There is a tidal wave of intemperance in our culture, and it goes beyond bling, cars, homes and appetites. The trickledown effect? A well-laid out path for pleasure-seekers and unassuming kids.
Last year I did an OP Ed about the surge of media violence in our culture and how often kids are the victims of its assault. Not surprisingly it caught the attention of some very angry people. One group was parents who were on board with me. The other group was enraged that the Parents Television Council was trying to suppress their First Amendment ‘rights’. (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Violent, scripted TV is not what the First Amendment protects.) They’re nervous that their favorite gore-fests will disappear, and heaven forbid they miss out on mutilated bodies and crude pedophile humor after a hard day at the office.
Hedonism at its worst.
This is what I tell nay-sayers: Unless you have a bedtime of 8 PM most nights, is it too much for you to wait until a later hour when (hopefully) most kids are already in bed? And please, stop complaining that broadcast TV should carry the same content as cable television. If that were true, cable providers would be in a lot of trouble. But if you still think I’m way off base, find the most violent and objectionable show on broadcast TV (Law & Order: SVU or any crime drama will do) and sit down with young kids-under 10 years old-and watch with them while a woman’s severed head is given a close-up. Or witness someone being raped and murdered, or a dead child shown as the result of a botched exorcism. Unless you’ve no conscious whatsoever, I highly doubt there won’t be some squirming on your end.
A couple of weeks ago I appeared on a NJ college radio station and had a rather interesting ‘debate’ with a professor of Communications. I use the word ‘debate’ liberally; the good professor spent most of the time speaking over me and getting upset when I wouldn’t agree with him. Simply said, he had a bone to pick with the PTC. Publicly in favor of unfiltered violence and against child-predator restrictions on the internet, he slammed all of our studies, comparing them to inept lab findings. I reminded him we’re not a lab nor are we scientists, but due to “technical issues” on his end nothing I said during the debate was heard clearly. What bothered me most about the debate was not his views (they are upsettingly common and nothing I haven’t heard before), but where he was coming from. Sitting on a pulpit of education and in a position of some authority, there are no doubt students who look to him for popular opinion, and a lot of those students will one day grow up to be parents. Hopefully they will have learned to dismiss his rather left-field thinking and enforce guidelines instead of hedonism in their homes, but we can’t be sure. At one point he said he’d have no problem watching a violent show with his 4-year old niece. Yuk, yuk.
It’s an interesting paradigm of our societal values: As soon as there is a whisper of a threat of anything dangerous in our food, water or synthetic products, they are yanked from store shelves faster than you can say “mass-tort lawsuit”. But anything violent (including sex crimes) is not only allowed to remain attainable to all, but is enforced and marketed to minors. What has to happen before this rear-facing anatomy stops?
Crystal Madison, Chapter Director
New Jersey Parents Television Council
800-257-9358
njc@parentstv.org
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Where Did it Go?
I cannot find it, no matter how hard I look. It’s not in the schools, and it’s definitely not in the media. It’s even disappearing from college campuses. What is it? It’s feminism and I’ve lost complete sight of it. 20 years ago, women were fighting to gain entry into the same elite boys-only clubs. They were straining to smash through the glass ceilings of corporate America. They were climbing the ladders of journalism, teaching, professorship, and the medical community. They were proudly staying home and raising their kids, their girls to grow up and do anything. Today? They are a disappearing breed. Since when did feminism become a second translation for “liberal sex”?
Why is it pop culture and TV now glorifies the epitome of slutty behavior and virtual prostitution? Yes, it is a form of prostitution. These so-called ‘actresses’ and ‘musicians’ are making a lot of money off being skanks, and the guys are laughing their heads off. Ever see a Pussycats Dolls video? Give me a break. These are not girls you take home to mom. And if you do, mom’s got some explaining to do. Every other reality show (and if you think these shows are ‘real’ I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you) depicts girls competing for the affection of mimbo (male bimbo) rock stars, trying to win stripping contests, boob job contestants (didn’t they used to want to hide this type of surgery, claim superior genetics?) vie for the affection of a bi-sexual MySpace girl…let me stop before I get sick.
Merriam-Webster’s describes feminism as:
1 : Noun, “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”
2 : “Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.
These girls/women I’m talking about have absolutely no interest in political or economic equality! Maybe they make more than some men, but only because they have bigger chests and longer hair extensions that their male counterparts. And women’s rights…what rights are they promoting? The right to bare all? The right to provide lewd content for young boy’s fantasies? When I think of the efforts of Alice Paul and Rosa Parks, I want to gag. Original feminists were pro-life, not pro-sedentary existence. They were pro-woman, pro-sophistication, pro-intelligence. They used education and tailored speeches to get noticed. They lobbied for equal rights with dignity and in full dress. They protested the surge of prostitution and suffrage. They didn’t do it by flashing their crotches and using the F-bomob as an adverbial substitution.
I know I’m going to get some backlash from this column; I usually do on all my writings. And as usual, I’m going to bet that the vast majority of those who write angry letters are not fathers of young girls, or not mothers of girls who’ve lost their lives to pornography and HIV. No, I’m assuming the ones who will write in are single men, or attached men with some very questionable viewing habits their partners may not be approving of.
