Videodroming: Do Movies and Shows like "24" Try to Sell Us on Torture?
Prof. Thomas Doherty from Brandeis University writes:
I'm gonna need a hacksaw and a waterproof bag,"
says Jack Bauer. No wonder: He has just concluded an interrogation by
shooting the suspect dead, and he needs the man's severed head to help
infiltrate a terrorist cell. The vignette -- from Season 2 of "24," Fox's
zeitgeist index to American attitudes toward torture and terrorism --
is a tad excessive even by the standards of the series, but not
unrepresentative of the lengths an anti-terrorist agent may go to for
actionable intelligence. Though out of fashion with the White House,
Congress and the mainstream media, torture in the name of national
security thrives on "24." The disconnect between public policy and
prime-time television makes one wonder which side has the better read
on the vox populi.
So the professor raises this question...but read on to see if he answers it satisfactorily....
Of course, hands-on torture is to "24" what high-end shopping was to "Sex and the City":
the money shots that inject an adrenaline rush of vicarious
participation. Currently counting down the final hours of its seventh
season -- almost a week's worth of 24-hour cycles -- "24" has seen its
60-minute man go rogue and get medieval on a crowded sleepers cell's
worth of recalcitrant eyewitnesses and close-mouthed terrorists. "I can
make you die with even more pain than you've ever imagined," rasps
Jack, before his interlocutors turn loquacious.In part, torture on "24" serves a familiar dramatic purpose. Violence to the human body, observed director Fritz Lang,
is the only thing that people in a secular world are truly afraid of, a
sure-fire way of inspiring pity and terror in the jaded viewer. Lang's
brutal 1953 film noir "The Big Heat" illustrated the point when Lee
Marvin tossed a pot of boiling coffee into Gloria Grahame's face.Once the censorship wraps came off American cinema, Hollywood relished
turning the screw. A scene from the 1976 film "Marathon Man" is
emblematic: Dustin Hoffman
sits strapped in a dentist chair while a former Nazi medical officer
administers a root canal. Tellingly, the torture victim's position on
screen -- immobilized in a chair, subject to an excruciating procedure
-- mirrors the motion picture spectator's own sadomasochistic position
in a theater seat. These days, Hollywood's theater of cruelty is staged
most lavishly in the teen-targeted horror films dubbed "torture porn."
Launched in 2004 and currently on its fourth Roman numeral, the "Saw"
franchise lives up to its homonymic title: the past tense of the verb
for seeing and the noun for its trademark implement of pain.But while the
spectacle of torture on "24" is mounted for maximum visceral intensity,
its main purpose is to make the viewer squirm in moral discomfort, not
wince in sympathy. Again and again, the show's "real time" digital
countdown demands an answer to the classic ticking time bomb question:
Would torture be permissible if a nuclear device or pathogen-packed
canister were primed to go off, a hypothetical that is a diurnal
occurrence on "24."
Two questions to raise here. What
exactly does he mean by "to make the viewer squirm in moral discomfort,
not wince in sympathy?" Does he mean that the show is trying to make
the viewer feel uncomfortable in recognizing the need for torture,
against what his or her morality would otherwise tell them? Also, is he
citing an exceptional, even fantastical scenario -- to implicitly argue
for a general rule. Isn't conjuring this sort of image rather extreme,
even bordering on the hysterical. Here is something from an article in the New Observer...
WASHINGTON -- For those who watch "24," the situation is familiar: Find
the bad guys and get the information. Torture them if you have to. If
not, millions could die within seconds. But is any of it for real?
"Quite frankly, that scenario, as far as I can tell, has never happened
in human history," said James Jay Carafano, a terrorism expert with the
conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's great fiction, it's good drama,
but that's not the moral dilemma [agents] normally face." But back to
Prof. Doherty's Op-Ed...
One thing about "24," there's no legalistic hair splitting
over the difference between "enhanced interrogation techniques" and
torture. Unlike virtually every other prime time television show, "24"
projects a dark, Hobbesian vision. In a nasty and brutish world, nasty
brutes like Jack do the work the rest of us would sooner put out of
mind. Over on the various editions of NBC's "Law and Order," as the name might indicate, the U.S.
Constitution protects the civil rights of serial killers, foreign or
domestic. Not on "24," where the operative principle follows a line
attributed to George Orwell: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at
night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf."Yes, but on these shows, the prosecutors and law enforcement
officers often bemoan how these constitutional practices provide safe
haven for the guilty, and interfere with some other paradigm of
justice. Returning to Doherty...For the moment, the political climate in Washington has turned against the "24" ethos. President Barack Obama has condemned the interrogation methods of his predecessor and ordered the CIA
to abide by the "Army Field Manual," a booklet that proscribes not only
torture but harsh language and menacing looks. [Wow, what an in-depth
analysis, Prof. I guess that about covers it.] In search of either
prosecution or catharsis, congressional Democrats
are contemplating investigative hearings and truth commissions. Perhaps
sensing the blowback, the current season of "24" opened with Jack
hauled before a congressional committee to answer for his actions.
Chaired by a bleeding heart senator who bore more than a passing
resemblance to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy(D-Vt.), the inquiry reeks of a McCarthyite witch hunt.
So here Doherty faciley labels Patrick Leahy, or any Democrat siding
with the Geneva Convention, as a "bleeding heart." Then he cries "witch
hunt." Can he use cliche's that are any more obvious?
If the hearings do happen, the spectacle will make for
great television -- probably better television than "24" has been since
Season 5. But if the nation's real life anti-terrorist agents find
themselves under the hot lights of a congressional interrogation, they
will have more fans in the gallery than on the panel. Still very much a
cultural bellwether, "24" indicates that when the threat is imminent
and the clock is ticking, most of us will file sheepishly out of the
interrogation room, turn off the video monitors, and let Jack do what
Jack does best.
So Doherty asked the question at
the beginning as to which side has the better read on the vox populi,
then he answers it for us...in a quite scientific manner...since "24"
is a "cultural bellwether." I like what one person posted on a comment
board about this article, "Speak for yourself Prof. Doherty!" All
things considered, I think it would be interesting to be a fly on the
wall in a conversation between Prof. Doherty, and another learned man
now in academia, John Yoo.
One
thing I notice is that Doherty subtly describes the torture by Jack
Bauer as being successful, which implies that is is likewise useful in
the real
world (note his phrases about "actionable intelligence" and "turning
interlocutors loquacious"). This he does rather artfully, despite
several reports that have claimed that torture doesn't
work, and often produces faulty intelligence.
One last point... a consultant to
"24" has been Chase Brandon, from the CIA's Public Affairs Division.
