Things only appear on TV because there is a demand for it. If no-one watched the sleazy crap, it would be dropped in a second. Its not the TV's fault, Its the low moral standard of culture you live in. Clean that up and the crap on TV would magically disappear.
<strong>Things only appear on TV because there is a demand for it. If no-one watched the sleazy crap, it would be dropped in a second. Its not the TV's fault, Its the low moral standard of culture you live in. Clean that up and the crap on TV would magically disappear.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Careful MarkUK, don't rile up the freedom advocates here with your good sense...
Remeber the Clinton presidency, Morality and Morals don't matter. Character doesn't count either.
MarcUK is right. Much of what you see, read, hear and so forth answers to the lowest common denominator. Ergo, you have "reality" TV, home video disasters, etc.
IMO, television viewing is not beyond the control of parents.
[quote]The other view is pretty much where I am. Why can;t they put programs on TV that are more wholesome and leave the trash for later at night, cable, or pay per view? that way it is a choice to see it mostly and not an accident that your children happened to see it when you were in the toilet or something. <hr></blockquote>
And who gets to decide what's wholesome and what's trash? I bet there are a lot of things you might find wholesome that I find highly disturbing. I'm even more sure that there are things I would want my children to see that you would be horrified by. I'd have no problem with my kids watching South Park or The Simpsons, but I sure as hell would not want them watching the Fox Family Channel.
We've gone so far as to have parental control TV's and cable boxes and still people complain that there kids might see something they don't want them to see. It's just nuts.
does clinton bashing have to be brought into every single F***ing thread! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Like it or not, that was and will continue to be to most overt and publicised view of American (im)morality. The whole world had it paraded before them and there are still those who continue to pretend like it was nothing. This was not Clinton bashing, it was a sad statement of where American morals are going. Get used to it.
And who gets to decide what's wholesome and what's trash? I bet there are a lot of things you might find wholesome that I find highly disturbing. I'm even more sure that there are things I would want my children to see that you would be horrified by. I'd have no problem with my kids watching South Park or The Simpsons, but I sure as hell would not want them watching the Fox Family Channel.
We've gone so far as to have parental control TV's and cable boxes and still people complain that there kids might see something they don't want them to see. It's just nuts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
South Park is wholesome entertainment? How old are you?!? The Simpsons are for the most part fine. And what is wrong with Fox Family Channel? I have never watched it. I find Touched by an Angel wholesome, as I do Seventh Heaven (for the most part). Will And Grace is an example of a show I do not find wholesome. I am sure you disagree, but I doubt you are even over 21.
Give Clinton a rest. I'm not a big fan of him either but he's gone now. And as far as I'm concerned, the only reason Clinton's exploits were so well documented was because everyone was sick of seeing the friggin british royal family on tv every night, re: who was sleeping with who, or divorcing who, or fighting an addiction to what, etc. Talk about unwholesome!
Anyway, the morality of a country doesn't have jack to do with its president. His or her job is to run the country, not worry about whether anyone's going to be offended by who he's having sex with. The fact that the media may or may not be obscene is a reflection of the majority of society. Otherwise, the ratings wouldn't be there! There was trash on TV under Reagan and Bush Sr. just the same as Clinton. Now that The Great Leader Bush Jr. has taken over, it's still around. Does this not indicate to you that who's leading the country doesn't affect what you see on TV?
Give Clinton a rest. I'm not a big fan of him either but he's gone now. And as far as I'm concerned, the only reason Clinton's exploits were so well documented was because everyone was sick of seeing the friggin british royal family on tv every night, re: who was sleeping with who, or divorcing who, or fighting an addiction to what, etc. Talk about unwholesome!
Anyway, the morality of a country doesn't have jack to do with its president. His or her job is to run the country, not worry about whether anyone's going to be offended by who he's having sex with. The fact that the media may or may not be obscene is a reflection of the majority of society. Otherwise, the ratings wouldn't be there! There was trash on TV under Reagan and Bush Sr. just the same as Clinton. Now that The Great Leader Bush Jr. has taken over, it's still around. Does this not indicate to you that who's leading the country doesn't affect what you see on TV?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously you missed the whole intent of my post as you blindly sailed right by it in defence of Clinton. The point was not that he had a fling with his intern. The point was not even that he did it while married and president of the USA. The point was not even that when called on the carpet for it he lied under oath, lied to the American people to their faces basically (I am sure I can find footage if you disagree), and then lied about lying. After all we don't understand what the real meaning of "is" is. My point is that people such as yourself and others are so willing to give that behavior a pass. One man doing that is a moral problem of his own. His own character is in question. When a nation gives him a pass because they see nothing wrong with it, then you see where the moral fiber of your country is.
Then you understand why there is such trash on TV. Then you begin to see why those same said people don't see it as trash, but only entertainent that hurts nobody so long as they view it in their own homes, privately. The problem is there, you can deny it, you can tell me to grow up, you can say what you want. (I am still stunned that a 31 year old sees nothing wrong with his children watching South Park. Stunned.)