If there are any girls or young women out there who ascribe to be Brett Michaels; new love interest, the new Pussycat Doll, or a next Top Model…please. Finish school. Volunteer at an AIDS clinic. Work with special needs kids. Do something that will count as a contribution towards society. Showing the world your fake tans and drunken naked exploits on basic cable is embarrassing. Think a little higher of yourselves and show these bottom-grubbing advertisers and producers they’re going to have to go somewhere else for an idiot. You are worth far more than 15 seconds of forgettable fame. Whatever happened in life to make you believe you are not, trust me, it’s a lie. You are totally worth more. We are all God’s children, and He wants so much for you than this.
Why is it pop culture and TV now glorifies the epitome of slutty behavior and virtual prostitution? Yes, it is a form of prostitution. These so-called ‘actresses’ and ‘musicians’ are making a lot of money off being skanks, and the guys are laughing their heads off. Ever see a Pussycats Dolls video? Give me a break. These are not girls you take home to mom. And if you do, mom’s got some explaining to do. Every other reality show (and if you think these shows are ‘real’ I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you) depicts girls competing for the affection of mimbo (male bimbo) rock stars, trying to win stripping contests, boob job contestants (didn’t they used to want to hide this type of surgery, claim superior genetics?) vie for the affection of a bi-sexual MySpace girl…let me stop before I get sick.
Merriam-Webster’s describes feminism as:
1 : Noun, “The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”
2 : “Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.
These girls/women I’m talking about have absolutely no interest in political or economic equality! Maybe they make more than some men, but only because they have bigger chests and longer hair extensions that their male counterparts. And women’s rights…what rights are they promoting? The right to bare all? The right to provide lewd content for young boy’s fantasies? When I think of the efforts of Alice Paul and Rosa Parks, I want to gag. Original feminists were pro-life, not pro-sedentary existence. They were pro-woman, pro-sophistication, pro-intelligence. They used education and tailored speeches to get noticed. They lobbied for equal rights with dignity and in full dress. They protested the surge of prostitution and suffrage. They didn’t do it by flashing their crotches and using the F-bomob as an adverbial substitution.
I know I’m going to get some backlash from this column; I usually do on all my writings. And as usual, I’m going to bet that the vast majority of those who write angry letters are not fathers of young girls, or not mothers of girls who’ve lost their lives to pornography and HIV. No, I’m assuming the ones who will write in are single men, or attached men with some very questionable viewing habits their partners may not be approving of.
If there are any girls or young women out there who ascribe to be Brett Michaels; new love interest, the new Pussycat Doll, or a next Top Model…please. Finish school. Volunteer at an AIDS clinic. Work with special needs kids. Do something that will count as a contribution towards society. Showing the world your fake tans and drunken naked exploits on basic cable is embarrassing. Think a little higher of yourselves and show these bottom-grubbing advertisers and producers they’re going to have to go somewhere else for an idiot. You are worth far more than 15 seconds of forgettable fame. Whatever happened in life to make you believe you are not, trust me, it’s a lie. You are totally worth more. We are all God’s children, and He wants so much for you than this.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Video Game Retailers Fall Flat
Local Retailers Say Adult Content is Acceptable for Minors
On July 25, 2008, The Parents Television Council ™ (PTC) released the results of a secret shopper campaign I spearheaded here in New Jersey, where I serve as the state Chapter Director. A most pitiful report that revealed K-Mart, Target, Circuit City and (get ready to scream) Toys “R” Us, all violated their own policies and sold adult games to children. Nationally, PTC chapters found that video game retailers sold Mature-rated video games to minors 36% of the time. In New Jersey that percentage increases to 50% with four of the eight stores visited ignoring the age restrictions. Not only did they fail to card for adult entertainment selections, they didn’t so much as cast a wary eye at the purchasers. The sales were quick, efficient and performed without any regard to their own posted policies. At the Toys “R” Us in Totowa, the manager herself sold to a 15-year-old.
Yes, you read that correctly: The manager.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: How many more school shootings and attacks on peers and teachers need to happen before parents start wizening up? There is an onslaught of violence in today’s culture. Even if you, as a parent, are responsible and involved and ban this violence from your home, it’s shockingly easy for your kids to gain access to it anyway.
Just to make sure I drive my point across and put any nay-sayers to rest, the games sold were rated “M”, and contained scenes of men seeking out prostitutes, gory murders, violence, street beatings, drug dealing, car theft, illegal weaponry possession... My issue is not with the games themselves, but with the stores who sell them to kids. Do you want 12 year olds learning how to hot-wire a car and rape a prostitute? They will if they have access to the Grand Theft Auto series. To me, this is no different than enforcing age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, pornography and other products that are potentially harmful to children. Parents deserve a reasonable expectation that age restrictions for adult entertainment products will be enforced at the retail level in our community.
There needs to be consequences for retailers who ignore their duty to our community. They have internal age restriction policies at every one of these stores, but without fear of penalty these retailers are not taking this issue seriously.
On two separate occasions in the past year the PTC New Jersey Chapter conducted a total of eight Secret Shopper visits as part of over 100 Secret Shopper visits by chapters nationwide. PTC chapters sent children between 11 to 16 years of age to attempt to purchase M-rated video games, which are classified by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) as inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17.
The retailers visited have company policies that require that video games not be sold to people outside of the ESRB assigned age classification. The children were told to enter the chosen store, find an M-rated game and attempt to purchase it with cash. They were instructed to never lie or misrepresent themselves during the process. When games were purchased, the adult who had waited outside the store would return with the game and ask for a refund.
