The great indecency hoax: We are not a nation of prudes

The great indecency hoax: We are not a nation of prudes

: In his upcoming Sunday column, Frank Rich makes the argument I’ve been making for months and I’m damned glad to have company with influence: He says that Americans are not, in fact, storming the FCC demanding a crackdown on indecency; that’s all just a hoax perpetrated by a few well-organized religous nutjobs and a few political cynics at the FCC. Rich is also generous enough to point to my little FCC scoop.

Ever since 22 percent of the country’s voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about “moral values,” opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.

The mainstream press, itself in love with the “moral values” story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties.

But Rich puts forth lots of facts and ratings showing that, in fact, we love Desperate Housewives in blue states and red; we are not prudes; we are being misrepresented by the prim ayatollahs and exploitive bureaucrats and lazy reporters and pundits. He ends here:

Those who cherish the First Amendment can only hope that the Traditional Values Coalition, OneMillionMoms.com, OneMillionDads .com and all the rest send every e-mail they can to the F.C.C. demanding punitive action against the stations that broadcast “Desperate Housewives.” A “moral values” crusade that stands between a TV show this popular and its audience will quickly learn the limits of its power in a country where entertainment is god.

I don’t always agree with Rich but you know that I love this column. I’m delighted that Frank Rich in The New York Times and Tom Shales in the Washington Post and Jonathan Alter in Newsweek are using their powerful platforms to question, not to just spread, the too-quickly swallowed conventional wisdom that we are a ntion of prudes. We are not. So here’s hoping that Rich is right and whether it is putting the chill on Saving Private Ryan and driving Howard Stern to satellite or gasping over a harmless if dumb network promotion or whatever comes next, the nannies will go too far and we will finally stand up as one and tell them to put a sock in it.

47 responses to “The great indecency hoax: We are not a nation of prudes”

  1. David Avatar

    What on earth is going on in this country? This is not a good indicator of things to come.

  2. Brett Avatar

    Hey Jeff
    Might want to check the second quoted insert – looks like a repeat of the first.

  3. carsonfire Avatar

    OK, it’s a hoax, now. The rest of the country doesn’t even exist!
    Frank Rich is actually just as dishonest as the advocacy groups he criticizes; if it’s wrong for them to use the general “moral values” numbers from the election to prove that they are right, Rich is in equally wobbly territory in citing the same numbers as evidence of “hoax”.
    I’m really similarly unimpressed with the “three letters” revelation. If the FCC were to run a poll, they most likely would still find a substantial number of people who approve of their actions. They know this; that’s why the number of letters is irrelevant. We all know that the left is far better at ginning up protests and letters: so what?
    You can’t pretend that your opposition simply doesn’t even exist. You might have noticed that some of us even comment on your blog!
    But you are right in saying that we’re not a nation of prudes. But that’s only because you’re confusing the FCC issue with prudery; demanding that family programming be held to certain standards is not prudery in the first place, and it’s exasperating to see an otherwise intelligent individual assume that people who disagree with you are one-dimensional.

  4. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Brett: Arrrggghh. Thanks. It was late… Fixed now…

  5. Dr. Fager Avatar

    Being of the same opinion as Frank Rich would give me pause. He represents the NYTimes at its worst.

  6. Laura Creekmore Avatar
    Laura Creekmore

    Great work, Jeff.
    Desperate Housewives is the best thing on network TV. It’s as close as you can get to HBO without paying an arm & leg. Of course, I wouldn’t let my daughter watch it. It’s not appropriate for her or anyone else under a certain age. I’m sure there are also many adults who prefer other shows.
    BUT all of my friends and I love this show. We all happen to go to church every Sunday and are the bedrock of our PTOs. We get that this show is satire. There are lots of folks out there like us, and from many other backgrounds as well. We all like to laugh.
    Bless our differences.

  7. Kat Avatar

    Well, if we are prudes then maybe the other side are perverts. When Viacom has a station thet hires two people two fornicate on a church’s altar, and then feels the need to broadcast such an event live, it makes you wonder just how demented some people are, and I thank God we had the FCC. Just how far would we be willing to allow these idiots to go in the name of free speech? Fornicating on an altar isn’t free speech–it’s mentally challenged people in charge of broadcasting and whining when they get fined.

