About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Not Ready For Primetime

It's that time again - when GLAAD counts up the number of characters on primetime network television who are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes or who dress in such a way as to pretend to be the opposite sex, or who go so far as to get hormones and surgeries in an effort to pretend to be the opposite sex. GLAAD, of course, wants to make sure that all of this is shoved into our faces as much as possible, and they want to make sure the networks are giving overall positive portrayals that advance the advocacy of homosexuality and self-mutilation.

Jill Serjeant has the Reuters story:
Some 44 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters make regular appearances in scripted shows on network and mainstream cable TV in the new 2009-10 television season, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said in its annual "Where We Are on TV" report.
Not sure how this differs from their “Network Responsibility Index”, which I wrote about here.
The 18 LGBT characters on major U.S. networks account for 3 percent of all scripted series in the prime-time TV schedule, up from 2.6 percent a year ago, the report said.
According to their tally, the number is up slightly this season to 18 out of 600 roles, which would be in line with reality as far as percentages. However, this is only primetime network television, focusing on dramas and comedies. It doesn’t take into account daytime programming, movies, "reality" shows (many of which make a point of having openly homosexual contestants or have openly homosexual judges/hosts), news magazines, etc.

From the Associated Press article:
Using information provided by ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and CW, the group reviewed 79 scripted series announced to air this season.
So, no Bravo? MTV? Logo? So it is a little misleading. As my prior blog entry noted, "LGBT" characters/people are overrepresented on television. And while the GLAAD folks bemoan (mostly past) limits on what such characters do on-screen (for example -  shows that will show a both-sexes couples in bed together, starting activity under the sheets that makes it clear they are about to fornicate would only show two men hugging, not even kissing) – how many of those same shows will air the serious prayer of a character who is a sincere, level-headed, educated Christian, or show him serving others in the name of Christ? Most television tries to appeal to the widest audience, most of whom do not belong to the same religious denomination, and most of whom do not want to see two men making out. Television will push that, though, if the artists/producers are trying to push an agenda with the viewers.
The steady increase in gay characters is promising, as are story lines that are becoming "more reflective of current issues affecting our lives," GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said in a statement.

Fair, accurate images of gay couples marrying, raising families and contributing to their communities help fellow Americans "come to accept and better understand" their gay family members and neighbors, he said.
What, no same-sex pairings struggling with infertility or an unplanned pregnancy?

How about programming that shows the higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, substance abuse, and domestic violence? But I suppose that is entirely the fault of families, churches, and politicians who aren't enthusiastic supporters of homosexual behavior, especially among minors living at home?


(This post is most certainly to get a link from a certain website that sounds like a brand of cotton swab.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexual People Overrepresented on TV

Homosexuality advocates are out with a report on representation on TV.  Associated Press television writer Frazier Moore has the story.
In its third annual Network Responsibility Index, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found that of HBO's 14 original prime-time series, 10 included content reflecting the lives of gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Remember, there is a reason "transgender" is included.

Transgender basically means dressing like the opposite sex, or even going so far as to have surgery, hormone treatments, a name change, etc. to pretend to be the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is about being attracted to people of the same sex.  Bisexuality is about being attracted to people of both sexes.  Transgendered people can, so we are told, be heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals.  We are also told that these people really are changing from male to female and female to male, and not simply males becoming mutilated, deluded males and females becoming mutilated, deluded females.  So why is sex (gender) lumped together with sexual orientation?  Well, because if "the community" activists are to be believed, a lesbian who has an addadictomy and becomes a "man", would, by definition, no longer be a homosexual, which means fewer homosexuals.  We can't have that, right?  That means a loss of power, doesn't it?  So "transgender" is a way to keep counting the person as part of the team.
That totaled 42 percent of the network's programming hours, in series such as "True Blood," "Entourage" and "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency."

By contrast, on NBC and CBS only 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of prime-time hours included them, the report said.
Considering only three percent or less of the population is homosexual, then, if programming was truly going to be representative, only 3 out of 100 characters would be homosexual.

