The Abortion Debate. Again.

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

This assumes TV directs behavior. It's simpler and IMHO more likely to say it reflects it. TV is just like McDonald's -- the unhealthy choices get the most business because the main consumers, children and young adults, find fat and grease tasty.

But it's moot, since just as with McDonald's, adults have the choice not to take their kids there.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

This assumes TV directs behavior. It's simpler and IMHO more likely to say it reflects it. TV is just like McDonald's -- the unhealthy choices get the most business because the main consumers, children and young adults, find fat and grease tasty.

But it's moot, since just as with McDonald's, adults have the choice not to take their kids there.

You're right that there is a certain chicken and egg aspect to this. Really, with TV it works both ways. TV certainly reflects changes in society, but I believe it is equally true that TV influences society. Your TV director sitting out there in Hollywood thinking of what they want to show in their new sitcom they are creating certainly is influenced by what is going on in the world, but also has their own opinions and views. And I think most would admit that Hollywood's opinions and views often diverge from large segments of American society.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

This assumes TV directs behavior. It's simpler and IMHO more likely to say it reflects it.

TV reflects the values of all people some of the time. Too bad the nasty stuff is on prime time and Little House on the Prairie and Leave it to Beaver are on before I get home from work or when I'm sleeping.

I think if you come from a family situation that doesn't expose you to certain things, you are ahead of the game. But it you are exposed to all sorts of things that are morally bankrupt, to some level, it will influence you, no matter how straight laced your backround is.

But there are all sorts of morally bankrupt traps. You can do a search on Youtube for something innocent like the name of a song and end up 2 hours later in the most morally bankrupt corner of the world you could ever imagine. And no matter how well you were brought up, the sinful nature is right there in that finger telling you to click the link. At least we have the will to resist, the ability to change behavior and a God who forgives the truly sorry (but that's a thread in the archive ).

It's just too easy with technology to take a wrong turn.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Lot of truth in this, but let's face it, it's today's parents who are allowing their kids to watch all this negative stuff on TV. Granted I was a kid a long, long time ago, but even in the 50s there was programming that my folks didn't feel was appropriate and we weren't allowed to watch. I don't recall much of an urge to break the rules either, since Lassie was enough to scare the crap outa me every week.

I couldn't disagree more. There is a lot of garbage and "bad stuff" on tv, especially compared to "the day," but at the same time, there are a lot of television shows that have good lessons, and positive role-model type situations. I think you severely overstate the situation.

When L'il (my son) was 6-7 he went to a party where the kid's Mum got him Grand theft Auto and thought there was nothing wrong with her kid playing that or watching what ever (and I do mean what EVER) on the tube. You are going to have ignorant parents no matter what. It just seems that there are more of them. Where before things were shocking and you were a bit out of the box if your kid watched the stuff or did any of it now no one says anything and if they do then they are pressured to feel it should be OK.

Obviously, this comes to personal views, and as such, I certainly respect not wanting one's children to see things that one finds objectionable. I guess my thought is, I would actually rather have my children (if I had any) watch some of the shows that are on tv now, wherein loving, normal families, who have normal flaws and foibles, live in the world together, than something like Leave it to Beaver where I see empty homily.

I would rather have the Leave it to Beaver stuff until the kid is old enough to undersatnd that what is on TV is done for entertainment and that all the foibles usually aren't found in one person all the time.

Kids have enough to sort thru in real life without having them have to sort thru all the crap they show on some of the 'kid shows'. When I was in school we learned some things about how a kid developps sense of right and wrong. When they are developing that sense of right and wrong they do not have a great ability to sort through complex issues or to understand things like adults. They usually rely on what they are told or shown. Everything is black or white.