Brandon has been a consultant for other shows such as "Alias" and "The
Agency," also movies such as "The Sum of All Fears." Another thing, it
is a Fox show produced under Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
Article on Chase Brandon...
http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/interviews/article.html?in_article_id=180&in_page_id=11
- Max R.'s blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Thanks for an interesting
Thanks for an interesting read Max, and an even more interesting take on art imitating life...
Thanks Bill. Boy, this
Thanks Bill. Boy, this editor sure is a bear. It inserts all these line breaks. I tried disabling the rich-text, but then it would mess up in other ways.
I absolutely hate the rich
I absolutely hate the rich text feature, and if you post something with it turned on, there is no way in hell (that I can find) to correct or edit anything without screwing up other parts of the post.
I've gotten better results with turning off rich text before I post, and using standard HTML editing in plain text.
Good to know. I'll hard-key
Good to know. I'll hard-key it in HTML in the future. I've pretty much had it wrestling with it for now.
I also think it's
I also think it's interesting that Doherty characterizes the American
people as "sheepishly" filing out of the interrogation room. I think
again this is the sort of thing that needs to be countered. I liked
what Obama said about the "fear-mongering" of those fighting for not
closing Guantanamo. This is something I've written about before -- that
we need to fight back by calling those who want to throw aside human
rights in the name of greater security -- as being the fearful ones. We
need to tell them that Americans are not "sheepish" but can and should
be courageous -- not place ourselves under lock and key because Dick
Cheney and other chickenhawks tell us to be afraid, be very afraid.
The rationale that the USA
The rationale that the USA has not been attacked since 9/11 because we used torture on "illegal combatants" makes as much sense as the following paragraph:
The fact there have been no volcanic eruptions underneath my house for decades, is because I sacrifice a chicken to the Volcano Goddess each evening by slowly severing its head from its neck, while dancing naked around a fire.
"24" Succeeds !
Not only does "24" try to sell us on torture, it succeeds.
U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy
at West Point:
"He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right.
However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of
law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested,
was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that
although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=3
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/157437
"Lou Dobbs calls out Chuck Schumer for his waffling on whether Americans would accept
torture being used in the phony ticking time bomb scenario. He then asks his audience to
participate in an on line poll and asks whether they would "personally employ torture to save
American lives and prevent an attack on this country?" And surprise, surprise...the overwhelming
answer is...YES!"
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lou-dobbs-wants-know-if-his-viewers-would
But how is "24" so effective?
24 has been very effective at convincing many credulous people that "ticking time-bomb"
scenarios are common, and happen all the time.
But, even more importantly 24 has been brilliantly effective at framing the issue around the question
of "does it work", i.e. is torture effective at getting good information. That is, 24 has effectively
framed the issue for both conservatives and liberals.
For years now, torture opponents have made the argument that "torture doesn't work", i.e. that
torture victims will say whatever it takes to stop the torture, that is figuring out what the
torturer wants to hear (whether true or not), and then telling the torturer what he wants to hear.
It's great that people are making the argument that "torture doesn't work", but by *only* making
that one argument, it buys into the idea that "getting good information" is the only reason that a
government would choose to torture.
Unfortunately there are a number of reasons that an oppressive government or dictatorship would
choose torture:
- torture is an effective method to get false confessions, or to get prisoners to make
false accusations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trials
- Every dictatorship needs a cadre of sadistic thugs to help keep the dictator in power.
Torture is an effective way to keep the sadistic thugs happy and entertained.
- Every dictatorship needs to punish and frighten the opposition to keep itself in power.
Obviously torture is a very effective way to punish and frighten.
- public entertainment that feature torture and/or extremely painful public executions (drawn and
quartered, skinned alive, flogged to death). There is a real market for torture as entertainment,
as proved by the popularity of 24.
If, we as Americans want to be governed by a dictatorship, then we should embrace torture.
But if we want to keep our freedom and democracy, then we need to relinquish torture in no uncertain
terms.
But this involves something much deeper...
I am against torture as much as any other civilized person. But I am an ardent "24" fan. That's because I recognize "24" to be just what it is; a fictional TV show. I'm also against unnecessary violence. But I'm a true boxing and UFC fan. I'm totally against organized crime, but the "Godfather", and "Godfather II" are two of my favorite movies.
That's because I have the ability to separate real life from fiction.
Unfortunately, I'm finding that younger people are having a surprisingly difficult time separating fact from fiction. Older teens, and in fact, younger twenties, seem to interpret the world they see through TV, movies, and video games.
This really is somewhat distrubing, and goes to the heart of what numerous sociologists and counselors have been warning us about for years; the lack of socialization of young people due to the Internet, ever more realistic appearing video games, and TV.
We're now seeing a generation of police officers who grew up watching "Dirty Harry" and seeing the emergence of agents who are growing up watching "24".
Anyone have any suggestions?
Terry
It's the "Robin Hood"
It's the "Robin Hood" effect: a proposition that sometimes the ends DO justify the means. I don't believe that this is anything new, or is unique to "art imitates life" movies, but has been one of the basic storytelling plots since our earliest times.
The ability to separate what is morally right, from what is morally wrong, is the basis of civilization, and is deeply ingrained into many of our art forms. On the other hand, we are also fascinated by fictional violations of those same morals in the same way that people are fascinated by horrific accidents, natural catastrophe, and mass murder.
TV shows like "24," and movies like "The Godfather," portray opposite sides of the same coin: a good guy can sometimes be bad, and a bad guy can sometimes be good. The "artistic" premise is that there is no absolute moral black-and-white, and the viewer (reader) is left to their own conclusions about the protagonist's moral character.
As for the affect that movies (and other forms of art) have on our impressionable young, when I was growing up I could never decide whether I wanted to be a cowboy, or an Indian. At age 68, I still wrestle with this dilemma.
Jim, I agree
And also, a lot of us (I don't know about all of us) have two sides, the civilized, humanistic side, which I call our "conscious" self, and a darker, more sinister side.
Movies like "24", "Godfather", and "Pulp Fiction" and their general genre, give our sinister side a chance to escape. I have no studies to back this up, but I suspect that we actually vicariously become that tough or bad guy, and our more uncivilized side has a vicarious outlet with no harm done. That's why we enjoy those flicks. Just my armchair psychology.
I'm really betwixt and between on this issue. While I agree wholeheartedly that we should be aware of the influence these shows have on kids growing up and establishing their values, I have a real hard time blaming "24" for the torture done by our intelligence agents at Guantanamo and elsewhere, or blaming a show for the actions of those who gave the OK.
