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, June 05, 2009
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
MTV's Shock and Fraud
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


MTV really knows how to stage the stunts that generate big publicity for their major events. In 2004, MTV produced the CBS Super Bowl halftime show where Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's breast. In the fall of 2003, Britney Spears kissed Madonna suggestively at their Video Music Awards program. They've done it again with the 2009 MTV Movie Awards show. Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen's dressed like an angel and his flying over the audience during the live show went badly awry. He crash-landed in the audience and ended up upside down with his bare buttocks exposed right in the face of the rapper Eminem.

The seeming perfection of this gross-out embarrassment, complete with Eminem wearing a microphone, having a swearing fit, and walking out of the theater, caused some to smell a calculated stunt. Cohen seemed to be wearing a thong so the gross-out didn't include an upside-down whole-crotch hangout. So was it a fake? Scott Aukerman, head writer of this sorry program, admitted they staged this disaster. "That's all anyone wants to talk about, so let's get it out of the way. They rehearsed it at dress and yes, it went as far as it did on the live show then."

*** Special Offer ***

Can you believe the chutzpah of MTV, disparaging the media they're shamelessly exploiting, that "all anyone wants to talk about" is that they'd manufacture this new low, this shock-jock-strap plot? This certainly should make any doubters reconsider whether the Janet Jackson Super Bowl breast exposure was staged. The only surprise for MTV was that people were more outraged than they expected.

At the center of this latest sordid publicity stunt is commerce, of course. Cohen is plugging a new movie after his America-bashing sensation "Borat." This time, he's "Bruno," another self-involved idiot, this time a flamboyantly gay fashion reporter. But the biggest controversy for Cohen is his exploitative modus operandi: He doesn't make fictional films. His fictional idiot bursts in on real-life Americans unsuspectingly to get their shocked nonfiction reactions.

Here's a new case in point: A woman in California who ran a charity bingo tournament has sued Cohen and his corporate promoter, NBC Universal, for causing her a brain injury that's forced her into a wheelchair. Rochelle Olson claims in her lawsuit that Cohen grabbed the microphone at the event in Palmdale, Calif., and started using vulgarities in front of an elderly audience while calling the numbers. When she tried to take the microphone back, she states, she was surrounded and attacked by the camera crew, looking for a "dramatic, emotional response." When she ran from the stage, she fell and hit her head on a concrete slab.

Cohen and NBC Universal are offering no comment on this story.

Then there's Eminem, Cohen's comrade in shock, who is trying hard to sell his newest slab of hate-rap after a five-year hiatus -- so hard he's willing to have a bare male butt thrown in his face, twice. Once was more than enough for the audience grossed out at home. But Eminem was thrilled. He told the website RapRadar.com "I'm thrilled that we pulled this off better than we rehearsed it."

A few weeks ago, Time magazine's Josh Tyrangiel suggested Cohen surpassed Eminem in shock value through his Borat stunts. "Baron Cohen was darker, funnier and way more misanthropic than Eminem -- which is how it goes with cultural instigators," he wrote. "They poke, we react; they poke again, we react a little less, until eventually someone with a sharper stick and a bushier mustache comes along."

What surely troubles most in that sentence is Time magazine's gleeful admiration for misanthropic instigators who are mining the bottom of the barrel for the newest, darkest mockery. Cohen was admired for broadening the attack on decency to "mocking all Americans ... for being naive enough to believe their own mythology." Cohen painted Americans as racist, anti-Semitic, and stupidly in love with their own country.

By contrast, Tyrangiel thought Eminem wasn't really sincere enough with his instigating on his latest disc. By the middle of the first song, he's "masturbated to Hannah Montana and left a pile of bodies behind the counter of a McDonald's."

Tyrangiel continued, "On 'Medicine Ball,' he promises to rape the Pussycat Dolls and spits out a couplet of abuse for Madonna and Rihanna, while 'Same Song & Dance' has him raping Lindsay Lohan in one verse, and Britney Spears in the next. Suffice it to say that many more rapes occur and I stopped taking notes."

Just as the average Time reader would put down the magazine in revulsion, Tyrangiel yawned in print. "Are you outraged or just bored? Eminem has trampled these boundaries before."

When on Earth do our sick-headed "tastemakers" find enough is enough?

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
Typical TV Trash...
This is what mainstream television programming has evolved into over the past ten years: just plain shock and gross-out trash. There is hardly a television series out there that does not use "provocative" or "shocking" plots in order to get ratings, or at least try to gain additional media attention. Mtv is a sad reflection of mainstream television: it was a novel idea of music video TV when it was launched, but now is little more than tabloid trash and lewd behavior broadcast to our young audiences. Is this what "progressive liberals" really want? It is time for more conservatives to speak up and demand this garbage be removed from prime time viewing. What a sad commentary on American entertainment: what would John Wayne think if he were alive today?