  8. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    I’m here to ask the question that never gets answered by any of the people busy patting each other (or themselves) on the back about staunching the overwhelming tide of prudes and religous nutjobs:
    Is there any bright line anywhere on what can be broadcast? Something, anything, that simpletons like me can use to make semi-rational decisions.
    Since the media megaphones will never answer that question, prudes and religous nutjobs get in a huff and turn to fringy groups so their voice can easily be heard about satirical sluts dry-humping real football players in prime time. This isn’t about Desperate Housewives, it’s about freaking football. Can you geniuses ever, ever, ever connect the TWO DOTS? Here you go, for future reference — A (Janet’s tit) goes to B (Sheridan’s strip tease.) Got it? Keep the coarse, untalented, unfunny, boring BS out of the games we like to watch.
    And if you can find the time after toasting each other for figuring out the looming threat to teevee, how about working on something for broadcast that will tell me, the simpleton, that we simpletons’re gonna have to deal with hysterically satirical trashy adult content? I can pretty much guess with a title like Desperate Housewives…that at least telegraphs it’s mediocrity.

  9. Eileen Avatar

    Using terms like ‘opportunistic ayatollahs on the right” and “religious nutjobs” in an effort to diminish and demean the opponent [alone] speaks volumes to me.
    These ‘catchy’ phrases speak for themselves. Cries of “it’s unconstitutional!” and “it violates the 1st amendment!”…. continue the marketing strategy, which is:
    1. Make your opponent out to be a terrorist nutjob so he’ll (purportedly) have no credibility.
    2. Then tell us if you don’t watch out those nutjobs will steal your constitutional rights.
    3. Never ever provide a cogent argument as to how the 1st has in fact been violated by the FCC – just repeat it over and over again until the opponent (hopefully) believes it.
    4. Be a true crusader for media bliss; i.e., zero control by Anyone over Anything you air, Ever.
    5. Tell us stupid, moralistic nutjobs the NYT really Should be our true Bible because – after all – it’s writers are so weighty and ‘influential’.
    6. Take comfort in those who utilize the same marketing strategy as you do; reinforce it by repeating each other’s names.
    Looks pretty well organized to me.

  10. Brett Avatar

    Hey Jeff
    Glad that you fixed the duplication :)
    There’s one aspect that I haven’t seen you tackle yet in your current “free speech/free airwaves” thread, and frankly, it’s a huge one.
    Kids.
    I personally don’t care what gets on the airwaves or is published. Go for it! Nipples, bare backs, the f-word – it doesn’t offend me personally.
    But on any channel – public or not – when the content provider plans to show a main event that my kids can watch (such as football), it’s ridiculous to expect that any of the sideshow content (commercials, promos, etc) should go beyond the maturity level of the main event.
    In my opinion, you’re going to net a lot more of us in this crusade of yours IF you demand that sideshow content be on par with main event content. I don’t want PG-13 material commercials for a G-rated event – not because I’m a prude, but because I have kids who watch the G-rated content with me.
    Just as it is absurd for me to try and filter your content, it is absurd for you to open the spigots on mine where my children are involved.
    You keep calling us prudes , but you’re ignoring us parents .
    Frank Rich misses the target when he suggests that entertainment is god. Perhaps in some families, but not in mine. And not in most families I know. We still try to keep some rein on the growth and maturity of our kids. I’m the dad – I get to choose the entertainment.
    For most of us, Jeff, you’ll find that we’re laissez-faire until you foist inappropriate content in front of our kids. Then we’re pretty pissed off and lippy – and numerous. More so than you.
    And just to be clear – I don’t want “Desperate Housewives” or Stern off the air. I know what to expect with them.
    I want the maturity level for the main event and the sideshows to be loud and clear to us parents. I don’t want a PG-13 ambush when my 7-year-old watches TV with me. If that’s a tall order for you, then we’ll agree to disagree and calling me “prude” won’t make me go away.

  11. Kevin Avatar

    If Kat’s referring to the Opie and Anthony St. Pat’s incident of a few years ago, it still amazes me how many people were misinformed as to what happened due to the skewing of the media. There was no “fornicating on a church altar” and no one was “hired” to do as such. But to the people who swallow the media hype hook, line, and sinker, you’d think that O&A had ordered two people to go out and have sex right on the altar in front of an entire congregration, while guzzling on the church wine at the same time and peeking under a nun’s habit.
    O&A and Viacom were justified in “whining” when they got fined – there was absolutely NOTHING BROADCAST that was indecent.
    On topic? This here is a prime example of the mainstream press fooling the public once again and changing the story to fit some twisted “moral values” agenda.

