Parents and the Culture Wars
I've avoided jumping in to any previous flare-ups of the question, "Should Democrats talk more about violent video games, sex on TV, etc.?" But the way that Garance Franke-Ruta framed the question this week in her intra-office argument (with Matt) made me think I might have a few small points to add.
First, her starting point, which is that Democrats have to be particularly concerned about the drop off in support from married women with children is unarguably correct.
Part of the reason this is a particular concern is that the distance between being a young unmarried woman -- who votes Democratic -- and being a married woman with children is not a lot of years. We're not talking about something inherent in these individuals, but a change in their priorities or perceptions over a relatively short period of time. That's the kind of thing a political party has to be able to do something about. (Unlike young white men, who are Republican when they're single and stay Republican.)
I remember once hearing the insufferably cutesy-poo Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick opine that women became Republicans when they acquire the "three M's: Marriage, Mortgage and Munchkins." Please don't let that be true! There's no reason for it to be true.
But that means addressing what those parents are concerned about, and sure, the "coarsening of the culture," and the sense of a loss of control over the influences on our kids is a big one. I'm largely what Garance calls an "adolescent libertarian" on cultural matters, but I ran back pretty fast yesterday when I heard my 4-year-old, who I'd left playing some sort of Flash game on the Disney web site, say, "Dad, I clicked something and I think I got somewhere I'm not supposed to be." (It turned out to be some sort of Bounty design-your-own-paper-towel site, which is harmless except as an example of absurd commercial excess.)
A few points to make about this issue:
First, this is one of those issues about which the only reasonable reaction is an ambivalent one, and it's fair to assume that many of those who say they're concerned about culture in this way have a similarly ambivalent or complex reaction. That is, they want some greater sense of control on the influences on their children, but they suspect that any legal solution will either be ineffective or will have negative consequences. Likewise with any technological solution, like the V-chip or internet parental controls. That doesn't lessen the concern, though, and parents want to feel that politicians understand that concern.
Second, be careful about assuming that this is an area where there's a lot of opportunity for left-right alliances. I noticed this in the mid-1990s, when Bill Bradley, who I worked for in the Senate, started talking about some of these issues: you can quickly find yourself in bed with people who seem to be talking about the same thing, but whose real gripe is with the positive portrayal of gay people, single parents and sexually active single people in the media. I remember in the 1990s being asked by another Democratic Senator's office (o.k., it was Lieberman) whether Bradley would endorse a study of sex and violence in the media. They sent over the study, two-thirds of which consisted of a second-by-second analysis of every moment on the now quaint Melrose Place when Matt, the gay character, had mentioned going on a date with a man, had referred to a man as "hot" etc., e.g., "9:47: A man is seen leaving Matt's apartment in the morning as they exchange a knowing glance." As far as I'm concerned, the impulse that leads to that "study" and the obsessiveness with which it was executed, is as disturbing as anything else in our culture, perhaps more.
Third, avoid "policy literalism." Just because people in polls say, "I'm concerned about sex and violence in the media," that doesn't mean that the only plausible response is to propose a law that would somehow limit sex and violence in the media. Remember that typically the next sentence out of a parent's mouth is something like, "I can't be with him 24 hours a day." The part of the concern that government can do something about is that parents' don't feel they have enough time to understand all the external influences on their kids and help them deal with them. So a well-constructed way of talking about the time pressures of the modern economy is fully responsive to the concern about values. Karen will have more to say about this, I expect.
Fourth, there may be an opportunity here for a broader shift in the debate about the market and government. This was the argument that my friend David Callahan made in the New Republic in January: that going after Hollywood was "a golden opportunity to please [Democrats'] base and swing voters at the same time--to complain about market capitalism run amok, about the public interest subverted, and about moral decline." David's argument is that, "when financial self-interest is touted as one of society's greatest virtues, as it has been lately, individuals will behave badly," and that includes Enron and other examples of the breakdown in corporate ethics, but it also includes selling lowest-common-denominator culture to kids, only because it makes money.
In short, there's no question about whether to address these concerns. How to address them is another matter, and there are a lot of options.
Comments (69)
All I have to say is that Mark Schmitt is a national treasure. That was unbelievably interesting and well-put.
June 9, 2005 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if we think that ambivalence is the only rational response, how can we make this a standard for our party? Shouldn't we seek to relegate this issue to the area of non-partisanship? Is there a Democratic way to address them? Republican? Why not take this important issue off the table and say, let's let industry/government non-partisans (like the MPAA, sort of), handle this.
June 9, 2005 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of these options, as articulated by Ed Kilgore in an excellent (though I disagreed with it) post on Newdonkey awhile back, is to somehow use the market to regulate content, under the guise of "protecting the children."
Fact is, a lot of big media conglomerates won't take the risk of handling salacious content. Does your multiplex carry NC-17 rated movies, or unrated movies or X-rated movies? Probably not, or, at least, only seldomly. That creates a commercial pressure on artists to create more "family friendly" content. But, you know, the point of art is not to please your family. It's to make a statement and shed some light on the world. Since we live in a commercial culture, the artist can easily be censored by market forces.
Look at Wal-Mart, which accounts for a huge percentage of brick and mortar (that old term!) book and music sales -- they didn't carry John Stewart's "America The Book" because it had pictures of the supreme court justices grafted onto gnarly, naked bodies. Folks, that is a form of censorship. It's outright prudery attempting to use commerce to silence a comic artist. This is the kind of thing that universal ratings systems and moronic government studies tend to encourage.
America lacks, unfortunately, the proper sense that freedom is meant to be enjoyed and for that, I do blame prudery on both the left and the right. I live in New York City, it's supposed to be a party city. The government Disneyfied part of it and then freaking banned smoking in bars. A place where wanton behavior should be encouraged has been forcibly civilized and, yes, made more bland for it.
I have a sense that for all the jibba jabba about the coarsening of culture that, in fact, the opposite is true. The real problem is that culture is too bland and that people expect you should just wake up every morning, go to work, go home and maybe be naughty by watching an HBO series. This, of course, totally leaves out other, vital activities like staying out until 4 in the morning on a Wednesday, smoking and drinking and maybe even creating a ruckus with some loud, obscene music.
No discussion about protecting other people's children should go without a discussion of protecting and encouraging the rights of adults to cut loose and have fun.
