The general decline in standards today

[scottyrocks]

I think a very big part of the problem today is that there just aren't very many decent writers in television. Norman Lear and most of his staff were veterans not just of early television but of radio -- where they learned to *write,* not just string a lot of jokes together. They knew how to create characters who had realism and substance and were more than simple caricatures. There are very few comedy writers in television today who know how to do this, and with reality programming taking over even more air time, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for them to work. Again the popular media takes the easiest, cheapest route without much concern for the quality of the product.

You're not kidding. Reality TV is the king of this. Let's get a bunch of people either with volatile personalities, or who are not afraid of making a negative spectacle of themselves, give them a basic premise, or at the very most, are told in what direction to take a scenario, point a bunch of cameras at them, and then go to town. They shoot hours and hours of footage, and through the magic of editing, come up with 44 minutes (sans commercials) of TV 'magic.' And the more outrageous the better. And people eat it up.

 

[vintageTink]

I think the dumbing down of tv certainly helped with the dumbing down of America.
As for reality tv, I can't stand that mess. I've never seen a single episode of "survivor", "jersey shoe", "kate plus eight", or any of that garbage. We stick to the History channel, Discovery, A&E, Military, Biography (not the celebrity stuff), channels where you learn something. My children (3.5 years and 18 months) do not watch anything besides age-appropriate programs.

Don't get me started on rap and the unholy mess that's helped cause.

I think males are constantly put down, so they don't have any expectations to act like a man. With the prevalence of single motherhood, there are no fathers around and boys ares not taught to be responsible men.
And women like me who stay home and take care of husband, children, and home are gold we are single-handedly setting back womens' equality. (I really have been told that.)

 

[JimWagner]

Remember, again, the example of "Information Please" -- a radio program frankly directed to the sophisticated and the intellectual which nevertheless was one of the top-rated radio features in the country in 1939. Would that happen today? *Could* that happen today?

And just who could actually afford the radios in 1939? The more affluent middle class.

The point I've been trying to make is that today the percentage of ill educated frankly lower class people having access to the media is much higher than back then. There is more money to be made from them than from the higher classes and that's exactly what is driving what you are seeing. The rest of us are just along for the ride and now being corrupted (at least the younger ones) by exposure to this crap.

So, turn off your tvs, quit buying tabloids and put up your fences because you're outnumbered.

 

[Puzzicato]

In the U.S., this is particularly true if it is a white woman or a white child who meets conventional beauty standards. And if the story involves sex, drugs, money, incest, or fame, it gets a lot of media coverage. The more of these we can tick off, the better.

There aren't many modern trashmongers of whom that could be said. Most of their stuff is not only schlock, it's *bad* schlock.

I take these extracts from a "report" in one of yesterday's papers:

This is the disgusting dungeon where an Austrian man violated his own daughters in a nightmare spanning 15,000 days and nights...

Amid farming implements, old oil drums, wood, cement sacks and filth he violated his own flesh and blood with a depravity on a par with Josef Fritzl.

I think these are perfect illustrations of what you are both saying. I can't believe someone got paid as a journalist to write this third-rate purple schlock. It's worse than Virginia Andrews.

I think part of the problem is that newspapers have stopped hiring writers. There don't seem to be the same sort of cadetships where writers would learn their craft and move up the ranks. I don't know what the qualification is now.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And just who could actually afford the radios in 1939? The more affluent middle class.

You'd be surprised. Over 80 percent of all American homes had radios in 1939 -- if you exclude the Deep South, the figure jumps to well over 90 percent -- and the majority of radio listeners were working-class families. Columbia University did a detailed study of radio listening in the late thirties and was expecting to find programming tastes sharply divided along class lines -- but they found exactly the opposite. Working class, average-income homes were as likely to listen to "highbrow" programming as the elite, and the upper classes were as likely to enjoy Amos 'n' Andy and Charlie McCarthy as were people living in tenements.

 

[vintageTink]

My grandfather's parents were poor; they had a radio.