  12. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    No one was hired, but it was a contest, with a reward, for pre-selected teams who scored points by having public sex. The team did have sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, in a church vestibule, and it was broadcast live, with color commentary by a yuck-monkey employee. (The Smoking Gun)
    Where’s the media hype? The bit about the altar? That’s being a bit nit-picky, but that one can slide, since I don’t have any visuals of the actual vestibule in question.
    Who’s fooling who, again?

  13. Robert S. Avatar

    *Thanks* Jeff to you and folks like Rich, Alter, and Shales for your recent righteous rants against all this prudery!

  14. anne Avatar

    I totally agree with Brett. It’s really an issue of knowing what to expect and when. I, too, have no problem with any of the network or cable shows. I have control over what my kids watch — when I know what’s on.
    But, it’s also true, that so much of what’s on is so inappropriate for children that we very rarely watch anything on network TV. The writers on so many shows seem so desperate to be hip — or so desperate because they’re mediocre — that almost every show falls back on sexual comments to get a cheap laugh — something that would be so unnecessary if the writers had any semblance of talent.
    I also wonder, Jeff, where you draw the line on broadcast TV. It seems from your comments that you have no line at all. Live sex shows on network TV seems like it would be a-ok for you. Free speech rules all and screw everyone else who would prefer some standards of conduct.

  15. Eileen Avatar

    Just saw you on ABC Nightly News, Jeff. A heartfelt congratulations, for that is indeed weighty company and exposure IMHO.
    I could quote the Commissioner – who repeated my own refrain (non-expert as you judge me to be), and over which you and I have tangled recently – but I won’t. :)
    Regardless of our differences, I simply hope you enjoy your moment. Kudos.

  16. tb Avatar

    Jeff thanks, found you after reading Rich in NYT. Good Work! I agree with above posts, Desperate Housewives is as good of TV as there is today, at least on regular network. I think Boston Legal that follows it is also outstanding but certainly gets less attention. My rant on the current prude fad… I find it a bit surreal, I get tired of the my ‘beautiful child might see that stuff’ angle. I saw the Janet Jackson breast and the Ann Sheridan ad and enjoyed both, it just wasn’t that big a deal. I am simply not going to be concerned for anyones beautiful child because of that. If the old days were so damn good and straight then why did they have so many child molester priests. I am not convinced putting curtains on statues is healthy, or hiding the sexes. And you know what, I think the majority of people out there agree with me.
    Anyway thats my rant, thanks Jeff. You’re bookmarked, keep up the good work.

  17. eduardo Avatar

    How do you know we are not a nation of what you refer to as “prudes”? Has there ever been an honest national conversation about it? I don’t think so. Has not the nation generally followed the Hollywood score of push the envelope.
    A lot of people find Howard Stern indecent and have done so for years. And if he can’t figure out all by himself the difference between Oprah’s educational and self help approach and his exploitative approach to various subjects, ain’t too much happening upstairs. Words are contextual beings, by nature. There’s a difference between sex ed and porn light also, even though both of them may be showing off a breast.
    But there just never seemed to be a point to speaking up before because it wasn’t efficacious. But neither was there a much of a point until lately in protesting extreme left wing bias in media outlets, or sloppy journalism, or Dan Rather. It never had much effect.
    An honest national converation might show the consensus to be other than what you are projecting it is based solely and repeatedly, it seems to me, on your own tastes magnified nation wide.

  18. paul p Avatar

    On thanksgiving evening, i was at my in-laws when a favorite show of my 14 year old brother-in-law came on at 7pm central time. Will and Grace. The very beginning of the show was Grace talking about a dream in which she was standing naked on a subway, had three breasts, and three different guys who star in different tv shows come up and hold her breasts. she asks “what does this dream mean?” she ends up by saying…”i just need to have sex!” then the next few minutes were centered around this…i didn’t listen much, but i know I heard “vagina” as well as “if you don’t use it, it will fall off” meaning a penis, if you don’t have sex.
    now as i grow older, 28 now, i guess i’m heading farther over to the prude side of the aisle. but this was way inappropriate for a 14 year old to be watching, hearing that you’ve got to have sex or else your penis will fall off.
    if it’s free speech to promote an agenda of sex outside of marriage, than can i promote an agenda of abstinence? is that free speech for me to say that? or i am stomping on your “free speech.”
    You are welcome to your opinion, and you are even welcome to say it, just don’t discount or relegate my opinion to the “few well-organized religous nutjobs.”
    thanks! a great blog! really!