June 9, 2005 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something profoundly unsatisfying about the issue as presented here. If the problem is one of coarsening of the culture (e.g., ubiquitous swear words), then the the origin lies in those who speak such words. If the problem is one of vulgar movies, the origin lies in the makers of such movies. In normal life, in our families and friends, we don't control such by legal means, we do it by speaking, scolding, standing against such behavior. Just as you want to tell Bush that he is a liar, one wants to tell the producers of trash that that is what they are, purveyors of trash.
Here the Democratic Party wants to win votes by being ambivalent. It would be more honest say that you don't consider something to be trash, and I don't want your vote at the cost of being dishonest, or to stand up and say, this is trash, don't watch it, don't promote it, let there be a social and economic boycott of those who produce trash. There is nothing to be ambivalent about.
Surely the Democratic Party stands for something other than cobbling together a greater than 50% coalition?
June 9, 2005 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think this can and should be a Dem issue to take hold of. Here's how:
June 9, 2005 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be ILLEGAL for a parent to bring a kid to an R-rated movie? Come on, now. You can call it stupid, if you want, but most of what gets an R rating these days isn't really that provocative.
Heck, kids in Europe see stuff on TV there (in terms of sexual content, not violence, as in your example) that kids can't even see in movies in the US. And they turn out fine.
And the Democrats shouldn't just belong to families. What about single or childless liberals?
June 9, 2005 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I apologize for being so strident, but, there is another side to this debate. Some say the culture is "coarsening." I say it's getting more and more bland and that people are less willing to take risks with content these days. There needs to be space in this debate for people who think that there's more freedom to be found and enjoyed.
June 9, 2005 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK...the V chip didn't really work out...here's another idea:
The hardwired viewing log. Develop an add on device for TV to implement a viewing log that can be turned on or off by a person (parent) with an appropriate password. If turned on, all programs watched in the last 24 hours will be logged.
No one has to buy the device, but it would give concerned parents some info about what their kids are watching.
June 9, 2005 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate the follow-up. I've been a clinical social worker with kids and families for almost 20yrs, so I'm probably a tad biased on some of this tuff, but yeah, I do think it should be illegal for parents to bring kids to R-rated movies. I can't tell you how many abused kids I've worked with who can hardly wait to go see the next "Chucky" movie with their parents, and then have nightmares about it for weeks after seeing it. It's more than stupid on the parent's part, it's neglectful and at times abusive. I think pot should be legal, but I think anyone allowing their 5 or 10yr old to smoke it should be spanked plenty hard by the law. Everything I know and have witnessed about child development says that kids' brains have literally not developed enough to handle intense stimulus like this and yes, it does have the potential to do long-term damage.
I do agree that this business about "coarsening" misses the reality that what passes for "art" in the mainstream these days is unrelentingly bland, like a bad porn movie with an even worse soundtrack. To take the comparison a step further, I don't think kids should be watching porn of any sort, but I want to be able to watch whatever I want. And if that's porn, I would prefer it to be provocative, well-crafted porn, if you will....
June 9, 2005 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a single, white, adult male who has no particular intention of having children and who has strong opinions about culture, this whole debate makes me feel very very sleepy zzzzz. zzzzz. zzzzz. It's easy to demagogue Paradise Island or Fantasy Island and all the other reality shows with midgets who may or may not be French - they're bad, bad! - but let's not forget that much of the great culture from the last generation, from Bonnie and Clyde to Pulp Fiction, from the Sex Pistols to Eminem has been fully approved by the American Association of Vulgarians. But of course the neo-prudes don't want to talk esthetics.
June 9, 2005 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why play on the GOP's turf. How about talking about the things that soccer mom's want that the GOP won't give them: safe food, safe medicine, health insurance, education, economic security.
Video games is a GOP framing of the subject so they can offer empty culture war proclimations to divert their attention from the fact that everything their party is doing substantively is giving them the shaft. Why be their monkey? I welcome the discussion about who's better for them. Let's have the debate on our terms.
June 9, 2005 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole debate smacks of a combination of too much insider-ism (the Democrats would win if they only listened to me, instead of Bob Schrum) and too much Lakoffian desire to respond to the Tim Russert's of the world who tell us we need to show that we, too, have values.
The problem with trying to make the issue into how we police tv, instead of what we know the issue to be -- the lack of a coherent education policy in this country -- is that if all those Matt Yglesias ghost-written speeches were to actually win an election for the Democrats, we'd have to govern. Are we really going to spend our time, again, passing laws requiring viewing logs on tv sets ...and not save our public schools (or for that matter, our pensions or our access to affordable health care.)
The Republicans can run on these sort of distraction issues because their basic approach to govenring is distraction. But they have a secret agenda and they put it in place (see under Brown, Janice Rogers).
So if we are going to talk about the second generation of v-chips while actually appointing and getting confirmed justices who will defend our right to privacy, thats one thing but I don't see it happening. Voters would be right to expect us to enact such an agenda -- regulating the MPAA, requiring children to keep a log of their tv viewing, etc. Hell, we ran on that more or less explicitly in 2000 and it got us nowhere with the very constituency under discussion, married women.
Married women voted republican this time out because we didn't explain to them how their own and their children's future would be appreciably better with the Democrats in power. How schools would improve, how college would be affordable, how their retirement pensions would be preserved and would enable them to enjoy their grandchildren...
I'm not saying that we shouldn't say what is patently and self-evidnetly true, that most of whats on tv or in the movies is dreck. But if we want to offer a criticism of runaway corporate power, lets do it by talkign about pensions, not Dreamworks.
June 9, 2005 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Franke-Ruta is saying is that when that big, strong, financially savvy hubby explains how the Democrats are taxing away all their hard-earned money, his little wife votes Republican.
You expect her to admit her vote was materialistic and selfish?
Why, perish the thought; I'm a mother; I voted for "family values" to protect our children.
June 9, 2005 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm about as progressive as anyone around here. I'm as staunch a free speech defender as there is around here. However, even I recognize there are limits. For example, nobody argues that kids should be walking into XXX movies. We're all agreed that kids shouldn't be going to XXX theaters under any circumstances. One of those limits is the Grand Theft Auto game franchise. Kids should not be playing any of the Grand Theft Auto games, period. I didn't say kids should only play them if adults buy them for them. I said that kids shouldn't be playing them at all. If you're an adult, feel free to watch or play what you want. The Grand Theft Auto franchise crosses too many lines, too often. Kids do not have the judgement yet to determine that the content in GTA games is just a game.
