When No Intelligent Conversation Is Possible About Sex Jeff Jarvis, whom I respect and admire as much as our short knowledge of each other allows, has found "the most tortured PC-cum-puritanical argument [he's] yet seen." Surprisingly, said puritanism graced the pages of the New York Times. The article is about one of those periodic "state of the television" studies that always find that Americans are becoming less and less concerned about the images that sift down to their television sets. Personally, after hearing this stuff my entire life, I find it difficult to get worked up about it. Yes, my opinion is that much of what passes for entertainment nowadays is garbage packaged to highlight what is ugly and foolish about humanity, and I do think that restrictions ought to exist about where and when certain material is available to whomever has the remote control. On the other hand, if parents are serious about disliking material, they ought to take their reaction seriously. Too often, it seems, people complain that they want Friends Lite. If Friends offends, turn it off, even if you enjoy the witty banter. (Apologies for borrowing Johnny Cochran's shtick). It'll teach your children a better lesson for you to show some resolve and stand up to them, explaining why you object rather than trying to avoid the conflict through political pressure. Yes, I know that the realities of the entertainment industry pull talent and push content in such a way that a "cleaner" Friends would be difficult to find. Well, then, attack that issue. Devote resources and effort into encouraging, even developing, compelling content that aligns more with your own likes and dislikes. This is where Jeff and I begin to part ways because, frankly, my suspicions are raised by his choice of paragraphs to highlight from reasonably long article:
Frankly, far from "tortured PC-cum-puritanism," I find that to be an interesting idea. The closer the locus of control of the material on their televisions, the more communities can influence what appears there. This could mean 24 x 7 Fastlane, or it could mean that a market will appear for shows of a different sort. I'd even suggest that it goes the other way: the broader the audience that a network is trying to please, the lower the target denominator and more basic (or base) the content. With a closer and more-specific audience, higher points of interest can be pursued. I'm particularly perplexed that this objection should come from the man who wrote this:
That's a philosophy that I can get behind. Much better than today's conclusion: "Let's get this straight: Sex sells. Sex is fun. Sex is good. Gotta problem with that? Then you're the freak, geek." What if your audience disagrees? Or, more likely, what if your audience just doesn't think sex is good in all situations for all people? Remember that these are the networks that we're talking about. One commenter to Jeff's post puts forward:
Cable/satellite television, the only source for "niche stations," may be very common in American society, but it's not universal, and it's not free. Furthermore, look at it this way: smaller markets would also mean that clean-TV advocates in the Bible Belt would have less justification for attempting to dictate standards in L.A., for example. With the media giants, it seems to me a case, truly, of a minority determining what the majority can watch. And if you don't believe that the current fare is doing much to "ruin it" for society at large, then you probably also believe that concern about sex being packaged for kids makes one a geeky freak. You might also be inclined to forget that ours is a regionally determined representative democracy for a reason.
Posted by Justin Katz @ 03:15 PM EST |