A Few Things, Bozell
1) I'm sorry 'Leave It To Beaver' was canceled, but you need to get over it at some point. MTV is not for you. Social conservatives are not the target audience. There is nothing preventing you from changing channels and watching 700 Club reruns to your heart's content in between watching Hannity stroke himself.

2) I somehow doubt Eminem's "trying hard" to sell his latest album; he's one of the most successful rappers around, and every time an old white person does the, "Oh my God devil AND jungle music!" schtick, a rapper somewhere collects a royalty check. Again, this music isn't for you. Nothing's preventing you from buying as many Perry Como CDs as you like.

3) Once again, Sacha Baron Cohen isn't for you. The latest movie's about a gay Austrian fashion critic. Something tells me they didn't have the social conservative audience in mind. Did you ever see 'Borat', by the way? I'd hardly call it anti-American.

4) What's the point of this column? If you're going to call for censorship of things you find objectionable, sack up and do it already. Quit wimping around the subject. If you're just trying to tell us we should all stop finding funny stuff funny, well, sorry, grandpa, but the world's moved on.


Beverly Sills said
"Art is the signature of a civilization."

Bruno's butt in Eminem's face is the signature of the MTV generation.

The Great Thing About Borat...
...is that the character is an equal opportunity offender. He skillfully exposes the ludicrities of both liberals and conservatives, rather like South Park. Yes he can be offensive but is also very funny

WHAT A SHOCK!


The depraved, filth ridden MTV has just produced more filth and depravity. What a shock.

Moronic amusement for morons

Why are you singling out MTV? Blessed little that drools out of the entertainment industry is anything other than mindlessness for the mindless.

It isn't a recent phenomena either. It's been going on for generations.

Seriously Brent
Do you even understand the concept of having a 'sense of humor?' Nobody is putting a gun to you or anybody else's head and forcing you to watch this stuff. People watch it because they're amused. It's funny. It's entertaining. It's not like Eminem or Borat give guns to people and tell them to start shooting each other. They do it for entertainment, attention, and in some cases for just plain fun. You understand that concept? Fun?

Of the few people who get appalled by Janet Jackson's nipple, there are millions of others who it didn't bother. But they didn't say anything so it didn't get any media attention. Should the first amendment be stomped on just because some uptight stiffs with no sense of humor were offended? This is a free society. If you don't like the free spirit of free people, Iran and North Korea execute people for this kind of stuff. You might be much more comfortable there.

Safe bet
I spent part of yesterday on the thread of O'Reilly's column. A good number of posters there are convinced that O'Reilly should stand trial as an accessory to the murder of Dr. Tiller based on opinions he expressed on Fox News.

I'd be willing to lay odds that some of these same folks will show up here and castigate Bozell for daring to imply that MTV's antics promote lewd behavior among young people.

Any takers?

whither MTV
By the way, I liked MTV back when they actually showed music videos...I still remember "Video Killed the Radio Star" ca. 1981

Jack

Jack asks, "Do you even understand the concept of having a 'sense of humor?'"

Some of us are not so easily amused. A totally contrived situation where Borat's a$$ ends up in Eminem's face may be the height of hilarity to you, but to grownups it's just infantile silliness.

Some people's sense of humor grow beyond the inane.

Bob_C, Jack
Jack's got a good point though -- nobody is forcing anybody to watch this stuff. A poor commentary on our culture when such junk is seen as high comedy.

The only way to be rid of this sort of thing is if enough people decide "this is stupid & childish, I'm not going to waste my time with it."

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Just one more thought
I wonder if they thought "Borat" was funny over in Kazahkstan?

Double standards, part deux
Several posts on this forum include the standard response to literary and artistic criticism -- those who disapprove of a work are obviously not part of its intended audience, and they just don't get it. They must either ignore the work or shut up. This assumes that writers, painters, performers, and so on have rights of expression that critics do not -- a topic for another day, perhaps.

Well, backatcha. Those perpetually offended by Town Hall in general or Brent Bozell's columns in particular obviously don't belong to their intended audience. Perhaps those who take offense just don't understand the site or the columnist. In any case, they should surf over to the Daily Caustic or simply be quiet.

Bulldog74

"Jack's got a good point though -- nobody is forcing anybody to watch this stuff. A poor commentary on our culture when such junk is seen as high comedy."

Jack has a firm grasp of the obvious. Yes, nobody is forced to watch. However, this was an awards show, and few expected to be subjected to the sight of Eminem's face nestled in Borat's butt, any more than the children watching the Superbowl halftime show expected to see Janet Jackson's sagging breast.

Bozell's point is not that this crap should be banned, but that it's foisted on unsuspecting viewers who are watching an awards show or a football game.