Further details on the results of the national campaign are available upon request or at www.parentstv.org . The stores that were visited in New Jersey were in Wayne, Paramus and Totowa. More details on which stores were visited both locally and nationally are available at www.parentstv.org/gr/nj . If you want to get involved in the cause, perform your own secret shopping experiment. It doesn’t take long, and wouldn’t you feel more comfortable shopping at a store where you know they take seriously their own policies? Myself, I’ve boycotted the Toys R Us in Totowa. This is not an easy feat with a two-year old, but I feel strongly about this issue. I’m not asking others to boycott, but I am asking parents to get more involved.
On July 25, 2008, The Parents Television Council ™ (PTC) released the results of a secret shopper campaign I spearheaded here in New Jersey, where I serve as the state Chapter Director. A most pitiful report that revealed K-Mart, Target, Circuit City and (get ready to scream) Toys “R” Us, all violated their own policies and sold adult games to children. Nationally, PTC chapters found that video game retailers sold Mature-rated video games to minors 36% of the time. In New Jersey that percentage increases to 50% with four of the eight stores visited ignoring the age restrictions. Not only did they fail to card for adult entertainment selections, they didn’t so much as cast a wary eye at the purchasers. The sales were quick, efficient and performed without any regard to their own posted policies. At the Toys “R” Us in Totowa, the manager herself sold to a 15-year-old.
Yes, you read that correctly: The manager.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: How many more school shootings and attacks on peers and teachers need to happen before parents start wizening up? There is an onslaught of violence in today’s culture. Even if you, as a parent, are responsible and involved and ban this violence from your home, it’s shockingly easy for your kids to gain access to it anyway.
Just to make sure I drive my point across and put any nay-sayers to rest, the games sold were rated “M”, and contained scenes of men seeking out prostitutes, gory murders, violence, street beatings, drug dealing, car theft, illegal weaponry possession... My issue is not with the games themselves, but with the stores who sell them to kids. Do you want 12 year olds learning how to hot-wire a car and rape a prostitute? They will if they have access to the Grand Theft Auto series. To me, this is no different than enforcing age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, pornography and other products that are potentially harmful to children. Parents deserve a reasonable expectation that age restrictions for adult entertainment products will be enforced at the retail level in our community.
There needs to be consequences for retailers who ignore their duty to our community. They have internal age restriction policies at every one of these stores, but without fear of penalty these retailers are not taking this issue seriously.
On two separate occasions in the past year the PTC New Jersey Chapter conducted a total of eight Secret Shopper visits as part of over 100 Secret Shopper visits by chapters nationwide. PTC chapters sent children between 11 to 16 years of age to attempt to purchase M-rated video games, which are classified by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) as inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17.
The retailers visited have company policies that require that video games not be sold to people outside of the ESRB assigned age classification. The children were told to enter the chosen store, find an M-rated game and attempt to purchase it with cash. They were instructed to never lie or misrepresent themselves during the process. When games were purchased, the adult who had waited outside the store would return with the game and ask for a refund.
Further details on the results of the national campaign are available upon request or at www.parentstv.org . The stores that were visited in New Jersey were in Wayne, Paramus and Totowa. More details on which stores were visited both locally and nationally are available at www.parentstv.org/gr/nj . If you want to get involved in the cause, perform your own secret shopping experiment. It doesn’t take long, and wouldn’t you feel more comfortable shopping at a store where you know they take seriously their own policies? Myself, I’ve boycotted the Toys R Us in Totowa. This is not an easy feat with a two-year old, but I feel strongly about this issue. I’m not asking others to boycott, but I am asking parents to get more involved.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
And We Wonder?
Ok, people...it's time to get real about some stuff. As the Chapter Director for the New Jersey Parents Television Council, I spend much of my time educating the public about the state of media. Between reports of kids plotting to harm teachers, blow up high schools, and posting brutal attacks online, it should come as no surprise that our kids are overwhelmed and over stimulated by violence.
Number 1: We wonder why this is?And number 2? What are we doing about it?
Last week I paid close attention to what kids and teens may be exposed to on a daily basis. It all started with the brutal murder of a pregnant woman whose baby was stolen from her womb. (Channel-surfing for Elmo led me to an unrated episode of Law & Order: SVU) At Best Buy, flat-screens blared music videos which glorified gangsters, prostitutes and street fighting. At the supermarket, I stood behind a young man who was surfing the internet on his PDA with the speaker turned up. I cringed, knowing that over 33 million U.S. consumers over the age of 12 used their phones to surf the Internet (Reuters, 2007). On the way home, I saw at least three billboards with such blatant agenda-pushing it was almost pitiful on behalf of the advertisers. (I still don’t know what they were advertising. Rear-end cleavage?)
Tense from the overstimulation of sex and violence (and it wasn’t even noon), I raced home with my toddler and closed the door, sheltering him from the smorgasbord of virtual crap.
And then I thought of other kids.
Some of them can’t shut it out. Some of them do homework in homes where video games like Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto are played. Some of them tutor other kids who watch Dexter on YouTube. Some of them watch Gossip Girl, which is raunchier than your average R-Rated movie. Some of them have nannies or babysitters who don’t know TV guidelines. The lists go on, and suffice it to say kids are bombarded by the nanosecond with sex, violence, and aggression.
