Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, August 17, 2007
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The World According to the TV Critics
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Every year, there are literally dozens of new shows premiered in the vast television universe -- broadcast, basic cable and the premium pay-per-view channels. Critics meant to cover these things can only choose from a fraction of them. What motivates their decision tells you more about them than it does the shows.

It can be that a network, sensing a hit, pours its formidable resources into an intense marketing campaign and captures their attention. It can be a Big Name associated with the new release that commands coverage. In some cases, and I'm afraid in far too few cases, the new show is, in fact, a good one and worthy of a critic's professional attention.

But those are the exceptions. What critics focus on, as an imperative, are those programs that are defined as cutting edge, the ones that break new ground -- especially if they're salacious. And when it stars a known entity, it's a lock for a review.

So it comes as no surprise that the Showtime network's new "Californication" series has everyone's attention. It stars David Duchovny (of "X-Files" fame), who plays Hank Moody, a frustrated writer with self-esteem issues who is obsessed with having casual sex. That's it. That's all there is to the plot line of this "comedy."

Most critics don't like it. The New York Times calls it "misogynist ... a dark comedy (that) is not nearly dark or funny enough." It suggests the "depictions of sex are frequent and graphic, which may offend some viewers but will undoubtedly draw many more." The Los Angeles Times savages it for lacking "meaning or reason. ... 'Californication' makes us want to set fire to our hair and run screaming into the street."

Some critics are lukewarm. Variety labels it "watchable but not fully arousing," but does praise it for "a half-dozen (bared breasts) in the pilot, which isn't a bad bared-breast-per-minute ratio." USA Today mentions the sex but is non-judgmental.

A few critics are raving. Listen to tax-payer funded NPR and its "Fresh Air" critic, and you'll hear a lengthy, gushing report calling the series "rich ... so good ... one of the best shows of the year ... great summer programming." Newsday opines that "the star's charisma, the droll dialogue, snappy timing and fleetly incisive work from guest performers create a funny, revealing and painfully true moment of the type in which the pilot revels." It really likes the sex, too, immediately telling us the "first scene has a nun kneeling before Duchovny in church."

Say, what?

Yes, a nun. Let me walk you through that scene. Better yet, I'll have another kind of critic -- the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights -- do this for you.

"The opening scene of the pilot shows Hank entering a Catholic Church, smoking a cigarette. He drops the butt in the holy water font, walks up to the altar and begins a conversation with Jesus on the crucifix. A nun approaches him, and Hank begins telling her about his writer's block in foul language. The nun responds that she would normally tell him to say the Lord's Prayer as penance for his cursing. In this case, however, she decides to offer him oral sex. Hank puts up his hand to block Jesus' view as the nun begins to perform the act. At this point, he wakes up with another woman, revealing the church scene to be merely a dream."

The dialogue in this scene is equally graphic, with both the writer and the nun dropping obscenities in front of the altar with wild abandon. After he states he's having a crisis of faith, she responds, "Well, normally I would suggest a bunch of 'Our Fathers' or a couple of 'Hail Marys.' But I don't think that's going to get it done. What about a (oral sex)?"

That's what passes for "droll dialogue" that creates "a funny, revealing and painfully true moment" at Newsday. That's the kind of scene that makes "Californication" "one of the best shows of the year" in the eyes of NPR.

But all those other critics are no better, really. Not a one of them condemned or -- and with the exception of Newsday -- even mentioned this blatant display of anti-Christian bigotry, insulting to the core the Catholic Church. There simply isn't anything offensive enough here to warrant a television critic's attention.

Which is why these television reviews say more about the critics than the shows they are critiquing.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
T'n'A
don't you american freeks have anything better to do? this show rocks there needs to be more T'n'A on tv. if you don't like it then DON'T WATCH IT! You americans all you do is pi## and moan about everything.

Let's face facts, shall we?

Bozell does not like sleaze on TV, radio, movies, cable, or Internet. He thinks it should be stopped.

He thinks with enough pressure on the FCC and Congress, he can make it stop.

He *WANTS* government *CONTROL* over what you and I are allowed to see and hear.

You don't have to agree or disagree with whether or not he has the "best of intentions" (which pave the road to hell). The point is, Bozell wants censorship, and he himself will even admit it, without ever coming out and saying the dreaded "C" word.

He's like a modern-day Socialist who thinks he can hide his intentions by changing his name to "progressive." With the exception that in no shape or manner does he attempt to hide his intentions. He has no love for the Free Market, and has told us as much. Free people make choices he disagrees with. The ratings prove this.

He *wants* to put a *stop* to sleaze, and he's willing to use government coercion to achieve this. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply fooling themselves.

and is Therefore Blinded to Truth
June 1, 2007
A discussion of a debate between an FCC regulator and the head writer of "Law and Order" over content regulation and the V-chip. Bozell spends the entire article lambasting the head writer. One can only presume this is because he's on the regulation side of the debate.


June 25, 2007 -- Bozell slams the Libertarian wing of Conservatism

**This kind of conservative has embraced the anarchical libertarian worldview, which on matters of traditional manners and tastes throws caution to the winds, embracing the notion that the "market" -- society's lowest common denominator on cultural issues -- should decide. And if this erosion of traditional values leads to the disintegration of the culture, so be it.**

WHO then should decide, if not the market? The FCC, presumeably. Congress. "THE PEOPLE" should decide -- but wait -- if the Market is not "The People", then who is? Bozell and his PTC? The FCC? Congress?