Paleocon

Nobody here is advocating censorship, just honesty. I couldn't care less if the mating of the butt of Borat and the face of Eminem took place on the Borat Show or any venue where such behavior is to be expected up front. Nor do I care if Justin T. exposes Janet's entire set of assets in the right place.

But when it takes place in an awards show or football game, without warning ahead of time, I have a minor problem with it.

Bob_C
Well yeah, now that you mention it, it's the "stealth" aspect of all this that's really disturbing.

(Although based on MTV's track record the past few years, I wouldn't be surprised at anything they do)

My wife complained to our local theater manager a while back after she finally got fed up with seeing previews for R movies at PG or PG-13 screenings. I guess a lot of other people must have done the same, because it doesn't seem to be as bad lately.

Bob_C
"Nobody here is advocating censorship. . . ."

I'm glad that you're not advocating censorship, but I doubt that you speak for those on this forum who seem to be doing exactly that. When someone tells a critic to "change the channel" or "read something else," he says, in effect, that the critic has no right to express an opinion. That position is incompatible with my understanding of free speech. It's also a puerile means of avoiding serious discussion.

Although Eminem's face and Cohen's butt are a perfect match, I didn't watch their televised introduction. Given an informed choice, I still wouldn't have watched. The preceding sentence leads to an important point: people who saw the broadcast weren't given a choice. The producers sneaked in that offensive display. They had to. If they had given fair warning, they probably would've lost a large number of viewers and sponsors. Ambush broadcasting purposely offends before anyone can pull a commercial or change the channel, so the usual platitudes are even less applicable than in other cases.

Splicing autopsy footage into _Veggie Tales_ may be protected by the Constitution, but it's a bad practice. Those who agree have a perfect right to say so aloud and to boycott networks and underwriters.

Not buying Eminem in on joke
I'm skeptical Eminem happily volunteered to have Borat's crotch and rear in his face. After spending inordinate effort building a "tough and cool" image for his teenybopper target market, it's difficult to believe he'd volunteer to be humiliated, jeered, and laughed at by millions as he cried for his "bodyguards" to save him from Cohen's swinging junk.

Let Me See If I Have This Straight

Our kids and grandchildren are exposed to endless, vile trash in every imagineable way in the continued dumbing down of American culture.

However, we some "on this forum" who have no problem with that. That about right?

Paleocon

You are exactly right, sir. Good post.

Bob_C-Bulldog74-Paleocon-TC-Others
MoronTV televises what Liberal Trash finds entertaining. Perversion, Promiscuity, Intoxication, Profanity, Lying, Cowardice and other Cherished Liberal Values.

Tacitus X

"Not buying Eminem in on joke"

If not, I'm curious as to why then he was miked up. Did he have any other part to play in the awards?

I have to agree
with vespanat. I laughed myself silly when I saw the Borat movie. I have the blueray disk and still watch it on occasion, and still laugh. I'll probably see the Bruno movie. I expect that at some point I'll be offended, just as I was during Borat. But so will everyone else at some point. So I'll just let that slide and maybe even laugh at myself. Same thing goes for watching South Park or The Simpsons.

As for MTV, I don't get it so I don't watch it. MTV was started when I was in college (I believe my sophmore year), and I recall my friends spending hours watching those stupid music videos. I chose not to waste my time doing that. I've been rewarded with a much better career and much higher salaries than my friends who spent hours in college being mesmurized by MTV.

T.C.

T.C. laments, "Our kids and grandchildren are exposed to endless, vile trash in every imagineable way in the continued dumbing down of American culture. However, we some "on this forum" who have no problem with that. That about right?"

What do you propose? Do you want a censorship czar? Do you want the government to filter out what they consider objectionable?

Be careful what you wish for, my friend, lest you be on the receiving end of censorship.

WHAT'S MTV?

.....I think BORATS butt in EMINEMS face pretty much sums up the mentality of the MTV crowd and its viewers of which I am pleased to say I am not one .....COLOSSUS

T.C.
"Our kids and grandchildren are exposed to endless, vile trash in every imagineable way in the continued dumbing down of American culture.

"However, we some 'on this forum' who have no problem with that. That about right?"

There's a big difference between recognizing a problem and looking to criminal law or the rulings of unelected regulatory agencies for a solution. Besides, those interested in official remedies already have the civil courts. If a major sponsor of that award program were brave enough to demand its money back because it hadn't been warned about butt-sniffing and didn't wish to be associated with it, MTV might have to mend its ways, however slightly. If it didn't yield, it would end up in court, where it might lose. In any event, it would probably think twice about the future proposals for unannounced gross-outs. So would other broadcasters. And maybe a cable company or two would wake up and remove this rubbish from their basic tier of services.