Obviously, television and video games aren’t to be blamed entirely. But I feel it’s irresponsible to claim they hold little or no role. The influence that media has over youth is not to be taken lightly, especially given youth’s susceptibility to suggestion. Teams of researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of California have learned through magnetic resonance imaging that the brain continues to mature during the teen years, beginning a final push around 16 or 17. Which means the key part of the brain that affects judgment may not be in place until men and women reach their early 20s. This also applies to decision-making, risk perception and impulse control. With so many of those developing brains being bombarded with violence, it becomes clearer why incidents of aggression are on the rise.
In 2005, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution recommending that violence be reduced in media marketing and video games. Decades of research indicated that exposure to violence on television and in video games increases aggressive thoughts and behavior and angry feelings among youth. Based on their findings, the APA recommended that the entertainment industry link violent behaviors with negative social consequences. “The Alarming Family Hour” is a Parents Television Council study which details the rise of violence, profanity and sexuality in the 8-9 PM slots on broadcast TV. A sample taste of those findings:
· In 180 hours of original programming = 2246 instances of violence
· Only 10.6% of 208 episodes were violence-free.
· Research shows that perpetrators go unpunished 73% of the time in all violent scenes.
“Use your parental controls” is the typical response I get from the networks all the time. Indeed, these are useless against cringe-worthy fare like Dexter, Family Guy, and most other adult dramas. The TV-14 ratings are so weak it’s almost as if they’re mocking us. What was once an enjoyable tool of entertainment for the family is now a veritable weapon.
Kids have enough on their plates. Do we really need to be exposing them to sex, violence and aggression? Parents, get the computers out of the bedrooms. Watch every single show your child watches, from cartoon to drama. Know the rules in homes where they hang out. Protect your babies! By doing so, you’re investing in them, and showing them how much you care. Their well-being is worth more than a 30-minute episode on TV, isn’t it?
Number 1: We wonder why this is?And number 2? What are we doing about it?
Last week I paid close attention to what kids and teens may be exposed to on a daily basis. It all started with the brutal murder of a pregnant woman whose baby was stolen from her womb. (Channel-surfing for Elmo led me to an unrated episode of Law & Order: SVU) At Best Buy, flat-screens blared music videos which glorified gangsters, prostitutes and street fighting. At the supermarket, I stood behind a young man who was surfing the internet on his PDA with the speaker turned up. I cringed, knowing that over 33 million U.S. consumers over the age of 12 used their phones to surf the Internet (Reuters, 2007). On the way home, I saw at least three billboards with such blatant agenda-pushing it was almost pitiful on behalf of the advertisers. (I still don’t know what they were advertising. Rear-end cleavage?)
Tense from the overstimulation of sex and violence (and it wasn’t even noon), I raced home with my toddler and closed the door, sheltering him from the smorgasbord of virtual crap.
And then I thought of other kids.
Some of them can’t shut it out. Some of them do homework in homes where video games like Manhunt or Grand Theft Auto are played. Some of them tutor other kids who watch Dexter on YouTube. Some of them watch Gossip Girl, which is raunchier than your average R-Rated movie. Some of them have nannies or babysitters who don’t know TV guidelines. The lists go on, and suffice it to say kids are bombarded by the nanosecond with sex, violence, and aggression.
Obviously, television and video games aren’t to be blamed entirely. But I feel it’s irresponsible to claim they hold little or no role. The influence that media has over youth is not to be taken lightly, especially given youth’s susceptibility to suggestion. Teams of researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of California have learned through magnetic resonance imaging that the brain continues to mature during the teen years, beginning a final push around 16 or 17. Which means the key part of the brain that affects judgment may not be in place until men and women reach their early 20s. This also applies to decision-making, risk perception and impulse control. With so many of those developing brains being bombarded with violence, it becomes clearer why incidents of aggression are on the rise.
In 2005, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution recommending that violence be reduced in media marketing and video games. Decades of research indicated that exposure to violence on television and in video games increases aggressive thoughts and behavior and angry feelings among youth. Based on their findings, the APA recommended that the entertainment industry link violent behaviors with negative social consequences. “The Alarming Family Hour” is a Parents Television Council study which details the rise of violence, profanity and sexuality in the 8-9 PM slots on broadcast TV. A sample taste of those findings:
· In 180 hours of original programming = 2246 instances of violence
· Only 10.6% of 208 episodes were violence-free.
· Research shows that perpetrators go unpunished 73% of the time in all violent scenes.
“Use your parental controls” is the typical response I get from the networks all the time. Indeed, these are useless against cringe-worthy fare like Dexter, Family Guy, and most other adult dramas. The TV-14 ratings are so weak it’s almost as if they’re mocking us. What was once an enjoyable tool of entertainment for the family is now a veritable weapon.
Kids have enough on their plates. Do we really need to be exposing them to sex, violence and aggression? Parents, get the computers out of the bedrooms. Watch every single show your child watches, from cartoon to drama. Know the rules in homes where they hang out. Protect your babies! By doing so, you’re investing in them, and showing them how much you care. Their well-being is worth more than a 30-minute episode on TV, isn’t it?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Problem with Dexter
Many of you have seen or head of "Dexter", the new show CBS took from it's Showtime slot. CBS appears to be aiming for their own wing in the television Hall of Shame.
