Brothas and Sistas! As upstanding, church-going folk it is our duty to regulate what is being shown on our televisions and computers! Seriously though, can you believe how fast standards in the media are slipping? I don't mean standards in terms of quality or amount of entertainment (though that could also be argued), but in terms of morals. Publications on the TV, movie, and computer screens are, on average, of less moral virtue than ever before. Here is a short list of instances I've noticed that led me to that conclusion:
- Characters on networks aimed at children (Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, etc.) are taking the Lord's name in vain and dressing more scandalously than they did ten years ago. (Think Lizzie Maguire vs. Hannah Montana) (If you've got a strong stomach)
- Most of the recent PG-13 films that have come out include at least one time saying the f-word. (Even Julie & Julia?!?!?!)
- The MPAA (people who provide ratings on movies like R, PG, etc.) has changed the wording on some previews from "approved for all audiences" to "approved for appropriate audiences." This means that previews aren't necessarily rated G, like they used to be. Read about the unannounced change
- YouTube has protections so that someone under the age of 18 doesn't see a pornographic video, but nothing to warn or to protect children from seeing a video that includes lewd or profane language
- Beautiful music has the f-word! Seriously I've been listening to Belle and Sebastian lately and am appalled by how often they swear in otherwise delightful songs. Besides bands, there are some awesome musicals that swear way too much. I wish I could listen to the soundtrack from Next to Normal or RENT without worrying about which songs swear and which don't
"Isn't there something we can do, Scott?" Yes there is! Thanks for asking. You can go to this website to contact networks about the content they are showing on TV. To say something to YouTube about the content that is shown without warning or content-rating go here.
I hope this blog hasn't been too preachy, but I did warn you. Please seriously consider what standards are important to you and make them known to the people in charge. It's our role as the viewers and consumers of the media to let them know what we like and don't like about what is being produced. Please comment and tell me if you agree, disagree or are undecided and why. Let's get the discussion rolling. My next blog will be more uplifting and entertaining, I promise! Catch you next time right here, Internet-explorers.
15 comments:
hey scott-
glad to hear you're going back to school in the spring! i think that's great. :)
as to the whole media thing, i agree with you at least somewhat, but i think it's a complex issue. For example, you cite sexuality and profanity as your main concerns, but I find the readily accessible violent content in tv, movies, music, and video games much more offensive.
However, there is a balance. On the one hand, I absolutely can't condone some of the levels of promiscuity, violence, and substance abuse found on many tv shows and in movies and music, but on the other hand, I also can't support going back too far in our standards. I think it is equally detrimental to our society to return to a time when tv show couples slept in separate twin beds, or when saying "golly gee" was risque.
There is a time and a place for sex, for profanity, and even for certain kinds of violence (self-defense being about the only one i can think of, but still). It doesn't help us to pretend that none of those things exist, but our society has become intoxicated with continual displays of everything all the time. So little is sacred.
Oh, and while we're on it, I'd also like to say that I find cultural depictions of materialism and unfettered prosperity equally offensive. Where are the homeless on tv? It does us just as much harm to be taught that we can only be happy with the latest greatest shiny object, or whitest teeth, or brightest hair, or most expensive clothing, as it does to learn that sex is meaningless and casual violence ok.
thanks for the rant. :)
Maybe things like television and such are a concern, but music? For Example it's Belle and Sebastien's artistic right to include what they want in their music. If you don't agree then why don't you rant about Greek classic art, or Renaissance art portraying nudes?
Scott, you've opened a can of worms...I do agree with you, yes, and I'm glad people are talking about this!
But yet, more needs to be taken into account.
Recently, there was a brief media surge over a sex scene in Mass Effect, a video game -- a lot of people found it very offensive. Yet A) Sex has saturated the Internet, B) Cable television provides some late at night, and C) Go swing by the adult romantic fiction section at the library, and holy cow.
More research would need to be done on the media form, as the older and less realistic forms (novels) are nearly entirely uncensored, while the newer or more involved ones (gaming) has received heavier hits from media, understandably -- but the stuff you can find in novels that parents would support anyway because "reading is good" and "TV is bad" is kinda screwed up...imo.
