Democratic prez hopeful Randall Terry is taking brilliant advantage of this coming Sunday and the millions of people who will be glued to their televisions. His message: Abortion is murder. Much unlike the wildly controversial but quite tasteful and moving Tebow/Focus on the Family commercial which aired last year, Terry is instead opting for shock value. Not that I blame him; the amount of dough he’s dropped to air these commercials leave little time for pontificating.
The ad will show aborted babies. Their teeny bloodied hands and feet are unmistakably human, and it drives home what Terry is trying to tell the public: He thinks abortion is murder, and he wants it stopped.
It’s not his message which gives me pause. On a personal note, and one completely separate from the work I do with the non-partisan Parents Television Council, I am also pro-life. The horrific images shown in his commercial are real, and it happens every minute of every day. But broadcast television is simply not the platform he should be using for his message. Yes, the abortion industry is shrouded in deception and untruths, and I appreciate the factual message Terry wants to send people. However, the method he's using is cursory, at best. Millions of children and families will be watching the Superbowl on Sunday and these images are simply not appropriate. Whether scripted or real, broadcast television must be safe for ALL viewers. Also, the pro-life message will be ignored if people are polarized and demonized.
Terry has purchased ad space in the following markets:
Arkansas: Fort Smith/Rogers
Colorado: Denver, Colorado Springs/Pueblo, Grand Junction
Hawaii: Hilo, Honolulu, Wailuku
Illinois: Quincy
Indiana: Fort Wayne
Maine: Bangor, Portland
Minnesota: Minneapolis
Missouri: Kansas City, Joplin, Ottumwa, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Springfield
Nevada: Elko
North Dakota: Fargo
Ohio: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lima, Steubenville, Toledo, Youngstown, Zanesville
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City, Tulsa
South Dakota: Sioux Falls
Texas: Amarillo, Wichita Falls
Utah: Salt Lake City
Source: (http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/01/graphic-abortion-ads-to-air-during-super-bowl/)
The FCC just ruled that station managers have the right to refuse ads by political candidates during the Superbowl. That could mean massive cancellations across the board. If you see the ad on Sunday, head over to Watchdog Mom's Facebook page and let people know what you thought.
I'll be watching, leerily, like I always do on Superbowl Sunday. Except this just may be the first live television show where I'll have more faith in Madonna's performance than anyone else's.
Showing posts with label media violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media violence. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Playboy Bunnies and Womens' Lib?
When someone thinks of feminism, I'm sure Playboy immediately comes to mind. Forget birth control, suffrage, and equal pay; true liberation is found in deep cleavage and nude centerfolds. Right?
NBC is bringing this glitter to the public airwaves as part of their Fall 2011 lineup. The polemic is that the show will demoralize women by casting them in a meaty light. But NBC prez Bob Greenblatt claims the show is about 'female empowerment', and the nay-sayers are missing the mark on the show's premise. From Gloria to a local NBC affiliate, to the Parents Television Council to the American public, it's clear people are not happy about the show.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: There's something very retro about revisiting the Playboy empire glam of eld. When the clubs ruled major cities and those silk bunny ears were as valuable as gold in the waitress arena, girls everywhere wanted to be a part of it. The country was on the eve of a major sexual revamp, and Playboy was a key architect. I get it.
Kind of.
But here's where you really need to pay attention: It doesn't end with the broadcast of The Playboy Club. Ironically, that's least of my concerns. First off, there's Hulu, Side Reel, etc. Forget the decency clauses and sensors; this show will be available to watch anytime on the Internet, 24/7. And if history is any guide, we can safely assume that the slippery slope of prime-time television writing will bang out (bad use of words, sorry) sloppy episodes of glorfied prostitution, spousal infidelity, drugs, alcohol abuse, battery...you get the point.
And then comes the real Frankenstein: Marketing and Advertising. Halloween costumes, TV spin-offs, Disney's newest tween sensation will be groomed for the next lead, and commercials for upcoming episodes will be aired during The Family Hour. But why stop there? Maybe Hasbro will make a Playboy Bunny Girl doll. For $19.99! A Hef doll in a Mercedes for $24.99! Think I'm nuts? Until public outcry reached epic proportions, Hasbro had a whole line of Pussycat Dolls ready for sale.