  19. carsonfire Avatar

    I wanna echo Brett! (especially since I think I’ve been asking similar questions)… what about the families? What about the kids? If this was about something like school funding, we would never hear the end of “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!”, but now, when it’s convenient, children don’t exist. JJ and others calling out “prudes” keep walking past the question as if it’s not being asked.
    That having been said, kudos for JJ’s face time on TV (and shame I haven’t seen any of it yet)! I may disagree with him, but I’m glad he’s getting the opportunity to give his side, just the same.
    Like Paul P says, great blog! As always.

  20. Eileen Avatar

    Jeff, in advance of this post, know my heartfelt message to you remains. You’re probably Still Celebrating (as you should be :). However!, we also remain opponents on this issue. Back to the drawing board….
    Bravo to eduardo and paul p – both of you. I can hear your true hearts and the nitty gritty truth you speak. Thank you for your eloquence.
    Life just ISN’T what Hollywood attempts to impose
    upon us.
    I’ll go one ‘prudish’ step further. I see massive decay in MSM in the last few years in terms of not only news coverage, but also ‘reality tv’, an effort to ape cable/satellite to (Attempt to) prevent mass audience exodus vis a vis sex, violence and social depravity – a veritable shock and awe routine. Most particularly, I see heavily gay-influenced productions. Family values? Every click arrives at yet another gay sitcom.
    The tweaked powers that be account for most of what we’re seeing today on the networks. They push their surreal agenda upon us, shove their depravity in our faces, and then cry ‘free speech’ if we object.
    Let’s just call a spade a spade. Who is it, exactly, that is controlling, producing, writing, editing…ad nauseaum in LA and NY?
    It is definitely time for the FCC to follow its statutorily required mandate. High time.
    And now Jeff characterizes FCC enforcement as a ‘jihad against free speech’. Bring in the ‘ole terrorist lingo as your buddy Paul did. Another catchy phrase. (Please note my comment re marketing strategy above.) Perfect.

  21. Eileen Avatar

    Whoops…..make that buddy Frank.

  22. Alan Kellogg Avatar

    I have bad news for the “We have to protect our children from things that make us quesy” crowd. You’re too late. Any child with a smattering of computer smarts and access to the Internet can find tons of naked titties on-line. As for bad words, all over the place. They already know about it. They already see it and hear it. You lost, deal with it.
    It is our job to get kids ready for life as an adult. To teach them how to deal with things on an adult basis. You don’t teach that by trying to hide it. You teach it by acknowledging that such things go on, and that there is a right way and a wrong way to handle it.
    Yes, women have nipples. Your point? Getting an eyeful of mom’s hooters aint gonna turn junior gay, or make him lust after hamsters and kumquats.
    I’m a longtime D&D player. I have a D&D setting of sorts in the works. As part of the setting I decided, after long thought, to say that fairies, pixies, and other such small fae are not all that bright. The typical fairy having the smarts of a child of five. Now try visualizing a five year old with an adult sex drive.
    Not pretty is it? :)
    What you’ve got is a bunch of naked, winged, very human appearing critters fornicating all over the place. Right in front of folks. You could no more hide it from a child than you could a squashed bug on the windshield. In this fictional world of my creation children know all about sex. Including how to do it. They can’t help but learn.
    In the real world the Web takes the place of all them sex crazed pixies. Our children are learning about it, including how to do it. It is our task to teach them how to deal with it responsibly. And to be there when things go awry.
    As Bob Dylan once put it…

    Come mothers and fathers throughout the land,
    And don’t critisize what you can’t understand,
    Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,
    Your old role is rapidly fadin.
    Get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand,
    For the times they are a changin.

  23. Kat Avatar

    When we let Bob Dylan tell us how to raise kids, we are in trouble. Bob Dylan is an aging hippy who popped a few too many make me feel good pills, smoked too many reefers and never got over the cultural revolution of the 1960s and ’70s . He’s from the idiot brigade that thought doing drugs like LSD was recreational and having sex like rats was freedom. He glorifies self destructive behaviour–and when it occurs he blames parents for not being responsible. The purveyors of this social sewage want us to believe they are giving us what we want. And when we say No we are nutjobs, jihadists, ayatollahs, and terrorists. We have a war on two fronts–muslim fanatics trying to impose islam on our kids and the media fanatics trying to impose their twisted culture norms. Howard Sternites et al, with strange ethics, suddenly are commanding us to learn their code of behavior–if we don’t–they will sling mud at us.Jihadists are the child molesting media–targetting our kids with their crap, and screaming free speech when we object. They are selling ‘attitude’ and I’m not buying. Osama is selling islam and I’m not buying that either.

