An understanding of the media message

[Daisy Buchanan]

Over the past decade I have become more aware of the messages sent to us through the media. I know we live in a completely different time than "June Cleaver" times and the Ovaltine commercials placed directly into a sitcom. I must say that I am disappointed in the messages being presented.

There is a new commercial for the Ford Freestyle vehicle in which we see what looks like an incredibly happy nuclear family roadtripping in their new car. At the end of the commercial we see the father hugging his daughter and son goodbye and thanking his x-wife for allowing him to join them for their weekend festivities. I am fully aware that the divorce rate is high. But, I really don't understand this commercial, and I find it sad that with all the ideas for commercials they chose this type of family dynamic to sell their car. Don't get me wrong, I haven't any problem with divorce, and this isn't a discussion on whether it is right or wrong. It's just that it makes me wonder why Ford chose this particular line to follow? It's as if they are saying if you buy their car, even if you don't get along with your ex, you'll still be happy and content spending the day with her because the car is so great.

Another example of bad messages in the media can be seen in the show "Charmed". The three charmed girls run around half dressed. Two of the three girls have multiple relationships with men over the years and quite a few one night stands. They openly discuss thier evening activites with these men. They laugh about it so non-chalantly. This sends the wrong messages to the young girls who watched this program. I don't know why a station like the WB would want to send this kind of message to the young, impressionable girls and boys that tend to watch these shows. If I had kids, I don't think I'd let them watch it. I have plenty of other examples, such as shows like "The O.C", that show teens being promiscous and drinking alcohol.

We all know about the songs sung by some rappers that brag about violence, drinking, and drugs. I'm not up to speed with today's music, but I do know that there are a lot of songs out there that aren't fit for the ears of an impressionable teen.

We live in an age of media, whether it be on TV, the radio, or the internet, the media is used to send a message. So why does it seem that as each season passes, these media messages not just tip toe past the boundaries that were once put in place, but sprint across those boundaries jumping and screaming. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about censoring. I am just thinking that since the media is such a large forum and has the ability of reaching millions upon millions of viewers, that they would want to spend a little more time sending the right message. I've even noticed a lot harsher language being used on the networks.

I'm talking all sorts of media, whether it be on TV, the radio, billboards, or the internet. What do you all think of the messages being sent out by this medium? Are there still good, wholesome, watchable shows out there? How can a parent teach a child what's right from wrong when so many wrongs are being splashed across all different types of screens?

 

[jamespowers]

Ah yes. Slouching toward Gamorah.

Regards,

J

 

[Paisley]

They are there to make money

If I had kids, I'd have thrown out my TV after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

I'd add most news shows as lowbrow, time-wasting entertainment.

The media we consume don't affect just impressionable teens, but this 37-year-old, educated woman. That's why I don't watch the junk you mentioned. I also don't read really conservative websites that put a great emphasis on women geting married and having babies. Nothing wrong doing those things, but the subtle message is that a woman isn't really complete without them. If a single woman reads that enough, she will feel imcomplete.

I do enjoy a few TV shows, though. I like My Name is Earl, The Office and Justice. Justice portrays a firm of defense lawyers, but they are presented, more or less, as slick, greedy lawyers. The show itself portrays how the media are used by opinion makers.

But really, it isn't the media's job to lead or enlighten but to make money. Sports stars aren't under contract to be role models, they're there to play a game and make money for their employers. Parents, and the rest of us, should keep that in mind when we're looking for entertainment.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Wrongs being splashed across the screen, or reality? Most of the things mentioned in Daisy's post are what people actually have to deal with in their lives (drinking, drugs, promiscuity for example). We like to watch what we can relate to ... Would we rather that TV didn't touch on these topics in any way?

bk

 

[Feraud]

The problem is probably more ours than theirs.
We all know (or should know) what the point of television is and that is to sell product. We misuse t.v. by sticking children in front of it in place of a babysitter. Parents do not monitor what their children watch, what they feed them, or where they browse on the net.
The same goes for all media outlets. They exist to push their agenda. We are taught to read but not how to understand what we have read. Print or video news is not an altruistic presentation of objective facts meant to broaden your mind. It is intended to give you an opinion. I pity folks who solely read a conservative or liberal newspaper. They are half informed and convinced their side alone is right! Very bad.
The best censorship I can think of is by voting with you hard earned dollars.
Skip the offensive movies, nightly news programs, reality shows, and magazines and they will go away. Support independent film and media outlets that attempt to present alternative points of view. There is nothing better than having all the facts before you speak your mind or spend a hard earned dollar.

