tv censorship

[EXelero]

I was just watching the news with my 11 year old son. Images were shown of a crying baby being pulled out of a crumbled building with it's dead mother next to it. It then moved on to one of the many stories of the horrors of war.
Not to mention the anger felt around the world when film was shown of Cho Seung-Hui...
Also the terminology used to describe all people in the news projects stereo typed over exaggerated images.

When i looked on in horror at the news, I noticed my son didnt batter an eyelid. when I asked if he was affected, he shrugged and said he'd seen it earlier. My discomfort doesn't ease no matter how much i see.

So are our kids being desensatised by the images they see on tv? Is it all becoming the norm? accepted?

This worries me. I believe it could take away conscience and acceptance of consequence....

Sorry if this thread has been done previously, but the images of Iraq shock me more daily and often leave me nausious.

 

[TopHat]

Yeh.... What about the Porno Movie on Disney yesterday??? Thats desensitizing for ya.

 

[DuckRacer]

Yeh.... What about the Porno Movie on Disney yesterday???

...Huh?

 

[Danoff]

I think that the censorship on television is unbalanced. They work hard to keep sex off the air but not violence. More effort should be made to ensure that the censorship is even.

But, you should take censorship into your own hands and try to limit what your kids watch. If you don't like the things they show, change the channel.

 

[TopHat]

...Huh?

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_122080846.html

 

[livemusic]

I was just watching the news with my 11 year old son. Images were shown of a crying baby being pulled out of a crumbled building with it's dead mother next to it. It then moved on to one of the many stories of the horrors of war.
Not to mention the anger felt around the world when film was shown of Cho Seung-Hui...
Also the terminology used to describe all people in the news projects stereo typed over exaggerated images.

When i looked on in horror at the news, I noticed my son didnt batter an eyelid. when I asked if he was affected, he shrugged and said he'd seen it earlier. My discomfort doesn't ease no matter how much i see.

So are our kids being desensatised by the images they see on tv? Is it all becoming the norm? accepted?

This worries me. I believe it could take away conscience and acceptance of consequence....

Sorry if this thread has been done previously, but the images of Iraq shock me more daily and often leave me nausious.

I don't think it's about the images, it's about the act itself. You shouldn't be shocked for seeing a dead body, you should be shocked that a person did that to another. Showing it will not take away conscience and acceptance of consequence, people who work in hospitals see that every day.

You might get nauseated by seeing these kind of images, that's all.

 

[Gonz013]

Yep, I think that people are being more desensitised - a natural consequence of easier and quicker access to information.

Increased access to violent and sexual material doesn't seem to equal increased access to truth and reliable information though!

Still plenty of sensorship when it comes to the truth- take the Iraq war for instance- practically ever bit of news shown to us "in the west" needs to be approved by the military (learnt their lessons from Vietnam, where journalists showing the 'real face' of war helped turn public opinion) - sorry, veering off-topic here!

I couldn't tell you what to do as a parent though -I'm not one myself yet.
You can't block it all out- kids will see it somehow, so I guess its up to you to make sure that they understand what they are looking at, so they don't misinterpret/ miss the point.

One of the things I find interesting is that despite the desensitisation, experiencing violence in real life is still quite shocking/ effects you more that you would expect - the immediacy of a real-life situation, as well as all the extra sensory stimulation (touch/ smell/ taste) - puts real-life violence in a different sphere of experience altogether.

 

[Keef]

I'm don't remember how I thought when I was 11, but young boys usually think blood and violence is cool. So maybe it's just the mother side of you being compassionate, and the young boy part of him not really caring. The images don't bother me or my dad, but my mom goes nuts.

 

[land sea air]

I really like these lines in that news story, "Sherman said she immediately recorded the X-rated graphic video on her DVR." also "I was in shock, I pressed record and shut the television off." I find it funny because I would have done the exact same thing, but probably for a different reason . When taken out of context its actually kind of ironic the way they worded it.

 

[Sureboss]

Most of the news channels lack their responsibilities. I also hate how people going on trial are named, giving them even lower chance of having a normal life if found guilty.