I have to wonder why there aren't a thousand class-action suits against irresponsible broadcasters. If plaintiffs argued successfully that broadcasting trash causes or worsens social ills, fine and dandy. But even if they lost, they might ultimately win. Broadcasters maintain that their programming has no effect on public behavior. If that is so, for what service have they been charging sponsors all these decades? If their defense won repeatedly in court, advertisers could sue them up, down, and sideways for defrauding them. That, too, would be fine and dandy.

Censorship?
Heck, yes! Communities have a right to establish standards for behavior and for what can be shown or not shown to children and families, for what can be displayed in libraries, and shown as movie trailers.

When you allow me to choose EXACTLY which TV channels I want on my cable menu and pay by the channel, then we'll talk. When I have to pay for channels that I won't ever watch, it's opressive taking. My money goes to bringing trash into your home, so don't give me this "change the channel" bullcrap.

My cable company just dumped the bluegrass and opera channels for uncensored rap, but my bill didn't change. Where's my freedom?


Technically.
It doesn't actually bring it into your home until you have it on that channel.

Jason,
"Technically. It doesn't actually bring it into your home until you have it on that channel."

True, but as Bob_C reminded me earlier, what about the poor shmucks who tune in expecting to see one thing and get something entirely different?

If people turn on the Victoria Secret Fashion Show and then complain because their kids saw young women in lingerie, then I have no sympathy for them.

But if people turn on the Super Bowl and get blindsided by has-been Janet Jackson, or turn on an awards show only to see Borat or Bruno or whoever's butt in M&M's face, then I think they have a legitimate gripe.

How much does Bozell make from...
advertising all these shows? I'd say anyone that spends as much time watching them as he apparently does, he must really enjoy it, despite the whining editorials he produces. Then again, every time he writes about South Park, he misses the point of the episode so completely, I question whether or not he actually saw it.

Either way, I hope he's getting a nice commission from Parker and Stone. He advertises enough for them! And not Borat!

-correction-
"and now Borat".

Joel
The thing is...I have read that post. Several times in fact. It is hard to miss considering you put the same thing over and over again for a good number of posts I see from you.

In any event, if the state regulated it, there would be no difference...it is replacing one branch of the decency police with another.

O - WTBC?
Obama - Where's The Birth Certificate?

So,
Everything you right is the 100% truth?

I get it now...thanks for opening my eyes to the truth.

In getting back to the topic at hand.

Bulldog, you make a valid point. But say RichD. and I happen to be out in public in the same place, and I say, for example, "that's fu-cking bu!!sh!t", is he going to call the cops or the FCC and slap me with a fine?

Rich D. said...
"My cable company just dumped the bluegrass and opera channels for uncensored rap, but my bill didn't change. Where's my freedom?"

I'm pretty sure there is no guarentee in the constitution for anyone to have to provide you with TV. I'm sorry for your loss regarding the bluegrass channel. What is on is what is on though. Vote with your wallet. That's how "communities establish standards". The community is made up of lots of people, not just you.

Rich Has a Point
Rich does have a point. The nature of television transmission has changed: cable TV, especially formatted into packages, is now the norm for transmission and can reasonably be expected to comform to community standards.

The solution is also as Rich describes and one I fully support. Cable television should be packaged on a per channel basis so that no one had to pay for a channel they did not want.

However, any current used can readily block any channel he or she does not want in his or her home. WHile this is not a perfect solution, it is a solution.


Two sides to the Story
In all these posts, there are basically two points of view:

1) I was offended by that

2) I'm OK that you were offended by that.

And that's IT. End of story. No one has a right not to be offended. And everyone has a right to say they were. That both defines and solves the problem.

Now, anyone here, like Bozell, who wants to live in a world where they don't have to worry about being offended, has a problem. And that problem isn't going to get solved as long as we have the Constitution we have.

Jason
"...say RichD. and I happen to be out in public in the same place, and I say, for example, "that's fu-cking bu!!sh!t", is he going to call the cops or the FCC and slap me with a fine?"

No, I don't think he should call the cops...I suppose there are several things that could happen:
1) He could ignore you and stay where he is
2) He could move somewhere else so he doesn't have to listen to you.
3) He could (politely or otherwise) ask you to watch your mouth; what happens after that depends, I guess, on who's bigger and/or how far you guys want to take it.

Translating this to the media, his options would be:
(1) watch the channel and ignore the offensive stuff
(2) change the channel
(3) speak out against the stuff he finds offensive

I would opt for (3)-- not in the form of censorship, but more like a consensus of people getting together and telling the network "hey we don't like this stuff and we're not going to buy from the people who sponsor it."

Bulldog74
You offer some very talking points, which is kinda refreshing here. Most people will say "because god said so" and leave it at that.

