Shortly after the election, Jonathan Altar wrote a very interesting article regarding the hypocrisy of the right-wing states that had voted based on "moral values". He raised the point that television stastistics were showing it was the very same social conservatives fighting for general wholesomeness in our society that were settling in at night (by which I mean around 7 p.m., long before the kids are in bed) to watch uncensored television shows heavy on foul language, violence, and gratuitous sex.
I meant to post it on YN (or at least discuss the topic), but it slipped away from me and I forgot about it. Today, my attention was returned to the issue by an even better article by Cynthia Tucker. The article talks about the same issue, but expands on it by targeting Fox for the hypocritical message the network sends:
quote:Red-Staters Watch TV Programs They're Supposed To Despise by Cynthia Tucker
As we all know by now, Fox television is the home of traditional family values, unimpeachable morality and conservative politics. We know that because we've been told often enough by Fox's on-camera personalities, including accused sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly. And Fox's viewers -- many of whom are moral-values Bush voters -- obviously agree.
So perhaps there is something emotionally uplifting and morally invigorating about the new unscripted Fox show, "Who's Your Daddy?", scheduled to debut on Jan. 3. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what it could be.
The premiere episode pits a woman who was adopted as an infant against eight men, each of whom tries to persuade her that he is the biological father she has never met. If she correctly picks her biological father from among the imposters, she wins $100,000. If she guesses incorrectly, the man who was able to deceive her gets the $100,000. It's a new low in the exploitation of sensitive and emotionally charged private matters for prurient viewing.
But then Fox pioneered the fine art of matching the basest human emotions (greed, thirst for celebrity, the insatiable desire to view public humiliation) with the most super-charged of human desires (the longing for romance, the desire for beauty, the need for familial acceptance) in so-called reality shows. Fox, after all, gave American culture the appalling "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?," a miasma of greed and deception that made a mockery of marriage.
Fox has also been socked with a record-setting federal government fine -- $1.2 million -- for violating decency standards on a show called "Married by America." Last season, Fox introduced an unscripted show about wife-swapping.
Those shows, like so many others of their ilk, were lapped up by the red-state voters who claim to despise such cultural degradation. Indeed, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. -- which owns both Fox News and Fox Broadcasting Co. -- has created a stable of morally repugnant programming because viewers flock to it. (Murdoch, an ultraconservative who contributes heavily to GOP causes, worships money above all else.)
An enduring paradox of our times is that the very people who enjoy watching trashy television heap so much opprobrium on the machinery that produces it. Red-state America hates Hollywood, according to its self-appointed leaders. After national elections in which "moral values" supposedly trumped other concerns, Karl Rove summed up the results: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies."
Yet red-staters can't get enough of that coarseness. Take this season's breakaway hit, ABC's "Desperate Housewives." One of the show's tawdry plot lines involves a 30-something married woman who is having an affair with her 17-year-old gardener. During November sweeps, the show had higher viewership in red-state markets such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Kansas City than in the blue-state markets of New York and Chicago.
None of the nationally known spokesmen for so-called family values -- men such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family or Ken Connor of the Family Research Council -- have called for a boycott of "Desperate Housewives." Nor did they mount a protest against Fox's (mercifully) short-lived "Playing It Straight," in which a young woman guessed which men among her several dates were gay. And they haven't joined the outcry against "Who's Your Daddy?", which trivializes the complex emotions surrounding adoption and, by extension, adoptive families. Apparently, they see no evil.
If viewers in the heartland are offended by the coastal media elites, they have a funny way of showing it. By tuning in to entertainment that features adultery, dysfunctional families and naive adoptees broadcasting their most private affairs, they're making sure that moguls like Murdoch laugh all the way to the bank.
Perhaps most hysterical, and unmentioned in this article (I read it in the local paper), was that a Fox spokesperson, while defending "Who's Your Daddy", swore that it was "up to Fox's standards." I hate to admit it, but I think he might be right on that one.
Now, before you all accuse me of being a hypocrite for posting this article given my anti-censorship status, I would like to point out that there is really nothing hypocritical against my beliefs. I'm morally against programs like the ones described above, but I think they should be perfectly legal, and I despise the lawyers trying to get them off the air just as much (if not more) as the shows themselves. I believe that the only way we can ever truly rise above trash like this is by making the decision not to watch it. Unfortunately, I fear America will never tire of this genre of exceptionally degrading TV; there's something about that unique combination of humiliation, big cash prices and over-the-top melodrama that America just can't seem to get enough of.