Freedom of expression is good, yes, but the freedom to choose what to expose yourself to is rapidly decreasing. In my view, sex should be thrown around as lightly as it is by anyone that wants to -- so long as they respect others' choices and keep it private or provide warnings, meaning no naked people on billboards and warnings on youtube videos -- possibly age verification as well, but people can get past those too easily. This brings into account a few controversial concepts (freedom of expression, freedom to raise children as we wish, freedom to expose ourselves to what we want, even freedom to choose to be offended by some things) and is very complicated, so...yeah.
Yes, the concept of violence wasn't visited in your post...which I find highly interesting in our culture. It's illegal to kill people and sex is necessary for survival, yet a sex scene causes controversy while blatant murdering doesn't? (Not that I think sex scenes are okay, by any means, but I find it hypocritical of our laws and standards.) I'm not sure where I stand on this issue though, because people are more willing to play around with sex because "it's fun" and killing is universally considered wrong, so people are less likely to do it -- but yet... I dunno, there's too much to take into account all at once on this one.
Materialism, success in money, and immaturity are rampant in media -- I agree with Miss Grey. People can offend others all they want without causing damage, but living for clothing and fast food can really screw someone up -- more than hearing an F-bomb in a movie can. This is an issue with our entire culture, and most modern culture as well I think.
I could talk about this subject for a very long time and still be interested, but I must leave for work. I'll keep in touch though!
Shoot I wish I would have mentioned violence in my post! Haha seriously I did mean to. I completely agree that it is much too common and is too "acceptable." I'm not surprised that gladiators and public hangings have been so popular in the past because video-gaming these days provides the same amount and more violent material.
Thanks Elizabeth and Mythos for opening my eyes to dangers of promoting extreme consumerism through the media, as I hadn't thought of it in such terms before. It should also be mentioned that everyone on television and in movies (and in music) is beautiful by everyday standards. Just taking a look down the magazine aisle is a glimpse into the pressures placed on Americans (men AND women) to look "perfect."
Anonymous, I don't see why the judgment on television and music should be different? They are both valid forms of art, both mass-produced, and both have a gigantic effect on the consumer. Also, I don't think the nudity in classic and renaissance work is meant to be explicitly sexual, but rather expository. Have you seen Michelangelo's David? His "male member" is not one that would be coveted in today's society.
Thanks for the comments, friends! It's good to discuss and compare thoughts. Keep the conversation going- here and in real life.
i agree with the idea of providing some sort of warning and/or age verification on movies, tv shows, video games, and (hopefully) books.
however, in cases like the Mass Effect game mentioned earlier, i see some problems. Mass Effect is rated M for Mature, and can't legally be sold to minors (or is it people under 17? either way...), much like a rated R movie. people who have issues with explicit content on games like that should have seen it coming, and avoided it.
the question remains, though, what do we do about kids getting their hands on adult media? stricter safeguards maybe?
good topic, Scott!
I do have a few things I want to say here. First off, I guess I do have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I, personally, am not offended by obscene or profane words. If someone personally insults me, or something like that, I'm offended, but just someone casually using the f-word does not bother me. That said, it certainly bothers many people, and it's certainly not polite. I'm all in favor of full disclosure of potentially offensive content in media. TV show ratings tell (to some extent) why the show was rated that way, and most video games do as well. Movies do sometimes, but it's frequently hard to find. I would certainly have no problem with every game, book, movie, tv show, and music album clearly stating whether that product contains obscene language, violence, nudity, or sex. (Note: nudity and sex are very different things, and a piece of media can easily have one without the other.) Also, for things that have potentially offensive content, I would be all in favor of age restrictions / verifications, although I know from personal experience that it is quite easy to bypass age restrictions / verifications on the internet. You just have to lie about your birthday. ;)
Next, I want to agree with everyone who mentioned violence. I think that depictions of violence in media are much more damaging to children than depictions of sex. Sex can (and should) be a joyful, happy, loving thing, but that's not at all true of violence. If / when I have children, I will be much more okay with them seeing sex scenes in TV and movies and video games than scenes of graphic violence.
Third, I think one of the biggest problems is parents not caring or paying attention to the media that their kids are consuming. I have read so many stories online in Not Always Right, gaming blogs, etc., of parents buying GTA4 or similar games for their pre-teens, etc. And then they complain about their kids being exposed to violence?! That's ridiculous. I am not at all opposed to kids playing video games; I believe that playing video games can be really good for problem-solving skills, fine motor skills, logic skills, and many other skills, and I think they can be very powerful tools to teach young children these skills. But they should be playing age-appropriate games, and parents should be well familiar with them.