  24. tb Avatar

    For some reason folks think they have the responsibility to squelch millions of years of evolution. I simply cannot disagree more with the wannabe prude set. Purported Fact: Divorce rates among chrsitian conservatives are higher than other groups including Atheists and Agnostics http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
    My point is not really anything to do with that though, we live, we breathe, we eat, we have sex, we die, everything else is made up. Or as a seed corn salesman once told me ‘You can buy $180 a bag seedcorn or you can buy a $50 dollar bag of seedcorn, doesn’t really matter’ Then he reached into the bag and pulled out a handful, ‘These seeds are like a teenage boy, they are going to reproduce’ Sex and the human body is a beautiful thing, you may as well learn to appreciate it because your children are going to be hiding from you while they figure it out. Nature WILL happen regardless of the media. Let me site one more example from the ‘good ole days’. I read a diary in the ‘Smithsonian’ of a traveler in the early centuries of this country. He stopped at a neighborhood inn and reported he could not sleep for people having sex on the floor around him. My point? Reproduction is going to happen and its going to happen to you, your children your grandparents and your guppies. The bigger question is why do we make it an evil? My simplistic theory? Religion is mans way of keeping their women in line, period. Trust me I have children and I lie awake at night hoping they are honorable decent and not thinking with their glands. You can teach them all you want in the end its nature and thats a crap shoot, at some point you must realize your children are not a reflection on the parent, they are responsible and equally as confused.

  25. kkl Avatar

    This strikes me as a blue state/red state issue. I recently moved to northern Louisiana from Madrid, Spain. Just as I understand that it is okay for the hookers to line the streets in the Casa de Campo topless to promote their business in Madrid, it is equally okay for the folks in Shreveport to condemn the Superbowl half-time show.
    And, don’t think these folks here don’t understand “what’s at stake;” they understand plenty. They just reject your argument. They’re allowed. They are also allowed their beliefs without the name-calling. That strikes me as incredibly disrespectful, and does nothing to further conversation, as you are so anxious to advocate on this blog.
    Get over it, please.

  26. nyythurman15 Avatar
    nyythurman15

    What troubles me is the whole “Freedom of speech … so long as I like what your saying” thing. Isn’t that what a lof of this comes down to? Most people in American simply do NOT believe in the Constitution. They want asterisks attached to the idea of freedom of speech until it becomes something it wasn’t intended to be. As for the kids, well that’s the favorite argument, isn’t it? So someone tell me, how was Jackson’s boob being exposed for a half-second, from a distance, damaging our youth? How is the “Housewives” MNF segment damaging our youth? This is why our country gets mired in crap. They worry about the piddly crap that doesn’t mean hooey in the long term and ignore stuff like war, mounting deficits and social security.

  27. paul p Avatar

    i am married. i have an amazing wife whom i’ve been married to for 5 years now. i plan and hope and strive to only have sex with her and only her till either one of us dies.
    if i choose to have an affair, it will throw a serious kink in our relationship. she will think i don’t love her, she will think she’s not attractive, beautiful or worthwhile, and may go off and have sex with someone else in order to prove to herself that she is none of those things, thereby throwing me into a fit because i now think she never loved me in the first place. a never ending cycle that just spirals downward.
    now, how many couples do you know, have survived something like that? not many.
    now what does this have to do with what we’re talking about? i believe that when you take sex outside of a monogamous marriage, that’s where the evil is. any talk about it, any glorification of it, anything that says that having sex with whomever you want, I believe, hurts the person who thereby begins to believe it.
    you show me someone who thinks they can pleasure themselves with pornography, i’ll show you someone who’s insecure and lonely. show me a man who has an affair, and I’ll show you a guy who is not man enough to work on an emotional relationship with his wife, and escapes to something that is easy to do. show me a woman who has been with 10 different men, and i’ll show you a woman who has a broken heart 100 times over, becuase she thought that her last man would be “the one” and falls into relationships quicker than ever.
    will i stop my kids or youth from having sex? no. will i show them how gratifying sex with one person you love and commit yourself to for your entire life is? absolutley! will i show them what happens to people when they take sex out of that context? yes, and you can be sure that they will understand that there are emotional consequences to that, that no amount of counseling, drugs, or alcohol can ever leave behind.
    so why is there people that don’t want to see a slippery slope of partial nudity and open talk about sex on television? is it because they’re not getting any and don’t want anyone else to? no, it’s because they understand that when this becomes the social norm, more and more people become emotionally devastated by a lie that says “sex with anyone, anytime will not hurt you, it will only make things better.”
    believe it or not, i don’t want to have this stuff on tv, because I care about you! now you are going to say, “who are you to say what’s best for me?” i don’t know, i guess i’m just a guy who has never seen anyone get cuaght up in porn or multiple relationships, actually be happy, who doesn’t have insecurity issues, etc.
    and by the way, i never post comments on blogs, and am not sure why i threw myself into the fray. great discussion!

