I am sure that if you, like me, see the footage of the “wardrobe malfunction” one more time you’re going to hurl your TV out the window. An entire week of the Dean scream, and now this. (Will we see, except on “The Daily Show,” repeated images of Bush’s multiple flubs on “Meet The Press”?) How much lower can TV… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (12)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt’s frustrating to complain about
the race-to-the-bottom sex-obsessed/crude ads on TV
and one-sided stuff on radio, but I’ve had some satisfaction in writing
a petition/letter with a dozen signers, to local sponsors (car dealers, furniture stores, supermarkets) and
small victories like ending
their sponsorship of Gordon Liddy--
and maybe soon, Mike Savage
on Clear Channel’s Radio WSYR Syracuse.
Posted by Austin Paulnack on Feb 19, 2004 at 5:27 PM Mr Paulnack, I think has the right idea. What was that saying?: Think globally, act locally.
As for dealing with our kids in this media environment, much depends on the example we set. Short of trashing the tv, I’ve found it instructive (maybe not all the time, but enough) to take a breath and, after the mtv video is over (or whenever you can politely intercede) simply ask what it is that is so cool about what (s)he is watching? I was generally surprised at the length of discussions, once I reminded my daughter that, yes, I was once a prisoner of the adult world. The problem today is that the insanity is mainstream, and not the other way around.
Posted by Steve Church on Feb 19, 2004 at 7:16 PM I agree with you on every point except one. In my understanding Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson were both given the option of appearing on The Grammy’s if they apologized for the “wardrobe malfunction”. Miss Jackson declined and Timberlake went on. I am sure Mr. Timberlake’s decision had something to with his being awarded on the show. Miss Jackson was not to receive any sort of recognition.
Ron Johnson
Posted by Ron Johnson on Feb 20, 2004 at 9:38 AM I couldn’t agree more! Especially “If you oppose censorship but are fed up by a media culture...” I just wish there were more diverse options on TV and in the media so that viewers could show the Media Execs that we can handle the truth, we can handle information and not just sound bites, that we don’t care about polls we care about issues, but we aren’t given the option to show that. I can go to the grocery store and buy organic foods and put my $$ where my interests are. I’m not even given that option on mainstream TV, in magazines.
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”—H. L. Mencken
As a friend quote this to me the other day as I was complaining about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue which every employee at my company - a division on Time Inc, the magazine’s publisher - got a hand delivered copy… oh yeah, company sanctioned pornography, now that promotes a professional work environment!
I feel very powerless to change this - expect by reading and subscribing to magazines like In These Times, the Nation, FAIR’s Extra, etc.
Posted by sarah bailey on Feb 20, 2004 at 12:28 PM Ms. Bailey,
The media execs have absolutely no interest in the amount of truth or information that the viewing public can handle, as long as the general attention span doesn’t dip below the 30-second level of most commercials. In fact, they have a vested interest in keeping us as unaware as possible of most major issues. The American public is not becoming dumber, it’s becoming more and more ignorant at the hands of the media.
I used to work as a managing editor for a moderately respectible industry-focused magazine, and I’ve seen seen solid reporting watered down to irrelevance or cut completely because one of the major advertisers didn’t like how it and its products were portrayed. I knew better than to ask why the hell the advertiser was allowed to dictate content in an “independent” publication, but it was in no small part this particularly odious “fact of life” that led me to reconsider my choice of career.
This flap over content is just a distraction from the influence that advertisers have over what you’re allowed to know. Don’t trust any news source that primarily relies on advertising for it’s income.
Or better yet, don’t trust any news source at all.
Posted by Aaron on Feb 23, 2004 at 1:06 PM You are probably right that our attention should be focused not only on media companies but also on the advertisers who hold much sway since they are the ones generating more reveue for media companies than subscription sales.
Any ideas on how we get this message through to the advertisers?