August 10, 2007
**Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas is proposing an interesting bill that pushes the FCC to look harder into the next generation of content-blocking devices for parents across all media platforms, from TV to the Internet to wireless communications. Since the Telecommunications Act passed in 1996, the FCC is supposed to keep its eye on emerging new technologies, but Sen. Pryor hopes to "light a fire" under the FCC on this matter.

As is to be expected, advocates of unlimited sleaze across all media platforms are fussing.**


Pilgrim is Emotionally Committed

April 20, 2007
**It's very easy to remember the wave of public outrage over the Janet Jackson breast exposure during the halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl. Half a million complaints piled into the FCC's offices in Washington. The FCC ultimately levied a $550,000 fine.

But Moonves didn't heed the majority. He threw rocks at the FCC in July 2004, refusing to accept any fine for the Jackson stripper stunt: "We think the idea of a fine for that is patently ridiculous, and we're not going to stand for it. We're going to take that to the courts if it happens."

They certainly did. Not only that, they've gone to court with other networks to fight for their "right" to drop the F-bomb on their airwaves at any time of day, no matter how many millions of children are affected -- or their
parents offended.**

Note the quotations around "right", as if the First Amendment has recently been nullified.


April 27
**This is certainly a plot based on (implied) excretory activities, but it's certainly not what the regulators had in mind. I suspect that when these rules were written there wasn't a soul at the FCC who believed "humor" would
ever come to this.**

Apparently he wants the regulations re-written -- to him, they are not stringent enough.

Too many "F-bombs" are able to sneak through and "damage" the little tykes out there.

Oh No, you did NOT call ME a liar
Jun 16, 2006
**On June 15, President Bush held a signing ceremony at the White House for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, a new law increasing the maximum fine for indecent TV programming tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000 per violation.
...
It may have taken three years too many, but when Congress finally acted, it did so in an overwhelmingly bi-partisan fashion seldom seen in Washington anymore. The House bill passed by a 397 to 35 margin. The Senate version sailed through unanimously.

And why not? The public, in red and blue states alike, is fed up with the raw sexual sewage and graphic violence being poured onto the airwaves they own. A December Associated Press poll found 66 percent of those surveyed said there was too much sex on TV, and 68 percent said there was too much violence. Other polls have pegged public disgust in the 80-and 90-percent levels.**

WHY NOT? How about the unfortunate fact that, despite what people say in polls, when given the choice of actually changing the channel, people CHOOSE THE SEXUAL SEWAGE AND GRAPHIC VIOLENCE.

68% say there's too much violence -- and violent shows get the most ratings -- where is the disconnect here?

Bozell wants the FCC to regulate what TV can air because he does not trust the market. He has said so himself. The market might make choices he disagrees with.


march 19, 2007
**It's time for Congress to get serious about the cable industry's social irresponsibility, because it's clear the cable bosses aren't serious. This is the last gasp for the credibility of cable companies. Their promises to help parents are cynically empty.**

Congress? What can Congress do except censor?

What are FCC fines if not a form of censorship?

Is Pilgrim really so dense that he needs someone to physically take over his remote before he sees where they're going with these regulations?

Another lie from Unca Alby
Here's your indefensible apologia for straw men, that in actuality proves my point:

"Bozell and many others here *WANT* the *GOVERNMENT* to *CONTROL* what we may or may not watch on TV or listen to on the radio. They don't *ALWAYS* come out specifically and say it exactly in that manner."

When asked to provide proof, all you can offer is another straw man.

If you have to manufacture and distort the arguments of your opposition in order to support your own ideology, that ideology is intellectually vacant.

I'd say nice try, but in actuality, it was a highly disingenuous and pathetic try.

You're excused.

I had that nun dream too!
And then I woke up and realized that TV programming and modern cinema is light years away from being good enough for anyone to let it offend them. Unless, of course, if just feeling offended could somehow get you air time...

Censorship -- or Not? -- repost
It never fails -- just because Bozell doesn't come out and use the 'C' word, somebody will post here that "He isn't talking about censorship", or "He never mentions censorship", or, "Read the article, where does he mention censorship?", etc.

So what do you suppose Bozell is asking for when he asks for more stringent FCC oversight? What do you suppose he wants when he complains that the FCC doesn't act quickly enough? Or when they "succumb" to the influence of Hollywood's "hired gun" lobbyists?

Does he have to shout, "Censorship! Censorship!" in order for you to understand what he's looking for? Does he need to send you a personal telegram asking you to surrender your liberty to know that's what it ultimately means?

Read some of Bozell's archives. When and where can anyone point to a column of his where he opines that the FCC has too much power? Or that Free Speech is more important than protection from Nasty Speech? Indeed, when they increased the fines for 'F-Bomb' utterances, he was practically hopping up and down with glee.

Bozell's only beef with government censorship is that the FCC doesn't act quickly enough for his tastes.

Pilgrim -- Exempli Gratia
Those are examples of very similar things -- and included within those examples are "passing laws that control what we may watch on TV".

Bozell and many others here *WANT* the *GOVERNMENT* to *CONTROL* what we may or may not watch on TV or listen to on the radio. They don't *ALWAYS* come out specifically and say it exactly in that manner. Bozell actually says it sometimes, using the excuse that "it's public airwaves, so it's public property", nevermind that a large section of the public *likes* things as they are.

They just don't have a *political* voice. Their only voice is to tune in the shows they want to see -- and -- like it or not, the shows the Bozell and many conservatives like to complain about *do* happen to bring in the viewers.

I'm going to re-post something I posted under an earlier Bozell column, because it is once again apropos, Pilgrim being a case in point.