A wonderful example of this is comparing how people think of Jack in the Beanstalk. Ask anyone who the good guy in the story is. Almost everyone will tell you Jack. That is how it is told- he is the hero, he got the money for his Mum. If you think about it Jack is not so good. He does not do as he is told. He gets them is a bad situation. To get out of it he steals from the giant with total disregard. No one ever thinks of it though because the way the story is told he saves the family. Tell an adult that and they can usually grasp that altho they have always thought of Jack as a hero he wasn't completely cool. Tell a kid that and they have a really difficult time. Either Jack is good or he is not. That means everything he did is good or bad. Try it with a young kid some time. They really struggle if they have heard the story before.

The point of the ramble- if the kid is presented with multiple poor examples then they do not conciously decide to discern what is a good choice without a whole lot of prompting. This is why it is better to give the white wash version of things when kids are young and gradually give more info as they get older. You don't tell a kid someone died the same way when they are 3 as when they are 12. You can't expect the kid to process some of the drek they see for the same reason.

Bob- PBS has some nice stuff on for kids. When L'il was littler he watched that almost exclusively. Stuff like Arthur beat out Rugrats anytime. Arthur always screwed up but they showed consequences and problem solving. It didn't always get fixed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Your TV director sitting out there in Hollywood thinking of what they want to show in their new sitcom they are creating certainly is influenced by what is going on in the world, but also has their own opinions and views. And I think most would admit that Hollywood's opinions and views often diverge from large segments of American society.

I think the market is too competitive for producers to do anything but feed the beast.

Also, by its nature I think all entertainment accentuates the "abnormal." Dysfunctional situations are more dramatic or comic.

 

[Slap Shot]

Clearly the media usurped their family values:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl823

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

The first two banner ads when I entered this thread were "Planned Parenthood" and "Viagra."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I think the market is too competitive for producers to do anything but feed the beast.

Also, by its nature I think all entertainment accentuates the "abnormal." Dysfunctional situations are more dramatic or comic.

I just think it's a two way street, but certainly feeding the beast is part of the equation. But, if Hollywood happened to be a bastion of conservative values, rather than liberal values, you can't tell me that such a situation wouldn't noticeably influence the products that are put out there by the industry.

Agreed that entertainment accentuates the abnormal, but I'd argue that the abnormal is accentuated a lot more than it used to be. Back when I was a kid, other than cartoons and an occasional sci-fi movie or something, most shows and movies I recall were relatively down to earth in the people and stories they presented. Whereas today, a small portion of movies reflect anything remotely resembling actual real life situations.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Back when I was a kid, other than cartoons and an occasional sci-fi movie or something, most shows and movies I recall were relatively down to earth in the people and stories they presented. Whereas today, a small portion of movies reflect anything remotely resembling actual real life situations.

I think there are a few factors, and none of them are attributable to a conspiracy of morality destroyers.

The target audience has radically decreased. The movies and TV shows with the largest audience are targeted to children 12-21 and so stress the themes that this demographic is most fascinated by: sexuality, partying, shopping. (These are also the themes that advertisers can best exploit for profit.) The face of mass-marketed culture was always younger and more superficial than the general population, but with the huge increase in the purchasing power of children it has dropped even more. Content reflects the sponsors' targeted audience because entertainment has never been anything but a business.

Programming is heterogeneous and niche-driven rather than homogeneous and generic. With 3 networks you couldn't produce a show that would alienate large segments of the population. With 300 outlets, you have to -- you must capture a specific demographic by being more extreme than your competitors for that demographic.

Public standards of morality have changed. This is the only factor that is explicitly moral, but it isn't driven by a nefarious cadre of Hollywood liberals in a smoke-free room. Our general culture is different, now, primarily because it has become democratized. Public culture used to be much more about dressing and behaving like you would when visiting your grandparents' house -- now it is far more lax. That wasn't anybody's intention, it simply evolved in reaction to ideas of public inclusiveness. It's telling that to behave differently is now branded as elitist. The end of the cultural aristocracy also resulted in the end of that staid, repressed public morality that I as much as you miss and would prefer to reinstate.