Terry
Terry, sociologists 30 years ago were pondering the changes...
taking place in our society, particularly among the young. What they were discussing then was the insulation between reality and fiction(tv/movies). Just a few years later, the early puters made their appearance. For the first time in our history, people were encapsulated in boxes all the time. Kids no played games of their own devices outside and also no longer socialized with board games in their homes. Life became a form of exile from all others.
By the 80s, this encapsulation process was complete. Almost everyone lived in homes where both parents worked. This produced a situation where we all lived in boxes, separately, traveled to work in boxes, worked in boxes, and then returned to our home boxes where meals had become something less than an interaction between family members. Everyone came and went as their schedules permitted. Conversation between people became a lost art. Personal tv sets and early computers kept the kids isolated from parents...they stayed in their rooms(boxes).
This situation became worse with the arrival of the early 'nets.' Q-Link was a precursor of things to come. People could communicate via a monitor, never reveal who they really were, and life floated quickly into a silent world of fantasy--particularly among the young.
Everything in life that was once valued insofar as socialization processes demanded was suddenly stacked in the hall closet along with the out of season sports equipment. Adults, for the most part, forgot how to talk to friends. Kids never learned how to talk to adults. Employers no longer knew how to make personal judgments about potential employees. Today, there are batteries of tests to determine how to hire/fire people. There is no real human contact left.
This is simplified of course. But the trend continues. It's direction has not changed, but it's velocity has.
Our frustrations and desires are bottled up with no normal means of discussing either with relatives(wives/husbands/children/employers)or with strangers. As a result, we watch some pretty grim movies(again, something we do at home rather than go out to a theater--another box)in order to see what could be considered 'normal' people who, when insulted by others, could calmly reach out and tear the bastard's heart out--right in front of us. Yeah, it is an escape mechanism and may ultimately be considered a safety valve to let off steam.
Many individuals are caught up in further boxes, those of alcohol or drug addiction with all the problems those cause for all of us. Some save themselves, some can only act out their depressions in harmful acts to themselves or others.
Others yet, join cultish religions either in fear or in anger. The results of this can be seen in 15 second soundbytes on daily tv or radio(also boxes).
I don't see a cure unless it is maybe running out of oil that runs the power that controls all the boxes we exist in and we can return to a semblance of personal interaction that is the basis for civilization.
Shame that some of us cannot spend some time in a coffeeshop discussing this stuff.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
desertwolf wrote: "Movies
desertwolf wrote:
"Movies like "24", "Godfather", and "Pulp Fiction" and their general genre, give
our sinister side a chance to escape. I have no studies to back this
up, but I suspect that we actually vicariously become that tough or bad guy,
and our more uncivilized side has a vicarious outlet with no harm done. That's
why we enjoy those flicks. Just my armchair psychology."
"I suspect that we actually vicariously become that tough or bad guy"
That's exactly right, and there are studies to back that up:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mirror-neuron-revolut
"our more uncivilized side has a vicarious outlet with no harm done"
That's the Catharsis theory, it has been extensivly studied and found wanting:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/09/health/letting-out-aggression-is-calle...
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/parenting/03/28/kids.tv.violence/ind...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206093014.htm
People should watch whatever they want watch, just be aware that:
- if you watch a lot of commercials or product placement, chances are
you'll want to have at least some of the goodies.
- if you watch a lot of shows where violence is portrayed as heroic and
beautiful, that eventually violence will start to feel heroic and beautiful
- if you watch a lot of revenge-fantasy films, that eventually you will
start to have more revenge fantasies.
Bill Harding wrote: "The
Bill Harding wrote:
"The ability to separate what is morally right, from what is morally wrong,
is the basis of civilization, and is deeply ingrained into many of our art forms."
That is very true.
"On the other hand, we are also fascinated by fictional violations of those same
morals in the same way that people are fascinated by horrific accidents, natural catastrophe, and mass murder."
Also true. But what you *choose* to put into your mind does have an effect. If you
choose to read "The Turner Diaries" then fine no problem, you'll get insight into
the mindset of the white supremist movement. On the other hand if you chose to read
thousands of white supremist novels it will have an effect, whether you want it to
or not. The white supremist movement understands the power of fiction, which is
why they promote white supremist novels and video games.
"TV shows like "24," and movies like "The Godfather," portray opposite sides of
the same coin: a good guy can sometimes be bad, and a bad guy can sometimes be
good. The "artistic" premise is that there is no absolute moral black-and-white,
and the viewer (reader) is left to their own conclusions about the protagonist's
moral character."
I have to disagree with you here. The writers almost always make it very clear
whether or not a particular character is good or bad. For example, the writers
of 24 make it extremely clear that Jack Bauer is a good person. They write him
as very, very likable, and only ever acting for the greater good.
Jack Bauer makes a great PR person for torturers everywhere.
Watching a movie, it is almost always very easy to see where
the director/writer/producer's sympathies lie. That doesn't mean the
director/writer/producer is dictating to the viewer, but it does mean that
the director/writer/producer is doing their best to manipulate the viewer.
"As for the affect that movies (and other forms of art) have on our impressionable
young, when I was growing up I could never decide whether I wanted to be a cowboy,
or an Indian. At age 68, I still wrestle with this dilemma."
Ha! Of course kids today now get to decide if they want to be a violent cop, a
violent criminal, a mobster, a torturer, etc...
Terry333 I understand your point...
and it is easy to see how young people can become disengaged from society at large.
However, we're not talking about children, or teenagers. We're talking about grown people. Adults. Those who are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy should not by any means have a position in the CIA, FBI, any police department, or any other agency, bureau, or business where where close, and sometime physical, interaction with other people is involved.
As I stated in my earlier post, I abhor the thought of torture as much as any other civilized person, but I am an avid "24" fan. In fact, outside of pro-football season, my TV is only on one night a week, Mondays. I watch "House" and "24" religiously.
"House" is a good example. Assume you entered a hospital, and the specialist (whom you had never seen before) came in, sporting a three day stubble, looking like he had slept in his clothes for a couple of days, chain popping Vicadin by the handfuls, and insulting you every time he spoke. If the nurse told you it was because he watched "House", are you going to buy it?
As adults, we stand responsible for our actions. We don't have the luxury of blaming our actions on a movie star, a pop singer, or a video game. Children have that luxury. As adults, we do not.
The people responsible for committing gratuitous torture need to account for thier actions. Scapegoating a TV show is not going to work.
I watch "24" and I wouldn't think of torturing someone. I watch and love the movies "Godfather" and "Godfather II". In fact, they are a part of my video library. I have no desire to be a gangster, and have no sympathy for those who do. I abhor murderers and the use of hard chemical narcotics, but "Pulp Fiction" is another one of my favorite movies, and is also a part of my library.