The BBC is just about the easiest of the channels I know for images, but even they are getting worse day by day. Like the pictures of Saddams hanging, etc. I mean was I the only that could picture it in my head anyway?

But it brings viewers in, so that's all they care about.

 

[Danoff]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm

 

[DK]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8636455.stm

Seen the article. I seriously don't understand all this, there was no big backlash after "Super Best Friends". I'm not sure what GTP's Muslims think about all this, though.

 

[WVUscion]

When I first saw this thread I thought that it was part of the "free speech" backlash associated with the South Park episode last night. Much to my surprise it had nothing to do with it, except for one of the more recent replys.

It seems as if the incorrect assumption regarding these matters is that desensitization is something that we do not want. While yes, I agree that the stories and pictures from any wartime are horrific, such things are reality. It would be a much larger offense in my mind if the media was glamorizing such events (which they still do to an extent). Think of it as the "game over" screen syndrome that is used as a critique against video games ever so often. Your son, by seeing how things actually are in the world, knows the consequences of incorrect action. People die, people suffer, and horrible atrocities occur. There is no reset button and those consequences have to be understood.

So maybe I am drawing a different conclusion from the evidence then the original poster has. I am interested in hearing positive alternatives to "reality" that would be beneficial. What good does allowing people to be blissfully unaware of their surroundings serve? I think, if given the choice between whats real and whats fake, the normal person would choose reality.

 

[Joel]

I don't understand about the whole South Park thing. Do Islamist extremists not realize just how funny it is to the rest of the world that they made threats?

I just don't get how the equally extremist Christians in the western world don't care about Jesus being shown, but Islamist extremists go ape:censored: over Muhammad?

In my opinion, Freedom of speech is without a doubt, the most important right to have in the world. To take it away, or to censor it, is not a smart move. I think people of all walks of life need to realize they don't have a "right" to not be offended.


"That offends me" well, so 🤬 what?

 

[WVUscion]

It gets me quite fired up as well. I had an extended conversation about it last night with my fiance after the south park episode aired. It seems to me that Comedy Central is erring on the side of caution. Which on the surface does not seem to be that bad of a thing. However it is terribly inconsistent and an incorrect course of action in my point of view.

Extremists and "enemies" are always always always going to continue to do what works for them. The best way to get them to stop threatening, and carrying out, violence against people is to prove to them that such methods of intimidation do not work. Trey and Matt are only using their right to free speech and expression. Albeit this expression is sometimes done in a less then tasteful fashion, it is non-threatening and carries no lasting physical consequences. If they feel like they are in physical danger because they are using their right of expression, then they also have the right to be defended and protected by the US Government. This would assumedly also ring true for most other countries if they were residents there.

As I said above, Comedy Central also is showing inconsistency in their censorship. As shown here:

The image of Muhammed has already been shown in the series. The episode in season 5 entitled "Super Best Friends". There was no public back lash about this, even though he not only was shown but also had a speaking role. You can even watch that episode on southparkstudios.com for free and uncensored if you wish to see for yourself. If the public outcry was so terrible about these more recent episodes ("Cartoon Wars" pt1 and pt2, "201", "202") then what justification does Comedy Central have for allowing the episode from season 5 to remain on the air.

Where does this leave people from other religions? Is comedy central saying that the best way for a buddhist to protest their deity snorting cocaine on cable television is to threaten violence? Can the same be said for Jesus looking at pornography? Why are the rights of muslims given precedent over other religions?

 

[Joel]

It's absolutely absurd. I can't believe Comedy Central is taking the easy way out and going on the cautionary side. It's just ridiculous. Grow a pair, and show these extremists that scare tactics won't work.

 

[Famine]

The image of Muhammed has already been shown in the series.

Indeed - and in the opening credits of every episode since the Super Best Friends episode. That's 123 of the 201 episodes with Muhammed on-screen, uncut.

 

[Dotini]

Sorry to disagree with my fiend WVUscion, but let cooler heads now prevail.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0422/south-park-episode-censored-muslim-groups-warning/

This is a good example of justified censorship. Gratuitously insulting another person, race, or religion, and knowing it could cause yourself or others bodily harm, is an excellent definition of stupidity.