Here's your straw man
And he's a giant:

"If you get to pass laws that force us to observe the Sabbath -- if you get to pass laws that force us to tithe -- if you get to pass laws that control what we may watch on TV -- if you get to pass laws that force women to wear burkhas -- then you have departed from Liberty. You have departed from Liberty using the same excuse as the Ayatollah -- to force your views of "morality" on others."

Please quote the posts that support this supposition.

Hey Pilgrim
quoth Pilgrim: "You know what a straw man is?"

Yes I do.

Why don't you save us some time and tell me where you think I'm building one, without my needing to ask you.

Hey Unca Alby
You know what a straw man is?


inkling_revival -- on Genuinely Evil
quoth inkling_revival: "I was responding to a question about why we don't appear to love the free market when it's a market for porn. The point being made was that a free market is not an absolute, but stands in the hierarchy somewhere below morality. In other words, we don't believe in the free market when the free market is for something genuinely evil."

Then it is not truly a "free" market, is it?

So long as you are allowed to impose *your* concepts of "morality" on the rest of us, then what you have is not a Free Market, but merely a watered down version Sharia Law.

If you get to pass laws that force us to observe the Sabbath -- if you get to pass laws that force us to tithe -- if you get to pass laws that control what we may watch on TV -- if you get to pass laws that force women to wear burkhas -- then you have departed from Liberty. You have departed from Liberty using the same excuse as the Ayatollah -- to force your views of "morality" on others.

Personally, I believe that you imposing your views of morality on me is Genuinely Evil.

Al -
quoth Al: "we see, many times, vile,inappropriate behavior defended as a first amendment right. Of course, that is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind."

So you suppose that what the Founding Fathers "had in mind" was to create government agencies to "protect" everybody from what just a few of us deem "inappropriate"?

Misplaced Pashion
As Bozell said, it says more about the critics than about the substance or lack of it in the garbage called a TV program. O'Reilly observed one day that he could not find a conservative movie critic. Must be the same trashy bunch that critique TV. Movies (and now TV) have always liked to push the edge on morals. Thanks to our PC crowd in America, there no longer seems to be an edge. The word "appropriate" is not used much, in fact we see, many times, vile,inappropriate behavior defended as a first amendment right. Of course, that is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Cowards

I'll believe in the "artistic integrity" of the liberal consensus when they do a comedy series with Mohammed being buggered by Moses, with the prohet screaming more.....more. No takers in the scriptwriters guild huh.

Well, maybe someone should publicy behead a few writers (as in Holland with Van Gogh). It's only fair that everyone be treated equally.

Liberals are basically the playground bullies grown up and dangerously empowered.

vote with the remote
I think one thing people here need to do is go to Mr Bozell's site and see if his description/criticism of other shows *you have seen* are a fair and accurate representation of those shows. Based on past experience, it isn't always, and I therefore don't know if that is a fair description here either.

But let's assume Mr Bozell is being fair and accurate. The simple thing for us to do is vote with the remote: if you think some show is not for you or is detrimental to our social fabric, don't watch it. If you feel even more strongly about it, boycott the show's advertisers or, better yet, the network/cable station that is providing it — and let them know that you're doing so!

But more importantly, pick shows you like and watch them — and tell that network that you're watching it and why. Broadcast and cable stations read Nielsen ratings (and they're cable equivalent) like they're tea leaves, and they don't always get it right. Quality shows like "Friday Night Lights" or "Jericho" get axed otherwise. Quality shows like "The Black Donnellys" (which I admit some here would not like because of its violence) are killed because there aren't enough people watching them.

You see, the entertainment gurus (whether from the left or the right) assume that sex sells, and we occasionally have to set out to prove otherwise.

And finally, drop this knee-jerk attitude that all bad things are the fault of "liberals." When it comes to destroying social fabric, it has been *Fox* leading the way. Have you seen "Family Guy"? Whoever referred to this above as corporatism was right on the money.

Hey Mary C.
Point out the posts that ask for government intervention over what you watch.

Yeah, silly you.

Oh, and as far as your recommendation of PBS is concerned. If you want to watch it, YOU pay for it. Stop wasting my tax dollars.

Thanks.

learning nothing, he is being entertaine
What are you complaining about? The teen watching that show is not being taught anything, he is just being entertained.

A teenager is made to sit in a hard chair in a drafty room, next to people he doesn't like, watching a scratchy picture on a small screen, and the teacher's union will tell you he is learning, learning, he’s learning.

Later that same day, that person is sitting in a comfortable upholstered chair in an air-conditioned room, eating pop-corn and drinking a coke, sitting next to his girlfriend, watching a technically perfect picture on a huge screen, and we are told he is learning nothing, he is being entertained.

Why is it a surprise that a person who sees hours of the trash and filth shown on TV, in computer games, and in movie theaters, has their style of life changed? And don't say your child saw those same films and programs and killed no one. Millions of people saw a commercial for a new car last night, and only a very, very few bought the car.

Repeated and constant exposure to computer games, TV programs, and movies can and does influence a life. Can Hollywood be proud of what they teach?

No Nanny State
FOWG: We do have a free and capitalistic society. So, when television, being a market that produces entertainment, produces something that is successful, shows there is a demand for it.

inkling_revival: That would depend on whose definition of what is wrong is used. I do not wish to limited by whatever yours is. I am an adult, and can make that determination for myself

Also, the ratings are what determines the show’s popularity. The ratings are what draws advertisers, which affects their bottom line.

Pandm: if you don’t like the programming that you see on cable, then you cancel your subscription. Don’t try to dictate what everyone else can watch!

I think that you should all do what you would do with any product you don’t approve of. - don’t buy it. You don’t have to be inside watching TV all day. If you have children, monitor the appropriateness of the programs they watch. Be parents, and stop asking the government to do it for you! (And silly me thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility!)