The idea that the actions of federal agents can be manipulated by a TV show, I find to borderline ludicrous. Anyone with that thin a grip on reality should not be in that position to begin with.
Rather than bemoan tv shows and movies, I think maybe we should be about the business of looking at the decayed family unit, as grinch pointed out earlier, and schools. These are the places people learn how to behave in a civilized society. Not from TV.
Terry
Terry (desertwolf), unlike
Terry (desertwolf), unlike the other Terry, I am neither a psychologist, nor a sociologist. I also do not give a lot of credence to various "studies" which show that an individual tends to become what he or she reads, watches on TV, or in the movies. Someone who already has racist leanings and tendencies, WILL read racist literature. Someone who is NOT a racist, if forced to read racist literature, will NOT become a racist, if it is not already in his or her nature.
There has been an on-going dispute about nature vs. cultural nurture between religionists/secularists, parents/children, conservatives/liberals, etc. for generations. According to the parents of the 1950s, rock and roll was the source of all evil. To the parents of the 1920s it was the flapper lifestyle. Today's parents blame violent games and rap music. Of course, philosophy, literature, plays, paintings, sculpture, music, and movies, have been culturally controversial since their individual introductions to civilization.
The repetitious value in TV commercials is NOT their message, rather their commercial value lies in name recognition. Watching Harry Potter movies does NOT cause "tweens" to believe in warlocks and witches, but holds them fascinated by the possibility of fantasy and magic -- just as it does adults.
I agree with you and Grinch that instead of attempting to blame someone, anyone, else for our failings as parents, teachers, and role-models, we should look closer to home.
Bill Harding wrote: "Terry
Bill Harding wrote:
"Terry (desertwolf), unlike the other Terry, I am neither a
psychologist, nor a sociologist. I also do not give a lot of
credence to various "studies" which show that an individual
tends to become what he or she reads, watches on TV, or in
the movies. Someone who already has racist leanings and
tendencies, WILL read racist literature. Someone who is NOT
a racist, if forced to read racist literature, will NOT
become a racist, if it is not already in his or her nature."
I am NOT arguing that "an individual tends to become what
he or she reads, watches on TV, or in the movies." Instead
I am arguing that people are *effected* by what he or she
reads, watches on TV, or in the movies.
Why do you think broadcast TV is a available for free?
Because producers sell audiences to advertisers for an
excellent profit. Now that people are tuning out commercials,
corporations are turning to Product Placement. If people were
not effected by what they watch (including fictional stories)
then product placement would not work.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp
"There has been an on-going dispute about nature vs. cultural
nurture between religionists/secularists, parents/children,
conservatives/liberals, etc. for generations. According to the
parents of the 1950s, rock and roll was the source of all evil.
To the parents of the 1920s it was the flapper lifestyle.
Today's parents blame violent games and rap music."
Liberals rightly condemn those who don't accept Science, namely
global warming deniers and creationists. We talk about how there
is debate among the public about global warming and evolution,
but that among scientists acceptance of global warming and evolution
is pretty much unanimous. The exact same thing goes for media effects.
Among scientists who study this, the idea that the media effects
people (children and adults) is very well accepted.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/5/1222
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm
http://www.apa.org/pi/vio&tv.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040326073459.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1612435.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051012082710.htm
Terry333, we must live in
Terry333, we must live in entirely different universes. I know of no one, myself included, who has become a sociopath (or has been influenced to sympathize with a sociopath) after being "brainwashed" by a series of novels, or plays, or movies, or listening to music. I DO, however, know of several people who have become sociopaths after becoming addicted to crystal meth (and other drugs) which they were introduced to, not by the media, but by their "friends."
I know of no one, myself included, who has felt compelled to run right out and buy a Lexus (or any other product) after seeing repetitious commercials on TV, or ads in the paper. Your emphasis on "product placement" as a "bad thing," makes no sense.
The five "Ps" of marketing are: Product, Price, Place, Promotion, and People. Advertising and product placement are only two of those ingredients. Without a fuctioning, viable, attractive, and affordable "product," none of the other factors of marketing will gain much traction. In the final analysis, a company's free-market stock price reflects the success, or failure (of which there are many) of a particular product to live up to its marketing hype.
I do not believe that there exists some vast conspiracy by Madison Avenue, Wall Street, and Hollywood to convert the youth of the United States into sociopaths, to convince the American people that criminal behavior (including torture) is "good," nor to force us to buy things which we neither need, nor want. Since the dawn of civilization, entrepreneurs have advertised their products with embellished claims, and storytellers have regaled their audiences with fictional tales which test, or go beyond, the limits of contemporary morality.
In spite of these "adversities," the human race continues to evolve, to learn, and to better itself just a little, with each generation. People, on the whole, tend to make rational decisions based on their own particular circumstances.
P.S. "Broadcast TV", just like radio, is free (to the public) because the airwaves are owned by the public. Do the various "news" organizations sometimes promote biased views? Of course they do, but like all other electronic forms of communication, they are switchable: from "on" to "off," or to another channel.
Terry333:
"Liberals rightly condemn those who don't accept Science, namely global warming deniers and creationists. We talk about how there is debate among the public about global warming and evolution, but that among scientists acceptance of global warming and evolution is pretty much unanimous. The exact same thing goes for media effects.
Among scientists who study this, the idea that the media effects people (children and adults) is very well accepted."
In discussing global warming, we're talking about natural elements that undergo chemical reactions when acted upon by physical forces such as temperature change, the over-abundant addition of reaction causing
elements or chemicals, and etc. We cannot change how one chemical or element reacts when introduced to another chemical, heat, cold, or any other catalyst.
Now, please bear in mind that no one is arguing the effects any form of entertainment may or may not have on the minds of children, or even adults. What Bill, grinch, and I are saying is that the TV show itself is not the problem. The problem lies with parents who don't spend time with their kids, teaching them right from wrong, and allowing the TV to be the parent instead.
"24", or any of the other movies I've mentioned in my posts, are not produced as "kiddie entertainment". They are based on adult level themes and aimed at adult audiences. Young kids have no business watching them, and the parents should act like parents and forbid their kids from seeing disturbing shows.
Now, as far as adults go; While it is true that we are made up of chemicals and elements, we are more than that. We are humans, which means we have the power of logic, thought process, understanding, etc.
We know right from wrong. We have a conscience, and the ability to develop morals, and either social or anti-social skills and concepts.
There have always been and always will be bad guys. The James gang had no TV to influence them. Neither did Quantrell's raiders. Or Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, nor anyone before the invention of TV. But yet these and other anti-social and very evil people did exist.
We have a brain. We are expected to use it. We have the power to understand right from wrong. We are expected to act accordingly.