 

[Haversack]

I think some of what we are seeing, (or not depending), is the swinging of one of those cultural pendulums. In this case it is the one swinging between Realism and Idealism. On the one hand, we have life as it truely is, on the other, as it was meant to be. Right now, Doctor Carrasco has the upper hand so we see whores crawling in the ditch and old comrades dying slowly under the lash in Africa instead of fine ladies, and brave banners fluttering in the breeze. It is something indicative of larger trends. Consider the swings Hollywood has made since the early 1930s and what was behind them: frivilous comedy to social realism to wartime morale-boosting to film noir to usw...

At some point, the old Don will once more mount Rocinante and sally forth to right all wrongs, and we will media sub-texts that gleam with hope and optimism instead of grime and cynicism. One could almost build a cultural barometer like that with Hansel und Gretel, and the Witch.

Haversack.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The whole reason "The Media" exists is very simply this: to sell the greatest number of people the greatest number of goods as efficiently as possible. And what we see in the media around us is clearly what does the best job in selling those goods. We might not like the tone it takes -- but the mere fact that we don't buy into the latest trends of the moment means we aren't the target market they're trying to reach in the first place...

 

[Tomasso]

Remember, whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas..!

Ah yes. Slouching toward Gamorah.

From the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, no less.:eusa_doh:

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

Hi Daisy:

Believe me, you're not the only one disturbed by these subtexts.

To answer your first question, the Ford corporation is pandering to what their marketing analyist pimps have correctly identified as a large and growing portion of their potential American market: the broken nuclear family. In pursuit of acquiring that market share they're promoting the Ford vehicle as a unifying element in the American family shattered by divorce.

To turn a fast buck from someone else's misery is as repulsive as it is subversive. That the vast majority of people finds this acceptable or even amusingly clever is staggering in it's moral vacuity.

And concerning the good "ladies" of Charmed, yes indeed, they do lead a charmed life in the truest, most fanciful sense of the term! Through the magic that only TV can provide, these girls can appropriate what normally was considered a traditionally macho prerogitive to be promiscuous without worrying about emotional baggage, venereal disease or unwanted pregnancies. Essentially, gender role reversal.

I believe the euphemism used nowadays for this kind of wishful thinking is "empowerment". It's a declaration of emotional bankruptcy to allow fear of intimacy to become a protective armour coating, one that never permits love to pierce it's calloused exterior. Just two hardened surfaces bumping against one another for a night, nothing more. This is hardly what I would call "empowering" - it is spiritually, emotionally and intellectually dibilitating.

Moreover, it is the way of the coward. It is also patently selfish, narcissistic and irresponsible in private life, let alone touting it as a viable or desirable lifestyle choice through the nation's airwaves.

 

[Sunny]

Wrongs being splashed across the screen, or reality? Most of the things mentioned in Daisy's post are what people actually have to deal with in their lives (drinking, drugs, promiscuity for example). We like to watch what we can relate to ... Would we rather that TV didn't touch on these topics in any way?

I can't speak for Daisy, but a big problem is not only that they are being touch upon, but that they are being implicitly applauded and held up as positive role models. When such behaviors are implicitly condemned, there'll be a media critics calling the makers moralistic. (Implying that's a fault, which is worth a thread in itself.) Objective treatment is very, very difficult, if not outright impossible. Everyone is biased! I also dare to say that some materials are inappropriate for everyone, and even more for children.

Feraud has a very good point about parents. Most people in this country, and I daresay on this forum, would say that I grew up very sheltered. I was born in the early 1980s, homeschooled for all thirteen grades, and we had one television (no cable) on which we mainly watched PBS, sports, and "vintage" TV shows. The big exception was Star Trek: The Next Generation. That didn't scar me much. Most weekdays the TV was on for an hour before dinner, and only maybe after. Of course we slowly built up a video collection. And I was plenty "socialized." Just because I wasn't packed in with the same kids exactly my age for 8 hours a day doesn't mean I had no social skills. I had plenty of outside activities.

The "level" of what we watched depended on the youngest in the family. If he couldn't watch it, probably none of us would watch it. As the eldest of four, I was the "most" limited. Conversely, as we've gotten older he's seen stuff that I never would've when I was his age. Neither one of us seem to have suffered much as a result.

The point is, although I was still exposed to the media's messages, I was by no means immersed in them. I grew up, not ignorant nor "naive," but - for lack of a better word - knowing. I knew about it, but it hadn't harmed me, because when I learned I learned at a better age. I went straight from home to a very, very large public university. Culture shock? Not for me. I'm still not entirely sure why.

The key for my parents wasn't to create a "safe" world in the home, where everything was under their control. They just didn't watch stuff with the wrong messages. And they tried to make sure we didn't see things that were inappropriate for our ages. We covered our eyes when horror ads came on during Star Trek. I still remember one of the images I did happen to see. Children are so impressionable!