If you all are looking for good programming, can the junk and tune into PBS. They run great and informative programs.

blustrmom/grndmomx2:
South Park did do an episode dealing with Allah. He was not sitting on a toilet though. It dealt with that cartoon incident.

Mary C.

Your life--make the most of your time
There's so much more to life than picking through the mental detritus of untalented, overpaid screenwriters. If they really knew what worked, EVERY show would be a smash hit.

You're better off reading a book--any book, even junk novels--than watching waste. Real people are far more interesting than these vile imagined "characters". Read a biography or two.

The ratings take care of this drivel
On limited access channels like showtime, they can show what they want and we shouldn't interfere with it. Crap like this always fails because America is still moral enough to reject it or at least not pay for it. It has a small market unless it is well done. And the reason this doesn't take place in a mosque is because the people that produce this stuff--Hollywood--are cowards. They know what their fate will be if they insult Moslems and other uncivilized peoples. We saw that in the Danish cartoon episode and the MSM and Hollywood failure to show the cartoons or deal bravely with it.

Writing religiously offensive material
Bigg Dogg, 1:45 PM, wrote: "Just consider a Jew writing a scene heretical to Christ and you might get the drift..."

You mean like Leonard Bernstein, in "Mass," having his priest throw the Eucharist on the ground in disgust?

The point is, BD, our culture has been permitting that sort of offense for DECADES (Bernstein's "Mass" was written in 1971). This latest is another instance -- as Pilgrim pointed out, the authors of Duchovney's Holy BJ are hardly Christian. But the offense is only permitted against Christians. Offensive material directed against any other religion is taboo. The excuse offered -- and a lame excuse it is -- is that Christianity is "the majority religion." How that makes it ok to treat Christians like garbage and rub their icons in the vilest materials at hand is beyond me. Maybe you can explain.

But to me, you guys are just Archie Bunker reincarnate, only you're so enamored of your racial sensitivity that you can't be convinced that you're raving bigots, which makes you twice as dangerous.

Porn, voluntary?
Oh, and Bigg Dogg? You might want to get hold of some of the FEMINIST treatises on pornography from the 1980s and read those. The question of whether women's participation in the porn industry is truly voluntary is HIGHLY debatable... and to the extent that it IS voluntary, a huge proportion is arguably neurotic or addictive, and calls for therapy.

prying the remote from cold, dead hands?
Bigg Dogg, at 1:40 PM, gives us yet another instance of liberals who simply don't know how to parse logical arguments, when he just completely misses the point of my analogy.

First off, though, BD, thanks for refraining from the infantile nickname-twisting. You really sound a lot more credible without it.

Now... I was responding to a question about why we don't appear to love the free market when it's a market for porn. The point being made was that a free market is not an absolute, but stands in the hierarchy somewhere below morality. In other words, we don't believe in the free market when the free market is for something genuinely evil.

The point stands whether you agree, or not, that selling porn is genuinely evil. Sure, you can draw distinctions between voluntary and involuntary, but that doesn't affect the point I was making, which was simply about conservatives accepting moral limits on the free market.

If you really WANT to get into the discussion about whether prurient sex on TV constitutes such an evil, please read my back-to-back posts from 11:47 AM and 11:48 AM, and my follow-up about 3 posts later, and respond to those.

By the way, not to be gross or anything, but given the topic, I rather imagine I will NOT have to pry the remote from your fingers, as your fingers are most likely engaged elsewhere. (Don't anyone think to hard on that, you might not enjoy the resulting mental image...)

hollyweird
after living near Hollywood for almost 30 years, hollywood seems to be composed of eternal 15 year-olds that are still in rebellion against their 'parents' and seeking approval of their fellow 'teenagers'

utahnotmormom
Your children no doubt, watch other shows that you would not approve.
Even if Disney was the only show they watched, you are still paying for ALL the channels you receive.

judgeddredd1
THANKS! What a great contribution to this column! They'll be hearing from me come Monday!

Hmmmmm isn't Viacom connected somehow to the late Imus show??? They didn't want to put up with bad words, but want to put their names behind this trash?????

Norm writes:
Saturday, August, 18, 2007 8:59 AM
"redsand... agreement
I spend an inordinate amount of time with my kids correcting the misinformation that passes for "knowledge" in the public school system and colleges. I don't have time to correct all of the garbage that comes out of the TV set. The result is that our TVs have become decorative not functional. Almost 2/3rds of the satellite channels I receive are password protected and about 30 of them are fully blocked. Things like MTV, Bravo, and others are simply not allowed at all. Pay per view options are locked out, the TV has become something that sits on a piece of furniture. All of this because of the, as you so succinctly put it, rot that passes for programming.

I am fully convinced that the amount of television watched by the rest of society directly contributes to social dysfunction in our country. I am also convinced that television deteriorates intellectual capacity, creates depression and hopelessness, and is a negative factor in the development of real values. Perhaps that explains our liberal friends?

My kids don't watch TV, we have given them other diversions and they are busy with other things. It's very hard work these days keeping kids on the straight and narrow. We have determined that TV undermines what we are responsible for teaching our kids."
======================
CONGRATULATIONS! I didn't want to leave out one word of your post. Having written my above posts before reading yours, I am quite pleased to know that there are conscientious parents who realize the impact this "box" has on their families. Keep up the good work!