We live in a civilized society. We are expected to respect the mores and limitations necessary to maintain a civilized society.
The right constantly paints those of us left of center as wanting to run away from responsibility. Bull!!! It is each persons responsibility to know right from wrong. Serial killers, child molesters, sadists, etc. do not develop over night. They know their feelings, urges, and thoughts are not acceptable and it is their responsibility to get what ever help they need in order to avoid becoming a danger to over people and themselves. In todays world, there are organizations, and counselors who are trained and available to help anyone with almost any kind of problem they may have. It is each individual's responsibility to seek out help if they need it. Failing to do so is their own fault, not a TV show's.
Studies tell us that endless viewing of killing and mayhem on tv hardens us to murder and violence. I'm going to assume that you've been watching TV most of your life like the rest of us. Are you hardened to murder and violence? When you read about a murder in your city or community, do you shrug your shoulders and are without opinion, or devoid of sympathy for the victims or their families?
As far as the torture of prisoners during war, that activity goes all the way back as far into antiquity as you want to go. Romans took prisoners to colloseums and tortured them for entertainment for the masses. I personally think that for a populace who is being brainwashed by tv, that we've come a hell of a long way since then. Granted that we may still have a long way to go, but let's concentrate more on personal responsibility than on blaming tv shows that can always be turned off.
Terry
P.S. I realize this is a rather long and rambling post. Sorry about that.
desertwolf wrote: ""24", or
desertwolf wrote:
""24", or any of the other movies I've mentioned in my posts, are not produced
as "kiddie entertainment". They are based on adult level themes and aimed at
adult audiences. Young kids have no business watching them, and the parents
should act like parents and forbid their kids from seeing disturbing shows."
Well, we certainly agree there. Unfortunately too many parents have a
laissez-faire attitude towards TV and their kids.
"... nor anyone before the invention of TV. But yet these and other anti-social
and very evil people did exist."
Really, I'm not arguing that violent TV is the source of all evil. But I am
arguing (and the science supports this position) that violent TV does
increase aggression. Someone who is mellow and non-aggressive, after watching
a lot of violent TV, will be less mellow and less non-aggressive. While someone
who is already very aggressive, will become even more aggressive after watching
a lot of violent TV.
"Studies tell us that endless viewing of killing and mayhem on tv hardens us to
murder and violence. I'm going to assume that you've been watching TV most of
your life like the rest of us. Are you hardened to murder and violence? When you
read about a murder in your city or community, do you shrug your shoulders and
are without opinion, or devoid of sympathy for the victims or their families?"
The concept of Desensitization is is well accepted and not controversial. For
example, medical students when they take an anatomy class that involves cadaver
dissection, at first find the experience very disturbing. But, after a number
of dissections, it just doesn't bother them anymore. Am I sympathetic when reading
about yet another murder or death, of course. But it would be more emotionally upsetting if I didn't read about violent crime all the time, and if I
hadn't grown up watching lots of TV (including violent TV). Before TV, people in
the United States rarely ever saw anyone being murdered. Now, on average,
kids see 40,000 murders by the time they are 18. That's going to have an effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)
http://www.apa.org/monitor/may03/childhood.html
"As far as the torture of prisoners during war, that activity goes all the way
back as far into antiquity as you want to go. Romans took prisoners to colloseums
and tortured them for entertainment for the masses. I personally think that for
a populace who is being brainwashed by tv, that we've come a hell of a long way
since then."
The printing press is often described as the greatest invention ever. The
printing press lead to cheap books, literacy, and then to the Enlightenment.
By the 1600's torture was (for the first time ever) starting to be seen as
barbaric. The United States was founded on Enlightenment priciples, including
no torture. It is only now, when violent visual entertainment has replace reading
that torture is making a comeback.
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/press.html
"Granted that we may still have a long way to go, but let's concentrate more
on personal responsibility than on blaming tv shows that can always be
turned off."
I think violdent TV is a lot like cigarettes. People should be free to smoke as
much as they want, but they should also be informed of the health risks, so
that they can make an informed decision.
Hi desertwolf, beautifully
Hi desertwolf, beautifully put.
The only part I would disagree with is the idea that people don't "have the ability
to separate real life from fiction". Unless someone if very young or psychotic,
they will understand that the show is fictional.
But, unless the show is complete Science-Fiction/Fantasy, the fictional story
is embedded into a dramatic rendering of our real world. so, people will:
- watch CSI to learn about forensic science.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm
- watch medical shows to learn about medicine
http://www.allbusiness.com/medicine-health/medical-treatments-procedures...
http://www.nursingadvocacy.org/faq/media_affects_thinking.html
- watch military shows to learn about war
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174908
Unless someone has a fair amount of real knowledge on a particular area (say
hospital medicine or forensic science) it really is hard to know
*exactly* what is truthful, what is exaggerated and what is completely fantastical.
Plenty of people will tell themselves that, using their amazing powers of common
sense, they can never be tricked or seduced into believing something untrue,
but that's just self-delusion. And, of course, self-delusion is as common as water.
Terry333; apparently we posted at about the same time.
And I just read your last post after I posted my last post, if that makes sense.
"Unless someone has a fair amount of real knowledge on a particular area (say
hospital medicine or forensic science) it really is hard to know
*exactly* what is truthful, what is exaggerated and what is completely fantastical."
Alright, I'll grant you that. But picking up incorrect medical info, or thinking that machines can do something they just can't do, at least yet, is a far cry from assuming that it's alright to torture someone because they see it on tv.
I'm still not convinced that "24" can be blamed for Guantanamo, or any other prisoner questioning environment. And if the OK was given by Cheney, Bush, or any member of Congress of either Party, then the idea that their logic was clouded by a tv show seems even more dubious.
Terry
desertwolf wrote: "I'm still
desertwolf wrote:
"I'm still not convinced that "24" can be blamed for Guantanamo,
or any other prisoner questioning environment. And if the OK was
given by Cheney, Bush, or any member of Congress of either Party,
then the idea that their logic was clouded by a tv show
seems even more dubious."
I'm not arguing that 24 is to blame for the Bush government policy
of torturing prisoners. What I am arguing is that 24 (and now other
shows too) have been very helpful in selling the Bush government
policy of torturing prisoners to the public.
According to a new poll:
"Americans are quite clearly against prosecuting the people who
actually conducted the interrogations as authorized by top
government officials, with 62 percent opposed to such prosecutions
and only 30 percent favoring them, with 8 percent undecided."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/67621.html
Thanks to the Disneyfication of torture by 24, too many people
believe that not all torturers are evil creeps, but that some only
torture for the highest moral reasons ("ticking time-bomb").