 

[scooter]

On a prior page we were speaking of ethical behavior, the desire to safeguard one's reputation, and acting honorably. I have discovered through hard fought personal experience, the decline in standards of behavior has another devastating impact. That is, too many employers today, mine included; do not even care to try and differentiate between good employees and bad. They wrongly assume that any employee is dissembling and trying to take advantage of the company. Last year, after 3 years of honorable service, I had an accident after another driver cut me off, , and was accused of lying about my circumstances and terminated. It took 5 months of negotiating by my union to get my job back. I take my reputation very seriously, after all, what else have we. It troubles me even now, a year later, that I was accused of lying to protect my own interests. On the other hand, I have seen enough shenanigans by my co-workers to understand the attitude of the company, but they need to understand that we are not all liars and thieves.

 

[Steven180]

Interesting thread, with many exceptional and valid points...so what do we do about it? The best we can.

Serve as an example of all you believe in that is right, and in doing so become an inspiration for others to do the same. For some it will have a significant effect, for others more subtle. Turn protest into deed. Personal action will always be a greater persuasion than argument. Just recall those from the generation that served as an example to you.

Although I too get extremely frustrated in the turns I see in society and this next generation, I also see good as well. In the minor subject of service, I see youth today VOLUNTEERING for military service knowing full well they will go in harms way. That in itself speaks volumes. If the act alone isn’t sufficient, the values that serve as its foundation endure, and are eager to be mentored and encouraged for the future.

Maybe we could focus on that effort more.

M.

 

[Tango Yankee]

I think a very big part of the problem today is that there just aren't very many decent writers in television.

The writer's strike a few years ago didn't help, either. The writers had a good reason and a good cause, but the unintended consequence was the expansion of "reality TV" and other "unscripted" shows. Once the TV people figured out that those cost a lot less to do and they didn't need those pesky writers to do them we as a discerning audience were screwed. All in all, though, I'm not sure when was the last time I found a situation comedy worth watching; probably a couple of decades ago. Somewhere along the way they went from finding humor in the foibles of life to being a variation of "cast member gets themselves into an incredibly stupid situation--hilarity ensues." I find I'm generally not amused.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Tomasso]

I was talking to a group of twenty-something age women last night and they said that the walk of shame does not exist for their generation.

 

[Pompidou]

I was talking to a group of twenty-something age women last night and they said that the walk of shame does not exist for their generation.

True enough. There's no shame in one night stands as a concept.

 

[Dennis Young]

What to do about it?

We should:
Be honest people.
Rediscover integrity.
Reclaim our own dignity.
Learn manners.
Be a moral person.
Shun the immoral, the selfish, the corrupt. this extends even into tv and film entertainment...and the music industry.

Teach ethics and good citizenship in our own homes and in our schools.

These will get us off to a decent start.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

I have a VAGUE memory of the mid-eighties. We didn't call it the Walk of Shame, we just chalked it up being young. The main concern amongst "my set" was, would you rather tell him to wake up and get out, or would it be better to chew you arm off. But there was some semblance of decorum even then. Don't mess with married/engaged/drunk guys, or any combination there of. That's just WRONG. Besides, no matter your age, karma is a (that word that b***h).

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I was talking to a group of twenty-something age women last night and they said that the walk of shame does not exist for their generation.

Did the concept of a 'walk of shame' ever exist for twenty-something men?

 

[Tomasso]

Did the concept of a 'walk of shame' ever exist for twenty-something men?

It did for me when skulking home bleary eyed from an unknown apartment at 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning... in a tux...

 

[The Good]

When did reality TV start to take off, anyway? I'm young, born in 1989, but I still remember how in the 1990s, sitcoms were still very much popular. When did the drastic change take place? It seems like all anybody talks about these days, with regard to television, is some reality show (Jersey Shore being the worst offender), while I vaguely remember hearing mentions of shows like Seinfeld or Home Improvement back in the '90s as being popular (at least with the crowd I grew up with). Or, especially soap operas. The popularity in those seems to have waned a bit, although I don't know by how much.