TV is getting trashier and trashier. It used to be that the jokes were all innuendo and suggestion but no real oomph. Now they come right out and stop just short of showing the people having sex on live TV. And this is not a problem? I have done plenty of growing up myself, 2 kids causes you to look at life a bit more closely to be sure that you are doing what is right for them. And what is on TV for the most part is not right for kids. (Really, you are 31 and have kids?)
Now excuse me but I am going to watch the Simpsons.
[quote] Apparently there are no watchdogs anywhere at Fox. Over at Fox News (we say "news" loosely), this actually happened: On Feb. 22, a producer phoned Ray Richmond, a freelance entertainment journalist and co-creator of a humor site called HollywoodPulse.com, and asked if Richmond would come on, apparently as some kind of media expert, to talk about Paula Poundstone and whether she was getting preferential treatment in regard to her well-documented legal troubles with her children.
In a brilliant send-up of how guests and experts are chosen for news shows, Richmond said yes, and his interview was taped three days later. The story aired March 1, with Richmond playing straight guy. Apparently nobody at Fox News bothered to look at HollywoodPulse.com, or the Poundstone story (did they just Google her name or something?) because the satire was pretty damn clear. The Web site's headline: "Poundstone granted 'supervised' child abuse."
As Richmond wrote in a follow-up on the site, Fox News was "completely unaware of the fact" that he "represented an entertainment Web zine comprised entirely of satire and spoof. . . . All anyone at the network would have had to do is actually have read the first paragraph of the (Web site piece about Poundstone) to discover it was 100 percent crap."
New slogan for Fox News: We report on satire; you decide if it's news.
A Fox News spokesman replied, "It's a well-known fact that Ray Richmond is a media whore and is trying to extend his five minutes of fame."
Anyone who has enough time to complain about what's on TV, hasn't much culture to speak of. Less offensive television isn't going to repair cultural deficits. People watch TV to fill in the voids in culture and community. For this purpose at least, neither fluff nor filth will much improve anything.
You don't have to watch your children all the time, but you don't have to order cable either (even basic).
That's your answer. Would you buy/wear a suit you thought looked awful? I hope not. Why do people insist on buying television that they so vehemently despise? Is there really nothing else.
It's just laziness. Even if you don't have any money there are a wealth of public libraries, community centers, extra-curricular school activities, continuing education classes, volunteer opportunities, etc. They're virtually free, you could easily displace all those TV hours into 'alternative pastime' hours. Easily. People who want TV remade to their tastes have to realize that TV won't change it's product unless it stops selling.
Comments
<strong>Things only appear on TV because there is a demand for it. If no-one watched the sleazy crap, it would be dropped in a second. Its not the TV's fault, Its the low moral standard of culture you live in. Clean that up and the crap on TV would magically disappear.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Careful MarkUK, don't rile up the freedom advocates here with your good sense...
Remeber the Clinton presidency, Morality and Morals don't matter. Character doesn't count either.
IMO, television viewing is not beyond the control of parents.
<strong>
Remeber the Clinton presidency, Morality and Morals don't matter. Character doesn't count either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
::sigh::
does clinton bashing have to be brought into every single F***ing thread!
And who gets to decide what's wholesome and what's trash? I bet there are a lot of things you might find wholesome that I find highly disturbing. I'm even more sure that there are things I would want my children to see that you would be horrified by. I'd have no problem with my kids watching South Park or The Simpsons, but I sure as hell would not want them watching the Fox Family Channel.
We've gone so far as to have parental control TV's and cable boxes and still people complain that there kids might see something they don't want them to see. It's just nuts.
<strong>
::sigh::
does clinton bashing have to be brought into every single F***ing thread!
Like it or not, that was and will continue to be to most overt and publicised view of American (im)morality. The whole world had it paraded before them and there are still those who continue to pretend like it was nothing. This was not Clinton bashing, it was a sad statement of where American morals are going. Get used to it.
<strong>
And who gets to decide what's wholesome and what's trash? I bet there are a lot of things you might find wholesome that I find highly disturbing. I'm even more sure that there are things I would want my children to see that you would be horrified by. I'd have no problem with my kids watching South Park or The Simpsons, but I sure as hell would not want them watching the Fox Family Channel.
We've gone so far as to have parental control TV's and cable boxes and still people complain that there kids might see something they don't want them to see. It's just nuts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
South Park is wholesome entertainment? How old are you?!? The Simpsons are for the most part fine. And what is wrong with Fox Family Channel? I have never watched it. I find Touched by an Angel wholesome, as I do Seventh Heaven (for the most part). Will And Grace is an example of a show I do not find wholesome. I am sure you disagree, but I doubt you are even over 21.
<strong>I find Touched by an Angel wholesome</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now if they could just make it entertaining.