Surprised that the writer is surprised
Who owns Showtime? Who runs Showtime? Let's find out and then maybe we will see what is behind, the promotion of this new show. After all, the media is only a reflection of those who own it and run it. Give me a sec an I'll google it.......................Viacom International Inc, owns Showtime. Now hold on, who owns Viacom............. Well here are the board members:Give them a call and voice your opinion.
VIACOM BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

George S. Abrams
617-526-6539
617-526-5000 fax

David R. Andelman
617-742-6720
617-742-5720 fax
dandelman@louriecutler.com

Joseph Califano
212-841-5200
212-956-8020 fax

William S. Cohen
202-689-7900
202-689-7910 fax

Phillipe P. Dauman
212-891-6590


Alan C. Greenberg
212-272-2000
212-272-4785 fax

Jan Leschly
609-683-8300
609-683-5787 fax

Shari Redstone
781-461-1600
781-407-0052 fax

Frederic V. Salerno
914-921-8821
914-921-6410 fax

William Schwartz
212-504-6399
212-504-6666 fax
williamschwartz@cwt.com

Patricia Q. Stonesifer
206-709-3100
info@gatesfoundation.org

Robert D. Walter
614-757-5000

And now, the chairman is:

Sumner M. Redstone
Chairman and CEO
Viacom, Inc.
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
212-258-6000

Big Dogg writes:
Saturday, August, 18, 2007 1:40 PM
"...but depictions of sex intended for paying adults? You'll have to pry my remote out of my cold dead hands..."
======================
Thanks, but I wouldn't want to touch your remote after you have spent your days/nights in front of the television as a "paying adult" watching depictions of sex.

This new show's initial program should be its last! What trash!!!!!


Norm writes:
Saturday, August, 18, 2007 6:40 AM
"TVs real use?
Television used to be something that was entertaining or informative depending on what channel was selected. Now it's nothing more than a propaganda tool for leftist interests or training video for social miscreants.

The television industry's fascination with the darker side of the human condition is the only thing programmed for broad consumption. Every human failing is glorified as something to be proud of. Television has become a revolting parade of murder, theft, deception, adultery, fornication, rape, and virtually every type of crime and immorality imaginable.

10,000 channels and nothing to watch, quite possibly the fastest way reduce your overall IQ."
===================
We say the same thing at our home - usually the channels we turn to are History / Discovery / Travel / HGTV or Cooking (along with an occasional Antiques Roadshow or Masterpiece Theater :-)

The tripe the networks put out for viewing is nothing that will enhance our lives, so why bother letting it in in the first place. Once let in, all it does is plant bad thoughts and images in our minds.

I believe young people who have been raised in front of the television most of their lives have never known the enjoyment received from reading, creative thinking or amusing themselves by making up games etc. They seem to be in need of constantly being entertained and/or told what to think.

I am so thankful to have been raised in a time when one was given the opportunity to figure things out for oneself...you didn't need some stranger telling you what life was all about.

Hey Bif Dogg
What makes you so sure the writer was a christian?

Well, now
PS We do get to watch Masterpiece Theater on the Boston PBS (whenever they are NOT fundraising :-)

Well, now writes:
Saturday, August, 18, 2007 4:39 AM
"...Why even watch tv?? Read a book. Take a walk. Plant a tree. Play with your kids. Enjoy life."
======================
You captured the essence of a good life, Well, now.

Television has never been a large portion of my day and I think I am the better for it! Besides, when all you get is negative negative negative news or scummy programs such as the reality shows (we've never watched a reality show) it just gives you a major stomachache!

I am saddened when I think of the many who waste their days sitting on their behinds watching The View or Oprah instead of getting out in the yard and playing with their kids or planting a garden.

Fresh air is a good thing!

Whoopee
Another narcissistic TV show from a self-absorbed writer/writers. Oh well. Duchovny needs something to do now that he's over the hill. Probably be cancelled.

Grumpy writes:
Friday, August, 17, 2007 11:35 PM
"...I wonder what they'd have said if that scene was in a mosque instead of a church?"
========================
I'm sure there would have been rioting in the streets around the world, as in the Dutch cartoon affair. Remember it is politically correct now to offend only Christians, preferably male.


Where do you think Big Dogg found
the evidence to support a statement like this one?

"You don't see the difference between Christians writing a scene transgressing THEIR religion as opposed to a scene Transgressing SOMEONE ELSE'S religion?"

I couldn't find the information proving that the writers and producers of this garbage were Christians. Maybe you can help me out here.

You don't suppose this is just another contortion at covering up the blatant hypocrisy of so called "atheists" whose self-righteous indignation only seems to surface against Christians but ignores, excuses and apologizes for murders, and violent "protest" committed by the Religion of Peace, do you?

Naah.


Hey Big Dogg
You wrote:

"Linking a lone killer to one billion Muslims is racist..."

What race are Muslims?


Terry Gross
Terry Gross is just wonderful. Full hour interviews without commercials. She does them very well. Like all of us, she makes mistakes once-in-awhile.

This op/ed reminds me of what is so much the matter with right wing media and why it is not mainstream. Over the course of years of interviews, of course anyone is going to have some opinion you and perhaps the public at large may object too.

Brent does not give her any credit. Anyone who has enjoyed Terry's years of interview are going to immediately dismiss Brent as someone who doesn't 1.) listen to Terry Gross and 2.) is therefore clueless.

Terry Gross has interviewed countless important people well and Brent's only comment is this?

I'm sorry Brent, not that anyone takes you seriously anyway, but you just keep adding to the mound of reasons why you are pathetic.





my 2 cents
Grumpy and Audi - well said.

(Grumpy and Audi - sounds like a little kids show from the 50s.)

Larry - go to your room without any supper, grow up, or both.