I think that there is always going to be a market for what "decent" people find offensive, so somewhere, there is going to be something that certain people find "crass" or "indecent". I don't think it will go away, at least for a long time anyway.


Joel is right about the First Amendment
and his argument applies to all the rest as well. The preamble to the Bill of Rights (actually a Bill of Protections) says it all:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of ITS powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

"ITS" power is the power of government.
"DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE" clauses (the amendments) supercede ANY OTHER PART of the Constitution.

These amendments protect the INDIVIDUAL from the GOVERNMENT. They do not protect the people from the people or classes of people from the government. The local networks CAN block the airing of content that they feel is inappropriate and there is NOTHING that gubmint, nor the so-called entertainers, can do to stop it. This is the time where private enterprise can and should take the lead in fostering civil and moral behavior throughout the U.S. Retailers ought to "just say no" to selling the music of thugs. The networks and theaters ought to not air shows and movies they consider to be in bad taste or that condone the current state of uncivil behavior. BOTTOM LINE folks is that THE PEOPLE have all the power. Stop looking to gubmint and court actions to stem the tide of the outrageous! The power is in your hands; turn off the TV, don't go to the movie (and don't let your kid), and don't buy their music. The entertainment business is looking at the bottom line--if it sells it's OK. SO DON'T BUY OR WATCH IT! Let them know that YOU are the bottom line!



In terms of tv stations.
A lot of cable stations can have certain channels blocked to where you cannot view them. It is the same way that the premium channels are blocked for people who do not subscribe to them.

Unfortunately, the bill will still be the same. That is really something that would have to be taken up with the cable companies, or hell, take it up with the FCC. I guess my point is, don't deny me access to see uncensored rap (which I don't like, just because I don't like a lot of rap, taste-wise) or anything else that someone might find offensive (that range is so broad, because anyone can find anything offensive).

In any event, I'm off to the pub for an ale. Good weekend to all of you.

RichD

RichD asks, "My cable company just dumped the bluegrass and opera channels for uncensored rap, but my bill didn't change. Where's my freedom?"

You don't have a "right" to cable or satellite TV to begin with. In fact you don't have a right to anything but exercising your right to buy or not. Harsh perhaps, but true. It's like subscribing to a magazine or newspaper. While you don't get to choose the content, only the service, you have more control over what you watch than with a magazine.

TV is a business first and foremost and to stay in business they must provide that which the consumer most wants. By and large, the consumer wants trash, and so they get it.

If your sensibilities are that easily offended, stick to channels, however few, that you know you won't be offended and block the rest.

Remember, that what you consider offensive may not offend others and vica versa - even in the same community. Shall we set YOU as the viewing standard in your community or somebody else who might not be so easily offended? Again, be careful what you wish for.

Jason,
Thanks, I try to think things through (not always successfully).

Although I'm always torn on this issue, I have a lot of problems with the whole nanny censorship thing.

For example, I think "Band of Brothers" was one of the best TV series ever...I watch it every time it comes on, and I never get tired of it.

But what would happen to my "Band of Brothers" if, for example, some old hag from Code Pink became head of a very powerful FCC?

That's why I say let the people decide what they want to watch or not watch, and let the marketplace decide.

All the anti-Bozell crusaders
Could you please quote the exact sentence where he advocated censorship? In this column, or any column?

I'll wait patiently.

It seems many on the left have a difficult time understanding what censorship really means. They have a problem with a group, like Bozell's, whose main focus is disseminating information to busy parents about what sort of "entertainment" is available for their kids. Yet, they have no problem with actual threats to free speech by possible government action like the ridiculously named Fairness Doctrine.

King Julian?
Wasn't Sasha Cohen the voice of King Julian in Madagasgar? If so, maybe, he should be heard and not seen and then in only a G or PG, situation. How on earth does this man stay solvent?

Another point
Olbermann stated that Fox News had made vile references about Dr. Tiller 28 times in 5(?) years. Assume that most Fox News shows are repeated, so 56 times, according to Olbermann's count, Dr. Tiller was referenced in unflattering ways.

How many times will Eminem's rants about rape and murder be broadcast?

Still waiting for my ride
Don't want to drive under the influence an all.

Oh I agree. Content should be self regulated by the market. If that was the case, though, you know there would be more and more people on hear screaming about being offended, because, let's face it, sex sells. "Profanity" sells. Everything sells really.

And that is what media outlets care about...what sells.

On another note Bulldog
If someone tried to come take my Band of Brother box set away from me, I would freaking RAGE!!!!

Love that series.