June 9, 2005 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that thus far this section seems to be attracting single white childless dudes. Not a slight - other than the single part, that's me. But I guess I'm a Humphrey Dem in the sense that I believe a government should primarily be judged by how it cares for children and the elderly (and those in between who cannot care for themselves by circumstance). For the rest of us, I've never thought government owed us much of anything other than to mind it's own business, unless we're hurting someone. Whether someone wants to have kids or not, I do believe that it is in society's best interest to provide above all for the welfare of kids and the people caring for them - and that it is therefore everyone's responsibility to some degree.
Yeah, no argument about media and kids should be complete without talking about adult individual rights and wants, but let me tell ya fellas, I look around and I don't exactly see single white guys getting the shaft from the media. Kids and families on the other hand...sheesh.
June 9, 2005 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really starting to love this TPMCafe. Have always loved Josh's TPM, but the quality of the articles on here are just superb.
I think this is a highly important point which does need to be stressed. To often I see Dem's point out polls and say "This is what the people care about, let's give it to them." I'm not convinced, and I don't think that shows leadership.
I think you're right that a big problem facing parents is time to be with their children. There's a lot of things changing out there, and one of them right now is the attitude of women towards being stay at home moms. I see an increase in women quitting the work force to care for children, because it's their priority.
A bigger concern, of course, in the 2004 race was taking national security seriously. I cannot stress enough how much the Bush campaign ran on fear.
All the porn in the world is of little concern to a mother afraid her children are going to die. Whether the fear is rational or not, it needs to be addressed. And I don't mean by encouraging different fear, but by standing up with courage and pointing out how Bush is making us less safe.
Anyway...
June 9, 2005 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the real question from a Child Development viewpoint, How to develop "taste" on the part of growing children? Taste is not a matter of rules or boundry lines one must not cross, but it is incorporated values that help one distinguish what is pleasurable, enjoyable, a good story, decent art, an interesting perspective, etc. In many ways, putting things that are "trashy" in the forbidden zone -- a sort of "banned in Boston" approach only makes them falsely attractive.
The problem of course is that Taste on the part of children only comes as parents lead the way into the variations and adventures that are part of the world -- and in conversation and interaction lead the way for not wasteing time on trash. And that's the only real "political" problem here -- how do we become sufficently masterful of the competitive market economy so there is time for this aspect of helping children emerge from childhood hale and hearty.
June 10, 2005 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
A parent who is concerned that they don't have enough control over what their child is viewing or otherwise exposed to will never regain peace of mind when their nanny is the federal bureaucracy.
The solution doesn't have to be any sort policy decision and, indeed, I think that policy decisions limiting what a child could possibly see may miss the point. Take, for example, the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl fiasco. The response of congress was to alleviate the concern of people (although, I really don't think there were too many people terribly distraught that their child might have been permanently scarred by a one-second shot of a boob), by proposing a policy that is somehow supposed to fix television for all of us. In this perverse way, congress' response is to say, "You don't need to be concerned anymore, because we'll take care of it." Aside from the fact that almost nobody buys this, I have to wonder: Does this message foster a culture of apathy?
If we want to talk about the "coarsening of the culture" shouldn't political and social apathy be right up there with gratuitous sex and violence, if not higher on our list of priorities? This may seem like a digression but I don't think that it is. The media that brings you trash like the "Chucky" movies (to borrow from the very informed comments of the social worker above) is the same media that tells you, minute by minute, that if you miss the next episode of "Joe Millionaire", something very bad is going to happen and the good people at Fox can't guarantee your safety. This is a media culture that profits from you not being concerned with what your children are exposed to. Is it too much of stretch to take that a little bit further and say the media culture profits from an utterly degraded discourse. I can't help but think that America's poor voter turnout is in part due to the fact that you can't walk out of your house and see thousands of pieces of media that tell you that you ought to be concerned with everything except what actually matters.
Parents are right to be concerned with their kids, and simple vocal support for that fact can go a long way. Politicians are in the unique position of being able to speak for a lot of people who don't otherwise have a voice. They don't necessarily need to set up a nanny state that might infringe on our right to free speech or allow us to discuss controversial topics. But by listening to and speaking about the concerns of the people whom they are supposed to represent, they counteract the discourse of consumerism and apathy.
Obviously there are issues that I haven't addressed, such as whether or not parents even have enough time to take care of their children in our economy. But by talking about a parent's need to care for their child, not only will they make common cause with those parents, but they can start to address these types of problems. The government can't and shouldn't try to be somebody's babysitter, but the government can recognize a need of its citizens and try to provide options for fulfilling that need.
June 10, 2005 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can quickly find yourself in bed with people who seem to be talking about the same thing, but whose real gripe is with the positive portrayal of gay people, single parents and sexually active single people in the media.
This is simply a depressing state of affairs. As a young parent, I find American culture today to be toxic and scary, particularly in its embrace of violence, but also in the ubiquity of a soulless, deadening variety of pornographic sexuality which I really don't want my kids exposed to.
But as Mark Schmitt points out, any attempts I might make to find common cause with middle-American red-state parents, many of them very good and concerned parents I'm sure, are likely to be frustrated by our disagreement over fundamental issues like tolerance and respect for gays, and also of their embrace of self-defeating prohibitionist attitudes towards adolescent sexuality ("abstinence education"). I do want my kids to learn how to use a condom in school; I don't want them watching anal sex videos on the Internet when they're 10.
So, what to do? Well, I noticed the internet standards board has recently come up with a new .xxx domain. How about mandating by law that all x-rated content be hosted in such a domain, making filter software a breeze? Or will we just get back into the same old mess, with conservatives insisting that ACT UP's website be pushed into the .xxx domain?
June 10, 2005 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting aspect to all of this is we don't see too much talk about how all the sex and violence reflect real life. Nor do we seem to differentiate the two even though they are very different. The idea that the message suggests they are somehow related establishes a mindset that is surely dysfunctional even though in the real world common social behaviors don't connect the two except in the context of criminal behavior. Put a different way, human sexual activity absent a violent element is by far the overwhelming norm and to infer otherwise is very misleading.
