snark, snark, snark
The comment from Blame about Barney is warranted (I'm a fellow Barney hater), however, consider the targeted audience for the show, little kids under 8, as such appropriate to their development.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Spielberg has directed a few
November 21, 2006 - 14:25 ET by buddycSpielberg has directed a few good movies. However, he has made his political views known on a number of issues. He has never been right about anything politically in his entire life. He is one of the last persons on this planet that would influence my opinion on ANYTHING. Why do we care what he says? Has he EVER been correct on any of his many political pontifications.
You shouldn't care what he
November 21, 2006 - 14:33 ET by balboaYou shouldn't care what he says. It's the other filmmakers, Hollywood, etc.
"Has he EVER been correct on any of his many political pontifications."
I'm sure he would disagree. Kinda subjective.
According to laws the right t
November 21, 2006 - 14:28 ET by Dan The Man 2According to laws the right to transmit in the public airwaves is given by the government. And seeing that we the peopel are the governmnet we have the right to control what is transmitted on the airwaves. We entrust the government to make sure any offensive material, offensive to the majority of us as per a democratic government, shall be restricted or completely eradicated.
Reclaim our rights.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
OJ and the dems both have som
November 21, 2006 - 14:55 ET by NazarethOJ and the dems both have something in common- 'Cut and Run'
http://sacredscoop.com