  28. Eileen Avatar

    Apparently my comment got killed because unknowingly I used one of the dirty seven words. I see your point and I’m sure you saw mine. Apologies, but note I previously asked here what they were and got no reply. I don’t mind being bleeped/edited, and don’t feel any 1st amendment chill. I also don’t like being called names, either.

  29. tb Avatar

    I wonder, this may be getting off track but isn’t saying open talk about sex on TV may lead to ‘thinking sex with anyone anytime is ok’ is a bit like saying I don’t want to take my child into the department store because that may lead to shoplifting? I don’t know, there are lots of things on TV I disagree with. I have to say that Janet Jacksons breast and the Sheridan ad are not nearly as repulsive to me as the Spike TV ad that interrupts my Bond watching with Snoop Dawg commercials ‘doing it doggie style’.
    Still I believe taken in context you cannot find a period in history when humans were free of hangups about sex and problems with their children and sex. We look at TV now as the great deteriorator, but really sexual activity simply cannot be associated with TV viewing. Every generation thinks they invented sex, they did in the sixties, they think they do now. And you know the troubling thing is every generation is right. By its nature sex is not something that will mature. I recall as a youngster my father talking to a salesman about the local high school, they were talking about young girls getting pregnant, and I recall them saying they may as well close the high school and turn it into a maternity ward. This would have been around 1959 or so, dead in the Ozzie and Harriet days. My feeling is we have healthier notions about sex in childrens education today than we did then.

  30. Eileen Avatar

    Since 1934, Congress has required the FCC to enforce the law as to what can and Cannot be broadcast into our homes (among many other mandates of the agency). There are three defined categories of regulated speech/conduct: obscenity, profanity and indecency. Each of them are defined by case law, statutes and administrative law.
    In my bleeped message, I held up a mirror to the media moguls who think it’s just fine to call their opponents nutjobs and Ayatollahs, while at the same time it’s apparently NOT ok to hear Hollywood moguls characterized for their own, known motivations and views. Is being called a terrorist better than being called a ___? I really don’t think so. So why did I apologize for my words?
    Because it’s Jeff’s house, and he’s entitled to set his own standards for words he chooses to Use, and those he chooses to ban. I respect that.
    [Just wish I knew the other dirty 5 so I don’t get killed again.]
    Similarly, the U.S. government, its courts and administrative agencies are administering existing standards and law for OUR houses. The FCC is doing its job. And while MSM may not agree with the standards or definitions, I have yet to see the recent FCC fines result in any kind of successful judicial challenge. Actually, none of them have even Appealed any ruling that I’m aware of. Wonder why. Their lawyers will tell you.
    So all this talk about about the FCC’s ‘Jihad against free speech’ is……choose your own, non-dirty 7 word.

  31. Kat Avatar

    tb, if we have healthier notions now, then why did a study show that in the 70’s only 5% of 15 year olds were engaging in sex. In 1997 it was close to 40% and today it is hitting on 50%. Last year there were some 3 million new cases of STD’s. STDs affect two thirds of college students. Many of these diseases cause long-term effects, from infertility to cancer to AIDS.
    Media is promoting a life style that excuses and glorifies self-destructive behavior.
    This culture is truly a destructive machine…
    destroying kids with ‘freedom’.
    I agree with Paul.Media treats sexuality as something insignificant and therefore cheap. This attitude is something kids have been sold with devastating results. We call it freedom. For many it’s a life sentence.