Additionally, I grew up without being entertained. When I was little, watching a video was a rare treat. If I was bored, I found something to do, or dreamed up something with my brothers. We have extremely close relationships now that would never have happened if we'd been separated at school all day, or only interacted in front of the TV. My primary reason for limiting media is family relationships. That also means that what I do watch is very good stuff.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

This reminds me of a point I made on another thread somewhere, but it is very true. I am 39 years old and those who are around my age will remember that we were raised on essentially the same media influences as our parents and grandparents.

My hero growing up was Buster Crabbe. Buck Rogers, Tarzan, and Flash Gordon were on everyday. I watched The Little Rascals, Abbott and Costello, and films like Arsenic and Old Lace. These were the same things my parents and grandparents watched.

Somewhere in the early 1980s this all changed; the children's cartoons and films became very violent. It's worse now with all of the scatological references in every children's cartoon. There appears to be no rebuke for this, so I imagine it will only accelerate.

Our culture can not support a higher standard of entertainment, for whatever reason. Discerning people still seek out more positive influences. I often wonder why there aren't more.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Wrongs being splashed across the screen, or reality? Most of the things mentioned in Daisy's post are what people actually have to deal with in their lives (drinking, drugs, promiscuity for example). We like to watch what we can relate to ... Would we rather that TV didn't touch on these topics in any way?

bk

Yes, I do agree with you, to some extent. But, in the terms of drinking, promiscuity and drug use, too often than not, these are portrayed in a positive light. These are situations that real life people have to deal with, but I don't think they have to be shown as such wonderful, not bad, things. How does a show like "Charmed" deal with peoples real lives. It's about three scantily clad girls who find out they have magical powers and run around saving san francisco from evil doers. When they are not fighting evil they are having dilemmas such as how to cope with having more than one date in one night. Besides, I see enough bad things in reality, that I see silly tv shows as a way to escape from reality. Reality TV shows, at least the few I've watched, never seen like real life to me. To me, they are highly staged, and the people in them usually have some sort of theatricle agenda. There are a lot more situations that could be portrayed that promote much better activities. Besides, tv was once used as an outlet from real life. It's original intention was not reality, and it did quite well with shows that weren't real.
All of you are stating great views about all the types of media. It has been mentioned that it is not the job of the media to teach. This point is absolutely correct. It is completely up to the families to get messages across. However, no matter how hard a parent tries, somehow media messages will enter into an impressionable childs life. Whether we like it or not, and the media is fully aware of this, kids exposed to this type of media are given ideas that can lead to detrimental behaviors. Once again, I'm not saying that their should be censorship. I'm just saying that it would be nice to see some more positive behaviors being pushed through these outlets, because whether we like to or not, and no matter how hard we try to prevent it, children are exposed to the wrong message through the media on a too often basis. I'm not saying these shows should be banned. I just don't think that the activities in them are appropriate for the target audience they are aimed at. If I had kids, I definitely would monitor their tv watching. I don't think that censoring these shows, or taking shows with undesireable messages, should be banned. I'm just saying that I wish the media outlets would spend as much time showing positive programmes as they do on programms that might not be appropriate for younger audiences. There is no balance anymore.

I too enjoy "My Name is Earl" and "The Office". They are both incredibly funny. I'm also a bit embarrased to admit that I'm a faithful watcher of "ER". But, I'm an adult, and these shows don't send me any messages that I might not understand or show me detrimental activites that are portrayed as desireable, they make them look like so much fun, but I'm old enough to understand that they are not good.


Well, your posts are all great. I am fully aware of the agenda's being pushed through media outlets. I know that the bottom line for them is numbers. But, is it no longer possible to create a watchable, thoroughly enjoyable programme that actually gives a good message and might have a positive impact on an impressionable mind? Yes, bad things like BK mentioned do happen in reality. But, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that can relate to other, more desireable themes. And again, I'm just tired of certain programmes that portray drugs, drinking, promiscuity as good things. Whether we like it or not, our kids are impressed by these shows. It is not the publics job to teach our kids. But, the media know's it sends messages, it would be nice if they started to take a little responsibility for the messages that they send. I just wish that there were more positive images being sold instead of all the negative images that seem to be really hot right now. Is positive really that hard to sell??

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The Media Gone Wild.

