A "which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate is 
raging regarding objectionable television content during family hour. Media depictions of sex, profanity, and violence are increasing in their frequency and intensity, and family values advocates are understandably laying the blame for this rising tide of filth at the feet of television writers and networks. When it comes to the issue of objectionable television content, the debate centers on ascribing responsibility either to the networks for peddling tawdry material to unsuspecting parents and children, or to television viewers themselves for creating and sustaining a demand for programming rich with violence, sexual content, and obscene language. It is easy to merely blame both parties for the supply and demand situation, but addressing the real root of the problem may prove hard for many on both sides to swallow.
To place the issue in its current context, the following excerpts from the Washington Times article "Family Hour Goes Down the Tubes" help illustrate the scope of the problem objectionable television content poses for parents:
There is no question that television content is far more graphic and coarse than it was when Mr. Winter's organization performed a similar study in 2001. CBS
has reportedly increased its smut programming quotient by 579 percent since 2001, and the Fox network experienced a 426 percent jump in the same period. Are such astounding spikes in objectionable content caused by networks pushing the envelope of artistic license, or are they merely indicative of viewers' corresponding insatiable hunger for a steady diet of prurient fare?
Mr. Winters' concluding statement above contains what I assert is the seed that has allowed weeds of obscenity to overgrow and choke out what used to be a pleasing garden of television programming for families. Winters pleaded for a "return to the time-honored principle of airing mature-themed content only at later times of the evening; and to provide parents with a consistent, objective and meaningful content ratings system." It is precisely this accepted belief in different standards for children and adults that has created the objectionable content crisis that Winters decries.
When parents establish different standards between what is acceptable for their children to watch and what they themselves watch, they are actually setting a double standard. While young children may not be fully cognizant of the difference, older children and particularly teenagers, are highly sensitive toward perceived hypocrisy. Teens are especially outraged by moral hypocrisy demonstrated by their parents, and they observe such hypocrisy daily when parents view programming containing "mature-themed content" but insist that such programming is unfit for their teens to watch. As parents subject themselves to evening television fare filled with sex, violence, and profanity, they become desensitized and weaken their own resolve to protect their children from their own viewing habits. When parents partake of ever-coarser programs and movies, they lose all perspective and begin to judge content on the "it's not that bad" sliding scale, where "bad" is measured against the worst they have been watching rather than against truly good, clean entertainment.
Television sets are often given an honored place at the family dinner table, as parents increasingly seek to avoid conversation with their children and teens. The soothing siren song of the television drowns out family discussions and exposes family members of all ages to the insidious influences endemic to evening programming. The result is that networks, who are dependent on advertising revenue, shape their programming content during "family hour" to cater to the family members who make and spend the most money in the household: the parents. The Disney Company grasped this concept long ago, and in a more benign marketing push changed the dialogue and music of its animated feature films to be more suitable for the adults accompanying children to theaters. Celebrities favored by adults were brought in to
perform the voices of animated characters, not because children have become more sophisticated but because the movies were intentionally geared toward adults.
Robin Williams as the genie in Disney's Aladdin
is a classic example, as even teenage children have difficulty following his rapid-fire delivery sarcasm and references humorous only to adults. It no longer matters whether children can follow the plot and dialogue as long as there are sufficient special effects and flatulence to make them laugh. Adults have the deep pockets and network executives are eager to produce programming that helps advertisers reach ever deeper into those pockets. Thus evening programming, even in the so-called family hour must appeal to adults, and since parents are accustomed to mature content, it is no surprise that the programming from 8 to 9 p.m. is becoming ever more graphic and obscene, unfit for children.
This does not insulate network officials from their portion of responsibility in producing filthy television fare, but it is evident, as illustrated by the widespread acceptance of pay-per-view pornography available on demand in any home, that parents are becoming less and less capable of judging objectively whether programming is good or bad for their children. After all, they cannot see, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge, the harm mature programming and dangerous moral double standards for their teens is doing to their families. It may be considered prudish in today's morally permissive climate to use a simple standard for judging television content: if I would not sit down and show this program or movie to my children, why do I need to expose myself to it either? A similar question might be posed: if this content will harm my child and offend her purity and innocence, why do I think I am immune from its harmful effects? Tucking children safely in their beds and then immersing oneself in obscene "mature" programming is a double standard that will impair parental success and dilute family values.