* * * *
What I find very frustrating is that so many Liberals are ready
and willing to argue against FISA and indefinite detentions because
they can be abused by the government. That it is too dangerous to
give that kind of power over us to the government, because
it can be abused. But that same kind of argument is rarely used
against torture.
Right now the only arguments being used against torture is that
it is: illegal, immoral, and doesn't work. Unfortunately the
"doesn't work" argument buys into the idea that the government
is torturing to "get good information". Unlike in 24, this is
rarely the case.
Hey you Liberals out there, how about also focusing on the real
reasons for torture:
- getting false confessions
- making false accusations
- fear and intimidation of government opponents
- fun and exitement to reward thugs who support the
government
After all, those countries that torture, where prisoners
were sent through extraordinary-rendition, they don't
torture to protect their citizenry, no, they torture to
keep themselves in power and crush their opposition.
This is quite a fascinating exchange of ideas...
thank you Terry, Lili, and Bill. Too bad that Jim was not available to add his 2 cents worth.
With our Puritan background, we tend to live within very controlled boundries. Our culture forces us to accept a very skewed set of allowable things we can do. Everything else is forbidden. Humans do not do well under these constraints.
Compare with Japanese society where almost nothing is forbidden. I may go further into that later.
Too many of our children and adults are functional illiterates. These tend not to be able to separate fact from fiction. They tend to believe anyone ranting at them from a soapbox. That this is an old trait can be easily spotted by reading Mark Twain's War Prayer--Mark tried to change the public mindset about war--and failed.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
I have a family picnic to attend
so I'm going to sign off for now.
In going back over our posts, I think at this point we're simply rehashing what we've already hashed.
Sorry Terry333, but I'm afraid you havn't succeeded in changing anyone's viewpoint. And I'm equally certain we haven't changed yours.
However, in closing, let me say one thing here that occurs to me as I read our posts.
It sounds to me like perhaps you are one of a rather large group out there who is advocating censorship.
That, my friend, scares me much worse than "24". That will destroy our freedom and our security far more than Jack Bauer and Vito Corleone combined.
Terry
desertwolf wrote: "It sounds
desertwolf wrote:
"It sounds to me like perhaps you are one of a
rather large group out there who is advocating
censorship."
As for the government stepping in and deciding what adults can watch or play,
no I am very much against censorship.
But, As for laws making it illegal for stores to sell/rent cigarettes,
or x-rated movies/video games, that I have no problem with.
Personally, I think drugs should also be legal. What adults put into their own
bodies is their own personal responsibility. Just as long as the drug is labeled
with potential negative health effects (just like prescription drugs).
The intense focus that we started with...
is now gone from this thread. We have added the further complications of drugs and other-substance mind-altering abuse.
For the last century, our peculiar species has been involved in war...including the total war of WWII. The majority of our troops returned home, got on with their lives, and were a credit to themselves and the nation. A relative few were affected by their experience to the point where they needed help with their adjustment back into civil life.
Early television, late 40s onward, was pretty mild. Radio was still king with all sorts of programs. Both radio and early tv was controlled--as was the movie industry. In the late 40s, I can remember gathering together at friend's houses to watch a small screen tv(10 inches or less). We started early so that we could watch, with enthusiasm, an hour or so of test patterns. TV then was only a few hours a day, mostly early evening. By midnight, all stations quit broadcasting. All shows were regional at first and nothing very complex. Wrestling, a few light variety shows and comedy; a transition into serious effort to produce drama and suspense while the powers-that-be tried to find a workable program mix. Broadcasting hours were controlled because it was believed that nothing should interfere with mealtimes and ended abruptly around midnight since it was obvious to those in charge that people needed their sleep in order to show up at work the following day.
At first, the movie industry did not recognize tv as a competitor so no changes were forthcoming in their products. They soon changed their tune when box office receipts started to fall. Some studios began to produce their own programing, others, unable to do so, began to fight the tight censorship laws to bring a competitive product to the movie theaters.
During this period, foreign films made their debut in art theaters across the country--essentially in maga-market areas. One film, I Am Curious Yellow, practically tore the country apart. Nudity for the first time on the silver screen. Language challenges began to happen. A film, The Moon Is Blue, a light-hearted comedy with David Niven, used the term 'virginity' which was unheard of in those days. Again, the country erupted with people taking both sides of the issue. High school kids at the time did their best not to miss either movie(lol)just as we did our best to read books like The Amboy Dukes and God's Little Acre...you know, the kind of stuff one hid under one's mattress.
This was the beginning of the slippery slope to perdition. You can see how far we have come since those halcyon days. This brings us, in a steady progression of changes down to today. Which was better? The old or the new approach to 'entertainment?'
Today, life is pretty miserable for many of us. We tend to seek out that which gives us escape. We seem to want really adult films, whether horror, drama, suspense, or action. The old tried and true white hat/black hat will no longer suffice to satisfy us.
Now our culture has reached the point where every product made needs to scream to us that we need it--must have it. People are made less sensitive to everything by the 3,000 to 4,000 advertising messages we are exposed to almost every day.
This is enough for right now. I intend to continue with this.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Do I understand you
Do I understand you correctly? You advocate "selective" censorship, based on those products/substances that you personally dislike, or believe to be harmful to others?
Your statement:
is very much at odds with the other two paragraphs in your post, and is far off-topic.
I understand the points which you are making in your other posts, and while they may be academically valid, they also fly in the face of our double-edged freedoms. The writer's freedom to tell his or her story, is balanced by your freedom not to read, or watch, it. To place the "blame" for our societal ills on the media, or ANY of the arts, is to deny personal responsibility for our actions.
It isn't "fictional" murder, or torture, or other forms of violence that we need to combat -- it is the very real instances of these acts which are committed by sociopaths every single day all over the real world.
Your arguments that the media, and its "subliminal" messages, have inured us to the severity of certain crimes are, again, academically valid. On the other hand, instantaneous news coverage, and "film at 11:00" of our real world has the same effect, and is more widely viewed worldwide than "24." Most of us are also inured to the very real impact of space travel, heart transplants, murder, rape, kidnappings, piracy, war, and terrorist attacks. The list of events which happen "to someone else," and are instantly reported, grows each and every day.
Case-in-point: the widespread reporting of the use of torture by the USA has no doubt reached an audience far in excess of those who regularly watch "24." Which medium's message has affected public attitudes towards torture the most?
Bill Harding wrote: "Your
Bill Harding wrote:
"Your statement: But, As for laws making it illegal for stores to sell/rent
cigarettes, or x-rated movies/video games, that I have no problem with."
Ah, my mistake !