Bulldog74

I agree. "Band Of Brothers" is arguably the best series ever created. I have the tin box set and watch it often. "The Crossroads" is my favorite episode.

factual error
"When she ran from the stage, she fell and hit her head on a concrete slab."
False, false, false.
She didn't run from the stage and fall. She ran from the stage into another room, where she sobbed 'uncontrollably'. Minutes later, a friend came to check on her. At that point, the clearly emotionally weak baboon fell over and hit her head on the thinly carpeted concrete slab floor.
It changes the analysis greatly - in the faked telling, Cohen is clearly at fault. In reality, this woman should be wearing a helmet. By law. Nothing anyone could say to me would cause me to blabber and sob uncontrollably. Nothing would make me lose control of myself to the point that I bonk my head on concrete. Simply put, the facts bear out that this lawsuit is improper - she should be suing the owners of the venue holding the event for failing to take reasonable care to avoid a dangerous environment. People who are so weak willed as to be reduced to a sobbing mess, unable to stabilize their own head and body, should be court ordered to wear a helmet at all times. Period. I appreciate the analysis on TH, but can't stand it when people try to pass off half truths as fact. Do better research next time.

Jeffislouie
I might blabber and sob if someone told me they weren't going to broadcast "Band of Brothers" any more...just in case, I'd probably better break down & get the DVD set. (hey kids, Father's Day is coming)

bulldog74
go sell dvd's somewhere else, please. TH should be a place for adults to discuss adult things, not as a way to promote sales of a dvd.
The only thing worse than the far left liberals on TH constantly blasting every new idea is when people who consider themselves conservatives decide to abandon the notion that TH should be a place for an exchange of ideas.
My father wasn't in ww2. His parents were trying to stay alive while being hunted by nazi's because they were the 'wrong' religion.
I'm not sure why you seem to want to use bozell's article to push dvd sales on BoB, but perhaps instead of shilling a DVD, you could return to discussing the issues of the day.

Jason
You are being dense - the basic fee covers all of the channels in the package - you don't get to choose which to support. It's just like the combined charities, but there is no check-off.

Jeffislouie
Aw, give us a break we were just having a bit of fun.

Not that they were really profound or anything, but if you scan down the thread you'll see that I DID put forth some opinions regarding pop culture, censorship and all that. Not that they match your fiery intellect, but I just do the best I can.

My dad was in WWII (Central & South Pacific), and it's just nice to take a break from the main topic once in a while, BS with some of the other posters, and find some common ground.

Can't be at war with liberals ALL the time...


Ummmm.
You can choose which stations are blocked.

And I think I admitted currently that the bill would be the same. You would have to take that up with your cable company.

Bob_C
"What do you propose?"
(10:35 a.m. EST. Reply 29)

Well, let's see. First I'd propose that the producers and programers at MTV be banned from planet earth for life. I'd have all of them put on the next Shuttle heading to outer space and drop them off on Planet Bongo. It's where they belong.

Our young people would now be saved from the endless garbage MTV calls "entertainment". After not viewing filth and depravity for a few months, their minds might even be restored! Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Sound like a good plan? I like it.


Its more than likely
That JeffisLouie never saw Band of Brothers. If he did, he would understand why we are talking about it, and would probably want to put in his two cents as well.

In any event, just another example of people trying to sensor others.

bulldog74
Please note, this is what I said:
"perhaps instead of shilling a DVD, you could *return* to discussing the issues of the day."
As in, I recognize your previous contributions to the thread.
We shouldn't be "at war" with liberals. We should be discussing the news of the day and the column at hand.
If not for the fact that you referenced BoB multiple times, I would have kept my big fat mouth shut.
I'll acknowledge BoB was great. I'll even overlook a few 'go buy the dvd' comments. My fear is that in our american idol culture, straying for too long off topic can result in the discussion being hijacked.
That's all.
My intellect is not any more 'fiery' than anyone else's, I just wish we could stay a little closer to the topic at hand once in a while.

Most of you folks aren't getting it.
The government forces me to support channels that I neither want nor approve of. Don't watch doesn't reduce my bill! It's not like there are other games in town, like for newspapers. To tell me not to subscribe at all is also ridiculous. It's like putting porn in all of the newspapers and telling me not to look at those pages, but charging me for the whole paper.

A conservative, libertarian, or true liberal would let me vote my dollars on a per-channel basis, and let me modify my menu choices at will from my set. You can do what YOU want.

I can see a base service fee of five or ten bucks a month to cover the line and maintenence, and then either a per-channel fee or per-program fee. Their computers know which channels I watch and for how long. The phone service has more options. I can download music on a per-song basis. Heck, the advertisers would be happy to know the real-time audience count.

Comcast had "On Demand". The last time I check the western category, there were all of three westerns. They didn't respond when I complained that The Rifleman series was removed. They also didn't respond when I sent email about the music channels. So much for demand.

What are all of the governments doing in this business, anyway?