It is likewise baffling that otherwise intelligent parents place so mush faith in content ratings systems for programs, movies, music lyrics, and video games. In essence, if you trust ratings systems, you are trusting a group of strangers employed in the entertainment industry to get together and decide what is appropriate morally for your children. We teach our children not to talk to strangers because strangers may harm them or not have their best interest in mind. Why do parents not apply the same advice when it comes to their reliance on content ratings?
Mr. Winters deserves support and respect for encouraging networks to produce more family-friendly television fare, but the root of the problem is that too much of what is aired during "family hour" fits all too well the accepted standards in many homes. The term "family-friendly only carries significance if families have high standards and entertainment expectations that all family members live by at all times, not merely during the hour before 9 p.m. when mature content magically becomes acceptable on all channels.
The laws of supply and demand, like the chicken and the egg question, dictate that one is necessary to produce the other in a symbiotic relationship. Left to their own devices, Hollywood's television producers have been known to push the limits of acceptable content. They need little encouragement to try every titillating tactic possible to attract viewers. Yet they do not produce this content in a moral vacuum. It is the widespread acceptance of coarse content in American homes that encourages the flood of filth now permeating every network. Calling for a restoration of the "family hour" is noble, but unless parents make a conscious effort to improve the quality of the media content they consume during the other hours of the day, they will be in no moral position to make family hour meaningful.
Technorati Tags: Content Ratings Parents Television Council Mature Content Television Programming Parenting Family Values
raging regarding objectionable television content during family hour. Media depictions of sex, profanity, and violence are increasing in their frequency and intensity, and family values advocates are understandably laying the blame for this rising tide of filth at the feet of television writers and networks. When it comes to the issue of objectionable television content, the debate centers on ascribing responsibility either to the networks for peddling tawdry material to unsuspecting parents and children, or to television viewers themselves for creating and sustaining a demand for programming rich with violence, sexual content, and obscene language. It is easy to merely blame both parties for the supply and demand situation, but addressing the real root of the problem may prove hard for many on both sides to swallow.To place the issue in its current context, the following excerpts from the Washington Times article "Family Hour Goes Down the Tubes" help illustrate the scope of the problem objectionable television content poses for parents:
On average, objectionable material is broadcast every three minutes from 8 to 9 p.m., according to an analysis of 208 prime-time shows released yesterday by the Parents Television Council.
Only 11 percent of the programs were free of offensive fare, the study found. Three-quarters featured profanity, more than half contained sexual references, and almost half showcased violent acts and images, including "medical violence."
"These findings even surprised us. We knew it was bad, but not this bad," said Tim Winter, president of the Los Angeles-based watchdog group.
"The family hour was once a time to watch things like 'Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom' or 'Leave It to Beaver.' Now it's been turned into a toxic dump by an industry which does not serve the interests of the American public. The people are supposed to own these airwaves, not the industry," Mr. Winter said.
...After comparing respective results, the researchers concluded that family hour is "unsafe" and "even more hostile to children and families" by virtue of increased nudity, alarming autopsies, supernatural oddities and coarse behavior, among other factors.
..."The family hour needs to be restored," Mr. Winter said. "We're calling on the broadcast industry to return to the time-honored principle of airing mature-themed content only at later times of the evening; and to provide parents with a consistent, objective and meaningful content ratings system. We are calling on the advertising industry to underwrite only time-appropriate content with their media dollars."
There is no question that television content is far more graphic and coarse than it was when Mr. Winter's organization performed a similar study in 2001. CBS
has reportedly increased its smut programming quotient by 579 percent since 2001, and the Fox network experienced a 426 percent jump in the same period. Are such astounding spikes in objectionable content caused by networks pushing the envelope of artistic license, or are they merely indicative of viewers' corresponding insatiable hunger for a steady diet of prurient fare?Mr. Winters' concluding statement above contains what I assert is the seed that has allowed weeds of obscenity to overgrow and choke out what used to be a pleasing garden of television programming for families. Winters pleaded for a "return to the time-honored principle of airing mature-themed content only at later times of the evening; and to provide parents with a consistent, objective and meaningful content ratings system." It is precisely this accepted belief in different standards for children and adults that has created the objectionable content crisis that Winters decries.