Finally, you and I are older than dirt. People have been saying "kids today" and "these newfangled ways" for as long as there have been people. Perspectives change. The world is always going to hell in a handbasket. In 40 years today's 14 year olds will harken back to now as the golden age of morality and decorum.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I'm not saying there is some vast conspiracy. But it's illogical to think that peoples' views don't to some extent influence what they produce.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I'm not saying there is some vast conspiracy. But it's illogical to think that peoples' views don't to some extent influence what they produce.

I'll buy that, if only as the absence of qualms that used to exist. Some studios and networks used to refuse to show certain things because of the conservative beliefs of their owners. The absence of those restrictions now could be called either bias or removal of bias -- opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I'll buy that, if only as the absence of qualms that used to exist. Some studios and networks used to refuse to show certain things because of the conservative beliefs of their owners. The absence of those restrictions now could be called either bias or removal of bias -- opposite sides of the same coin.

I'm not sure I'm on board with the last part. I think over its history, Hollywood has been part of pushing the edge, more than it has been part of just following broad cultural changes. Certainly the old boards limited what ended up on tv or in the movies, but even then enough stuff made it through that Hollywood regularly was pushing the envelope.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I'm not sure I'm on board with the last part. I think over its history, Hollywood has been part of pushing the edge, more than it has been part of just following broad cultural changes. Certainly the old boards limited what ended up on tv or in the movies, but even then enough stuff made it through that Hollywood regularly was pushing the envelope.

There have certainly been some movies or shows which had an explicit message. I just re-watched one of my favorite cold war flicks, the 1952 "Invasion U.S.A.," which I'd describe as what if Ayn Rand and Bob Dornan had a baby and it was a movie.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I'm not sure I'm on board with the last part. I think over its history, Hollywood has been part of pushing the edge, more than it has been part of just following broad cultural changes. Certainly the old boards limited what ended up on tv or in the movies, but even then enough stuff made it through that Hollywood regularly was pushing the envelope.

This is a little not correct.

Hollywood made movies before the Hays code was put in that were much "racier" (so to speak) then they were able to make after the code was put in. The code fell apart in the '60's (rightfully so IMO) but between 1934 and about 1968 what was in film and on TV wasn't really pushing any envelopes very hard.

 

[Jon]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Agreed that entertainment accentuates the abnormal, but I'd argue that the abnormal is accentuated a lot more than it used to be. Back when I was a kid, other than cartoons and an occasional sci-fi movie or something, most shows and movies I recall were relatively down to earth in the people and stories they presented. Whereas today, a small portion of movies reflect anything remotely resembling actual real life situations.

So apparently average social situations really did turn into exciting Fred Astaire/Gene Kelly dance extravaganzas with Busbyesque choreography. And at one point, Groucho Marx really did run the country of Fredonia. Good to know, good to know.
I can only hope they catch the creature of the black lagoon.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

So apparently average social situations really did turn into exciting Fred Astaire/Gene Kelly dance extravaganzas with Busbyesque choreography. And at one point, Groucho Marx really did run the country of Fredonia. Good to know, good to know.
I can only hope they catch the creature of the black lagoon.

Compared to a lot of the bizarre stuff that's in movies today, I'd say that stuff is pretty tame. Show the creature from the black lagoon to your typical kid today, and they'd be bored out of his skull.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Compared to a lot of the bizarre stuff that's in movies today, I'd say that stuff is pretty tame. Show the creature from the black lagoon to your typical kid today, and they'd be bored out of his skull.

I dont think that is the point he was trying to make...

 

[Jon]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

Compared to a lot of the bizarre stuff that's in movies today, I'd say that stuff is pretty tame. Show the creature from the black lagoon to your typical kid today, and they'd be bored out of his skull.

I"m bored out of my skull by what the average teenager watches. So I guess I'm in some bizarre middle area.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I hate a lot of what interests teenagers these days. If I were 6-10 years younger, I'd probably go bat **** crazy.

**** whippersnappers.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Abortion Debate. Again.

I dont think that is the point he was trying to make...

It was the point I was making.