Anybody need some muslim laughs - go to http://www.memri.org and look for the thing about the 11 year old girl who says she wants to be a martyr. Check one of the latest Michael Medved blogs if you think I'm kidding.

If I ever get cable you can be d... sure I'll never watch showtime. If you wanna call that censorship help yourself but please have the integrity to attach the adjective "economic" to it.

Economic censorship - censorship in perhaps its purest form.


Actually - issuing a fatwah on the man who wrote "The Satanic Verses" - THAT'S censorship

Stabbing to death Emil Van Gogh in the Netherlands for making a film critical of islam's treatment of women - THAT is censorship.

Californication - trash

One more thing - let's not forget that these folks who are so happily stinking up the airways now are the children and in some cases grandchildren of the love generation - we were the ones who were going to fix everything.

See 'Underdog'

skep41
I don't subscribe to Showtime although I have subcribed to HBO in the past. back before you could go down and rent movies for next to nothing HBO was borderline worth the money.

Now you can rent those movies you wish to see and the so called premium channels are not worth anything. When I dropped cable and signed up for satelite I got 3 months of "free" HBO. I watched one movie on it and it was one that I had already seen before. And BTW, it did not show a Nun performing a "Monica" on someone in church and make jokes about it.

big dish owner
I have a big dish,and I can go to my program provider and chose what I want.There are alot of older shows that I didn't get to see,and now I get to watch.Gunsmoke anyone?

Er.. Ummm
Vic- going out of one's way to slime someone else's religion, as that sequence apparently did shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the 'moral idiots' that were responsible for it. The next question is why are you paying your hard-earned money for anything with the words 'David Dukovny' attached to it.
Lolo- I watch the old classics but TCM also has recently shown some Russ Myers movies and has shown a lot of r-rated films; which is exactly my point, if you go after the clowns on 'Calafornication' soon you'll be telling TCM and (in the upcoming Clinton Administration II) shutting down religious broadcasters.
inkling_revival Enjoying or not enjoying sex is not the issue. I work in the TV industry and have seen the pointless idiocy of 'Programs and Practices', the self-censorship departments most networks have. Once those colorless beurocrats get script approval they dont just censor sex, they change scripts for the most pedantic and irrational reasons. Better to put up with some garbage that you can tune out than hand control of entertainment to the unaccountable grey suits in corporate offices.

Again, try the on/off switch
Or, try the channel changer. That way, we can all watch what we want.

Inkling
Terrific posts. You sum up very elegantly all the reasons why I am a conservative and not a libertarian. Nicely done.

"Reality" TV
I remember when the show "Survivor" first came on and people were praising it to the high heavens as the greatest thing to come along since white bread. So I sat down one night with my wife to watch it to see what all the hoopla was about. An hour later I turned to her and said "How many millions of people watch this thing every week? That was the most boring and useless tv show I have ever seen." I guess its just a matter of taste but it seems that the networks and film production companies put so much money into these shows that the marketing of them has become a lot fiercer and more competitive lest they lose their investment than when you only had the Big Three(CBS,NBC,ABC). Shows get hyped out of all proportion to their entertainment value and you are looked at as an out of it dolt if you don't watch the latest craze. My youngest daughter loves "American Idol" while I could care less about it. Oh well, choices are what made America. Just don't try to ram yours down my throat.

Grumpy Got it Right
They'd never dream of setting a similar scene in a mosque.

These nuts pat each other on the back about how brave they are with their "transgressive" works. Brave enough to insult and vilify the religion whose founder called for his people to turn the other cheek. Not brave enough to insult and vilify the religion that makes insulting their faith a capital crime.

And they didn't enjoy sex?
skep41, 11:07 AM, wrote the usual, mindless drivel about the culture 2 generations back: "Husbands and wives in twin beds with ankle-to-chin pyjamas and bathrobes on, mentioning pregnancy a horrible no-no."

Do you really imagine they didn't enjoy sex as much as we do, skep? I've got news for you; there are good reasons to imagine they enjoyed sex MORE.

The simple fact that they didn't consider that we needed to turn sex into a spectator sport, does not imply that they didn't enjoy it as a participation sport.

I'm really sorry if marital sex hasn't worked out so well for you, man. That's difficult. But it's worked out just peachy for lots of us.

Help me out here, utahnotmormon
You wrote:

"Why are conservatives so adamant about free market forces except in the entertainment industry?"

Did I miss the call in these comments for government intervention to shut down this television show, or is your version of "free market" exclusive of the first amendment?

The lie about the market
Here's the thing the Left, and Hollywood, never admits:

There is NOT a huge demand for more prurient shows. If you took a survey of TV audiences and asked what they'd want to see more of, you would NOT hear "we want to see more naked breasts and graphic sexual acts." And you CERTAINLY would not hear "I want to see nuns giving blow jobs."

What is the case, instead, is twofold:

1) When you've run out of ideas, you can always get media attention by pushing the envelope. More sex is driven, in part, by a desire for higher ratings coupled with an absence of creativity.

2) Hollywood and liberal New York both believe, ideologically, that freer sex is good for society. They think so because they already practice it, and hate feeling like they're libertine freaks for doing so. So they want to force libertine sex down the culture's throat.

(What they don't realize is that the sense of being freaks comes from their own consciences, not from society at large.)

Consequently, I don't buy that the market is driving the increasing prurience of TV. I think it's being jammed down our throats.

skep41
I don't think that most of the people on here are as encensed by the "R" rated behaviour on this show as much as the fact that it demeans a religion.

skep41
Okay I had to laugh. You complain about the twins bed etc. then admit to watching old movies that were the era of twin beds etc.

Why we balk at prurient shows (Part II)
(cont...)