Possibly a more harmful thing is the real world loss of life in areas where conflict exists. This is on the news all the time and is very real, not just a portrayal. The contrast between the statements of world leaders and the reality of global violence is very striking and can be very confusing to a child or adolescent viewer and even creates a dilemma for many adults. Children especially may have a sense of the power of our president but aren't able to grasp why he doesn't stop all the killing in Africa as an example.
In any case it is unlikely we can ever regulate content in ways that some would like. In fact we might conclude doing so isn't advisable becasue that could lead to other types of content restrictions that could be harmful in more serious and elemental ways. What we can do is talk with our children and amongst ourselves so we better understand these kinds of things in a meaningful and accurate context.
thepeoplechoose
June 10, 2005 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is my first reaction to this.
That is what we need to focus on.
It is also a game that we can't win. As soon as we say "yes that is bad" we get into a bidding war with the GOP when they say 'Yes, but what about this, and this, and this?' Soon they will find something that splits us and leaves them together and looking like the true voice of child protection.
June 10, 2005 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark,as usual, is dead on about where our concern and focus should be, on the tragic moral breaches that a completely unhindered market can bring about.
I work as a consumer attorney, helping people whose lives have been turned upside down by predatory lenders and debt collectors. When I recount to others some of the general problems my client's face from their tormenters, time and time again the question comes up about the perpetrators, "how could someone sleep at night, doing what they do?"
While the media has it's version of this excess, it's not "cultural" moral breakdowns that cause the scams and outright theft, often of the elderly, that pervades the subprime lending industry.
It's pure economic self-interest - the investors who make money off of it only see, and often only care about, their returns; the finance companies often see their clientele as adversarial dupes, treating their theft like a game, with no rules; their employees just see that they have a paycheck in a tough economy, and of course by into the BS about financial problems being the result of "irresponsible borrower".
The money they make allows them to ignore the havoc they have wrought, just as a media mogul doesn't care what message violence and sex sends. And in our society, the balance has somehow shifted from valuing the integrity of hard-work, to idolatry of the dollar.
And I am a capitalist, just as there is ambivalence in reigning in the excess of media, I believe that we need to balance addressing the ills of subrime lending with allowing much need loans to be made to people with subrime credit. But the hidden truth about the market right now is that it IS already inneficient in its pricing, causing great harm to borrowers' lives as a result. And as Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, the way we consume the media is equally inefficient, making us choose the MTV along with the Family Channel.
The bottom line is, progressives should be speaking against any immorality that ruins peoples lives, whether the violence in the media, Enron, or the consumer lending industry. Financial self-interest can work wonders, but as a guiding moral light it fails far too much to be given the status it has in our current culture. Paris Hilton, Howard Stern, Enron and $9B a year out of home-owners pockets ought to be enough to bring the Far Left, the Near Left, and the Near Right together.
June 10, 2005 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least in my experience... the one thing I've heard consistently when talking to married women about politics (a pastime I've all but given up out of sheer frustration) is "well, he keeps up with these things more than I do... I don't follow politics." They didn't before they married, either, but being married is often like living with FOX constantly playing in the background, given white-male political leanings. And I have yet to meet a married woman with a semi-productive husband who doesn't start worrying about taxes, mostly because their husbands' typically higher incomes put them in previously unbelievable bracket-- when the tax bill is half of what she grossed a year when she was single, and all she does is sign the 1040 anyway, the fact that she's much better off overall hardly signifies.
On cultural issues, my personal belief is that a lot of it's still the parents' fault. Disney movies --and I've certainly spent some cash visiting the theme parks-- are NOT innocuous, no matter how many cute little licensed products are available to buy. There's no reason for a three-year-old to see Spider-Man movies. Why not leave that stuff aside until they're four or five, at least, since they don't actually talk about cultural stuff with each other until then anyway? Then parents have a much better chance of being able to negotiate issues regarding parental loss/absence, villainy, violence, and so forth. Even irony, a la the Looney Tunes cartoons, isn't really for the smallest kids, and parents can put off their inclination to "share" these cultural experiences until the kids are a bit older & more able to discuss what's happening.
June 10, 2005 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that would be a mistake. That would easily be morphed into an attack on care givers (i.e. women) for spending too much time outside the home or for not being willing sit with their kids in front of the TV or for letting the kids watch TV rather than finding projects for them.
We don't want to go there. And we don't want get into a bidding war with the GOP about who will protect children more. They will always be able to top up in that game.
This is strictly GOP turf and we need to respond to it by talking about real governmental issues that are important to parents.
June 10, 2005 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can be the party of parents because we are the party of the worker and today most parents are both. Parents don't really want the government monitoring what their children watch on TV, what websites they visit, what movies the go to. Parents want the time to do that themselves. They be able to put their children first. We need to give them that opportunity.
June 10, 2005 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. You end up in bed with Dobson. Focusing on the time and economic aspects is the only way to go.
Instead, we need to get away from the ideological battles and paint ourselves as the party of good governance--in other words, the meme should be "if you want people obsessing over boobs and gay marriage, vote for the other guys--if you want the budget balanced, the country secure and the economy booming, vote for us."
June 10, 2005 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see creation of a state within the Union that prohibits children. Having to tailor your life so it is acceptable in all aspects to the sensibilities and sensitivities of a 3 year old is ridiculous. Imagine my state. No taxes needed for schools. No school speed zones. No channel blocking on TV's. No ID check in bars or restauraunts. No hiding porn if that's your kicks. No whining, crying babies in movie houses, eateries or elsewhere. No dimwitted automaton mommies tooling about in minivans, distracted by a cackling brood in the back seat causing her to motor along 20 mph below the speed limit. Nobody ever accused of pedophilia, child abuse. No custody battles. No amber alerts. Nobody ever cancels plans because of sick kids, lack of a sitter or interference from Little League. If you live there and get pregnant, seeya! You knew the rules, toodles! I'm sure such a state would prove immensely popular.
June 10, 2005 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a parent there is much I have control over, and if I don't do my job I have no one to blame but myself.
My children watched PBS when they were small, I monitored their computer time, and tv time, and what music they listened to, and there is every opportunity for every parent to do the same thing.
Allowing the federal government to restrict what we watch, listen to is an easy out as a parent. Further, with this administration, some of what they promote is NOT what I want my children to learn: ie sex education to which this administration has put out lies and worse.