But maybe I'm being a bit hasty in that assessment. According to an article from Reuters, Monday night's airing of "Who's Your Daddy?" only drew in 6.3 million viewers (an unusually low number for such an "innovative television event"), ranking it fourth in its Monday night time slot. Is this a sign of hope? Maybe, although the article didn't say what it lost to, and I'm not sure I want to know.
Anyway, I know I kind of veered in two simultaneous directions; feel free to post replies about either Republican hypocrisy or how especially low breeds of reality shows are dragging our country down the toilet.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: YNLissa,
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
quote:Yes, I know. But I think that she was trying to say that bad morals don't replace another display of bad morals. Like 2 wrongs don't make a right sorta thing. I'm trying to take sides, just show what I saw that she meant.
Yes, thank you Stephanie. What you said is related to what i meant.
quote:Originally posted by Ohiosweetgirl: This came from dictionary.com I think that her point is that using Gods name in vain is not showing good morals.
quote:And I think that his point was that if you actually read my post, you would understand that its title deliberately showed poor "morals" to serve as an example of what Fox was doing and the hypocrisy therein.
if it shows poor morals, how come many people follow those poor morals? Why is it so hard for other people to stay out of the evil things, when there is another option, which is good?
quote:The difference between Fox and all of the other organizations, which I'm sure are left of Jane Fonda in your mind
The Viacom-owned stations - CBS, MTV, etc. definitely are. CNN, too. NBC and ABC are less liberal, but still extremely left-of-center.
quote:is that the others don't claim moral superiority. Fox claims to be the network "doing what's right" while producing garbage far smellier than than the other networks.
Where, pray tell, does Fox claim ANYWHERE to be morally superior to any other network? From what Fox programming I watch (mostly the Simpsons), Fox is one of the few networks that regularly pokes fun at itself.
Also, you have to learn to separate Fox News - which you seem to think is right-wing because it actually doesn't suppress conservative views like the other networks traditionally have - from it's entertainment division. Just because the two have the same parent doesn't mean they have jack to do with each other...any more than the fact that Viacom owns Comedy Central means all of CBS' news is meant to be a joke, or the fact that Disney owns ABC means ABCnews is intended to be one big, giant fantasyland that doesn't really exist.
quote:All of that Conservative stuff about valuing marriage, saving our souls, condemning homosexuality, protecting our children...it's all secondary to raking in the moola.
Whereas the liberal media rakes in the moolah, and doesn't give a rats' *** about protecting us from society's ills. They actually profit from them.
quote:If anyone knows a reliable sight that provides this service, please let me know.
TiVo might, but I'm not a subscriber. The reason why TiVo requires a phone jack is to find out what you're watching and when. They sell that to marketers, the MPAA, etc. It's much more accurate than Nielsen, in theory. Their site does give a top-25, but I don't know if they break it down by region unless you have an account. You may well have to have a marketer's account to get that data. Since I don't even have a basic TiVo viewers' account, I can't tell you, but maybe someone here does.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
Yes, I know. But I think that she was trying to say that bad morals don't replace another display of bad morals. Like 2 wrongs don't make a right sorta thing. I'm trying to take sides, just show what I saw that she meant.
"I Dream away everyday, Try so hard to disregard The rhythm of t he rain that drops, And coincides with the beating of my heart"
quote: Originally posted by Ohiosweetgirl: This came from dictionary.com I think that her point is that using Gods name in vein is not showing good morals.
And I think that his point was that if you actually read my post, you would understand that its title deliberately showed poor "morals" to serve as an example of what Fox was doing and the hypocrisy therein.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-) adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
This came from dictionary.com I think that her point is that using Gods name in vein is not showing good morals.
"I Dream away everyday, Try so hard to disregard The rhythm of t he rain that drops, And coincides with the beating of my heart"
quote: Originally posted by NuShoesAgain: It's funny how the liberal line of reasoning falls short here. They will justify tawdry and violent programming as just "doing what's profitable". Which is exactly what Fox is doing.
The difference between Fox and all of the other organizations, which I'm sure are left of Jane Fonda in your mind, is that the others don't claim moral superiority. Fox claims to be the network "doing what's right" while producing garbage far smellier than than the other networks.
I'm glad we can agree that Fox is "doing what's profitable". All of that Conservative stuff about valuing marriage, saving our souls, condemning homosexuality, protecting our children...it's all secondary to raking in the moola.
quote: So, it's a mystery how radical liberals like Cynthia Tucker - or Aguagon - argue that it's red stater's who enjoy this garbage. Last time I checked, most of the urban areas Tucker cites are heavily liberal/Democratic, just like most urban areas. I do happen to know that Kansas City is heavily Democratic (and liberal), and I believe DFW is mostly the same. If the suburbs and rural areas surrounding those metropolitan areas had favored reality TV, then she should get the facts and make a case. Moreover, if Tucker had cited podunk small cities with one TV station - largely, the exurbs and quasi-rural cities - then her case would be stronger.