Finally, I wanted to talk a little bit about mainstream media's tendency to sensationalize things. Specifically, the whole Mass Effect thing. As Circuit mentioned, this is an M-rated game, so kids shouldn't be playing it anyway. That said, the media blew the whole thing way out of proportion. As I recall, the story was originally reported by people who had never played the game, or even seen the sex scene in question. I remember hearing the game characterized as a sex simulator, in which you could completely customize the look of the people having sex, down to customizing the woman's boob size. This is not at all true, even though it was reported as truth. The game does potentially include a couple sex scenes (I say potentially because they are part of optional side-quests, not the main story) between consenting adults in loving relationships. This is a very minor part of the game; calling Mass Effect a "sex simulator" is like calling Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic a "gambling simulator". Sure, there's a little bit of it in there that you can optionally participate in, if you choose, but it is by no means the major focus of the game, and the game would be largely unchanged without it.
[This response is too long; continued in my next comment.]
[continued]
This reaction is typical of the mainstream media. Think about the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco with GTA: San Andreas. This was a case where there was originally a mini-game in the game that was essentially something of a sex simulator. This part of the game had been disabled and deactivated, but they didn't remove the actual code from the game's files. Then, game players who were not affiliated with Rockstar at all modified the game to reactivate that code and play that portion of the game. This caused the ratings board to re-classify the game from M (Mature) to AO (Adults Only). So someone not involved with the gaming studio modifies the game that was released and unlocks a deactivated or hidden part of the game and this causes it to be re-classified. If you look around the modder community some, you can find nude mods for most any game in existence. Does this mean that every game should be re-classified as M or AO because they can be modified to show nudity? I think game ratings should be based on what the game developers intend the game to be, not what modders turn it into.
Oh, and one last thing - we need more consistency in movie- and game-ratings. In movies, PG-13 can get pretty sexy and pretty close to sexual nudity. Non-sexual nudity can be included in PG movies sometimes. PG-13 movies can get pretty violent, too. But with games, if it hints at sexuality, that almost guarantees an M. If it has any nudity, sexual or not, that guarantees an M. If it actually goes so far as to include sex, it risks AO classification.
Anyway, I've written way more than I intended to. ;) I'm sure I could go on, but I'll just end this here.
Hahaha, sorry for the comment-spam, but I just saw this comic.
(My above deleted post was this, except I didn't format it as a link, so I decided to delete it and redo it.)
It's me again -- I'd like to verify the truth to the Mass Effect statements in Kyle's post. Though I haven't seen the scene myself, or even beat the game, I've played enough/seen my brothers play enough to know it's more romantic, very optional, and not graphic.
I'd also like to agree with basically everything else Kyle has said -- especially the nudity and sex differences. The movie Surrogates contained a sexually provocative scene without nudity, which I didn't like -- at the same time, I, myself, have images on my computer that contain nudity but are void of sexuality. I think it's referred to as art, and I'd like to say that sex and nudity are definitely distinct. However, in modern media, sex and nudity tend to go hand-in-hand.
However...I'd also like to address something Kyle brought up (and hope I get a response from him, too!). You said that if you would have children, you wouldn't mind them seeing sexual content as much as violence -- you are entitled to your claim, and it may be better than mine; I would however like to discuss this for a bit with you, if I may.
I am of the opinion that sex is too taboo in our society (and, strangely, is at least portrayed incorrectly as something fun to do with strangers on weekends), and violence is tossed around too lightly. However, people are much more willing to commit sexual acts than violent acts -- this is, I think, a large part of the reason why violence isn't such a big deal but sex is. Younger adolescents having premarital sex is something I don't support, and if sex is too open then we may have more of it. Thus, I might prefer violence to sex -- however, I'd prefer less of both.
Also, keep in mind that this post was made by one who's beaten Gears of War, Gears of War 2, and Brütal Legend, without any violence censoring, and grew up playing Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct -- yet hasn't had a major fight in his life, so there's at least not a 100% positive correlation with violent games and violent acts.
What do you say to this? I am open-mindedly and patiently listening.