I am a mother, and as such no outside authority should have control over the decisions I make for my children, and that is how the Democrats should frame this, that PARENTS must take on the role of parenting, as this is really the issue.
June 10, 2005 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last week I was part of an e-mail conversation with a group of friends regarding the culture; the consensus seemed to be that this isn't the issue the right has made it out to be, that at the end of the day health care and other issues are more important to the lives of middle class Americans.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, that may be true. But when you talk about the utter sexualization of the culture, when you talk about the violence and bad behavior that has been enshrined as part of the entertainment landscape, pragmatism tends to take a back seat to creeping angst.
That doesn't mean that I'm looking to criminalize porn or ban the latest version of "Grand Theft Auto" from the shelves. But it does bother me to think that this society has made a conscious decision to package and sell its basest instincts, often to children.
Call it the ultimate triumph of the free market: titillation never goes wanting for an audience. But is this the sum of what we have become, the pinnacle of our aspirations as a society? And if so, can there be any doubt as to why so many would like to take a sledgehammer to the pillars of that society?
But recognizing the relevance of this issue cannot be merely a matter of political opportunism. And our tactics must involve not the threats and intimidation of the right, but practical moves that can work out here in the real world.
How about making cable channels available on an a la carte basis - pitched specifically as a way nervous parents might keep MTV out of their homes? There's a free-market rationale for this anyway.
And why couldn't communities - who in this neck of the woods (Pennsylvania) have to grant outfits like Comcast a contract anyway, ask - or demand - that such providers make available specific "family friendly" tiers of programming, or else no contract?
There are options, or there can be. And the solution ultimately lies not in extremism, but in carefully considered policies that infringe on no one's rights - yet at the same time give those worried about the culture more chances to head it off at the pass.
June 10, 2005 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's a problem -- and it's something I actually exchanged some really cool emails about with Ed Kilgore awhile back -- GTA is a video game. Video games are a medium that appeals to both kids and adults. A family with a Playstation II has a toy for both parents and kids. The medium appeals to both age groups, the content of all games does not. If you have kids and you buy GTA for yourself, there's a good chance your kid will play it at some point, just like there's a good chance that a son will sneak a peak at Dad's Playboys. And just as in that example, it's probably not that a big a deal if they do.
I guess I have to disagree about the "never" statements. If mom and dad say a kid can play GTA, then a kid can play GTA. The only reasonable regulation is that Best Buy can't sell it to them.
June 10, 2005 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, well, well...
"I remember once hearing the insufferably cutesy-poo Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick opine that women became Republicans when they acquire the "three M's: Marriage, Mortgage and Munchkins." Please don't let that be true! There's no reason for it to be true."
I'm 2 out of 3. Divorced, Mortgage, Munchkins (boys 11 and 14). and the munchkins is exactly WHY I despise the neo cons. We've mortgaged their economic future with the national debt. Social Security wouldn't be an issue with a healthy economy.
We've ruined their future with the Iraq war (can you say draft?) If we make it to 08 without one, and a bush isn't "elected" then the democrat will get the blame for instituting one....
Acceptance of one's own faults and not judging other's, is a trait I'm trying to teach my children. I also monitor their tv watching, and have blocked Comedy Central, MTV and SpikeTV. I like the V Chip, I just wish the reality shows ( from real police videos to survivor could be blocked also :( ). A log of what was watched or clicked is too little, too late, in my opinion. I can remote into my kids computer at anytime and see what they are doing, and I've blocked various words in the url's from going through the router.
And don't get me started on the schools....
This is the end of the rant. I guess the length of comments is a symbol of how deeply we feel about the subject. There are some wonderful opinions here, and I enjoy the discussion.
This concludes my .02 worth :)
June 10, 2005 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The unbundling of cable channels notion has always seemed like it would solve a lot of problems. However, there is a downside... having the popular channels subsidize the less popular and niche channels means -- more channels cheaper! I get 200 channels right now. I think I'm typical when I sit down to watch, there's maybe 10 of them that I actually flip through because they're likely to have something I want to see. When they don't have anything, that's when I say "200 channels and nothing on!" But, sometimes having those other channels is a good thing since there are some surprises on the other 190. Unbundle them by force and the other 190 go away as we collectively choose our top 10 or 20 and that's what you get, probably for the same money you pay now. Given that mass taste is a little bland, a lot of "out there" channels will fail. Let's face it, most cable content, dependent as it is on advertising, already doesn't push many envelopes the networks won't. I'm afraid that this unbundling solution, if forced or not done very carefully, willd decrease the diversity of programming available. That's not good.
One solution might be to make it more expensive to not get a channel, the same way you sometimes have to pay to have an unlisted phone number or the way a one way plane ticket will cost more than a round trip.
Besides, I can already block or password protect any channel I have if I want to.
June 10, 2005 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to step up and say that we aren't going to waste our time on telling Americans what they or their children should see on television or in the movies. What we will do is help them make those decisions--decisions that rightly belong in their hands. V chips and the like are just fine, but laws restricting bringing children to R rated movies are, literally, unconstitutional--you'll have to repeal the First Amendment before going that far.
People are concerned about what their kids see and play--but they also don't want to be told what to do. We need to enable people--that's what they want, not lectures on what people should be doing.
We literally should come out and say that we refuse to waste anyone's time by lecturing them as to what they should or should not be doing--we have more important things to do like balancing a budget that has gone out of control and fixing a foreign policy that is similarly out of kilter. Its time to be grownups again.
June 10, 2005 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's rather socialistic, isn't it - you, the cable subscriber, have to pay a higher rate across the board to get channels you don't want for the sole purpose of propping up channels that might otherwise fail.
Parents need to feel they have a measure of control; this would give it to them. Many would probably specifically drop MTV; if that causes problems for MTV, let them alter their programming strategy; if it means the Food Network might go off the air, that's harsh - but what's the difference between this and a specific network program (Freaks & Geeks, maybe) going off the air for lack of support/viewership?
June 10, 2005 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firmly committed to free speech and th first amendment and against anti-obscenity laws, but...
As a parent, have been appalled at the demise of cultural standards especially in the broadcast media.
And...I found that the concept of monitoring everything your kids were exposed to was an idea that worked in theory only for people who didn't have kids. (It is impossible to monitor what your kids watch and hear...especially after they reach something like age 5 and visit friends.
Solutions?
