Barack Obama Is A Putz

Cross-posted at Seeing the Forest.

Barak Obama comments on a study about "sex and television" in a L.A. Times article, Television Awash In Sex, Study Says: The report says 70% of shows include sexual content. The number has risen over the years.

The conclusion of a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation was dire:

More than a year after federal authorities launched a crackdown on broadcast indecency, television remains so awash in sex that 7 in 10 episodes include some kind of racy content, a study released Wednesday shows.

The results from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation also found that the number of sexual scenes in sitcoms, dramas and reality shows nearly doubled since 1998, while depictions of abstinence or "safe sex" were on the wane.

As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says:

[T]he Kaiser study underscored the belief among many parents that television was having a coarsening effect on their kids.

"It's not the same today as when I was growing up and parents left their kids in front of the TV to watch 'Captain Kangaroo,' " Perkins said. "The sex depicted on television does have an effect on kids. If we are what we eat, then we become what we watch."

Or in other words, sex on television is hastening the end of western civilization as we know it. Not a moment too soon if you want my opinion, but Barak Obama is piously concerned:

Results were unveiled at a Washington news conference attended by Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.), Fox Networks Group President Tony Vinciquerra and Federal Communications Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy.

Obama called on television broadcasters to improve their program ratings system by making content advisories more prominent on the TV screen. He also said TV executives should make it easier for parents to locate family-friendly shows.

"If the industry fails to act -- if it fails to give parents advanced controls and new choices -- Congress will," Obama said.

That's pretty strange company for a Democrat to be keeping. Is Barak getting The Memo from the Right Wing Noise Machine?

Kaiser's sample found 3,780 scenes with sexual activity, compared with 1,930 seven years ago when it first examined the issue. In that report, 56% of the shows studied included sexual content, compared with 70% today.

Breaking down the numbers by genre on broadcast television, the study found that 91% of comedies had sexual content, compared with 87% of dramas, 73% of newsmagazine shows and 41% of reality programs

And the staff reporters for the L.A. Times make sure to frame their story with this little tidbit:

The government has been cracking down on broadcast indecency in the wake of singer Janet Jackson's breast-baring incident during the halftime show at the 2004 Super Bowl.

One main concern of legislators is whether the proliferation of sex on TV is contributing to teenage pregnancy. Last year, a Rand Corp. survey of 1,792 adolescents found that teens who watched a lot of sexually suggestive TV shows were almost twice as likely to have sex earlier than teens who didn't.

We all know how horribly deformed the national psyche of America's children became from a split second exposure to Janet Jackson's bare breast. Not to mention all of the adults that TIVO'd it and watched it dozens of times to generate the appropriate level of outrage.

I did pause for a second to ponder what kind of controls the Rand survey used. How old were their 1,792 adolescents? How many sexually suggestive shows did they watch over how long a period of time before they decided to engage in sex? Were the adolescents evenly divided between males and females? Did the Rand survey have some sort of controls to adjust for the tendency of teens to exaggerate their sexual exploits? Were sexually suggestive television shows the only variable that could have influenced the children who were watching more of the shows and at some indeterminate later date deciding to engage in sex?

I also decided I must not be watching enough television, or at least not watching the right shows. I have totally missed the explosion in sexual content on network television. Where are my viewing habits going wrong? Then I ran returned to the beginning of the article to re-read the defined hurdle for classifying a television show as "sexually suggestive":

However, the study found that overt sexual activity and references were far less common than talk about sex, and many of the activities it tallied consisted of banter, kissing and touching.

Banter, kissing and touching? Are you kidding me? Touching is consider sexually suggestive? Did they include sexually suggestive leers from which viewers could infer impure thoughts? How did the "experts" define sexually suggestive? Sombody help me out here. Is it just me or is the Kaiser Family Foundation setting the bar ridiculously low for anyone to get concerned? Aren't the conclusions everyone is drawing from this study extremely tenuous?

I would love to see how sexually suggestive episodes of Happy Days would be using the same criteria. I also have a question or two about this conclusion:

Only 10% of the shows depicted or implied sexual intercourse, the study found.

That sounds pretty tame to me. Which shows "depicted or implied" sexual intercourse? In how many of that 10% figure was sexual intercourse actually "depicted" and which network shows actually "depicted" sexual intercourse? What is the standard for "implying" sexual intercourse?

I'm sorry, but anyone who is offended by anything on network television, aside from the gratuitous violence, is a complete and total putz. Barak Obama is a putz of the first order.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

I'm calling Bullshit!
Maybe some people should not be parents. Allow me to suggest that any parent whose parenting skills are inadequate to compete with the sexual banter on network sitcoms should consider working on their parenting skills.

This study and Barak Obama are turning a failure of parenting skills into an ideological witch hunt. And Obama will probably have Hillary chiming in on his side at her earliest opportunity.

I listened to O'Reilly for a few moments the other night trying to turn Prop 73 in California, about parental notification of teenage abortion, into an issue of undermining parental authority. I'm calling bullshit on this whole witch hunt for sexual purity from teenagers.

If parents are incapable of discussing simple sexual banter on network television with their children, they should put them up for adoption. Some people are not capable of raising pets, let alone children. Don't put the blame network television and Democratic "values."

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-10 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!
Do you have any kids?
by zt155 2005-11-10 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!
No.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm calling Bullshit!
I have kids and I have to agree. But for different reasons.

This is obviously a safe play. If you really want to work the issue, try "Celebrity DeathMatch" for Xbox, where Ron Jeremy hammers his contestants with a huge boner.  Or where a grotesquely disfigured woman - size 40DD  uses her massive mammaries to do in her opponents.

Disfiguring sex, or reconfiguring it, is the problem. Not depicting it in a natural sense. Then, when you mix sex with violence in a manner that requires your participation , for example the hidden rape feature in a certain road sports game - you've got the beginning of a seriously disturbed kid.

So Obama is not taking on the deep pockets video game companies but he is taking on Network television. Not a putz, but par for the course if you're getting paid off to keep the heat on your opponent.

In this manner, in fact, Obama shares a sanctimonious place with Ralph Reed, who so fervently opposed Indian casinos while making sure the ones that did get built lined his pockets and the ones that didn't get built were the competitors...

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-11-10 12:14PM | 0 recs
parenting
yea, i tend to believe that it is PARENTS who should be responsible for what their kids watch on tv.  but it seems nowadays that many parents are too lazy to monitor, much less discipline, their kids.
by annatopia 2005-11-10 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Responsible Parenting
Responsible parenting is being willing and able to discuss with your kids what your kids see on television. There is not a single network television show that includes anything in its script that cannot be explained and put in context, no matter what values you want to teach them.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-10 10:57AM | 0 recs
So...
I guess you don't have kids, huh?
Sex on TV is out of control. Period. But that's not the main problem. The main problem is that it permeating youth culture regardless of the mosat well-intentioned efforts of parents.

Or maybe you haven't  watch most of the  videos on MTV or BET?
 

by Bruticus 2005-11-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
parents should fix that
it's not that hard to block channels from your kid's tv set.
by annatopia 2005-11-10 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So...
I agree, if I had kids I wouldnt want them watching some of the garbage on TV. Now I agree that it is the parents job to monitor their children, and I do not think that explicit material should be banned by the FCC, but there is nothing wrong with labels, ratings, and warnings. Those are just tools that make it easier for parents to filter what their kids are seeing without keeping quality television (yes sexually explicit television can be quality television too) off the air.
by AC4508 2005-11-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
that's reasonable
but it seems to me that we have so many more important concerns than whether (for ex) a video game has an r or nc17 rating.
by annatopia 2005-11-10 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: So...
If and when I decide to have kids I will take the time and effort to talk to them about the television shows they watch. If that is too much effort for a parent, they should not be parents.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-10 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: So...
If you have a problem with TV and your kids...dont let them watch it.  Go outside and throw the ball around.  Its your job after all.  I'm personally glad television shows are finally able to actually say what they mean.  It was always so silly when the right word to say was ASS or BITCH or whatever and they were either censored or chose some other silly alternative that just didnt work for the moment.  Congratulations on being a parent, now do your job and parent.  Its a free market system and its apparently working.  People want the sexy banter, they want the reality.  If they didnt they would turn off the tv and ratings would go down enough for studios to change their habits.  They are competiting with cable now and if they don't offer the content people want then they will lose business.  Also, I think MTV is cable and thus immune to many of the rules of the basic channels.  But you do have the opportunity to turn the channel or better yet teach your children to be more selective OR OBEY YOU and not watch it. I certainly don't want prudes monkeying around with cable.  Don't like it, don't buy it.

That said, flags, ratings, and filters are fine.  I know my DVR will already allow me to block shows by name.  I don't know if I can kill entire channels but I think thats possible.

by jrflorida 2005-11-10 11:56AM | 0 recs
Um...
If you want to criticize the Senator, you should probably spell his name correctly....
by jkfp2004 2005-11-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
Breaking News!
Raising kids is not difficult because of television. Raising kids is difficult because raising kids is difficult.

Television or Hollywood or Liberal Values or taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance are just excuses in the right wing blame game.

If anyone is having difficulty raising their kids they should stop blaming outside factors and take a look in the mirror. How much time are you spending with your kids? How much of that time is quality time? What do you discuss with them? How do you discuss those things with them? Do you treat them like they were intelligent, autonomous human beings?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-10 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking News!
How many parents are having to work harder, as a couple, to keep afloat? How much of the problems faced with parenting and youth issues today could be solved if parents had more time to pay attention?  I don't know specific statistics, but its my understanding that people are working harder now than they have in the past. If the right wants to fix social issues, how about starting by not outsourcing jobs, by paying fair wages (and not filling the CEOs pocket for doing nothing).  I found out this week my job is under pressure from our parent company to be outsourced to India.  It would be ridiculous to do so.  It might be cheaper by the programming dollar (I am a software developer) but all of the management ND design would offset that. Giving away trade knowledge to foreign individuals is crazy.  If we ever get into a worldwide war or have serious issues in communication or transportation we risk everything.  What will be left when all of this is done?  They are even talking about outsourcing McDonalds drivethu (not kidding).  Yeah Im pissed.  It may seem off topic but its stress.  Im not a parent but if I were I wouldnt have any time for kids.  Im single.  I make good money, but I pay off student loans and Im trying to be prepared for the day I wont have a job.  If the right wants to fix kids, fix the real lives of parents.
by jrflorida 2005-11-10 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking News!
Um, having kids changes your viewpoint on many things.  I have a daughter.  Before I had her, I thought attempts to clean up TV and culture were just attempts to make the country more conservative.  But now, my attitude has changed and my sense is that they are at least in part coming from genuine concern over the increasingly brazen displays of sex and violence on both make-believe shows and on real news.  If your intent is to slam the Senator for that intention- call it BS if you like- you should consider that this is not really a democrat/republican issue.  It's an issue of wanting to give your kids a good solid foundation before they become insufferable, bloviating, sarcastic, realists way too soon.  
by Archibald 2005-11-10 05:13PM | 0 recs
Let's Relax
This is a cheap way for potential presidential nominees from the Democratic Party to gain traction with the "values" crowd. I suppose the "parents" in America love to hear them say this.

I have yet to see a poll reflecting the view that "parents" want to see more "sex" on TV. All "good" parents (and aren't they all good?) seem to want to see less sex on TV. Yet, it can't just be horny young men or sexually-corrupted-by-TV young women who watch Desperate Housewives and other highly rated shows that tease about sex.

What I find interesting is how many TV commercials tease about sex -- and not just beer commercials. Corporate America wouldn't be using sex to sell their products on TV if it really turned off all those parents out there who claim there's too much sex on TV.

As potentially the first black president (or Veep) of the US, Obama may be protecting his ass against being seen as too liberal. If the price we pay for ousting the Republicans in '06 and '08 is "putz-ism" by some national Democrats, then I'm willing to tolerate it as long as it's only an act.

And if we wind up with Obama as president or vice president on Jan. 20, 2009, no one will care about or even remember stuff like this.

by Phil from New York 2005-11-10 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's Relax
It seems to me that the Dems Ive heard, including this statement and that of Hillary (I know you dislike them GB), are basically just trying to hold the right at bay for a bit.  They say this stuff to bring at least some reason into the discussion.  Yes filters, yes flags, yes make it easier for people to figure out what might flash across the screen in a few minutes (I hope its a breast myself, Janet's is fine with me...but thats me.  I suspect kids can see a breast or two and grow up pretty much okay.), but no censorship.  They seem to just be trying to scare television into taking a few measures now to save trouble later.
by jrflorida 2005-11-10 03:42PM | 0 recs
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
A poster writes:

Um, having kids changes your viewpoint on many things.  I have a daughter.  Before I had her, I thought attempts to clean up TV and culture were just attempts to make the country more conservative.  But now, my attitude has changed and my sense is that they are at least in part coming from genuine concern over the increasingly brazen displays of sex and violence on both make-believe shows and on real news.  If your intent is to slam the Senator for that intention- call it BS if you like- you should consider that this is not really a democrat/republican issue.  It's an issue of wanting to give your kids a good solid foundation before they become insufferable, bloviating, sarcastic, realists way too soon.  

I Respond:

Give me a BREAK...what happened to personal responsibility, what happened to parents policing their OWN CHILDREN?  Is it that hard to sit down with your remote control, and program in a few blocks to keep your children from watching shows you do not approve of?  I love watching Will and Grace, but to listen to you, that show should be taken off the air because some parent feels it might offend their children....then turn off your DAMN TV, and read to them!  

You do not need the federal government to give your kids a GOOD SOLID FOUNDATION, you simply need to do your job as a parent, so keep your filters off my TV choices.

by NYDragon 2005-11-10 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
I love all of these responses that assume you have to be a bad parent to care about the content in the media- because, you know, if you were a good parent, you know, you'd read to your kids.

I think you will find that the people who do care about content on tv are not the folks who leave their kids in front of it all the time- it's the people who are trying to be not just good parents- but great parents- and see that the programming is becoming increasingly prurient and is working against them.

I'll refrain from getting very irritated at anyone who uses this line of argument (Mr. Dragon if you would like to step outside...) and instead offer a few simple words of advice.  Unless you have kids, it's not a good idea to crack on someone's parenting.  And if you do have kids, you should know better.

 

by Archibald 2005-11-10 07:09PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------