Outright statistics would make my job a hell of a lot easier, but unfortunately Nielsen is only willing to either show you last night's ratings (and not state by state) or give you a comprehensive report of last year's ratings for $750. I suspect you have to either pay generous sums or know someone who knows someone to get archived, nightly state-by-state ratings. If anyone knows a reliable sight that provides this service, please let me know.
So, I'm left to go with the slew of admittedly biased liberal editorials on the matter. All I've got are a lot of statements like "percentage-wise, a nearly equal number of people in California and Alabama watched 'Desperate Housewives' last night". I know these statements aren't concrete proof, but they're semi-tangible evidence of the point that's trying to be made: "unethical Hollywood scum" and "holier-than-thou moral elitists" are both enjoying "Who's Your Daddy". God knows why.
quote: Originally posted by jam_18: if you have ANY moral values at all, dont say that G word........ the one you have written above.
It's irony. Don't bother trying to understand it.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
It's funny how the liberal line of reasoning falls short here. They will justify tawdry and violent programming as just "doing what's profitable". Which is exactly what Fox is doing.
Personally, I intensely loathe reality TV, and I'm pretty conservative. Yes, TV does help create a huge amount of the societal problems we have to deal with such as violence. But beyond that, I never understood what people get out of reality TV. And that includes crap like the Real World. There's nothing "reality" about it. Making people eat scorpions and moose testicles isn't reality - it's just a stupid contest to see who has the strongest stomach or who is the most stupid.
Come to think of it, of all the conservatives or right-leaning people I know, the only "reality" show any of them watch is Cops (the only true "reality show" on) and one friend who loves the Real World.
So, it's a mystery how radical liberals like Cynthia Tucker - or Aguagon - argue that it's red stater's who enjoy this garbage. Last time I checked, most of the urban areas Tucker cites are heavily liberal/Democratic, just like most urban areas. I do happen to know that Kansas City is heavily Democratic (and liberal), and I believe DFW is mostly the same. If the suburbs and rural areas surrounding those metropolitan areas had favored reality TV, then she should get the facts and make a case. Moreover, if Tucker had cited podunk small cities with one TV station - largely, the exurbs and quasi-rural cities - then her case would be stronger.
In any case, I'd love to see that garbage off the air - and I'm no evangelical Christian. There have to be limits on what can be broadcast - regardless of the profitability or free-market implications that poses.
Liberals prefer equality - all people should be equally poor, unsafe and badly-educated.
quote: Originally posted by Barkid: I guess the only thing I'm confused about it this... Isn't T.V. just T.V. It's not like I watch a show about murdering people and then go out and murder people, so why is it wrong for people to watch fantasy shows about things that they can't or won't do in real life? I think these conservatives don't want their shows to become real life, they just find them entertaining.
That's my stance on these things. I should note that when I said I was "morally against them", I didn't mean to say I think they'll unleash atrocities on our society; rather, I just think they're pointless trash lacking any redeeming value.
But the "it's only TV" line of reasoning, while logical, is against the social conservative viewpoint. Typically, it's the social conservatives who are trying to blame "society's corruption" on Hollywood, video games, and Marilyn Manson.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
I must say this is one of the finest topics I've seen you start in my few weeks here Aguagon, and I find this article by Cynthia Tucker quite entertaining as well. I think this would be a perfect example of the old "Do as I say, Not as I Do" line of reasoning that we so often see in our politicans and public figures in general. We have celebs in hollywood against drug use and sexual deviancy engaging in those same activities, and we have politicians deciding laws about those activities that conflict with their own personal actions. I guess the only thing I'm confused about it this... Isn't T.V. just T.V. It's not like I watch a show about murdering people and then go out and murder people, so why is it wrong for people to watch fantasy shows about things that they can't or won't do in real life? I think these conservatives don't want their shows to become real life, they just find them entertaining.
"Mac, you ever been in love?" - "No, I've been a bartender all my life."
The above mentioned programs are shows that I view as stupid, and outlandishly disgusting. Howerer, I think nobody has the right to say what can and what cannot be put on television. Personally, If I think something is a load of crap, I don't look at it and continue on with my life. Perhaps FOXNEWS and Rupert Murdoch are nasty an vile hypocrites. That doesn't mean we can simpley tell one another what we can and cannot put on TV.
If you don't want your kids watching something innapropriate, then turn off the TV and read a book or something productive. I wont lose an ounce of sleep whether or not some station does something that not everybody agrees with.
Topics 
What you said is related to what i meant. 