When gangsters, corrupt politicians, or satanists attempt to recruit, they often use sex as an intro. Why? because it's powerful, pleasant, the negative impact is sometimes difficult to see, and it has an addictive quality. Sex is the "entry drug" into greater barbarity. So a cultural temptation to draw more and more of us into harder and deeper and more frequent sexual episodes is a doorway into helping civilization come unglued.

Yes, there will always, ALWAYS be a market for more prurient shows. If you bait a trap with skin, you will ALWAYS catch a man. But that's not because it's good for us; it's among the things that are potentially damaging that we want to do. Some of us are weak all the time; ALL of us are weak sometimes. It's a wise culture that chooses to forbid itself greater access to the sweeter temptations.

The market for sex should be served, if at all, by a pay-for-use, limited-availability product. Sex for free via the airwaves is cultural suicide, pure and simple.

Why we balk at prurient shows (Part I)
FOWG, at 11;55 PM last night, wrote: 'Somehow we have to deny the old saw that "If the public buys it, it's O.K.".'

Let's start with an observation about human nature: we actually want to do lots of things that we know are wrong.

Every one of us experiences this. Not all the time, of course, but sometimes. Your marriage is hitting one of those tough spots, and the professional lady at work is flirting with you. What if...? The bills are piling up, and you owe several grand in taxes for the sale of that property. If you don't report it, who will know...? And of course, I'm leaving out the really embarrassing ones; nearly everyone, I think, has felt temptations, however momentary, to murder, to steal, to falsely accuse, some possibly to rape or molest. Nobody talks about these. We fear them. We try to pretend they're not there. But they're part of who we are.

Civilization consists in the daily choice to deny ourselves the damaging options. We CHOOSE fidelity. We CHOOSE honesty. We CHOOSE to refrain from violence. We CHOOSE to honor private property. We CHOOSE to honor the law. Civilization relies on the persistent, correct choices of its citizens. If enough of us choose wrong often enough, civilization comes unglued, and we return to barbarism and poverty, "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, The Leviathan)

This is why it is important to protect ourselves from influences that weaken our resolve to do the right thing.

(continued in Part II)

Vic
Amen! Start with the LOGO channel.

UtahnotMormon
Just curious Live in Ut? Whereabouts?

Pilot that didn't make the Cut
... Bozell ...

.....Two inside the beltway Washington types ...bearing striking resemblances to Little Dick Durbin and Chuckie Schumer begin a friendship that begins with long deep seated back rubs and progresses to more penetrating areas ...

.....In the opening scene our two heroes are working with the ACLU to craft legislation that would merge MAMBLA with the Boy Scouts and would introduce the game of co-ed nude twister into the Public School
System as a UIL sanctioned athletic sport ...

.....All this ground breaking excitment ends with a featured appearance of our two heroes at a Gay Pride Gala Gone Wild (videos available) set to the theme music of Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire" ...Oh! Well ...maybe next year .....COLOSSUS

Best thing you can do to your TV
is gut it and use it to hold your fish tank.

Ok Larry
I think showing an episode on South Park of allah sitting on a toilet would be a hoot. How about you?
I wonder when it became ok to demean anything held sacred by Christians. When did anything Christian become fair game?
I also wonder when it became a big taboo to say or do anything that might offend a muslim. Just when did that happen, Lar??

Lighten Up Brent
I guess we should go back to the era where your ilk was in charge? Husbands and wives in twin beds with ankle-to-chin pyjamas and bathrobes on, mentioning pregnancy a horrible no-no. Yes a lot of crap gets made (although I wouldnt know, having abandoned anything on the networks long ago for the History Channel and Turner Classic Movies) but also a lot of very good shows get made-- some even containing breasts and sex. People have moved on from the 1950's and arent afraid of this stuff anymore. I'm personally offended by TV preachers bilking mental defectives and Alzheimer victims out of their life savings using some worn-out Medieval mythology, let's censor that.

There's a market for slaves, too
utahnotmormon, 2:58 AM, wrote: "Obviously, there's a market although I doubt it's a very large one. Why are conservatives so adamant about free market forces except in the entertainment industry?"

There's a market for slaves, and it's huge.

There's a market for cocaine. It's enormous.

There's a market for murder-for-hire, although that one seems fairly small. On this continent, anyhow.

There's a market for underage prostitutes.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. We conservatives do believe in a free market, but a free market is not an absolute and inviolable good. Morals also exist.

The Los Angeles Times.

"The Los Angeles Times savages it for lacking "meaning or reason....."

Bwaahahahahah!

That's the best line in the whole article. "THE" Los Angeles Times is lacking "meaning or reason" on its own as a newspaper! Never mind its conceited pretense to the social authority of TV critic.

The LA Times is the Countrywide of the news biz.

Uses for TV
I can't agree with all those above who think TV is totally worthless. I have an old TV set that is quite useful as a screen for viewing DVD movies. While an increasing number of the new releases are also junk, there are a considerable number and variety of classic movies that are available for sale or rent which are worth watching either again or for the first time.

Little support
>Sadly, the rot that passes for entertainment becomes the cultural norm for children who watch TV.<

I suppose it depends on your definition of rot, but what is the basis for this accusation?

The Disney flicks made for TV, "High School Musical" and the sequel "High School Musical 2" are far and away the most watched and most successful children shows of the decade.
The Disney show "Hannah Montana" has spawned the highest selling musical albums geared for children in the past few years. These are the shows my kids watch. What shows are your kids watching that you come to such a negative conclusion?