1. No cable TV. In my area very few broadscast stations have decent reception.
2. Severely limited any viewing time to a 2-hour video once a week.
Do I think government should regulate culture?
I think the fairness doctrine should be brought back.
And I'd like to see a commitment to good children's television and some limits to violence and sex and profanity on broadcast and cable radio and TV before 9 pm.
However, more important than restrictions like those above is issues of funding of family-friendly programs and workplace.
And, sigh, I'd love to see a return of worker's wages high enough for one working parent to support a family and still have time to spend with kids.
June 10, 2005 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Single white dudes aren't getting the shaft?
Uh... the FCC has fined various shock jocks, forcing many of them off the air and causing Howard Stern to jump to satellite and now the FCC seems to want to regulate satellite streams.
Don't forget that there are folks in the FCC who want to regulate cable content the same way they regulate broadcast.
And it's not that they don't have an effect. Remember when South Park was new? Remember the furor and handwringing over that adult cartoon?
Also, the media treats Brent Bozell and his Parent's Television Censors as if they have a legitimate beef.
A 2 second boob shot at the Super Bowl led to a chilling effect that toned down content on both broadcast and cable.
Maybe "getting the shaft" is too strong, but we are dealing with an activist FCC that wants to expand its influence into areas that should be off limits.
June 10, 2005 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The continual spurring of business to be more 'competitive' drives the employees to work more and more, at the expense of families. The questions progressives need to ask are: When is it going to end? When do the costs exceed the benefits? What do families really want?
By the way, this is a subject that those traditionally progressive allies, the labor unions, can speak on with some authority. The 'weekend' (a relatively modern concept, brought to you by organized labor) is considered the quintessence of American 'family time', is it not?
June 10, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>You end up in bed with Dobson.
Yeah, but that's the quickest way to defang this whole issue.
Look, I'm not into opposing Dobson for the sole sake of opposing Dobson. I think he's a dangerous demagogue on most things, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to dismiss him and every single one of his ideas out of hand.
And on this, I think saying that the fact the culture is saturates in sex and violence isn't worth worrying about is the quickest way to continue losing votes in the suburbs.
I ask it again - the ubiquity of porn, shooting ho's in "Grand Theft" is a function of the market - but is it good for society to marinate in this? More to the point, how do parents feel about their children marinating in this sort of culture?
I'll tell you right now they don't like it, and if we don't appear poised to try and address it in some fashion, they will indeed gravitate those who promise to do something about it - even when those promises are empty, as they have been.
June 10, 2005 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
To some extent this is what Bill Clinton managed so well but was criticized for his "smaill programs" such as school uniforms and even his oft stated "abortions should be legal safe and rare. There has to be a way to deal with every day concerns of parents, of which I am one, and using the government ala Lieberman to censor everything.
June 10, 2005 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kids sneaking a peek at Playboys is about the same thing as Mom and Dad sneaking a kid a beer at a party. However, if a kid starts showing up to school drunk, Mom and Dad are in big trouble if it's found out they either allow their kids free access to their liquor cabinet, or simply don't pay any attention to what's being taken from it. As for porn, I don't think I need to remind you some of the sick things that are done by adults to kids regarding sex.
Where this is going is you simply cannot compare the occasional instance of a kid "sneaking" something they are not supposed to be accessing as a kid, and then using those situations to justify kids being allowed full access to it. Yes, lots of kids drink before they are legal. Does that mean we legalize alchohol to minors? No. Lots of kids sneak a look a Playboy. Does that mean we legalize sex with minors? Absolutely not.
Mom and Dad need to lock up adult games and software away from their kids the same way they lock up their liquor cabinets and guns. Put the GTA disc in their briefcase when they are done playing it, and carry it to work with them. Password protect computers the games are installed on, and change the passwords regularly.
June 10, 2005 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is a little socialistic. But, the truth is, mass tastes, as expressed by pure capitalism, can get rather bland. There's benefit in having stuff you don't necessarily like, or that you don't think you like.
June 10, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, this very site bundles a lot of thinkers together. A lot of people don't have the warmest feelings for Marshall Whitman, myself among them. I'm still glad he's here. :)
June 10, 2005 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the better analogy here, though, is that kids sneak into the liquor cabinent every now and then, but we don't ban liquor in order to stop it. Should be the same with GTA, where a parent could take the more careful measures you propose, or not, depending on how they want to raise their families.
Let's not forget, also, that some more advanced cultures in Europe aren't quite as prudish as we are. French kids don't have to sneak a glass of wine, they're taught how to handle it at an earlier age.
June 10, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just be honest.
You, the adult, should be able to watch what you want, but you need your head examined if you let your kids watch it. Government can't force Hollywood to shoot better movies and government can't turn the channel for you.
And by the way, "Catwoman" was crap.
June 10, 2005 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the poster who applauds TPM Cafe and the quality of these discussions.
I have grown children and when I look around the present public culture, I heave a sigh of relief. But it it was creepy and violent when they were growing up. I'm was a working mother and a single mother part of the time and my household had rules and a lot of parental "self-censoring"-limited television, approval of movies and TV content(I watched a lot of the challenging material with them and we discussed it later), no censorship of what was read in print, lots of discussion about language and what is appropriate when. As they got older (11 and up) the viewing rules lightened up and they began to make their own decisions and I had the confidence that they could handle the decisions they made. I governed my own children.
I also had good childcare options, worked for myself with its incumbent flexiblity, had good health care for them and myself, didn't have credit card debt or insurmountable financial concerns (I worried sometimes, but never despaired), my children were getting good public and private educations that dovetailed with my efforts (consumer, health and sex education and art and music and sport education to give the kids options and tools in what they choose to consume),we rarely went to fast food places because of expense and poor nutrition. They both have college educations and more options for good jobs then most their age. When I make that list, I really blanch for today's parents. My oldest is 26, and it is this list that shows the saddest change of circumstances for current parents.
It is in "good parenting" support systems (jobs, security, health care, education, respect for individuals and their personal choices) that the Democrats need their focus, not on out-censoring the Republicans.
I believe that empowered people make good decisions for themselves, we need a government that does a better job and empowering more people. I think much of the decay and decadence of our society comes from people anesthetizing themselves to the despair of their lives. As working incomes have dropped, drug use, obesity, available pornography and consumerism have risen. A healthy focus would be on the real causes not the distractions.