Now CBS is aiming to hit an all-time low. Let’s get a psychopathic serial killer and make him... the hero! This is what CBS is planning to bring into America ’s living rooms starting Feb. 17. Dexter was originally developed for Showtime, where it could be viewed by adults who enjoy this type of “edgy” programming and are willing to pay extra to watch. I have no issue with that. Now, due to the writer’s strike, CBS is bringing this horrific pay-cable series to free, prime-time broadcast TV.
The hero of this sinister series is Dexter Morgan, a Miami police department blood spatter expert who has a secret life as a vigilante serial killer. Dexter’s adoptive police officer father discovered Dexter’s pathology early on, and taught him how to turn it to “good” by teaching him to kill people who have evaded justice. He also taught Dexter how to cover up his crimes to avoid getting caught. Am I missing something here? Do we really want or need a free, scripted instructional on how to commit and get away with murder? CBS will tell you that they will edit out the gore for broadcast TV. Okay, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt there. The biggest problem with this series, however, is something no amount of editing can get around — the series compels viewers to feel empathy for a serial killer, to root for him to prevail, to hope he doesn’t get discovered. There is no denying TV’s influence, and that influence is especially concerning with television shows centered around “anti-heroes” or “criminal protagonists,” because audiences come to see their actions as not only justified, but heroic.
Don’t trust me on this, people: The AMA, APA, AAP and basically every other respected medical and scientific group possible agree that aggressive behavior is more likely to be learned or imitated if social models — either real or fictional — are either rewarded or do not receive punishment for aggressive behavior. Of course everyone who watches Dexter is not going to automatically turn into a serial killer — but we all need to be aware of the potential impact normalizing this kind of character can have on future generations. Even CBS President and CEO Les Moonves acknowledges as much. In the wake of the tragedy at Columbine, Moonves said, “Anyone who thinks the media has nothing to do with this is an idiot.”CBS and its defenders will claim that the network is being responsible by scheduling Dexter for the latest time slot, 10 p.m. ET/PT, (which is still only 9 p.m. in the Central and Mountain time zones). But we should not trust CBS’s motives for bringing this series to broadcast television, nor should we trust that the late time slot will protect innocent children from being exposed to the gruesome content or its destructive influences.Most 10 p.m. dramas — many of which contain intense violence or sexual content — are viewed by hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 18 and as young as 2-11. For example, in one week in December, C.S.I. Miami was watched by over 800,000 children under the age of 18 — more than half of them between the ages of 2 and 11.Regardless of whether or not children watch Dexter, we know that content that airs during the 10 p.m. hour eventually finds its way into programs watched by millions of impressionable children. This move by CBS sets a dangerous precedent by making acceptable for all hours of prime time content that is harmful to children and devastating for society.
Dexter does not belong on broadcast TV. Keep it on premium cable where adults who choose to seek such “edgy” content can continue to pay for access. Our CBS affiliate can and should choose not to air this program. If parents do not stand up now, CBS and other broadcast networks will inevitably air even more egregious content in the future.
Now CBS is aiming to hit an all-time low. Let’s get a psychopathic serial killer and make him... the hero! This is what CBS is planning to bring into America ’s living rooms starting Feb. 17. Dexter was originally developed for Showtime, where it could be viewed by adults who enjoy this type of “edgy” programming and are willing to pay extra to watch. I have no issue with that. Now, due to the writer’s strike, CBS is bringing this horrific pay-cable series to free, prime-time broadcast TV.
The hero of this sinister series is Dexter Morgan, a Miami police department blood spatter expert who has a secret life as a vigilante serial killer. Dexter’s adoptive police officer father discovered Dexter’s pathology early on, and taught him how to turn it to “good” by teaching him to kill people who have evaded justice. He also taught Dexter how to cover up his crimes to avoid getting caught. Am I missing something here? Do we really want or need a free, scripted instructional on how to commit and get away with murder? CBS will tell you that they will edit out the gore for broadcast TV. Okay, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt there. The biggest problem with this series, however, is something no amount of editing can get around — the series compels viewers to feel empathy for a serial killer, to root for him to prevail, to hope he doesn’t get discovered. There is no denying TV’s influence, and that influence is especially concerning with television shows centered around “anti-heroes” or “criminal protagonists,” because audiences come to see their actions as not only justified, but heroic.
Don’t trust me on this, people: The AMA, APA, AAP and basically every other respected medical and scientific group possible agree that aggressive behavior is more likely to be learned or imitated if social models — either real or fictional — are either rewarded or do not receive punishment for aggressive behavior. Of course everyone who watches Dexter is not going to automatically turn into a serial killer — but we all need to be aware of the potential impact normalizing this kind of character can have on future generations. Even CBS President and CEO Les Moonves acknowledges as much. In the wake of the tragedy at Columbine, Moonves said, “Anyone who thinks the media has nothing to do with this is an idiot.”CBS and its defenders will claim that the network is being responsible by scheduling Dexter for the latest time slot, 10 p.m. ET/PT, (which is still only 9 p.m. in the Central and Mountain time zones). But we should not trust CBS’s motives for bringing this series to broadcast television, nor should we trust that the late time slot will protect innocent children from being exposed to the gruesome content or its destructive influences.Most 10 p.m. dramas — many of which contain intense violence or sexual content — are viewed by hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 18 and as young as 2-11. For example, in one week in December, C.S.I. Miami was watched by over 800,000 children under the age of 18 — more than half of them between the ages of 2 and 11.Regardless of whether or not children watch Dexter, we know that content that airs during the 10 p.m. hour eventually finds its way into programs watched by millions of impressionable children. This move by CBS sets a dangerous precedent by making acceptable for all hours of prime time content that is harmful to children and devastating for society.