Give Clinton a rest. I'm not a big fan of him either but he's gone now. And as far as I'm concerned, the only reason Clinton's exploits were so well documented was because everyone was sick of seeing the friggin british royal family on tv every night, re: who was sleeping with who, or divorcing who, or fighting an addiction to what, etc. Talk about unwholesome!
Anyway, the morality of a country doesn't have jack to do with its president. His or her job is to run the country, not worry about whether anyone's going to be offended by who he's having sex with. The fact that the media may or may not be obscene is a reflection of the majority of society. Otherwise, the ratings wouldn't be there! There was trash on TV under Reagan and Bush Sr. just the same as Clinton. Now that The Great Leader Bush Jr. has taken over, it's still around. Does this not indicate to you that who's leading the country doesn't affect what you see on TV?
<strong>NoahJ, give me a break.
Give Clinton a rest. I'm not a big fan of him either but he's gone now. And as far as I'm concerned, the only reason Clinton's exploits were so well documented was because everyone was sick of seeing the friggin british royal family on tv every night, re: who was sleeping with who, or divorcing who, or fighting an addiction to what, etc. Talk about unwholesome!
Anyway, the morality of a country doesn't have jack to do with its president. His or her job is to run the country, not worry about whether anyone's going to be offended by who he's having sex with. The fact that the media may or may not be obscene is a reflection of the majority of society. Otherwise, the ratings wouldn't be there! There was trash on TV under Reagan and Bush Sr. just the same as Clinton. Now that The Great Leader Bush Jr. has taken over, it's still around. Does this not indicate to you that who's leading the country doesn't affect what you see on TV?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously you missed the whole intent of my post as you blindly sailed right by it in defence of Clinton. The point was not that he had a fling with his intern. The point was not even that he did it while married and president of the USA. The point was not even that when called on the carpet for it he lied under oath, lied to the American people to their faces basically (I am sure I can find footage if you disagree), and then lied about lying. After all we don't understand what the real meaning of "is" is.
Then you understand why there is such trash on TV. Then you begin to see why those same said people don't see it as trash, but only entertainent that hurts nobody so long as they view it in their own homes, privately. The problem is there, you can deny it, you can tell me to grow up, you can say what you want. (I am still stunned that a 31 year old sees nothing wrong with his children watching South Park. Stunned.)
TV is getting trashier and trashier. It used to be that the jokes were all innuendo and suggestion but no real oomph. Now they come right out and stop just short of showing the people having sex on live TV. And this is not a problem? I have done plenty of growing up myself, 2 kids causes you to look at life a bit more closely to be sure that you are doing what is right for them. And what is on TV for the most part is not right for kids. (Really, you are 31 and have kids?)
Now excuse me but I am going to watch the Simpsons.
[quote] Apparently there are no watchdogs anywhere at Fox. Over at Fox News (we say "news" loosely), this actually happened: On Feb. 22, a producer phoned Ray Richmond, a freelance entertainment journalist and co-creator of a humor site called HollywoodPulse.com, and asked if Richmond would come on, apparently as some kind of media expert, to talk about Paula Poundstone and whether she was getting preferential treatment in regard to her well-documented legal troubles with her children.
In a brilliant send-up of how guests and experts are chosen for news shows, Richmond said yes, and his interview was taped three days later. The story aired March 1, with Richmond playing straight guy. Apparently nobody at Fox News bothered to look at HollywoodPulse.com, or the Poundstone story (did they just Google her name or something?) because the satire was pretty damn clear. The Web site's headline: "Poundstone granted 'supervised' child abuse."
As Richmond wrote in a follow-up on the site, Fox News was "completely unaware of the fact" that he "represented an entertainment Web zine comprised entirely of satire and spoof. . . . All anyone at the network would have had to do is actually have read the first paragraph of the (Web site piece about Poundstone) to discover it was 100 percent crap."
New slogan for Fox News: We report on satire; you decide if it's news.
A Fox News spokesman replied, "It's a well-known fact that Ray Richmond is a media whore and is trying to extend his five minutes of fame."
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.hollywoodpulse.com/story1.html"; target="_blank">Hollywood Pulse</a>
Anyone who has enough time to complain about what's on TV, hasn't much culture to speak of. Less offensive television isn't going to repair cultural deficits. People watch TV to fill in the voids in culture and community. For this purpose at least, neither fluff nor filth will much improve anything.
You don't have to watch your children all the time, but you don't have to order cable either (even basic).
That's your answer. Would you buy/wear a suit you thought looked awful? I hope not. Why do people insist on buying television that they so vehemently despise? Is there really nothing else.
It's just laziness. Even if you don't have any money there are a wealth of public libraries, community centers, extra-curricular school activities, continuing education classes, volunteer opportunities, etc. They're virtually free, you could easily displace all those TV hours into 'alternative pastime' hours. Easily. People who want TV remade to their tastes have to realize that TV won't change it's product unless it stops selling.
Be honest about what you want.