Geezzz,...this has been one of my pet peeves ever since I stopped watching most of the crap on TV that is supposed to pass as entertainment.
Over the last 40 years or so of TV history, I have clearly seen the direct correlation between the content of TV programming, and the rise of violent crime, greed, materialism, divorce, selfishness, to name just a few of our social ills. As TV programming has worsened, so has our society. I think this is why it is called, "programming", as it is literally programming many people that have watched it all their lives.
If I had impressionable kids that were not yet mature enough to make wise decisions and choices in life, they would definately not be allowed to watch most of it either.

 

[Paisley]

I've read that G-rated movies tend to make a lot more money than R-rated movies, yet there are far more R-rated movies being made than G-rated. I've read that Hollywood makes more R-rated movies because it's more hip, more accepted and socially more rewarding. Phil Anschutz is a notable exception.

It's also ironic that there are a lot of actors, singers, rappers and morning show DJs who don't let their kids watch or listen to their material. Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Elaine on Seinfeld) was among them; I believe Madonna was too. It's not as if they aren't aware of bad influences.

 

[Viola]

Well, I have a different reaction to a show starring kids who are supposed to be 16 than women who are supposed to be 28. So I find the OC or Dawson's Creek worse than something like Charmed or Friends.

16-year-olds shouldn't really be having sex. But 28-year-old women do. I don't find Charmed anything but silly (and I stopped a few seasons back because it was just so lame and I missed Shannon Doherty) but I never thought them terribly promiscious. Just poorly dressed! lol

I also can't really view divorce as "something that sends bad messages" - its more just an aspect of life. To show only mom-and-dad-and-kids families all the time is jarringly unrealistic. Of course I'd also like to see more "two parents + elderly grandma" families and families with more than two kids, too.

Or, dare I say it, a mini-van ad where Mom is not driving Johnny going to soccer and Susie to ballet. Why can't Susie ever play a damn sport? Why is it always with the pink tutu?[huh]

Viola

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Yes, Sunny and Curt, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I think maybe some mis-understood what I was trying to say. I think I got it in my latest post, but I'll say it again: There is so much negative in the media, and these negative ideas are being put into a positive light. Any person who expresses a dis-like of these negative ideals is labled as anti-progress or anti- something or another. It would really be nice to see the media portraying an all empowered woman who isn't promiscuous or doesn't wear bra's as shirts and tight vinyl low riders. The media basically has it's promiscuous female character as strong. She wears her pants real low, her thong string showing, and a half shirt, but she looks like a hooker fighting evil! Would the super hero lose her strength if she covered up a bit or if she got married and had a baby. Well, they did that on "Charmed" too. The girls marriage failed, as far as I know. They might have gotten back together by the time the programmed ended.
Anyway, people should be calling on the media for more positive messages. We are adults. Most of us know right from wrong. I just don't agree with the all too many negative ideals being sent by the media. I know it's not their jobs, but whether we like it or not, and maybe it really is inadvertantly, the media messages are getting across and shaping the children of our society. Also, and I know most of us here are not like this, TV is today's babysitter for a lot of kids who's parents aren't teaching them the necessary lessons that a parent should be teaching. These kids are even more impressionable, and are learning right from wrong, mostly wrong in way too good of a light, through media.

 

[Viola]

The media basically has it's promiscuous female character as strong. She wears her pants real low, her thong string showing, and a half shirt, but she looks like a hooker fighting evil!

I don't see a problem with that, necessarily.

Would the super hero lose her strength if she covered up a bit or if she got married and had a baby.

Why should she have to, honestly? I wouldn't mind it as one option but I don't think I'd like it as the norm. What would be there better message there? "Good girls don't wear leather pants"?

Viola

 

[Mr. Sable]

I'm not sure everyone pounding a bourbon and lighting a cigarette every minute or two in every Golden Age movie was a very good message either. Neither was Cary Grant's portraying a lovable alcoholic wife beater (Philapelpha Story? was it?). Fred Flintstone and Ralph Kramden were pretty violent and threatinging characters as well. "One of these days, Alice/Wilma..." POW! To the moon/right in the kisser!

So have things gotten better or worse, really?

 

[jamespowers]

Would we rather that TV didn't touch on these topics in any way?

bk

Yes.

Regards,


J

 

[Viola]

I'm not sure everyone pounding a bourbon and lighting a cigarette every minute or two in every Golden Age movie was a very good message either. Neither was Cary Grant's portraying a lovable alcoholic wife beater (Philapelpha Story? was it?). Fred Flintstone and Ralph Kramden were pretty violent and threatinging characters as well. "One of these days, Alice/Wilma..." POW! To the moon/right in the kisser!

So have things gotten better or worse, really?

Much worse. All the tough guys are dead. I mean, even the pretty boys could have a good knock-em-down-drag-em out violent movie and be believable back then. Redford > Gyllenhal to the hundreth power.