  32. tb Avatar

    Kat – I think I understand your concerns. I was trying to just state my personal impressions, nothing real big just observations. I have a bit of trouble with what you site as historical evidence though. I find that Kinsey reported that in the 1940’s 10% of 17 year olds reported having premarital sex. In the 1970’s 1/3 of 13 – 15 year olds and 50% of 17 year olds reported having premarital sex. Those statistics more closely mirror my experience and even at that are on the low side I feel. Of course you must take into account that the same statistics reveal that almost 100% of men in similar ages report having pre-marital sex.
    Now also these studies find that Women who are better educated have more premarital sex, more sexual partners, masturbate more, and find oral sex more acceptable. I heard a report the other day on NPR that 1/3 of women worlwide will be at some point forced into having sex against their will.
    Not really sure what to make of all that either. But I have trouble blaming it on TV. I generally have a hard time with the regressive, fairy tales of the prude set, the genie is not going back in the bottle. I agree there are dangers everywhere, but things are simply not worse than they have ever been and if the good ole days were so wonderful how do you explain change.

  33. Kat Avatar

    While I respect your opinion, I have zero respect for your source, Kinsey. “Kinsey conducted human experiments in a soundproof laboratory built to his specifications at Indiana University, and the sexual abuse of at least 317 infants and young boys was scientific protocol for Kinsey

  34. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    Eileen, may I suggest giving it up? You’re never going to get satisfaction from the Jarvises of the world. There will be no bright lines, no “this far and no further”, nothing of the sort. It’s not in their financial or political interest to put a stake in the ground. If they deign to address you, that will drag them into a battle of ideas that they are incented to ignore.
    Look at it from their POV: there are three more networks that can profit from a Desperate Housewives clones, and there are hundreds of journos that will write about it, and there are thousands of fish-wraps that will publish it, and there are millions of viewers and readers who care not a whit about what’s pushed to your kids at any time of the day. After all, it’s your responsibility as a parent, not society’s, to hover over the kids 24 hours a day to ensure they receive the proper message. So, just plan on spending, oh, let’s say 16 years with your thumb resting lightly on the OFF button during Monday Night Football, the World Series, the Stanley Cup, and the NBA Finals.
    Or, just play some Bob Dylan for them, and tell ’em to tough it out.

  35. Eileen Avatar

    Sadly and unfortunately you’re right, Scott. The anything goes approach really does enhance those bottom lines. Fortunately, Congress is finally pressuring the FCC to act. And fortunately, there are many more millions who will Refuse to be forced to sit that way for 16 years.
    The more MSM tries to shove its ‘Hollywood lifestyle’ upon us, the more they abuse their monopolistic privileges, and the more the talking heads try to indoctrinate using their own brand of abusive profanity, the more they will find themselves being fined, in early retirement, or simply being turned OFF. Then what will become of their bottom lines?
    For example:
    “ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Nov. 27) – Maryland’s governor says his order that state officials stop speaking with two reporters for The (Baltimore) Sun was “meant to have a chilling effect” on two writers he believes “have no credibility.”
    The ban was intended to set a benchmark for the minimum level of accuracy expected of newspaper coverage of his administration, Gov. Robert Ehrlich said in an interview on WBAL radio.
    “At what point does a monopoly newspaper abuse its privilege, its First Amendment privilege, in making things up, making quotes up, making context up?” the first-term Republican governor said Friday. “I just said this is our minimum benchmark.” http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041127164309990006

  36. nyythurman15 Avatar
    nyythurman15

    Eileen,
    You should look a little further into what the Maryland governor is complaining about and you may see that he’s really just abusing his power because he doesn’t like what the media is covering. I would argue the governor in Maryland is the monopoly abusing his power, trying to take awaythe media’s right to cover him because he doesn’t like what they are saying.
    As for blaming mainstream media and TV for problems, don’t any of you think that’s a copout? Is it not more fair to say that TV and mainstream media represent the tastes of our culture? Blaming television is a way to find a simple answer to a question that has no simple answers. Other countries are exposed to more sex and violence than we are, yet have less overall crime and violent activities. Limiting the ability of the media to cover events of the day and limiting people’s ability to watch what they want on TV are not ways to solve problems. They start in the homes, they start in schools, they start in neighborhoods. The sooner we realize that, and understand that Nicolette Sheridan in a towel isn’t going to scar anyone for life, the better off we’ll be.
    I would much rather answer my son’s questions about Sheridan and the towel, then why we have soldiers dying in Iraq.