Hi Mythos, thanks for the response! Interesting thoughts about people being more willing to commit sexual acts than violent acts; I hadn't really considered that. Still, though, I stand by my statement; I'd prefer any hypothetical children of mine to see a sex scene than a violent scene. I agree that ideally, young children should not be exposed to either; such things are not appropriate for children and they should not be exposed to these things until they're older. But this is not an ideal world, and they will almost certainly be exposed to one or the other, or both, before I would like them to.
Anyway, I would still prefer them to be exposed to sex than violence. As I said, sex is (or ought to be, at least) a loving act, or at least a pleasant thing, even if there is no actual love present. This is not true of violence. I am not sure I agree in general that people are more willing to commit sex acts than violent acts, or not. Sure, people are more willing to have sex with someone than to kill someone. But people get angry, shout and curse, flip people off, insult people, etc., every single day, and I would consider these to be acts of violence as well.
When it comes to sex, putting aside issues of morality (i.e. whether or not it's right for teens to have sex), and focusing entirely on issues of law and society, I would think that we can probably agree that a bigger problem than teen sex is teen pregnancy. The best way to combat that is education and access to preventative measures. Regardless of what anyone says or does, some teens will continue having sex. This has been true for thousands of years, and it's certainly not going to change now. So if we want to avoid the real social harm, teen pregnancy, we can certainly encourage teens to avoid having sex, but we need to realistically recognize that some of them still will, and we need to teach those ones the best methods to keep themselves safe, and make sure they have access to what they need to keep themselves safe.
I think the biggest effect media has on sex is not how much of it is going on, but rather what attitude people take towards it. The current prevailing attitude in America seems to swing wildly. It varies between thinking that it's something to hide and be ashamed of, and that's is something to be treated lightly and casually, and I think both of these extremes are damaging to our culture, and the fact that we can't even decide on which extreme we want to embrace is even more damaging! But more to the point, I really don't think presence or absence of sex in video games, movies, tv, etc., will affect the amount of sex being had by teens or others.
So - I've kind of wandered and rambled a bit here. But to the point, I would say that violence in media is more harmful than sex in media, because violence in general is more harmful to our culture than sex. If we want to use media to change the amount of teen sex in our country, we don't need to remove sex from media, we just need to change how it is portrayed. It should be portrayed as something serious, not to be taken lightly. Something that matters, and is more than an entertaining diversion. If everyone on tv and in movies (and in society in general - I mean, just look at celebrity weddings/divorces/hookups) viewed sex as a serious affair, teens would learn that that's how our society views it, and they would take on those views as well.
Anyway, Mythos, I'm not sure if I directly responded to you or not, but I am certainly happy to continue the discussion. Incidentally, I have also played many a violent video game in my time, and have also never even really gotten into a fistfight or anything, so I would certainly agree that there's not a 100% positive correlation there. :)
BTW, Scott, at this point, it kinda goes without saying, but nice job starting such a great discussion topic! ;)
Thanks for the response, Kyle! I'd have to say I'd probably agree with you...probably -- this issue could be debated for a long time with very few definitive answers, but I think we mostly agree. I would find myself less offended by sex were it to be portrayed as a more connecting, romantic, serious thing than just an enjoyable pastime...or as something that'll make your movie sell a bit more. If it was shown seriously, and less often as well, I'd be more accepting of it. (I still wouldn't want it shown in movies and all, but you take what you can get, eh?)
Less violence I do think would be good -- at least, less graphic violence and less playfully gruesome violence. (Chainsaw bayonets? Really!?) Sex is not to be taken lightly as well, because it really is something more serious than a fun activity. It's...well, serious stuff.
Teens having sex I don't approve of in general, simply because I don't think they understand what they're getting into. Were society to portray it more seriously, they may take it more seriously as well...on the other hand, they might have sex to show how responsible they are -- which is kinda missing the point I think, but who knows. So many possibilities, so few facts!
At any rate, my mind is out of words for the moment. Until next time!
Scott! You have a blog! This is awesome... we should try and reconnect to our old middle school happiness. :)
Scott! I found your blog! Yay! I totally agree on this topic. And btw, TOTALLY impressed that you know about Next to Normal and RENT-you've gained awesome points in my view ;)
Post a Comment