Dexter does not belong on broadcast TV. Keep it on premium cable where adults who choose to seek such “edgy” content can continue to pay for access. Our CBS affiliate can and should choose not to air this program. If parents do not stand up now, CBS and other broadcast networks will inevitably air even more egregious content in the future.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Establishing Media Guidelines in Your Home
There are three things I have to carefully consume only in moderation, lest I fall into an accidental overdose: Sloppy kisses from my little boy, anything chocolate, and nostalgia. Save the first two, I am a nostalgia junkie. Vintage toys, dolls, TV shows are all it takes to get my heart fluttering. Don’t even get me started on the Little House on the Prairie books. As a mother, I am all for introducing new memories into my son’s life so he too may have the gift of remembrance one day: Go Diego Go, Elmo and the latest toys crazes are welcome in my home. We gobble up story time with new characters, build things with new building blocks not around in my day, and sing along to new songs with many laughs and tickles. These are all times where I know one day Gio will look back with his kids and talk about silly Grandma singing Noggin's "Clean Up" song to him when he was little. As a mom, this stuff really revs my engine.
As a Chapter Director for the New Jersey Parents Television Council, I am also scared. TV today is not what it was when I was little. Sure, my parents probably said the same thing, the vast majority of programming in the 50’s and 60’s being limited to nightly news programs and game shows, with a scattering of Howdy-Doody and I Love Lucy now and then. I’m sure Daisy’s ‘dukes’ sent their eyebrows skyrocketing from time to time. But today? Ay, yi yi. I would rather have my toddler see Daisy Duke sliding across the hood of the General Lee over any 20-second clip of MTV or other basic cable shows. Don’t even get me started on general programming.
The wildly popular, trendy-cum dime-a-dozen crime shows are all over the television. While many find them compelling, entertaining, and admittedly, some are written well and boast tolerable acting, they are no place for kids. The fact that many of them are on at 8 PM astounds me. Why should my son have to be subjected to a mutilated body at 8:15 PM just as we’re starting on bedtime routines of teeth-brushing and PJ’s? Why does the image of a maggot-infested corpse have to linger in my head while I say The Lord’s Prayer with Gio as I lay him down to sleep? I am frustrated, angry, and sad that all nostalgia on his part has to be limited to just a few hours a week on carefully pre-selected programming we choose. When I got home from school every day at 3:30, I would throw my book bag down and camp out in front of the TV while Smurfs and Little House ran back-to-back before dinner. Today, the five major networks don’t even show cartoons in the afternoon. They are soap operas, talk shows, or reruns of adult shows that are not intended for kids’ eyes or ears. If you can’t afford cable or extended packaging like DirecTV and the like, your kids should not be allowed near the TV without you in the room. You never know what they are going to see.
Our culture is now on the brink of exploding into a new realm of hedonistic intemperance that is threatening the very pulse of the family unit. How are little girls and boys expected to stay innocent and pure when they are bombarded by sexually provocative TV, movies, games and even clothing? And remember this: If you think your kids are exempt from these concerns because the aforementioned is not allowed in your home, think again. Just because you are on top of the parenting game doesn’t mean other parents are. One episode of “Tila Tequila” on MTV can forever change the way your little girls relate to women. I spend a lot of time talking to parents who ask the same question: “How can I make sure my son/daughter doesn’t see certain shows? I can’t be with them all the time.” An excellent question, and I have highlighted a few pointers to help out:
1. Set a daily time limit for TV with your kids. A defined allotment of television viewing eliminates temptation to channel surf.
2. If you have TiVo, make sure the shows you don’t want them to see have the settings set to block them. Contact your provider for more info. TiVo is also a fantastic way to ensure your kids will watch only what you want them to see.
3. Make sure you have seen the entire episode of each and every show your kids like to watch. Even some popular cartoons like SpongeBob have depicted strong sexual undertones that, while may sail over the head of a 4 year old, may trigger curiosity in an older sibling.
4. Communicate with other parents. Find out what the TV and internet rules are in their home. If they don’t have any, have the kids play at your house instead. The same applies with after-school care, such as a nanny or relative. Do the same with child-care centers, after-school programs, and the like.
5. And finally, be in your kids’ shoes. TV started off as a great invention! It has brought much happiness to families and some much-needed relief to busy moms. Don’t regard it as the enemy, thereby making it more appealing to your kids. Rather, show them by enforcing responsible guidelines and intelligent selections can make the viewing safer and more enjoyable for everyone.
As a Chapter Director for the New Jersey Parents Television Council, I am also scared. TV today is not what it was when I was little. Sure, my parents probably said the same thing, the vast majority of programming in the 50’s and 60’s being limited to nightly news programs and game shows, with a scattering of Howdy-Doody and I Love Lucy now and then. I’m sure Daisy’s ‘dukes’ sent their eyebrows skyrocketing from time to time. But today? Ay, yi yi. I would rather have my toddler see Daisy Duke sliding across the hood of the General Lee over any 20-second clip of MTV or other basic cable shows. Don’t even get me started on general programming.