June 10, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about the culture. It's about parental rights.
A parent should be able to choose what's best for their child.
Read this story today: "Child welfare officials took a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents' custody, accusing them of blocking her radiation treatment."
It's worse than the Schiavo story; the parents don't want the treatment, the child doesn't want the treatment because the cancer is in remission.
The government has overstepped its bounds to the point where it's supplanted parents' rights. This isn't the only time this year; a bill was passed approving mandatory psychological testing of all children. Can't recall the bill number but I think it was HR 292.
The challenge for progressives is framing this situation, re-empowering mothers and fathers as the real source of values and the real protectors of their children. We should be buying ad time on radio and television reinforcing the power of turning off the television or using V-chips, reinforcing the power of parenting. It's a frame that's difficult for the right to argue against, one that libertarians would support.
Further, we should be emphasizing the dangers of too much intervention by government -- the child cancer patient is a perfect example of the overreach possible when we rely too heavily on government to do our parental jobs.
June 10, 2005 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look around and I don't exactly see single white guys getting the shaft from the media. Sohbet
Or single white gals, for that matter? Sex in the City?
Culture paid for by advertising is designed to appeal to the 18-34 demographic group which is either single or with children so young that V-chips aren't yet an issue.
Please take your complaints up with Rupert Murdock, John Malone, and the rest of the media moguls.
June 10, 2005 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as the kind of issue for democrats that the Schiavo issue was for republicans. The kind of issue that plays well with a small percentage of the population while much of the rest of the country asks, "With all the problems I'm having, THIS is what you think is important right now?"
June 10, 2005 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help but think that everyone is missing the obvious in this equation: fearmongering works best on mothers. When confronted by this, emotion overrides logic, and Democrats are prone to make logical unemotional arguments on the issue of the war on terra. Intellectually, the party seems to feel that raw emotion is a weakness and distances themselves from framing the issue in this way, preferring to present logical facts and figures. Many women bought into the image presented by the republicans of W, and it's consistent with their own notions of their own men in their own marriages: he was a lovable rapscallion and hard drinker (the "danger boy " appeal) who needed the love of a good woman and a dose of religion to straighten up and now look how wonderful he is. This is why the erosion in a formerly solid demographic: the "triangulate first" notions of the Democratic Party mechanism, the attempts in recent presidential campaigns to be all things to all people chasing that tiny tiny slice of the electorate known as swing voters has resulted in the Democratic candidate coming off as effete and patrician, and most married women have enough issues with father figures; the fearmongering inherent in the Reppublican campaign calls for a tough guy, and that was W, the hard ridin', consonant droppin' earnest cowboy who rides in to keep the homestead safe from those savages on the perimeter. The democrats always present the headmaster of the school. Which would YOUR girl go for?
June 10, 2005 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do a great job parenting my kid. I don't need the feds to do it for me. If it's crap we don't watch it. If it's for adults my kid doesn't play it.
My big issue these days is more with what they choose to censor. According to what gets press these days, its fine for my kid to see a decomposed corpse or violent crime on CSI, but god forbid he should see a little flesh. Give me a break, given the choice, I would rather him see something beautiful than something heinous. The moment the human body becomes something to be ashamed of and hide in my house is the day I hand over my kid to the state.
June 10, 2005 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it isn't JUST a commercial issue. There's an artistic issue as well. You might not like "shooting hos in GTA" but some darned creative and talented game designers got a kick out of including it, possibly because it was once taboo even in "underworld" style games. It's commercially successful because the artists were right to include it -- a lot of players found it as fun and interesting as the artists did. Even in the stuff that people like to dismiss as crass and commercial there's artistic work that shouldn't be ignored and that needs to be defended.
June 10, 2005 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sort of 21st century Shakers? You just left out the celibacy. After all, if you really don't want kids around, it's the best way.
June 10, 2005 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've spent 20 years arguing "if you even come close to controlling one thing that's suitable for adults, you will end up banning everything". And it sure hasn't worked for us. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to mix it up and moderate a bit?
Look, I don't really want to tell Paris Hilton that she can't go draping herself over a car to sell hamburgers, or tell Hardees that (really, I want to pay as little attention to Paris Hilton as possible). And I don't want the government in charge of deciding what's vapid and what's meaningful, if racy, personal expression. But I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of explaining to a kid why it's OK for Paris to hump a car, but not OK for her to pull her shirt up at birthday parties, or why I wouldn't let her get the Lil' Teen Streetwalker makeup kit. It's about mutual respect for public space, and willingness to call out excess.
The Dems got behind this kind of libertarianism when "mutual respect for public space" meant "not fraternizing with Negroes and Irishmen" or "letting a woman wear pants". We won that fight, and we won it well. But to take it as far as fighting for and enshrining the rights of whoever wants to "show us your tits!" is both a political mistake, and an abuse of the respect-based commons we claim to support. We should not be the defenders of bad manners when those "manners" aren't really a question of basic rights.
We are not European, and we do not have their mores - not the traditionalism, thankfully, not the familiarity with people being naked, not the generally dislike of guns and violence (regrettably). We're asking for the opportunity govern people with American mores, prudish as they may be, and that means paying homage to restraint in public spheres.June 10, 2005 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, celibacy. Sorta like the Bush Doctrine on birth control. I can't look at Babs and envision Daddy BushI popped her more than the number needed to spawn their reprehensible brood. Actually Emma I was envisioning just the opposite; rampant, decadent, uninhibited sex all the time. In the interest of maintaining state policy birth control, abortions, vasectomies and anything else relating to the prevention of pregnancy would be encouraged and paid for.
June 10, 2005 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree that most things rated R are harmless. I do NOT allow my children to watch anything rated R unless I am sitting with them. And, in fact, the only movies I've let them see that fill that criteria are the Matrix sequels (fast forwarding past the obnoxious dance/sex fest), and Kung Fu Hustle, in which the most graphically violent parts are at the very beginning of the movie and extremely stylized with the gang dancing in between shots of ax murdering (and I covered his eyes on that part).
My husband actually thinks it is funny that I am so "conservative" about what they hear and see, and so "liberal" on my own personal life and others. I just don't think it is appropriate or necessary at their ages (9,8,5... all boys).
June 10, 2005 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons South Park generated such a furor is that, for some reason entirely unknown to me, pre-teens were watching it. Or at least talking about it. Americans are still deeply deluded about animated movies and shows, in the sense that they seem to believe that all animation is suitable for children.