Yet, the percentage seems to be higher, probably a for a mix reasons: 1) To suck up to homosexuality advocates and get awards; 2) to push the personal political and social  agendas of the writers, directors, and producers; 3) because they think it provides interesting story material as it is yet another way to get sex onto the tube.

I stand by the right of broadcasters to do what they want with their own resources.  If they want to have nothing but flamboyant drag queens on their shows, that is up to them.  I also stand by the right of GLAAD to issue reports and bestow awards.

My only point is that homosexuality is overrepresented on television.


How many characters in the programming monitored are devout Christians who are not portrayed any more negatively, on average, than others?

(This entry guaranteed to be linked on that website that sounds like a cotton swab brand.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Michael Jackson

My sympathies go out to all of his loved ones.

He was an extremely talented, innovative, and influential entertainer who deeply touched millions of people around the world and generated a lot of money for a lot of businesses.

With Neverland, he built an elaborate private park/playground for children that was especially accommodating of disabled children.  He often welcomed children there, thereby giving children, especially disabled, sick, and dying children, some joy.

He was generous in cooperating with people like "Weird Al" Yankovic, who hilariously parodied Jackson multiple times.  This showed that he had a sense of humor about himself and his work.

He made a very big and very public mistake by briefly dangling his youngest child from a fourth-floor balcony; thankfully, he did not drop the child.  This act was like speeding on an unnecessary errand without strapping the child in to a car seat.

His abuse of/addiction to medications may have killed him and should be a warning to all.

By his own statements, he had an inappropriate way of relating to children.  By the accounts of many, his was emotionally immature or somehow maladjusted.  Yes, he was a child performer and by some accounts he was horribly abused by his father (and his mother allowed this), but other child performers and victims of abuse have gone on to be healthy adults, some of them continuing to work in the entertainment industry.

Although investigated more than once and taken to criminal trial, he was never convicted of assaulting or molesting children.  I don’t know of any conclusive proof that he committed such crimes.  If he did commit such crimes (and I hope to God he didn't), then he committed grievous evils.  The parents of those children would also share some blame for not properly supervising their own children.

On a positive note, we don't hear stories about him fornicating with woman after woman, as is so common in entertainment – and especially pop music.

His arrangement with Debbie Rowe and decisions to create and raise three children without providing them with a healthy, stable home headed by a married mother and father cheapened the institution of marriage and wrongfully deprived those children.  No amount of money or doting by a father replaces a mother, or the dynamic between parents who are husband and wife.

Ultimately, Michael Jackson was a sinner like the rest of us, falling short of the holiness of God.  He is much better off if Jesus Christ was his Lord and Savior, and thus his representative, than if he has met God as his own representative.  None of us knows for sure if he had this relationship with Jesus or not.  All of us fall short if judged on our own merits.  As for me, I'm thankful Jesus Christ is my representative in judgment.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Appealing for the Forcible Support of Your Profession

Should your freely chosen, private enterprise job be supported with tax dollars?  Here is a letter to John McCain I came across recently online (not going to link), appealing for taxpayer funding for the writer's industry.
Dear John McCain,

I understand you are not aware of how funding for sports creates jobs. So, I'd like to tell you what I do for a living.

I am an athlete for professional sports team.  Our company fuels millions of dollars into our local market, and our events and merchandise around the world create millions of dollars in revenue and ongoing employment opportunities.

Furthermore, in order to do what we do, we directly employ hundreds of athletes of every sort.  Our athletes are highly trained and are influenced by great athletes from throughout history.

It is our job as Americans to maintain a high standard of sportsmanship and athleticism, and keep America at the forefront of athleticism. A good part of our economy is rooted in sports.
Now, this isn't quite the way the letter was written.  It was written by someone in the entertainment industry making and appeal for taxpayer funding for entertainment and the arts.

My point is this – John McCain does understand that entertainment is part of our economy.  So do I.  But should taxpayers be forced to support the arts and entertainment?  You can substitute anyone's profession into the letter – not just sports – and it is still true.  If something doesn't contribute in some way, it doesn't last.  But it is not the place of the federal government to take money from one person by force to support the chosen profession of another person – unless that profession is part of the core Constitutional function of the federal government (such as the military).