The wildly popular, trendy-cum dime-a-dozen crime shows are all over the television. While many find them compelling, entertaining, and admittedly, some are written well and boast tolerable acting, they are no place for kids. The fact that many of them are on at 8 PM astounds me. Why should my son have to be subjected to a mutilated body at 8:15 PM just as we’re starting on bedtime routines of teeth-brushing and PJ’s? Why does the image of a maggot-infested corpse have to linger in my head while I say The Lord’s Prayer with Gio as I lay him down to sleep? I am frustrated, angry, and sad that all nostalgia on his part has to be limited to just a few hours a week on carefully pre-selected programming we choose. When I got home from school every day at 3:30, I would throw my book bag down and camp out in front of the TV while Smurfs and Little House ran back-to-back before dinner. Today, the five major networks don’t even show cartoons in the afternoon. They are soap operas, talk shows, or reruns of adult shows that are not intended for kids’ eyes or ears. If you can’t afford cable or extended packaging like DirecTV and the like, your kids should not be allowed near the TV without you in the room. You never know what they are going to see.
Our culture is now on the brink of exploding into a new realm of hedonistic intemperance that is threatening the very pulse of the family unit. How are little girls and boys expected to stay innocent and pure when they are bombarded by sexually provocative TV, movies, games and even clothing? And remember this: If you think your kids are exempt from these concerns because the aforementioned is not allowed in your home, think again. Just because you are on top of the parenting game doesn’t mean other parents are. One episode of “Tila Tequila” on MTV can forever change the way your little girls relate to women. I spend a lot of time talking to parents who ask the same question: “How can I make sure my son/daughter doesn’t see certain shows? I can’t be with them all the time.” An excellent question, and I have highlighted a few pointers to help out:
1. Set a daily time limit for TV with your kids. A defined allotment of television viewing eliminates temptation to channel surf.
2. If you have TiVo, make sure the shows you don’t want them to see have the settings set to block them. Contact your provider for more info. TiVo is also a fantastic way to ensure your kids will watch only what you want them to see.
3. Make sure you have seen the entire episode of each and every show your kids like to watch. Even some popular cartoons like SpongeBob have depicted strong sexual undertones that, while may sail over the head of a 4 year old, may trigger curiosity in an older sibling.
4. Communicate with other parents. Find out what the TV and internet rules are in their home. If they don’t have any, have the kids play at your house instead. The same applies with after-school care, such as a nanny or relative. Do the same with child-care centers, after-school programs, and the like.
5. And finally, be in your kids’ shoes. TV started off as a great invention! It has brought much happiness to families and some much-needed relief to busy moms. Don’t regard it as the enemy, thereby making it more appealing to your kids. Rather, show them by enforcing responsible guidelines and intelligent selections can make the viewing safer and more enjoyable for everyone.
"The Kardashians"...Keeping up with what, exactly?
Just when I was convinced the face of our rapidly disappearing family unit had hidden itself completely, I tuned in to an episode of the "Keeping up with the Kardashians", on the E! channel for one more disgusting reminder. This one, shown at 9 PM on November 8th, brought me to tears. Not in laughter, but in sadness. Kim Kardashian, whose only claim to fame my Google search could produce is a rich deceased lawyer father (think: OJ), a sex-tape and some wild night romps with her celebrity friends. This episode followed Kim as her mother/manager ("mom-ager") booked her to do a Playboy celebrity photo spread for the upcoming Christmas edition.
The show started off with Kim not wanting to do Playboy, flat-out telling her mom, "No, I don't want to be known as a sex object." This was an intelligent statement, and for a minute I was hopeful...Until Kris's spoke. Her logic spoke volumes, telling her she should just go and see what it was all about, since it would be "a lot of money."
During the shoot, Kim was nervous and not feeling good about taking her clothes off, and she refused. Again, I was hopeful, especially when she asked her mom why she wasn't sticking up for her. Why not indeed? Sure, I have a little boy, but if I did have a girl whose only rise to stardom is the entire world seeing her engage in salacious sex acts on tape, I think I would try and steer her in a more promising direction. No such luck for Kim. Kris pressured Kim to go from posing in a bikini to taking it all off, snapping pictures with her own camera the entire shoot, cheering her daughter on. At one point, she said, "Good job honey, you're doing great!" It was here that I got the uber-creeps. I had just exclaimed those same words to my son a few months ago when he started walking. I wondered briefly if Kris ever was proud of her daughter for the little things, like studying hard, not going out with the boy who treats her like a sex object, posing nude....Oh, never mind.
To me, Kris Jenner (she's married to Gold-Medalist Bruce Jenner) is nothing short of a pimp. She strong-armed her daughter into posing for a pornographic publication for the money. Short and simple. What if Kim wanted to go to law school, and help families in need, or be a social-worker, or marry a loving man and raise a family without the glare of reality show cameras? How about then? Would her mom support her then? I suppose only if it involved a sexed-up spread for Maxim at some point.