Posted by sarah bailey on Feb 23, 2004 at 5:06 PM I wish I had some, Sarah, but unfortunately I don’t know of any practical way to change this. Corporations can only be as good and noble as their least ethical executive, and it’s the weasels that help most corporations make their greatest profits. All one can do is try to look at the chartacter of a company before deciding whether to buy its products, but such choice is a luxury only the middle and upper classes (and in some cases, not even the middle class) can afford. Free-market capitalism relies on the limited buying power of the lower classes to ensure that socially conscious consumers can’t make too much of a difference.
But hopefully that’s just my cynicism talking....
Posted by Aaron on Feb 24, 2004 at 10:13 AM You’re dead on, Susan. My solution...I don’t watch TV. Not at all. Of course, I don’t have children, another decision I don’t regret. Though I have compassion for parents with the intelligence and desire to raise their children to be respectful individuals.
Posted by Paul Prappas on Feb 24, 2004 at 12:26 PM I for one am not surprised or offended by Ms. Jacksons boob or the reaction. All these so-called “concerned” and “active” citizens who are up in arms about it are all full of crap.
A few points to be made:On the one side we have all these concerned christians freaking out over a tit that you could hardly see, yet church groups all over the country are buying blocks of movie tickets to see “The passion of the christ”. Several critics have dubbed it the bloodiest and most violent film of all time. Oh, and alot of these same people are going to bring the kids to see the movie. Are’nt these “concerned” citizens afraid that little johnny may attempt a cruciFICTION on one of his school-yard chums? Of course not.
Then we have the other “concerned” group. Those “enlightened” liberals who always tell us they dont really watch TV but they keep it around for the kids. Like kids couldnt survive without television. Blaming your kids for how fucked up TV is, is pathetic. Its your fault period. If you dont really watch TV (I like playboy for the articles) and your concerned about a little T&A;skrewing up your kids then throw the fucking thing out the window.
Oh and dont forget how the porn industry is making tens of billions yet nobody watches porn.
Also, lets say people are really concerned with the sex and violence on the BOOB TUBE. Whats going to happen when people find out they cant watch CSI Miami because its too bloody? Are you really prepared to give up your favorite shows because of a tit?
Turning the channel isnt cutting it anymore. Turn to next channel and see more of the same shit. So the only solution if your truly a “concerned” citizen is to KILL YOUR TELEVISION once and for all. Then maybe we could train our “concern” to something more important like keeping our jobs or healthcare or something trivial like that.
Posted by APRIL 26, 1992 on Feb 25, 2004 at 3:59 PM Firstly, I find it extremely gratifying to find others who are not yet “media zombies”. Most people I encounter are more familiar with this seasons new sitcom than with the current world events. Worse yet, they accept, as unbias facts, the news they recieve from soundbites fed to them by advertising-controlled media outlets. Secondly, I commend the readers for an insightful, on-point discussion. All too often, a good discussion somehow spirals down and becomes merely name-calling and “screaming through words” (hmm, sort of like how those in power like to discuss things).
As far as the no-class TV programs that have become all too ubiquitous, most of the viewers I run into tell me that, in fact, they don’t really approve of most of it. They go on to explain that they merely want to see “how far they will go next” (kind of like being unable to look away from a car accident). It would not surprise me at all if the superbowl has record ratings next year as people tune in to find out “what will they do next?”.
The only solution, as I see it, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is something that you truly do not agree with, than do not support that entity with your viewership, period. It is sometimes a lonely world, only having the weather to discuss with strangers. However, do not underestimate the passive effect your convictions will have on those around you, including your children. Instead of outright attacks and rants about the things you see, offer reasons why you disagree. The truth is a powerful thing, yet it works at it’s own time and cannot be forced on those who have not put much thought into it.
Reason and open discussion may not be “cool” or “hip” in our media-dominated society; yet this is exactly why I know it is right.
Posted by Eric Trevino on Feb 26, 2004 at 9:24 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