(I can't think of something I'd like my kids to play with more than a slutty Nicole Sherzinger toy.)
In an age where pornography rules and monogamy is considered antiquated, why do we want to further perpetuate the myth that people must always exist in an uber-aroused state? Don't we want more for our kids society?
Contact NBC here.
NBC is bringing this glitter to the public airwaves as part of their Fall 2011 lineup. The polemic is that the show will demoralize women by casting them in a meaty light. But NBC prez Bob Greenblatt claims the show is about 'female empowerment', and the nay-sayers are missing the mark on the show's premise. From Gloria to a local NBC affiliate, to the Parents Television Council to the American public, it's clear people are not happy about the show.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment: There's something very retro about revisiting the Playboy empire glam of eld. When the clubs ruled major cities and those silk bunny ears were as valuable as gold in the waitress arena, girls everywhere wanted to be a part of it. The country was on the eve of a major sexual revamp, and Playboy was a key architect. I get it.
Kind of.
But here's where you really need to pay attention: It doesn't end with the broadcast of The Playboy Club. Ironically, that's least of my concerns. First off, there's Hulu, Side Reel, etc. Forget the decency clauses and sensors; this show will be available to watch anytime on the Internet, 24/7. And if history is any guide, we can safely assume that the slippery slope of prime-time television writing will bang out (bad use of words, sorry) sloppy episodes of glorfied prostitution, spousal infidelity, drugs, alcohol abuse, battery...you get the point.
| 'Female Empowerment'? Hmmm... |
(I can't think of something I'd like my kids to play with more than a slutty Nicole Sherzinger toy.) Contact NBC here.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Daily Show-and-Tell
There are three types of people who don't care to hear about the negative effects of violent video games: 1) People who enjoy playing them. 2) People who don't want to be bothered with having to tell their kids 'no'. 3) People who have a feeling the games are harmful but would rather exist in a comfortable bubble of denial.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
Which one are you?
Last week, The California Supreme Court came down with a ruling devastating for families across this country. In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled that children of any age should be allowed to purchase violent or sexually explicit video games without barriers. Simply speaking, this means that on your next run to Target, your preschooler can pick up a copy of Mortal Kombat (one of PC World's most violent-rated games) along with her Elmo coloring book. Realistically speaking, there aren’t many parents who would allow that purchase to happen under their watchful eyes.
But what about when they’re not around? That is exactly what the Entertainment Merchants Association is banking on. Little Jimmy and his friends biking up to Kmart with their allowance money, and perusing the vast selection of AO (Adult-Only) rated games, with no one to stop them from buying it. Games like Mortal Kombat has the controller impaling his victims in a torrent of entrails, and is a top-selling XBox 360 game. Nice, eh? Oh, and if you for one second think your child would never purchase something that graphic, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Jon Stewart recently covered the SCOTUS ruling on The Daily Show. Now, I can’t think of anyone less likely to side with parent advocacy groups than Stewart. He’s a political satirist whose left-leaning politics more often than not poke gratuitous fun at the right. He’s funny, and though personally I am a conservative, I enjoy Stewart. He’s smart, witty, and knows how to engage a crowd. Our politics are pretty night-and-day, but I still enjoy catching episodes online. However, I was shocked to see his recent coverage regarding Brown vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Moral Kombat | ||||
| ||||
Stewart mentioned he wasn’t aware of any effects violent gaming has on kids—of course he isn't. He's a comedian whose forum isn't to analyze this sort of thing. But it’s what I do, and I have a lot of information on that subject. Check out my page on Violent Gaming Effects.
The question I’m left with is this: If the government is now placing stickers on cigarette packets with cancer-infested lungs to deter people from buying them, why are they saying it’s OK to virtually maim, rape and impale victims? And if your answer is the template, “It’s not real-it’s a game”, then explain to me why so much attention has been given to this issue. Could it be that perhaps all the studies out there proving the negative effects are correct?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
