Media Responsibility

[AdminAssistant]

I debated on whether to put this here or in Pop Culture - but I see this as more of a social woe. (Mods, if you feel otherwise, just do that voodoo that you do so well.)

Anyway, this was prompted by a post in the Politics forum that mentioned Hollywood's depiction of guns and violence. Now, for this argument, I'm going to use the generic term 'artist', and by 'artist' I mean those involved in theatre, film, tv, music, visual arts, dance, whatever.

My overriding theory about art (theatre in particular) has been that art is a "mirror to society". The art of a particular place and time reflects the problems, issues, morals, etc of that place and time. So, if movies are really violent, that's because the real world is violent, and the movies are just reflecting that.

Is it really fair to the artist to expect them to censor themselves and only produce happy, light, pretty entertainment in the face of this modern world? Because, frankly, there's plenty of fluff anywhere you want to look. Sitcoms, romantic comedies, the glittery crap up on Broadway these days.

I don't think you can blame society's problems on TV or film or anything else - EXCEPT the overall culture of that time and place. In overly violent areas, there are much bigger forces at work than rap music and Reservoir Dogs.

Several years ago, I got into an argument with a co-worker because she thought that all TV/film/art should be censored because of the kids. She said, "What am I supposed to do if they see two boys kiss on TV? rantrantrant!" My response, "Um, YOU'RE the parent, that's up to you, not up to me or anyone else."

This is kind of long and rambly, but what are your thoughts? Is Hollywood to blame?

[Rapscallion]

I was thinking about something similar today, though my issue was more with the reporting media than the entertainment media (significant difference).

I was thinking about the Phelps clan and the way they managed to get so much attention, along with the other lunatic fringe types in religion. Proportionally, you see far more about them per individual than you do of the invisible people who actually live their lives doing good - running food kitchens etc.

The reason they get the space on the front pages? It sells copy. The reason the violent and prurient movies etc are put out there is because people are willing to pay (via watching adverts or via pay per view etc).

If there wasn't a market, there wouldn't be the production. Hollywood and the reporting media are fulfilling a desire, just selling what people want.

We, the market, are to blame. We don't all agree with all of what goes out there for either type of media, but it hits the buttons of enough people to make it profitable, and since it's still legal they'll keep doing it.

Is what they are doing wrong? For the most part, no. The will of the people, through the market, is that it is correct. Most people aren't unhinged by what they produce in terms of violent films or pornography, and I think that those claiming to be unhinged by it would have found some other aspect to release their inner problems.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

I was thinking about something similar today, though my issue was more with the reporting media than the entertainment media (significant difference).

I was thinking about the Phelps clan and the way they managed to get so much attention

When I first saw that, I thought you meant Michael Phelps - the man who defeated Communism through superior swimming.

[daleduke17]

When I first saw that, I thought you meant Michael Phelps - the man who defeated Communism through superior swimming.

Yes, because Phelps did it all by himself, right?

[Sylvia727]

The responsibility of the artist is to ensure that nobody has to view it if they don't want to. This means covering up and keeping language clean in public areas. So don't put your billboard of nekkid folks in the mall, where the herds of wild eleven-year-olds roam. Don't use a radio edit so short or so shallow that everyone hears what you said. This also means telling consumers what's in your product. Post the rating clearly and detail why it's rated that. If it says "mild violence", the violence had better be mild. If your game has hookers, I want to know that before I buy it.

After that, it's personal responsibility. Which is the only known substance capable of defeating the mighty Whinesalot. Seriously, it's like kryptonite to Superman.

[AFPheonix]

The responsibility of the artist is to ensure that nobody has to view it if they don't want to. This means covering up and keeping language clean in public areas. So don't put your billboard of nekkid folks in the mall, where the herds of wild eleven-year-olds roam.

Ha ha, don't ever go to Europe. Boobies everywhere.

[Sylvia727]

Breasts don't bother me. Oversexualization does. Excessive sexual nudity does. Breasts everywhere would bother a good chunk of Americans, though--and another good chunk would be humping the billboards.

[AFPheonix]

After awhile they'd all blow their loads, roll over and go to sleep though.

[suchislife2]

personally, I'm of the belief that if you don't like it, don't watch/read/listen to it.

My aunt is religious. Nothing wrong with it. But she is against anything with witches/ghosts/anything against her religion in it. This meant she just didn't have those sort of things in her house, and didn't let her kids watch/listen/read anything about those things.

Simple. Yeah she would harp on about how I was "damaging my soal" by reading/listening/watching these things, but then I accepted I was evil a long time ago LOL

There has been a recent controversy over these "longer lasting sex" adds that have had billboards all over the place. In prominent places. Also Adds running all day, often in times slots where kids will be in the car.

If the add came on (I don't have kids but didn't like it) I would switch the channel. I would look away if I saw the billboard. Now I laugh. The billboards have SEX in big red letters. Now there is a black "Censored" across it.

Media only makes things because there are people who wish to see it. Some media (like in the case of the longer lasting sex adds) are more stupid in the way they try to get a rather important message across. Either way, don't like it, don't look!

[Slytovhand]

I'm going to take a different slant on things here....

Media and marketing don't do things that are boring and mundane - they do things to shock, to get attention.

Paintings of flowers in a vase don't win prizes any more. Movies about nothing happening other than going to work, coming home, having dinner, going to bed and then back to work the next day don't sell - it needs ... 'something'.

Once people have been desensitized to one lot of shock value, they need to push the next boundary..and then the next, and then the next and then.... etc etc. Sex billboards in the 50's??? No way!

So I disagree - media and 'entertainment' have a lot to answer for.

Granted, society's customs and levels of acceptability etc do feedback (I note how horrendous it is to show women's breasts, but perfectly alright to watch her get beaten up...).

Artists? Similar. A 'nice' painting or sculpture is ok. But a 'sensational' piece needs controversy. Again - the need to push the boundary of what is currently 'acceptable'.

Does this mean I am thinking of total censorship in favour of having us all dumbed down and sheep like following a conservative's moralistic judgements? Nope! Not at all... but the word 'responsibility' needs to be inserted somewhere.

'We' may be the market, as Raps said, but it's a market borne of handing one's life over to others (tv, radio, film, etc), instead of getting out and living it yourself. Western culture tries to make other people responsible for how they live their lives (see the popularity of things like Big Brother..<sigh> and other 'reality' tv shows). Windows might be crap as an OS in comparison to the others out there, but it's still top of the market...

Slyt (yearning for the goode 'ole days )