It is really stupid to poke a bear, affront Famine, or insult the Prophet Muhammed.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[WVUscion]

Sorry to disagree with my fiend WVUscion, but let cooler heads now prevail.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0422/south-park-episode-censored-muslim-groups-warning/

This is a good example of justified censorship. Gratuitously insulting another person, race, or religion, and knowing it could cause yourself or others bodily harm, is an excellent definition of stupidity.

It is really stupid to poke a bear, affront Famine, or insult the Prophet Muhammed.

Respectfully,
Dotini

So does that mean that the best way to get what you want is to just threaten violence? I think that that violates the liberties of one party because the other party chooses to use "more aggressive" terms.

Indeed - and in the opening credits of every episode since the Super Best Friends episode. That's 123 of the 201 episodes with Muhammed on-screen, uncut.

While I thought it would never actually occur, Famine has finally agreed with me on something . I honestly looked out my window to see if the horsemen of the apocalypse were on their way!

 

[Joel]

Sorry to disagree with my fiend WVUscion, but let cooler heads now prevail.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0422/south-park-episode-censored-muslim-groups-warning/

This is a good example of justified censorship. Gratuitously insulting another person, race, or religion, and knowing it could cause yourself or others bodily harm, is an excellent definition of stupidity.

It is really stupid to poke a bear, affront Famine, or insult the Prophet Muhammed.

Respectfully,
Dotini

Personally, I think it's really stupid to be afraid of them. I don't think it's OK to just succumb to the demands of an aggressive party.

 

[Dotini]

So does that mean that the best way to get what you want is to just threaten violence? I think that that violates the liberties of one party because the other party chooses to use "more aggressive" terms.

No, the best way to get what you want is not to threaten violence. You and I already know that, but some others haven't figured it out yet. That includes bears and fundamentalist Taliban-style armed and dangerous Muslims. They can bite hard. You can't hope to change the former and the prospect for the latter is not much better.

Conservatives like me, and really all life's winners, learn that it's best to be smart and have patience, and you will get what you want. To push what you want in the other guy's face is asking for it.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

No, the best way to get what you want is not to threaten violence. You and I already know that, but some others haven't figured it out yet. That includes bears and fundamentalist Taliban-style armed and dangerous Muslims. They can bite hard. You can't hope to change the former and the prospect for the latter is not much better.

Conservatives like me, and really all life's winners, learn that it's best to be smart and have patience, and you will get what you want. To push what you want in the other guy's face is asking for it.

Respectfully,
Dotini

But is it OK to effectively tell these people, "It's ok, threaten us and we'll comply"? No, I understand that it's not good to provoke violence, but South Park makes fun of EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY.

 

[Dotini]

But is it OK to effectively tell these people, "It's ok, threaten us and we'll comply"? No, I understand that it's not good to provoke violence, but South Park makes fun of EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY.

Yes, it's okay to be smart, tactical and strategic. GT4 is a game. So's life itself. Like the man said, "Life's tough, tougher if you're stupid." So be wise. Do not allow your temper and your sense of what's right and wrong allow you to be led around by the nose, or other bodily "attachments", as our friend David Hobbs says.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[WVUscion]

Yes, it's okay to be smart, tactical and strategic. GT4 is a game. So's life itself. Like the man sad, "Life's tough, tougher if you're stupid." So be wise. Do not allow your temper and your sense of what's right and wrong allow you to be led around by the nose, or other bodily "attachments", as our friend David Hobbs says.

Respectfully,
Dotini

I think that you give humanity to much credit Dotini. It is not simply waiting patiently for the things to happen the way you want them to. While yes, eventually, humanity will rise up and no longer do such childish things, it will only come when such things will not be tolerated. Take the example of a child. If the infant knows that it will get what it wants if it cries, then it will cry more often in order to get what it wants. If an older child knows that it will get away with doing something wrong by blaming it on the neighbors, then they will subsequently blame more things on the neighbors to escape trouble and blame.

The same applies for this. The extremists know now, because of not only todays events but also ones in the past, that they have found a way to get what they want. They will continue to do so until the attitude towards them changes.