  37. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    I think that, if you read the comments left by myself and by Eileen, you’ll find that neither one of us is blaming anybody for anything. I can state categorically that I’m not. I’m simply asking for some basic starting points from the culture-heads that are shrieking about the loss of the First Amendment and calling other people nutjobs and terrorists while they do it.
    I ain’t getting any, and I don’t really expect any. It’s easier to call me a prude and an ayatollah and say “get with it, Gramps” than it is to engage in a discussion.

  38. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Cut it out, Scott. I’ve been out of town and been quite clear about that. I will respond in due course. So stop your conspiratorial gasping.

  39. tb Avatar

    Here’s something humorous on the subject from Meet the Press this morning, there were four religious leaders on the panel (cut and paste here from NYT):
    In the midst of the values talk, Tim Russert, the moderator of “Meet the Press,” quoted from a recent Newsweek article that states that Marc Cherry, the creator of the hit television series “Desperate Housewives,” is “a somewhat conservative, gay Republican.”
    Dr. Falwell said, “Well the fact that he’s a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic party.”
    I realize Falwell is a crackpot but I thought that was kind of funny. I watched most of the exchange. It occurs to me that Falwell at least and possibly the Right in general, though in control of all houses, executive branch and arguably the judicial branch is not really content. I am willing to guess that the fact that anyone that doesn’t agree with their interpretation of the world actually breathes is a problem.

  40. paul p Avatar

    one last comment…is tv a reflection of culture, or does it promote new culture?
    if it promotes new culture, then I would rather it change its stance on premarital sex. my opinion.
    if it reflects culture, not much on tv will change it, unless of course, it can promote new culture. which i think it can.

  41. bw Avatar

    NUTJOBS!!! ALL OF THEM
    yeah to you mr. jarvis!!! The REAL hoax though, is that when it comes to turning the channel (or the TV off for gods sake!), conservatives toss their Personal Responsibilty dogma out the window and beg for the government to step in!!!!
    And they wonder why most young people are liberal!

  42. Eileen Avatar

    Hey nyythurman15,
    All I know about the Maryland affair is what I read in that article. I thought it was a ‘novel’ approach and interesting news. In terms of monopolistic abuse, I was really thinking about Rathergate..
    Sometimes I think MSM/TV well represents our cultural norms, and other times I think network TV in particular is in outer space. (Probably when I like what I see and hear it appears reflective and the converse when I don’t :).) And hey, I seem to keep getting older… As for blaming it for society’s ills, I think it’s a piece of the pie. I’m not aware of media in any other culture more violent than our own. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, just that I’m not aware of it.
    I definitely agree with you that there Are no simple answers related to this entire topic! As my Dad once said, “The older you get the more gray – less black and white – everything becomes.” For example, although I’m not personally offended by the Sheridan affair, I can definitely understand why others would be as expressed by many parents who have spoken here. And I do see TV continuously pushing the envelope far enough to sometimes get itself fined pursuant to current law. But the laws, they too keep a changin…

  43. Scott Chaffin Avatar

    Jeff, I read your blog and I know you were out of town. I wasn’t calling you personally out (or I would have used your name), so stop your paranoid gasping. That’s a joke. Welcome back, BTW.
    But — this is not the first time the question has been asked here, and elsewhere. Respond at your leisure, but please do respond.

  44. Jeff Keezel Avatar

    Being terrified that your kid is going to see a woman’s brest is the height of prudery. Geez, grow up, be a parent, take control of the freaking television.
    You have no right to a particular type of television broadcast. You have no right to a particular type of football broadcast. If you don’t like the way the games are being broadcast, then don’t watch. You have all the control in the world.
    Bottom line is that viewership of pro-football is falling and the NFL is “desperate” to attract new viewers. If you don’t like the direction they’re going, then work up an audience for them…thekeez

  45. Ray_G Avatar

    It seems like everyone wants to censor something. I know people who are convinced that Bush, Ashcroft and the FCC are pushing Puritan values on us and need to be stopped. Yet these same people will complain if I light up a cigar in front of their children, because, “it sends the wrong message.” And what’s this business about not letting people in beer commercials actually drink the beer? Does anyone think that this really fools the kids? And what about TV ads for cigarettes and hard liquor? Isn’t this just as much a free speech issue as whether you can show naked people or use blue language? If it is OK to show Janet Jackson’s breast when kids are watching, why can’t I see the Marlboro Man enjoy some Jack Daniels with his smoke? The urge to censor, to “protect the children”, comes from all over the political spectrum. The only thing that changes is what particular thing someone wants to ban.