I'm generally disinterested in reality TV shows, but some of it is watchable and entertaining. That show on History Channel, Pawnstars, comes to mind. There's some interesting stuff covered there.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

This is a sad thing, too.

True enough. There's no shame in one night stands as a concept.

If only we could be so lucky as to see the world get some dignity and morals. I really do hope that I see it happen.

What to do about it?

We should:
Be honest people.
Rediscover integrity.
Reclaim our own dignity.
Learn manners.
Be a moral person.
Shun the immoral, the selfish, the corrupt. this extends even into tv and film entertainment...and the music industry.

Teach ethics and good citizenship in our own homes and in our schools.

These will get us off to a decent start.

 

[sheeplady]

It bothers me immensely that this has become the case. Just watch any sitcom. The leading male role is a bumbling, usually overweight, idiot, married to some attractive woman with a lot of intelligence. I don't really know any families that fit this dynamic. Usually it's smart people marry each other and not so smart people marry each other. There's smart people of both genders and I think it should be portrayed as such.

I'm not sure who's writing this stuff. Personally, I'd hate to be a woman married to some of the buffoons shown on TV. That's a lot more work for the woman- she not only has to take care of her kids (which are often more adult-like than their father) but also her husband. And oftentimes the husband actively works against the wife for a laugh, either undermining her authority, making a mess, blowing money, or instigating something with the kids. Not only does the woman get to be the rescuer, but she also needs to clean up the mess, do 100% of the parenting, and keep her husband in line.

It shows a lack of respect for men and women. Men are portrayed as idiots and allowed to act like children. Women are portrayed as responsible, but also have to responsible for doing everything in the household, including caring for an additional child (husband). How far we have come as a society. :eusa_doh:

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm not sure who's writing this stuff. Personally, I'd hate to be a woman married to some of the buffoons shown on TV. That's a lot more work for the woman- she not only has to take care of her kids (which are often more adult-like than their father) but also her husband. And oftentimes the husband actively works against the wife for a laugh, either undermining her authority, making a mess, blowing money, or instigating something with the kids. Not only does the woman get to be the rescuer, but she also needs to clean up the mess, do 100% of the parenting, and keep her husband in line.

It shows a lack of respect for men and women. Men are portrayed as idiots and allowed to act like children. Women are portrayed as responsible, but also have to responsible for doing everything in the household, including caring for an additional child (husband). How far we have come as a society. :eusa_doh:

Actually, most 50's sitcoms portrayed housewives as the smarter of the couple, even and especially when they played dumb.

 

[sheeplady]

Actually, most 50's sitcoms portrayed housewives as the smarter of the couple, even and especially when they played dumb.

That's part of what I am refering to. Men have actually gone backwards to the point where they aren't just "we really know who wears that pants in that relationship" but to the point where they are actually a "child." The idea that women are protrayed as openly smarter than men being proof of advancement of society just isn't true. A lot of people want to point towards modern television being a lot less sexist and fairer to women than the 1950s, but it isn't. There is a lot of sexist messages running through it, and I don't think women are necessarily the winners in how family life is protrayed in sitcoms. I think everybody is a loser.

I'm reminded of the episode of All in the Family (later than the 1950s, but it is the only plot I can clearly remember) where Edith wants to buy Archie a new television, but because she stays at home, she has no paycheck and cannot get a loan. So she tries to convince Archie that what she does (staying at home) is worth money and gives him a bill for a professional cook, maid, laundry, etc. Archie is upset. In the end, he finds out that she did all this to buy him a television and is touched. In a modern day version of this, the husband would have broken the TV in an act of child-like stupidity, been asked to clean up the mess (and gotten distracted and not done it), and then would find the stash of money that Edith had saved and blown it on something else. We'd see the wife having to clean up the mess, drag the television to the curve, and yelling at her husband.