 

[Dotini]

I think that you give humanity to much credit Dotini. It is not simply waiting patiently for the things to happen the way you want them to. While yes, eventually, humanity will rise up and no longer do such childish things, it will only come when such things will not be tolerated. Take the example of a child. If the infant knows that it will get what it wants if it cries, then it will cry more often in order to get what it wants. If an older child knows that it will get away with doing something wrong by blaming it on the neighbors, then they will subsequently blame more things on the neighbors to escape trouble and blame.

The same applies for this. The extremists know now, because of not only todays events but also ones in the past, that they have found a way to get what they want. They will continue to do so until the attitude towards them changes.

You're starting to frighten me. You guys want to "grow a pair" and instantly confront all your enemies on every front, maybe even taking the rest of us with you? Calm down. You'll feel better tomorrow. The professionals are having a hard enough time. If enough populists agitate hard enough, you will likely have your war.

 

[WVUscion]

You're starting to frighten me. You guys want to "grow a pair" and instantly confront all your enemies on every front, maybe even taking the rest of us with you? Calm down. You'll feel better tomorrow. The professionals are having a hard enough time. If enough populists agitate hard enough, you will likely have your war.

I'm confused then. I'm can't speak for other people posting but I'm only concerned with TV Censorship. This really has nothing to do with muslims for me, it has to do with equality. For instance if they were to show an uncensored pornographic segment of a man and a woman having sex and subsequently would censor a similar segment in the same show with a man and a man having sex then I would be having the same qualms. Since this episode of south park deals with the prophet muhammed, and extremism, then it is very relevant to compare the censorship of other religious figures (jesus, buddha, joseph smith) to their treatment of Muhammad.

Since there are quite obvious inconsistencies in the handling of these matters, it causes me to be upset. While I have "strayed from the flock" so to speak lol, my mother is a very devout christian. She would be, and has expressed to me in the past that she IS offended by some of the depictions that south park does of jesus. The response to her has historically been "If you dont' like seeing it, then don't watch it". This response, while blunt, is something that I have always accepted because it meant that potentially offensive material was OK because everything was fair game. What Comedy Central is saying now is that everything is fair game EXCEPT the prophet muhammad. This is unacceptable to me, and assumedly unacceptable to others. If you would like to forget about the extremists completely the argument still stands on its own.

Why do muslims get preferential treatment in regards to TV censorship when other religions do not? Furthering that question you can say that why is it ok to make fun of individuals (Barbara Streisand (sp?), Tom Cruise, et. al) but not the prophet muhammad?

Unless there is a legitimate argument for this that is not a violation of human rights, then my claim stands.

 

[Dotini]

I'm confused then.

Why do muslims get preferential treatment in regards to TV censorship when other religions do not?

I feel like you do, or I'd like to. But you must respect the law of unintended consequences.

I leave this conversation where I entered. It's unwise to gratuitously insult or provoke others.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Northstar]

I feel like you do, or I'd like to. But you must respect the law of unintended consequences.

I leave this conversation where I entered. It's unwise to gratuitously insult or provoke others.

Respectfully,
Dotini

So why is it ok to provoke some but not others?

 

[Dotini]

So why is it ok to provoke some but not others?

Easy! Because some don't give a rip and others may slit your throat. Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy".

Have you ever been on the losing end of a fight, like got your teeth knocked out or suffered a broken rib? And all for nothing?

 

[Joel]

You're starting to frighten me. You guys want to "grow a pair" and instantly confront all your enemies on every front, maybe even taking the rest of us with you? Calm down. You'll feel better tomorrow. The professionals are having a hard enough time. If enough populists agitate hard enough, you will likely have your war.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm an emotional wreck and angry. Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that that I consider these people to be my "enemies". To suggest that this will escalate into a war is absurd. Like i said, freedom of speech and expression is the most important liberty in a society, and I want it to be protected. Obviously, if this were to get violent, I would want to see precautions taken, but why should we be giving up our liberties because a group of radicals are threatening us?


EDIT: I'm trying to find the video of the first "Muhammad" south park, where at city council, the "Bury our heads in the sand" proposal is put forward, and a character makes a freedom of speech argument.