Jason
Good point. In this case, JeffisLouie has several options:
1) Skip over my screen name the next time he sees it
2) Read my posts & ignore them
3) Go to another thread and hope I don't show up there
4) Stay on this thread and hope I call it a day
5) Get into a back-and-forth with me so that we can bore everybody else and drive THEM off the thread
6) Report me to the webmaster as offensive

I have no real quarrel with JeffisLouie, so I don't think there's any need for options 5 or 6.

And since this day is winding down, he doesn't really have to worry about 1, 2 or 3.

Have a great weekend everyone

Jason
Bad reasoning leads to bad conclusions.
I HAVE seen BoB. I enjoyed it.
However, the article is about MTV and the garbage they promote, not the merits of BoB.
I invite you to explain to me how the BoB DVD has any bearing on the subject at hand. Feel free.
As for your ridiculous charge of censorship, perhaps you don't really understand what that word means. Here's a solid definition:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive"
I didn't delete or suppress anything - I merely requested that we try to stay on topic instead of attempting to sell DVD's.
If you are a conservative, I suggest you use your intellect to more carefully construct your position.
If you are a liberal, great job! Exactly as expected!

bulldog74
You omitted another option:
politely request that you stay on topic, only to become a target for anger and accused of censorship.
Talk about back and forth! All I did was ask you to stop shilling BoB DVD's and stay on topic. What a truly awful thing to do in a discussion thread about MTV!
Seriously, I don't understand how (now) 2 people could expend so much effort against me for making a simple request! Then, in an effort to shut me up, accuse me of censorship!
Hilarious. It's called Hypocrisy, you should look it up.
Then again, the thread has already apparently been hijacked by people so irritated by someone who hoped posters could stay on topic.
My bad. It's nice to see that TH-ers are so inclusive and tolerant. What happened to my beloved Townhall.com????
It used to be full of conservative thought and debate - now, apparently, it's become a place to talk about Band of Brothers for any reason and then attack anyone who reminds us all to stay on topic.

JeffisLouie
OK, I'll bite one more time....
Here is how the whole BoB thing came up. I wrote in one of my posts:

"Although I'm always torn on this issue, I have a lot of problems with the whole nanny censorship thing.

For example, I think "Band of Brothers" was one of the best TV series ever...I watch it every time it comes on, and I never get tired of it.

But what would happen to my "Band of Brothers" if, for example, some old hag from Code Pink became head of a very powerful FCC?

That's why I say let the people decide what they want to watch or not watch, and let the marketplace decide."

Sorry if I took it off on a tangent from there, I'll try and stay more focused next time.

This is news?
Borat and Eminem are offensive and indecent? They use shock tactics to increase their audience? Surely you jest!

BULLDOG 74 MA

.....BAND OF BROTHERS IS AVAILABLE ON DVD .....COLOSSUS

Alrighty.
You are correct, Band of Brothers does not have anything to do with this subject.

But your actions do. Think about it.

Your are attempting to suppress our views of Band of Brothers. From what I've seen, this is a community and we should be able to talk about whatever we want if the topic is brought up. You are attempting to suppress my speech of communicative material because you object to it. If you have the ability to, you would try to ban me or delete my posts, but you do not have that ability. You are attempting to censor us. Doesn't make you any better.

I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm part of the anti-bullsh!t party.


bulldog74
See? That wasn't so hard! That comment made sense and made clear why BoB came up.
Instead of attacking me, explaining is much more efficient.
Enjoy your weekend. May it be filled with hours of BoB.

Jason
"Your are attempting to suppress our views of Band of Brothers... You are attempting to suppress my speech of communicative material because you object to it. If you have the ability to, you would try to ban me or delete my posts, but you do not have that ability. You are attempting to censor us." No I'm not. There is no way what I said and did amounts to suppression. Your leap of faith argument that if I could, I'd ban you and delete your posts is both ludicrous and unfounded. Unlike you, I don't behave like a spurned child because I don't like what you have to say. As a point of fact, I never attempted to suppress anything - I merely requested that we stay on topic. I don't object to your expression of a deep seeded love of BoB. Rather, I ask that you stop selling DVD's on a forum intended for discussion of the article above. Clearly, your logic centers are off kilter. By YOUR very argument, YOU are attempting to suppress my communication by telling me to go away and shut up. By your argument, you are guilty of the same censorship that you accuse me of. Here's the breakdown: I notice that multiple posts are logged on this thread that contain requests for people to purchase BoB and post a comment asking that we stay on topic and NOT sell DVD's. You notice my post, and accuse me of censorship. I retort using a logical argument wherein I explain that there has been no attempt to censor anything. You respond with an illogical jump to the conclusion that if given the power, I would ban you and delete your posts. Based on what? Your fantasy perception of my desires. Show me evidence that I desire to delete or ban your posts or any posts. Show me the proof that led you to make that leap of faith, nonsensical argument that was both baseless and hypocritical. Perhaps TH should require a logic class before allowing people to post?