If something entertaining or artistic has worth and value, people will support it voluntarily.  And when times are tough, there will be less support.  That is how life works naturally.

My guess is that if the top 10% of earners in the arts and entertainment could voluntarily fund artistic and entertainment endeavors to the point where anyone who was committing their lives to those things could make a living doing so.  This would especially be true if those earners have low tax rates on their earnings, thus allowing them to keep more of their own money.  But I can see it now – stage after stage of theatrical productions playing to near-empty houses, even with free admission.

We are supposed to be living in liberty, where the federal government is not involved with every industry, other than to prevent and punish forms of theft and fraud that can't be handled by individual states.  Generally, the more the government gets involved in an industry, the less liberty there is for professionals in that industry.  Artists and entertainers are counting on the First Amendment to protect their liberty – they want to take your money without having to be accountable for how it is used.  But the First Amendment was not adopted in a vacuum.  The balance of the Constitution makes it clear that we have freedom of speech, but the federal government should not be paying for our microphones and satellite uplinks.

If the writer of the letter cares about the arts so much, that person can voluntarily support the arts and encourage others do so with their own money.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ricky and Lucy Would Still Have Separate Beds, Metaphorically

People still talk and laugh about how Ricky and Lucy had separate beds on “I Love Lucy”.  The funny thing is, married sex it still largely taboo on television.  It’s fornication and sodomy that’s portrayed more.

The Parents Television Council has received the attention of the Associated Press’ television writer, Lynn Elber, with their latest report on how network television portrays sex.
Marriage gets little respect on network TV shows that instead revel in the pleasures of extramarital and even kinky sex, according to a study released Tuesday.

The study by the Parents Television Council includes a strongly worded condemnation of prime-time TV, contending it "seems to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently painting it in a negative light."
Strangely, it usually portrays marriage in negative light without focusing on the very real risks for men.
Even more troubling, according to the watchdog group, is what it characterized as TV's recent obsession with what it termed "outre" or bizarre behavior, including partner swapping and pedophilia.
This is a paradox in television programming.  Characters on television are rarely presented as regular attendees of any particular church.  This probably has less to do with hostility towards organized religion than simply wanting as much of the audience as possible to identify with the characters.  The moment you peg them as a particular denomination, a certain amount of the audience is going to think of them as “different than me.”  However, the same makers of television seem to have no reservations in portraying characters as having certain sexual fetishes or philias.
Visual references to practices such as voyeurism and sadomasochistic sex outnumbered married-sex references by a ratio approaching 3 to 1.
When you depict sex as something that happens outside of marriage but you don’t depict or reference  married people having sex, what children pick up is: married people don’t have sex.  It is the same thing in the home.  If a married couple completely hides the fact that they ever have sex, their children are going to get the message that married people don’t have sex, or it only happens rarely.  This will make fornication seem more exciting (get it while you can!), or in some cases, make the children think of sex as something that is always bad.

Now, obviously I’m not suggesting that parents have sex in front of their children.  That’s a very bad idea.  But the children should learn that mom and dad do need and enjoy private time together, and as they get older, that sex married sex is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed frequently and privately.
But TV Watch, a nonpartisan coalition that counts networks among its members and argues that individuals and not government should decide what's seen, fired a volley at the council.

"The Parents Television Council won't be satisfied with television content until they convince the government to enforce their personal, selective judgments," Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, said in a statement.
There’s nothing wrong with the PTC calling attention to this stuff.  While I wouldn’t like to see a government crackdown on television content, I would like truth in labeling.  The PTC could just as easily accuse TV Watch as pushing to have everyone completely desensitized to fornication, adultery, shacking up, sodomy, and various fetishes.  And another problem is that the negative consequences of fornication and sodomy are rarely depicted.
Among the networks overall, references to adultery outnumbered references to marital sex by 2 to 1. The "family hour" - the first hour of prime-time TV, which draws the most young viewers - contained the highest ratio of references to non-married vs. married sex, the study found.
The solution, besides being informed, is for viewers to support the kind of programming that affirms marriage and purity.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »