I love studies like this that completely reduce Christians' arguments about television to nothing. We've heard it all our lives: "Sex is all over TV--and getting worse!" and so on. But it's wrong.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman2/search.cgi?action=search&page=2&perpage=5&template=articleLists/shorts.html&categoryNums=31&includeSubcats=0
Study: TV sex actually has cooled off since the '70s
Was the era of “Charlie’s Angels” and “Three’s Company” really raunchier than the era of Janet Jackson’s bared breast? Apparently yes. A new study of American primetime network programming between 1975 and 2004 says sexual content of nearly every kind has decreased sharply and consistently over those three decades, leaving today’s viewers with one-third the sexual content they’d have seen in the 1970s. That may be a surprise considering the big outcry over broadcast indecency the past few years. Analyzing 2,558 hours of programming, Amir Hetsroni, a professor of communications at Yezreel Valley College in Israel, found that kisses have become less passionate, suggestions of sexual intercourse have gone missing, and there’s been less talk about sex, including safe sex. The study also finds less content about what it calls “illegal sexual interactions.” Content related to homosexual sex is the exception, having increased markedly in the past two decades.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Children of Men
For some odd reason, futuristic dystopian movies can scare the hell out of me. I don't know why. I'm not usually fearful of the future--I figure almost every generation feared for their future lives, but everything just gets better. But these movies with a foreboding view of the future, I always seem to wander out of the movie theater wondering if everything is as it was before I entered the theater.
This movie, Children of Men, gave me a similar feeling of fear. Partially because it does have that dystopian plot, but also, I believe, because of the cinematography. I'll get to that in a minute.
The movie is based in 2027, a time where not a single child has been born in the last 18 years. One man, played by Clive Owen, must take a pregnant woman to safety. This incredibly original movie (though based on a novel) powerfully casts a shadow on earth's future. Chaos is everywhere, everything has lost its value.
The cinematography was especially impressive, as I mentioned before. Sometimes particular scenes would last for minutes on end, showing the depth and artistry of the director and cinematographer--and the difficulty of pulling so much off. As well, the cinematography would place you into the scene, sometimes moving with the actors on foot. It's not as bumpy as you would think, and it works so incredibly well to really make you a part of what is going on.
This movie works so well. The action will leave you on the edge of your seat, the human drama is incredibly moving, and so on. Check this movie out. It's pretty fantastic.
I... am... ticked.
Okay, so yesterday I decide to scan more pictures for the wedding. I get to Wal-Mart about five-ish, and camp out at the Kodak scanner for two hours scanning 140 pictures. It's pouring outside, but I don't care. I'm bound and determined to get this done. I finish things up, and pop in a CD to burng the pictures onto it. Minutes, MINUTES before the CD is finished--THE FREAKING POWER GOES OUT. Everything is lost. 140 pictures, two hours, down the drain.
You have got to be kidding me!
You have got to be kidding me!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A Question I have...... (part one of many)
--Okay, so the whole statistic that says "Spiders [or other insects] crawl in our mouths while we sleep at least twice [or more or less] a year." What? Do we know that? How do we know that? How on EARTH can that be tested? Who tested that? Who wanted to be that subject? I just find it hard to believe that we can even know something like that--ESPECIALLY, if it wasn't tested objectively. We're ASLEEP.
Just after I type this, snopes comes to mind.
Just after I type this, snopes comes to mind.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
The Price Is Right
I just read recently that this week Bob Barker was ending his time as host of "The Price is Right," so I decided to share a very interesting story about people I met while attending a showing of "The Price Is Right" in California.
We got up at 4 am to get to the show early enough to get a good spot. We arrived at 4:45 in the morning and there was already a line of over 150. While we were waiting, and old man got in line behind us. He was a short man, wearing a baseball cap and jacket. He didn't really look at us, especially when he spoke to us. We began to talk to him, and he was very quiet and reserved. We finally found out his name, Luis, and he opened up more and more. He was a retired postal worker. He didn't have a lot of family in the area. We found out that since 1984 Luis had been going to the Price is Right EVERY DAY. Seriously. Every day of taping, he was there.
He finally won in 1990. He won two cars, and an assortment of other things. Even though he won and therefore can't win again, he still goes to every single taping. He has never missed a day of the Price is Right, save for a day during spring break when a bunch of college students attended a taping and got there before he did. It was so interesting talking to this guy who knew more than the people telling us what to do! The Price is Right had even offered Luis a VIP pass to just go in and avoid the lines but he did not accept it. We tried to find him after the taping to talk more, but he was gone.
We got up at 4 am to get to the show early enough to get a good spot. We arrived at 4:45 in the morning and there was already a line of over 150. While we were waiting, and old man got in line behind us. He was a short man, wearing a baseball cap and jacket. He didn't really look at us, especially when he spoke to us. We began to talk to him, and he was very quiet and reserved. We finally found out his name, Luis, and he opened up more and more. He was a retired postal worker. He didn't have a lot of family in the area. We found out that since 1984 Luis had been going to the Price is Right EVERY DAY. Seriously. Every day of taping, he was there.
He finally won in 1990. He won two cars, and an assortment of other things. Even though he won and therefore can't win again, he still goes to every single taping. He has never missed a day of the Price is Right, save for a day during spring break when a bunch of college students attended a taping and got there before he did. It was so interesting talking to this guy who knew more than the people telling us what to do! The Price is Right had even offered Luis a VIP pass to just go in and avoid the lines but he did not accept it. We tried to find him after the taping to talk more, but he was gone.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Current Songs I'm Loving
These are seriously all over the place:
"Jungle Love" - Steve Miller Band
"Icky Thump" - White Stripes
"Umbrella" - Rihanna. Shut up.
"Unravel" - Bjork
"Bleed American" - Jimmy Eat World
"Fake Empire" - The National
"Montage" from Team America
"Noah's Ark" - CocoRosie.... this song is so weird. But it's cool.
"If You Find Yourself Caught In Love" - Belle and Sebastian
"Jungle Love" - Steve Miller Band
"Icky Thump" - White Stripes
"Umbrella" - Rihanna. Shut up.
"Unravel" - Bjork
"Bleed American" - Jimmy Eat World
"Fake Empire" - The National
"Montage" from Team America
"Noah's Ark" - CocoRosie.... this song is so weird. But it's cool.
"If You Find Yourself Caught In Love" - Belle and Sebastian
Friday, June 8, 2007
My Peculiar Aristocratic Title:
 | My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: His Eminence the Very Lord Timothy the Haunted of Walk upon Water Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title |
Monday, June 4, 2007
TAKE THAT, FCC!!
I couldn't have been more happy reading this news item:
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070604/3/32w7k.html
US court rejects FCC broadcast decency limit
By Martha Graybow
NEW YORK, June 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday overruled federal regulators who decided that expletives uttered on broadcast television violated decency standards, a major victory for TV networks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, in a divided decision, said that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was "arbitrary and capricious" in setting a new standard for defining indecency.
The court sent the matter back to the commission for further proceedings to clarify its indecency policy. The FCC, which said it was still studying the opinion, could decide to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court.
The FCC ruled in March 2006 ruling that News Corp.'s Fox television network had violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted "fuck" during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used a variation of that word and "shit" during the 2003 awards.
No fines were imposed but Fox had challenged the decision to the appeals court, arguing that the government's decency standard was unclear, violated free speech protections and that the rulings had contradicted findings in past cases.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'shit' and 'fuck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience."
"If we can't prohibit the use (the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.
He was silent on a Supreme Court appeal, though Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, and the Parents Television Council urged the FCC to appeal.
The stakes are high for broadcasters who could face fines of up to $325,000 per violation.
The three-member appeals panel focused on whether expletives were used repeatedly or were only uttered fleetingly. The FCC had argued that, under certain conditions, one utterance can violate the decency standard.
"We find that the FCC's new policy regarding 'fleeting expletives' represents a significant departure from positions previously taken by the agency and relied on by the broadcast industry," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for herself and Judge Peter Hall in the majority decision.