June 10, 2005 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it was an artistic decision, or maybe they just think that sexual women deserve to be shot. I can tell you that neither one of my kids will be allowed to bring that sort of 'game' into my house, and they'll know why, too.
June 10, 2005 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think that a great deal of what my local movie theater shows isn't family-friendly. Mind you, none of it is unrated and very little is NC-17, but it's all calculated to thrill 20 year olds with a taste for large explosions and no emotional interaction. Frankly, that's not what I want my children to see.
The fact that a movie is rated PG-13 for language and violence doesn't tell me nearly enough to know if I want to take my kids to it. Given that trailers are usually exceedingly misleading, I end up with the choice of paying twice to see a movie in the theaters (once to see if it's suitable and once with them). Given what my finances look like, let's just say that my kids don't see many movies in the theater.
June 10, 2005 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your recommendations mirror many of the existing views of the liberal side and I agree with them. Clinton articulated some of these tools to give parents to help them raise children properly. However, our version of addresing these issues should be and are markedly different from the GOP. They want censorship via various means. Reminds me of the Taliban's and Saudi Wahhabist Ministry of Vice and Virtue in which they aim to stomp out "corrupting" influences.
Large conglomerates should be broken up because they lead to homogenous coverage nationwide and stomp out investigaive reporting. We have seen historically how big business is not in the interest of the public...but neither is big government. A balance is needed and I believe we can better provide it better than the monopoly loving GOP. While the GOP wants to censor content, we want to avoid creations of large conglos and monopolies.
As far as the tax breaks for familiies, its called the family medical leave act. BTW, Bush and the GOP is trying to dilute it bit by bit. As far as legality of R-rated movies, geewiz....maybe a little too much.
As far as enabling dual working parents to spend more family time, thats what the Family Leave act along with the Earned Income Tax Credit which should be used to build upon but the GOP is killing it bit by bit. The problem we face is that if we allow telecommuting and work from home structures, people might end up working MORE since their employers can use technology to contact them at any time. So, this is a double edge sword and the GOP will certainly tilt it against workers and families.
So, you describe principles that have been espoused by liberals for a few years already but have been opposed by the GOP. I believe the reason the US divorce rate is as high as it is, is due to the issues you mention (two working parents, too much time apart and away from kids, stress etc). This is more of a threat to marriage than gay civil marriages will ever be. The GOP is not interested in solving none of those issues but yelling about a fake and fabricated "culture" war and how the US is going to decline by going away from our traditional culture (aka white christian protestant roots etc etc etc).
In the end, the latter point has to do with the fact that the GOP is largely afraid of a multicultural, pluralistic society unless they can brainwash new americans into the GOP's White Christian Taliban (aka Pat Robertson, Falweel, DObson etc agenda) views. All these GOP minorities are nothing but largely PR props designed to hide the GOP agenda. As we ALL know, the GOP Taiban calls the shots in the GOP now, period. We liberals have about 40-45% of our base as white christians but they are NOT Taliban Wahhabist complaining about the US leaving its white christian protestant "roots".
Wow, in my view...THAT will be the BIG future flashpoint.... meaning which party embraces a multicultural (less white), multi-ethnic, pluralistic society and tolerant world. In my view, the GOP will seek to severely restrcit ALL immigration because they cannot and WILL not convert new immigrants to their religious white christian taliban views fast enough. This will be the case especially if their is a new Alqaeda attack. They will try to lump "immigrants" with terrorist as they did with Osama/Saddam. Of course, I believe the democrats and the liberals won't since they are more receptive to a pluralistic America against the GOP criminal efforts to poison religion for the worst purposes it can be used....but thats another discussion.
Carlos
June 10, 2005 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The child-free-zone is an interesting concept. Unfortunately, you'd still be stuck with all the adults who act like children - for instance, people who think the world revolves around them and don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's well-being. Come to thnk of it, I'd wager that the child-free-zone would be chock full of those people. Could work out well in fact. I nominate Texas (sorry good-hearted Texans, I know you tried...).
June 10, 2005 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a kid-less married white dude, I can safely say that watching the toothless FCC pounce on Howard Stern amuses me more than it bothers me. Yeah, I know...censorship, first amendment rights, yada-yada. But if Dems are going to get upset about censorship, we better start with things like the MSM not highlighting the Downing St. memo, or the outrage over showing flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq, or the CPB head shooting warning shots across the bow towards Bill Moyers. Being for "free speech" is no longer simply about demanding your right to listen to Lenny Bruce records or supporting the neo-nazis in Skokie. When an administration routinely lies and hides information about anything it sees fit to, can't we agree that we now have some bigger fish to fry?
If someone wants to get upset about Howard giggling one too many times about anal sex on the air, whatever. Putting too much of our energy there just means we're playing the game by their rules - agreeing that parental concerns about children's exposure to toxic media amount to nothing more than fears that their children may somehow find their way to Howard's show. As numerous parents and people who care for kids have commented here, that has little if anything to do with their concerns, so let's not fight amongst ourselves. I refer back to my original post: Draw the connection between media monopolies and content, support parents but hold them accountable, name the fact that our economic system has made it very difficult for parents to truly parent their kids.
June 10, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ewww... Hardees.
That said... somebody has to stand up for more freedom. And public space needs to be filled with whatever people want to fill it with. Some folks are worried about what their children will see. I'm worried about what I won't.
June 10, 2005 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, that's why there was a flap. But the content of that flap wasn't "hey, parents, this is for you, not your kids" it was more: "How dare they do such things in animation!"
June 10, 2005 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the posts have grown here, I may have missed the one where someone suggested banning anything. If I did, the I'll just say clearly that I don't agree with that. What we're talking about is Dems being able to say to parents, "We hear your concerns about the effects of media on your kids and here are our suggested solutions...". When we immediately start talking about protecting the rights of video game makers, Howard Stern, etc., we lose those parents. And personally I'm much more worried about those parent's kids than the GTA designers who, I'm sure, are doing quite well these days. Again, I'm not suggesting censorship as a solution. I'm saying that Dems should be stating clearly that parent's concerns regarding the ubiquity of violence in the media are legitimate and that we should be working together to address those concerns.
I understand the French giving wine to kids point, but I disagree that it can eve