I meant to write "to children" in there. Laws that prohibit stores selling
x-rated movies, or adult video games or cigarettes to children, I have no
problem with.
"I understand the points which you are making in your other posts, and while
they may be academically valid, they also fly in the face of our double-edged
freedoms. The writer's freedom to tell his or her story, is balanced by your
freedom not to read, or watch, it. To place the "blame" for our societal
ills on the media, or ANY of the arts, is to deny personal responsibility for
our actions."
Cigarettes really are an excellent analogy. The more cigarettes you smoke, the
greater the probability that you'll develop a lung disease. And yet cigarettes
are perfectly legal. Just because I argue that cigarettes have negative health consequences does NOT mean that I am arguing for them to be outlawed.
As for blame, the person choosing to smoke is the one who is responsible, but
wouldn't say the cigarette company is completely innocent.
"Case-in-point: the widespread reporting of the use of torture by the USA has
no doubt reached an audience far in excess of those who regularly watch "24."
Which medium's message has affected public attitudes towards torture the most?"
Which medium has had a greater effect on public opinion? I don't know. Which
medium has been the most effective at promoting torture? Definitely 24.
After all reporting on torture has not been all pro-torture.
I think the only plausible arguments, from a moral point of view, that can be
made is support of torture are:
(I don't agree with these arguments, I'm just saying they are plausible.)
- the ticking time bomb (or equivalent)
- that it is possible for someone to torture, yet still be a good person
- that the good torturers suffer terribly, and are only doing it
for the benefit of society
24 makes these exact arguments over and over again, in a very exciting,
sexy, glamorous and thrilling manner. And that's what makes it brilliant
propaganda.
Now "24" is deliberate
Now "24" is deliberate and "brilliant propaganda?" Sorry, but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I don't believe that is Max's point with this forum either.
I see absolutely no difference between the degree to which today's teleplays and movies influence otherwise level-headed people, and the novels and plays going back hundreds of years. Society adapts, and so does art -- even commercial art. And, you totally missed my point comparing the widespread factual news about torture, vs. the supposed "pro torture" message from "24." Does not the overwhelming truth about torture outweigh the weak fiction (by "24" AND Cheney), in the minds of those with functioning minds? A majority (6 in 10) of Americans seem to agree that it does:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html
Does overindulgence in anything produce unwanted, and sometimes anti-social, effects? But of course it does, and is a symptom of a mind which is already somewhat out-of-balance. If I were to addictively watch "24" and anxiously await the scenes which portray torture, then I just might have a problem (or be a redneck, in which case I would believe "24" to be a documentary).
Fact is, "24" never struck me as very well-written (factually) nor that entertaining, and I have only watched a very few episodes -- mainly out of curiosity. Same goes for "Alias." To me, these shows are the equivalent of crime-themed "soap operas" with all of the attendant not-quite-believable, but nonetheless, "shocking" qualities: What WILL the boy (or girl) do next? Tune in next time as we see...
But in the final analysis, you are entitled to your opinion, and me to mine. However, I especially look forward to a detailed study into the vast conspiracy theory in which commercial media "propaganda" is purportedly being used to subliminally sway public opinion for evil purposes. Come to think about it, that may be the basis for a great plot-within-a-plot (with maybe an evil cigarette-smoking-man thrown in for good measure). Oh, wait...
"Does not the overwhelming
"Does not the overwhelming truth about torture outweigh the weak fiction
(by "24" AND Cheney), in the minds of those with functioning minds?"
Yes, that's true, for those "with functioning minds". But as that poll shows,
a very substantial minority of Americans seem to lack that "functioning mind".
"If I were to addictively watch "24" and anxiously await the scenes which
portray torture, then I just might have a problem (or be a redneck, in
which case I would believe "24" to be a documentary)."
Well, you've perfectly described a substantial portion of 24's fan base.
Among the pro-torture, right-wing nuts Jack Bauer is a cult hero, unafraid
to torture for his country.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/mar/12/00008/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/jack_bauer_a_perfect_post_911.html
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/03/01/jack-bauer-patriot-or-t...
"I especially look forward to a detailed study into the vast conspiracy theory
in which commercial media "propaganda" is purportedly being used to
subliminally sway public opinion for evil purposes."
Well, there is Fox News, for those with half a brain, Fox News is laughable,
but those with less brain, Fox News has been very effective propaganda.
"It’s not every day that a broadcast journalist at a major network acknowledges
for a national audience that she was “under enormous pressure from corporate
executives,” who later edited her pieces and pushed her in specific pro-war
directions."
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/86729/
"Does President Bush owe his controversial win in 2000 to Fox cable television
news? Yes, suggest data collected by two economists who found that the growth
of the Fox cable news network in the late 1990s may have significantly
boosted the Republican Party's share of the vote in the 2000 election and
delivered Florida to Bush."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR200605...
And the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" to bring down President Clinton.
""Conspiracy" may be the wrong word, redolent as it is
of some sort of "X-Files" cabal of plotters, manipulating
the levers on all aspects of a grand design. But as the
work of Salon's reporters -- and a few others like the
New York Observer's Joe Conason and the Arkansas Press
Democrat's Gene Lyons -- is beginning to demonstrate,
there does exist, in a broader sense, a community of
interests within which informational and financial
transactions are being conducted and alliances are
being struck. It may not be as "vast" and tightly
woven as the first lady has suggested, but it does
have a common goal: the bringing down of the president
of the United States."
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_19news.html
My concern isn't that shows
My concern isn't that shows like "24" turn soldiers into torturers, but that they soften public attitudes against what should be repugnant.
I meet a lot of people out there, and more often than not, I find that they are self-absorbed, shallow and many of them are pretty base. I think you only have to go to MySpace to see what many of them post on each others' boards -- as to what they find funny. Many of them are also pretty bland and unoriginal. So it shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't get really motivated politically against the outrageous things that the Bush administration pulled.
I tend to see television especially as reinforcing this culture of self-absorption and shallowness -- of course that is in service of our economic system. So that's why I have been interested in doing a closer analysis of the entertainment media. I think it would be valuable if people thought more critically about what messages television is putting out there. Shows like "The Office" seem to really portray people as being very self-centered and nasty. Are people watching these shows and just finding them amusing, but also reinforcing of this kind of behavior? I by no means am in favor of censorship, but I sure would like it if more people would ask themselves -- is this an okay way for someone to act? I like the 1977 movie "Slap Shot," which I saw again recently, but I think that rather than being a sharp satire of the base side of our culture, like George Roy Hill's later film "Funny Farm," it still celebrated it and made uncivil, vulgar behavior likeable.