"We further find that the FCC has failed to articulate a reasoned basis for this change in policy," the ruling said. "Accordingly, we hold that the FCC's new policy regarding 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious."
The court did not rule on constitutional challenges to the FCC's policy. But the majority of the judges suggested it could be tough for the commission to prevail on constitutional grounds.
"We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its 'fleeting expletive' regime that would pass constitutional muster," the majority wrote.
Judge Pierre Leval dissented, writing that he believed the FCC "gave a reasoned explanation for its change of standard."
Fox said it was "very pleased with the court's decision" and that it believes "that government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment."
"Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home," Fox said.
The FCC under the Bush administration embarked on a crackdown of indecent content on broadcast TV and radio in 2004 after pop star Janet Jackson briefly exposed her bare breast during the broadcast of that year's Super Bowl halftime show.
A few weeks after that incident, the FCC reversed an earlier staff decision and ruled that the fleeting use of an expletive by U2 rock star Bono during a 2003 NBC broadcast was indecent.
FCC Chairman Martin has pressed subscription television services to give customers the option of blocking channels they find offensive and on Monday opened the door for the idea of blocking broadcast channels as well.
"Permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns," he said. (Additional reporting by Peter Kaplan in Washington and Paul Thomasch in New York)
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070604/3/32w7k.html
US court rejects FCC broadcast decency limit
By Martha Graybow
NEW YORK, June 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday overruled federal regulators who decided that expletives uttered on broadcast television violated decency standards, a major victory for TV networks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, in a divided decision, said that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was "arbitrary and capricious" in setting a new standard for defining indecency.
The court sent the matter back to the commission for further proceedings to clarify its indecency policy. The FCC, which said it was still studying the opinion, could decide to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court.
The FCC ruled in March 2006 ruling that News Corp.'s Fox television network had violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted "fuck" during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used a variation of that word and "shit" during the 2003 awards.
No fines were imposed but Fox had challenged the decision to the appeals court, arguing that the government's decency standard was unclear, violated free speech protections and that the rulings had contradicted findings in past cases.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'shit' and 'fuck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience."
"If we can't prohibit the use (the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.
He was silent on a Supreme Court appeal, though Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, and the Parents Television Council urged the FCC to appeal.
The stakes are high for broadcasters who could face fines of up to $325,000 per violation.
The three-member appeals panel focused on whether expletives were used repeatedly or were only uttered fleetingly. The FCC had argued that, under certain conditions, one utterance can violate the decency standard.
"We find that the FCC's new policy regarding 'fleeting expletives' represents a significant departure from positions previously taken by the agency and relied on by the broadcast industry," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for herself and Judge Peter Hall in the majority decision.
"We further find that the FCC has failed to articulate a reasoned basis for this change in policy," the ruling said. "Accordingly, we hold that the FCC's new policy regarding 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious."
The court did not rule on constitutional challenges to the FCC's policy. But the majority of the judges suggested it could be tough for the commission to prevail on constitutional grounds.
"We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its 'fleeting expletive' regime that would pass constitutional muster," the majority wrote.
Judge Pierre Leval dissented, writing that he believed the FCC "gave a reasoned explanation for its change of standard."
Fox said it was "very pleased with the court's decision" and that it believes "that government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment."
"Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home," Fox said.
The FCC under the Bush administration embarked on a crackdown of indecent content on broadcast TV and radio in 2004 after pop star Janet Jackson briefly exposed her bare breast during the broadcast of that year's Super Bowl halftime show.
A few weeks after that incident, the FCC reversed an earlier staff decision and ruled that the fleeting use of an expletive by U2 rock star Bono during a 2003 NBC broadcast was indecent.
FCC Chairman Martin has pressed subscription television services to give customers the option of blocking channels they find offensive and on Monday opened the door for the idea of blocking broadcast channels as well.
"Permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns," he said. (Additional reporting by Peter Kaplan in Washington and Paul Thomasch in New York)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)