It's pitying to see how hard her mom tries to be young and sexy. She showed up at the Playboy mansion wearing a plunging top with her breasts spilling out. The women has got to be in her mid-50's. Yikes. No one needs to see a middle-aged woman dressing like someone half her age. Even in Hollywood. Her own daughter told her to cover up! "No, I'm at the Playboy mansion!" She exclaimed excitedly, like Heff would want her for the cover instead. This was something she even suggested to the photo editor. "Maybe we could do a mother/daughter spread, ha ha." Not surprisingly, she didn't get a response on that one. I actually felt bad for her at one point. How empty and meaningless her life must be, to sell out her character and her daughters like this.
The show ended with Kris bringing home a nude picture of herself for her husband to see, unveiling it in front of the whole family (and the cameras, obviously). Bruce Jenner said he'd like to look at it more in the bedroom, and they went off to have sex, with the other girls screaming. "Whoo-hoo, sexy bitch!" to their mom. Nice. I'm sure Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt would be proud to see the fruits of their efforts playing out like this.
After giving birth and nursing my son, and seeing how fragile and innocent kids start off in this world, witnessing this family interact greatly saddened me. The Kardashian girls, under the oh-so watchful eye of their fame-obsessed mom are now a part of a Hollywood and heading for an inevitable train wreck. For what? A little bit of fame? Some parties and nice clothes? When they die, they cant take any of it with them, and their legacy? Nothing but a whole lot of skin, bad grammar, foul mouths and sexed up personas that will be left behind. Too, too sad.
The morale of this story is simple. Once Hugh Hefner told Kim she couldn't pose unless she took it all off (duh, even I knew the whole bikini shot was going to be tossed eventually), she apparently felt much better with his soothing assurances that Marilyn Monroe was the first cover girl in 1953. So, in the words of Kim, "If Marlyn did it, I can too. That made me feel a lot
better." Well as long as she's thinking clearly. I cringe to see what her next career move is. I'm sure her manager will agree to anything, as long as the price is right.
The show started off with Kim not wanting to do Playboy, flat-out telling her mom, "No, I don't want to be known as a sex object." This was an intelligent statement, and for a minute I was hopeful...Until Kris's spoke. Her logic spoke volumes, telling her she should just go and see what it was all about, since it would be "a lot of money."
During the shoot, Kim was nervous and not feeling good about taking her clothes off, and she refused. Again, I was hopeful, especially when she asked her mom why she wasn't sticking up for her. Why not indeed? Sure, I have a little boy, but if I did have a girl whose only rise to stardom is the entire world seeing her engage in salacious sex acts on tape, I think I would try and steer her in a more promising direction. No such luck for Kim. Kris pressured Kim to go from posing in a bikini to taking it all off, snapping pictures with her own camera the entire shoot, cheering her daughter on. At one point, she said, "Good job honey, you're doing great!" It was here that I got the uber-creeps. I had just exclaimed those same words to my son a few months ago when he started walking. I wondered briefly if Kris ever was proud of her daughter for the little things, like studying hard, not going out with the boy who treats her like a sex object, posing nude....Oh, never mind.
To me, Kris Jenner (she's married to Gold-Medalist Bruce Jenner) is nothing short of a pimp. She strong-armed her daughter into posing for a pornographic publication for the money. Short and simple. What if Kim wanted to go to law school, and help families in need, or be a social-worker, or marry a loving man and raise a family without the glare of reality show cameras? How about then? Would her mom support her then? I suppose only if it involved a sexed-up spread for Maxim at some point.
It's pitying to see how hard her mom tries to be young and sexy. She showed up at the Playboy mansion wearing a plunging top with her breasts spilling out. The women has got to be in her mid-50's. Yikes. No one needs to see a middle-aged woman dressing like someone half her age. Even in Hollywood. Her own daughter told her to cover up! "No, I'm at the Playboy mansion!" She exclaimed excitedly, like Heff would want her for the cover instead. This was something she even suggested to the photo editor. "Maybe we could do a mother/daughter spread, ha ha." Not surprisingly, she didn't get a response on that one. I actually felt bad for her at one point. How empty and meaningless her life must be, to sell out her character and her daughters like this.
The show ended with Kris bringing home a nude picture of herself for her husband to see, unveiling it in front of the whole family (and the cameras, obviously). Bruce Jenner said he'd like to look at it more in the bedroom, and they went off to have sex, with the other girls screaming. "Whoo-hoo, sexy bitch!" to their mom. Nice. I'm sure Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt would be proud to see the fruits of their efforts playing out like this.
After giving birth and nursing my son, and seeing how fragile and innocent kids start off in this world, witnessing this family interact greatly saddened me. The Kardashian girls, under the oh-so watchful eye of their fame-obsessed mom are now a part of a Hollywood and heading for an inevitable train wreck. For what? A little bit of fame? Some parties and nice clothes? When they die, they cant take any of it with them, and their legacy? Nothing but a whole lot of skin, bad grammar, foul mouths and sexed up personas that will be left behind. Too, too sad.
The morale of this story is simple. Once Hugh Hefner told Kim she couldn't pose unless she took it all off (duh, even I knew the whole bikini shot was going to be tossed eventually), she apparently felt much better with his soothing assurances that Marilyn Monroe was the first cover girl in 1953. So, in the words of Kim, "If Marlyn did it, I can too. That made me feel a lot
better." Well as long as she's thinking clearly. I cringe to see what her next career move is. I'm sure her manager will agree to anything, as long as the price is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
