The AP has a groundbreaking story revealing that “Marriage gets little respect on network TV shows that instead revel in the pleasures of extramarital and even kinky sex, according to a study released Tuesday.” I’m shocked that sex makes more interesting television than marriage.
But wait, there’s more. The AP also reports that there is a group who is disgruntled about sex on television.
The study by the Parents Television Council includes a strongly worded condemnation of prime-time TV, contending it “seems to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently painting it in a negative light.”
Yes, there is a cabal of Hollywood moguls (and we all know that means “Jews”) who is plotting and scheming to undermine marriage. Idiots (the PTC, not the Jews). It couldn’t be that the shows are produced by capitalists who want to make money and have determined that catering to the demand in the marketplace is a good way to do that.
There is this annoying notion out there, of which this seems to be a manifestation, that humanity or its culture was at a state of perfection, either in Eden or possibly the 50s, and has been in constant decline ever since. It’s that damn jazz music or that damn rock & roll music or that damn sex on TV or that damn knowledge of good & evil & apples that is leading us all to ruin.
Well, you nailed it that it is capitalists who make money by giving the viewing public what it wants. It wants a good deal of sleaze.
Interesting to note how some repulsed by it react. We have the uptight who want to prevent people from seeing it, and then we have the snooty who want high-brow subsidized because there is so little market for their favored viewing.
If sleaze is so bothersome, why can’t some folks be content to turn it off?
Doug, Doug, Doug…
Everyone knows it was that DAMN DISCO MUSIC!
Donna Summer and all her ilk must now sing opera for our sins…
This brings up an interesting tension on the right. On the one hand, you have the free marketeers and on the other, you have the social conservatives.
Yeah, and News Corp is the perfect example of that.
The same corporation that talks about family values etc on Fox News has the most offensive shows of any network on both Fox network and F/X.
We used to watch Fox & Friends in the morning at our house. I wouldn’t claim that it is unbiased, but I preferred their bias to the others at the time. However, we have not watched it since “The Sopranos” ended.
Some idiot thought it was be appropriate to show a scene from that show at 7:00am after the big finale. So, my 6 and 3 year old girls got taken from news they could drown out to a graphic scene of a woman getting her head blown off as someone carjacked her at a gas station.
I’m all for the whole “change the channel” idea. If you don’t like the offensive shows, change the channel. So we have, and have not watched Fox for more than 5 minutes at a time if CNN or others were on commercial and we’re skimming the channels. We never watched it in the morning since.
Speaking of Fox news…
I watched a lot of Fox news recently due to circumstances beyond my control,and noted how Hannnity talks about politicians. Every democrat is a ‘liberal'( and there is only one one kind with no nuancing necessary) and every liberal makes decisions based exclusively on ‘political expediency’. I will never hear again the term ‘political expediency’ without seeing Hannity saying it while playing with his pencil between his fingers.But Hannity’s message is easy to follow.
It’s violence in the media that worries me more. It’s easy enough just to cover my eyes when the blood and guts happens. There’s surely enough variety on the boob tube now that we can find something to watch if we disagree with what’s on. There’s plenty of poison out there for all of us to absorb. My real problem is the distorted way that the media portrays most sexuality, not that it’s being presented period. More accurate depictions of the wide spectrum of human sexuality would surely be a good thing!
Doug made a good point:
“This brings up an interesting tension on the right. On the one hand, you have the free marketeers and on the other, you have the social conservatives.”
There are those on the right who want little/no government regulation when it comes to business and financial markets but also those who would like laws governing social/moral issues.
There is a similar tension, though, on the left. There are many liberals who would like much more government regulation when it comes to business and finance but no government regulation/intervention when it comes to social or moral issues (at least not on issues on which they and conservatives disagree).
For example, gay marriage should not be denied as a right (i.e. no government regulation) according to many on the left, but many on the left would support laws that prohibit “hate speech”. In Canada, for example, a minister can be arrested for “hate speech” if, in his preaching, he cites passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality.
We (humans) all are cut from the same cloth and often act in ways similar to those we criticize…but often we don’t recognize the speck in our own eye because we’re coming at the issue from our own (accepted) perspective.
Tony! Glad to have you commenting around here. This place is getting lousy with former Richmondites.
It certainly wasn’t my intent to imply the left or liberals or whatever might be the best label is without its contradictions.
On the right, however, I think this tension between social conservatives and free market conservatives is more fundamentally damaging to the coalition.
Doug,
No problem…I didn’t interpret your comment as an implication that liberals are without contradiction. I appreciate your insight because I lean to the conservative side (as you know) and I never really thought about the tension between social conservatives and free-market conservatives. I don’t deny it…the tension is obviously there and after thinking about it, I realize that there can be a similar tension for liberals.
I’m not taking sides or pointing fingers (as though conservatives are “better” than liberals); this is why I observed that, being cut from the same cloth, people tend to criticize those whom they consider their “opponent” without recognizing the flaws in their own position. Not that you (and certainly not I) would ever do this. :)
The focus on the “speck” in the neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own eye is most evident in those who are blindly partisan (which I know you’re not).
This being said, I agree…this type of tension and contradiction is more damaging to the conservative coalition. Or, more precisely, I think it’s more difficult for someone to hold a fiscal free-market conservative and a social conservative position at the same time and remain logically coherent; It doesn’t make sense to say, “The government should stay out of the public’s fiscal business…but it’s OK for the government to regulate its citizens’ personal business.”
This being so, you’d think conservatives would have a tougher sell at election time…but voters often vote with their heart and not with their head…so we’ll see.
Perhaps I’m more open-minded than I thought? Naaah! :)