To the core.
The authors missive against, "tax-payer funded NPR" and condeming critics because of their objectable support for a pay per view television program is contemptable considering we are talking about the administratively evil catholic church. The author has drawn arrow from his quiver to slay evil but instead presents two undeniable consequences. The first is drawing attention to a program that I knew nothing about before his perverted rant and second, to defend the core of a tarnished body of religious cult gone beserk.
I would suggest to the author that he spend less time being critical of critics and entertaining the thought of wisely picking his indefensible friends.

As I posted on Bozell's last
column, wouldn't it be nice if we could do cafeteria style channel selection for cable or satelite? That would be true free market choice and some of these channels would drop by the wayside.

redsand... agreement
I spend an inordinate amount of time with my kids correcting the misinformation that passes for "knowledge" in the public school system and colleges. I don't have time to correct all of the garbage that comes out of the TV set. The result is that our TVs have become decorative not functional. Almost 2/3rds of the satellite channels I receive are password protected and about 30 of them are fully blocked. Things like MTV, Bravo, and others are simply not allowed at all. Pay per view options are locked out, the TV has become something that sits on a piece of furniture. All of this because of the, as you so succinctly put it, rot that passes for programming.

I am fully convinced that the amount of television watched by the rest of society directly contributes to social dysfunction in our country. I am also convinced that television deteriorates intellectual capacity, creates depression and hopelessness, and is a negative factor in the development of real values. Perhaps that explains our liberal friends?

My kids don't watch TV, we have given them other diversions and they are busy with other things. It's very hard work these days keeping kids on the straight and narrow. We have determined that TV undermines what we are responsible for teaching our kids.

Norm, well said.
Sadly, the rot that passes for entertainment becomes the cultural norm for children who watch TV. What little is remaining of family and church, must work overtime to bring value to children. These are troubling times when troubled people subject the masses to their perversions and morally bankrupt society applauds. Perhaps our greatest remedy against this phenomenon is to pray to our God of love.

Liberty...
...Congress has to approve all treaty's,including trade treaties.The President proposes,Congress disposes.

We don't have free trade
Geez people, what we have now is NOT free markets. We have rampant CORPORATISM and a pile of BIG government managed trade agreements that were hoisted on us and advertised as free trade. That however does not change what they really are.

Who Killed Free Trade?
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=189&sortorder=articledate

What is Free Trade?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr050200.htm

"As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.

One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty." -- Dr. Ron Paul

The Trouble With Our Trade Treaties
http://www.jbs.org/node/4343

Behind the Job Loss
http://www.jbs.org/node/4342

TVs real use?
Television used to be something that was entertaining or informative depending on what channel was selected. Now it's nothing more than a propaganda tool for leftist interests or training video for social miscreants.

The television industry's fascination with the darker side of the human condition is the only thing programmed for broad consumption. Every human failing is glorified as something to be proud of. Television has become a revolting parade of murder, theft, deception, adultery, fornication, rape, and virtually every type of crime and immorality imaginable.

10,000 channels and nothing to watch, quite possibly the fastest way reduce your overall IQ.

Normally I am dead set
against censorship but when you have shows like this one it makes defense of free speech tough. As someone above said, things would be vastly different in this PC stupid world if the scene described above had taken place in a Mosque rather than a Catholic Church. The only “good” thing about this is that it is on Showtime. People across the nation should show their displeasure by not only “not watching the show” but by canceling subscriptions to Showtime. Even those of us who are not offended by nudity or casual sex should be offended by shows that go out of their way to offend people of faith, no matter what the religion.

utahnotmormom
What free market?
Yes, there are options, but only for the time being.
What would you do if all channels were against what you believe?
Your "free" market options will then be TV or no TV.
You can go to a store and select only those items you want--you will not have and do not have that option for TV.
The shows will be propaganda in nature.
They will have just enough of "your" shows to keep you on a string. And that is your 'free' market.
And your cable bill already pays a big part of the salaries for network shows.

Seems to me television is getting
dumb, dumber and more offensive to most viewers.
But the rest just keep watching, they have nothing better to do with themselves.

But then again, there was Peyton Place and a whole slue of other shows that were offensive (at the time.) And Sex and the City is shown on the local broadcast channel.

There's no Masterpiece Theater anymore. No Marlin Perkins - just some guys trying to grab hold of komoto dragons while they tell you how dangerous it is with silly patter. (I'm sorry, I liked the Croc hunter, but this new guy has gotta go!)

Not to mention all those STUPID 'reality shows'!!!

Why even watch tv?? Read a book. Take a walk. Plant a tree. Play with your kids. Enjoy life.

Obviously, there's a market
Although I doubt it's a very large one. Why are conservatives so adamant about free market forces except in the entertainment industry?

Yeah, Brian
But if you were a Muslim and had done that, the same people that produced this schlock would fall all over themselves excusing, ignoring and apologizing for your actions.

Then, they'd blame it on the Christians.

Well, if we were Muslims
we could cut off the heads of the people who put this show together.

Oh, well, I guess I'll have to settle for tuning it out.

Bummer.

The market
Somehow we have to deny the old saw that "If the public buys it, it's O.K.". This attitude leads only to a downward spiral as each generation gets futher from classical culture and deeper into spirit deadening trash passing as entertainment.

Hard to do in a free and capitalistic society infested with liberal judges intent on destroying any enforceable decency. (I remember when Playboy was banned from the mails as obscene.)

Times, they did change.

Any ideas out there?

LOL
Good one, AudiR10.

I wonder what they'd have said if that scene was in a mosque instead of a church?

How long O Lord
do we have to wait until the generation that, having discovered its wee-wee, has never needed another toy, finally gets enough of sharing its discovery with us?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.