When parents establish different standards between what is acceptable for their children to watch and what they themselves watch, they are actually setting a double standard. While young children may not be fully cognizant of the difference, older children and particularly teenagers, are highly sensitive toward perceived hypocrisy. Teens are especially outraged by moral hypocrisy demonstrated by their parents, and they observe such hypocrisy daily when parents view programming containing "mature-themed content" but insist that such programming is unfit for their teens to watch. As parents subject themselves to evening television fare filled with sex, violence, and profanity, they become desensitized and weaken their own resolve to protect their children from their own viewing habits. When parents partake of ever-coarser programs and movies, they lose all perspective and begin to judge content on the "it's not that bad" sliding scale, where "bad" is measured against the worst they have been watching rather than against truly good, clean entertainment.
Television sets are often given an honored place at the family dinner table, as parents increasingly seek to avoid conversation with their children and teens. The soothing siren song of the television drowns out family discussions and exposes family members of all ages to the insidious influences endemic to evening programming. The result is that networks, who are dependent on advertising revenue, shape their programming content during "family hour" to cater to the family members who make and spend the most money in the household: the parents. The Disney Company grasped this concept long ago, and in a more benign marketing push changed the dialogue and music of its animated feature films to be more suitable for the adults accompanying children to theaters. Celebrities favored by adults were brought in to
perform the voices of animated characters, not because children have become more sophisticated but because the movies were intentionally geared toward adults.
Robin Williams as the genie in Disney's Aladdin
is a classic example, as even teenage children have difficulty following his rapid-fire delivery sarcasm and references humorous only to adults. It no longer matters whether children can follow the plot and dialogue as long as there are sufficient special effects and flatulence to make them laugh. Adults have the deep pockets and network executives are eager to produce programming that helps advertisers reach ever deeper into those pockets. Thus evening programming, even in the so-called family hour must appeal to adults, and since parents are accustomed to mature content, it is no surprise that the programming from 8 to 9 p.m. is becoming ever more graphic and obscene, unfit for children.This does not insulate network officials from their portion of responsibility in producing filthy television fare, but it is evident, as illustrated by the widespread acceptance of pay-per-view pornography available on demand in any home, that parents are becoming less and less capable of judging objectively whether programming is good or bad for their children. After all, they cannot see, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge, the harm mature programming and dangerous moral double standards for their teens is doing to their families. It may be considered prudish in today's morally permissive climate to use a simple standard for judging television content: if I would not sit down and show this program or movie to my children, why do I need to expose myself to it either? A similar question might be posed: if this content will harm my child and offend her purity and innocence, why do I think I am immune from its harmful effects? Tucking children safely in their beds and then immersing oneself in obscene "mature" programming is a double standard that will impair parental success and dilute family values.
It is likewise baffling that otherwise intelligent parents place so mush faith in content ratings systems for programs, movies, music lyrics, and video games. In essence, if you trust ratings systems, you are trusting a group of strangers employed in the entertainment industry to get together and decide what is appropriate morally for your children. We teach our children not to talk to strangers because strangers may harm them or not have their best interest in mind. Why do parents not apply the same advice when it comes to their reliance on content ratings?
Mr. Winters deserves support and respect for encouraging networks to produce more family-friendly television fare, but the root of the problem is that too much of what is aired during "family hour" fits all too well the accepted standards in many homes. The term "family-friendly only carries significance if families have high standards and entertainment expectations that all family members live by at all times, not merely during the hour before 9 p.m. when mature content magically becomes acceptable on all channels.
The laws of supply and demand, like the chicken and the egg question, dictate that one is necessary to produce the other in a symbiotic relationship. Left to their own devices, Hollywood's television producers have been known to push the limits of acceptable content. They need little encouragement to try every titillating tactic possible to attract viewers. Yet they do not produce this content in a moral vacuum. It is the widespread acceptance of coarse content in American homes that encourages the flood of filth now permeating every network. Calling for a restoration of the "family hour" is noble, but unless parents make a conscious effort to improve the quality of the media content they consume during the other hours of the day, they will be in no moral position to make family hour meaningful.
Technorati Tags: Content Ratings Parents Television Council Mature Content Television Programming Parenting Family Values
No comments:
Post a Comment