I wouldn't sit
..through sixty seconds of anything put on my MTV unless I was bound and gagged. And then I'd beg to be blindfolded also.

I was disappointed in Dennis Miller on O'Reilly's show putting his stamp of approval on this mindless filth, even saying that that's "what a kid's show should be like". Or something to that affect. But then, I guess money can buy almost anyone. Apparently his brother is the manager of this no-talent creep that flew naked through the air on angel's wings.

My response after viewing this on Fox News was to shake my head and feel sorry for the decent people in the audience. At least, I assume there must have been a few of them.

Garbage people performing garbage stunts.

MTV isn't for your age
group. It is for mine. I grew up with MTV. It isn't always good, lots of the stuff is stupid. But lots of stuff my mom and dad watched was too.

If that lady was hurt by Sasha Cohen, let her sue. That is what court is for,ins't it?

Rich D how does the govt force you to
support anything? Do you really need cable? Most people want the variety. If you don't, then call them up and ask them if you can pay by the channel. It will cost more, but that will work for you, right? What are you afraid of, seeing something that offends you? Don't you have an on/off switch?

get directtv or dish. Avoid cable. I do.

The best way to treat MTV
is never to turn it on.

Juliet - more non sequiturs
"Rich D how does the govt force you to
support anything?"

Are you not getting it either? - the government sets the charges and what the basic package is - it's a sponsored monopoly. So, you are telling me to switch from one monopoly to another or do without? The government controls the airwaves, so we are stuck.

"What are you afraid of, seeing something that offends you? Don't you have an on/off switch?"

You can't read either - part of the basic charges for ANY TV package goes to support all of the channels in that package. I SAID that you can watch and or listen to what YOU want, but don't make me pay for it, but you ARE. Don't be so dense!

Right now my options are to get no entertainment or get some and pay for yours, too. Of the 40 or more so-called music channels, there is no bluegrass and no opera, but plenty of bitches & hos.

What is MTV?

MTV must be some cable thing. I've never heard of it. I saw the report of the stunt on ABC, but did not see it. Hollywood is easily entertained these days.

I saw something the other day
I was webbing around politics and some claimed spy had a link to a japanese show and it said you've got to see this or something like that.
I click the link and there's a live audience and stage, on the left is a male in a small g-string diaper hanging legs spread from the arms of a big male statue - across the stage is another young fella with his head pinned to a board facing the crotch across the stage.
The emcee asked questions and apparently the soon to be faced contestant had to answer.(was a foreign language)
The statue carrying the open g-string diaper crotcher rolled across stage to the face of the other contestant with each incorrect answer.
The audience was screaming and yelling and having a hoot.
I wondered where they get people to pay for a ticket to that and who will sit in on it watching and cheering, let alone the contestants or the emcee.
So it's not just here - it overseas as well, and I think they often have us beat in depravity.
I guess we have a very large group of very depraved perverts in the USA now, who just cannot get enough of Springer and it's lower and lower derivatives.
Certainly noone should expect it to stop - it will end up in some naked gay transvestite sex and bathroom any body fluid or part goes grossout(with black squares or blurring for the tv viewers).
Since they haven't failed to continue to find more perverted crap to put on air for over a decade, they certainly have a ways to go - I suppose the hollywood and Tv heads have a master listing replete with years out barriers to break.
Their test runs are the skumbag sundance liberal crybaby pervert redford fest.
I guess last time one of their excelling depravity students even surpassed the sundance crowds tolerance level and clipped out something so sick even they and the reviewers complained. I'm sure working through that wall is already accomplished - all for art, no doubt.

Hey Scury: Go SUCK A LIME!!!!
Conservatives LOVE good movies. The key word is GOOD not just self-indulgent tripe intended to "be edgy" or "test the limits" or whatever self-serving line of bilge the black clothed trendoids are peddling now.

Look at the Oscars a couple of years ago. WE all wanted Will Smith to win Best Actor for "Pursuit of Happyness" but Forest Whittaker (a GREAT talent BTW) won for "Last King of Scotland". This was ANOTHER case of inside the studio Hollyweird elitist jerks (usually in a circular formation) sucking up to each other and showering success on a movie that almost nobody PAID to see.

"Pursuit" in comparison raked in a lot of cash and had an uplifting storyline. Of course Jesse Jerkson had to urinate all over the film. It depicted a black man, living on the street, reaching the highest peaks of success in America WITHOUT government programs or other assistance. NO mention of race was made throughout the movie.

Can't have THAT in PC America can we? It just shoots too many sacred cows at once and bursts the comfortable ideological cocoons that twits like you live in.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!
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.