In another venue, I've written some things about violence in the entertainment media, and the many questions it raises. If I can find them, I may post them here. I think on the one hand, it can serve as a vicarious outlet, and be cathartic. But also it depends on how it is portrayed. The films of Takashi Miike, such as "Ichi the Killer" are quite extreme, but they are also powerful morality plays. One could even say the same about the "Hostel." They make you feel disturbed when the victims suffer, but pleased when the villians get theirs. On the other hand, Michael Haneke was critiqueing this pandering to the audience's bloodlust in his deconstruction of these films with his two "Funny Games" features. It specifically makes a point of showing how the audience is manipulated into enjoying violence in the context of revenge.
Terry333; Max R…
Please understand that I respect your positions, but I disagree as to the overall affect media has on us.
This is going to be a rather lengthy post, and may at times sound rambling. I’m at work and typing somewhat quickly in between activities, but trust me that it will come together to make a point.
I was born in 1950, and so obviously was a child during the early ‘50’s. The “crime melodramas” of the day were “Dragnet” and “Highway Patrol”. If you’ve ever seen reruns of those shows, you know they were pretty bland.
Today, we have seen “Dirty Harry”, the controversial “NYPD Blue” with the interrogation “specialist” Andy Sipowitz, and “24”.
Now let me make a comparison of the times.
In the mid ‘60’s I had many friends from a wide variety of areas, including what we at the time called “slums”. Those were high crime areas even in those days. When a store burglary or car theft or vandalism occurred, the police in those areas would round up the “usual suspects”, the “juvenile delinquents”. Back in those days, the “Juvenile Justice System” existed, but may as well not have. Forced confessions were pretty common. One may think that only happened in the back woods of “Dixie”, but believe me, the practice was wide spread. The common viewpoint of the general public at the time was: “Sometimes you have to slap a hard-headed punk around a little to get the truth out of him”.
Compare that attitude to today when the nation was outraged when we say the video of the Rodney King beating. We have ongoing litigation to control police interrogations. And we are incensed when we hear of police brutality.
Now think about it: When we were watching “Dragnet” and “Highway Patrol”, that would quite literally bore you to tears today, people accepted forced confessions as necessary. Today, while we watch Dirty Harry and Sipowitz punch, beat, and pistol whip the bad guys, we are rising up ever more vehemently against police brutality. If we are becoming more desensitized, why were we not outraged by the police behavior then, and more complacent with it now?
Consider domestic abuse. Back when Ward and June Cleaver dominated the TV, wife beaters were commonly considered: “Pretty good ol’ boys who just a couple too many beers and needed to sleep it off “. Today, with all the violence we see on the small screen, we are outraged when a man breaks his wife’s jaw or knocks teeth out. Why wasn’t the general public more outraged then and more complacent now?
I still maintain that a reasonably rational person knows right from wrong, and our social concepts, moral concepts, and general attitude comes more from parents, teachers, and live role models in real life than from a tv show.
desertwolf wrote: "Now think
desertwolf wrote:
"Now think about it: When we were watching “Dragnet” and “Highway Patrol”,
that would quite literally bore you to tears today, people accepted forced
confessions as necessary. Today, while we watch Dirty Harry and Sipowitz
punch, beat, and pistol whip the bad guys, we are rising up ever more
vehemently against police brutality. If we are becoming more desensitized,
why were we not outraged by the police behavior then, and more complacent
with it now?
Are we now more outraged with police brutality now than 30 year ago? Perhaps
we were less outraged back then because it happened less then. I don't know,
I don't have any statistics on the subject.
Has the huge amount of violence on TV and movies had an effect on the crime
rate? Again, impossible to say, but there are some suggestive statistics.
"the 1960's was the first time large number of people came of age after
spending substantial portions of their childhood in front of the TV."
Between 1960 and the mid-1970's the homicide rate doubled.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
by 2000, the homicide rate was back down to the early 1960's level. Why the
reduction? well lots of reasons, including a 300% increase in the rate of
incarceration.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/punishing.pdf
If we could have the crime rate of 1960, along with the incarceration rate
of 1960, along with lots of violent media, then that would be strong
evidence for violent media not having any effect. But that is not what we have.
As for domestic violence, again I don't have any statistics, but I do think that
the fact that women can leave their spouse much more easily, probably has had
a very good effect.
"I still maintain that a reasonably rational person knows right from wrong,
and our social concepts, moral concepts, and general attitude comes more from
parents, teachers, and live role models in real life than from a tv show."
Moral concepts, and attitudes coming more from real people than TV, sure,
I would agree. But depending on how much someone watches, TV does have an effect.
One of the most disturbing
One of the most disturbing films I've ever seen is Ingmar Bergman's 1968 film "Shame." There is nothing of a graphic nature, but what is shows is how ordinary people who seems so nice and polite to each other, become monsters under extreme situations, such as being in a war zone (in the case of Bergman's film). It shows how this veneer of civility quickly evaporates, since it really is shallow for most people.
Nothing gets the blood
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a good active discussion.
So, thanks very much to Bill Harding, desertwolf, grinch,
and Max R. for a very interesting debate.
Thanks for your
Thanks for your participation as well, and it appears that I have been guilty of bringing a dull knife to a gunfight.
While I remain skeptical that there is a media conspiracy in progress aimed at making torture palatable to the American public in general, I failed to take into account those mental midgets who already find it acceptable.
Having lived in Hawaii for all of my adult life, I do not personally know any rednecks, racists, or bigots. That is not to say that we have none of these sociopaths in Hawaii, they just aren't that visible, or vocal, and they are certainly not home-grown. I am guilty of forgetting that parts of the Mainland are chock-full of these Republican Dittoheads, and I have met a few of them in my travels.
While the writers of "24" and similar shows may have had some success in "preaching to the choir," I don't believe that they are bringing in many, if any, converts -- if that is their goal.
I have not read the entire thread...
...as I'm limping on a borrowed internet connection but...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
While glancing about I spotted references to "Dirty Harry", and torturing to gain info.
Forgive me if this has already been pointed out, but there is a specific reason why most people tend to agree with Harry squashing the leg of a serial killer:
As Movie goes we are in the position of an all knowing god.
(Even if the above template is only approximately true within a movie, it is the backdrop in which the audience's emotions and intellectual responses play out).
It's true that the above is not enough to sway one's philosophical stance on torture.
It is certainly not enough for one to forget that in real life the ramifications of torture go beyond 1,2,and 3 above. (In particular, that torturers get it wrong, become thugs themselves, etc.)
It should be enough however to cut movie goers a bit of slack. The bad guy IS bad and someone IS about to die and there are NO other ramifications to the action WITHIN the movie.
That's escapism.
Jim