More Sex And Drugs Needed On TV … For The Children
by Maura Flynn
Nick nailed it. But I’d go further…the disconnect from reality demonstrated by the average American television writer is why our best TV shows tend to be cribbed from the Brits (from Archie Bunker to The Office… Couples being one particularly hideous exception, granted).
The true threats posed by Hollywood’s television studios have absolutely nothing to do with sex and drugs, but rather with sterility and sheer stupidity. It may be true that the masses are to some extent shaped by what they consume, which is why is it has been so easy for anti-free-market, leftist messages to be inserted in small but repetitive doses and swallowed so easily. When food is consistently bland, when the diet is gruel, the taste buds tune out. It’s only natural.
But back to sex and drugs…when it comes to programming for preteens and teenagers, Hollywood is not only prudish, but childish and verging on infantile.
In The Secret Life of Teenagers, for instance, Nick points out correctly that it is neither necessary nor useful to over-emphasize that the pregnant girl had sex only once. The odds of this occurring are extremely slim, for starters, and not nearly as instructional as a more realistic version of the same story. Are we hoping to “scare them straight” Little-Red-Riding-Hood style? To weave semi-implausible fairy tales with gruesome endings? And if so, it bears rethinking — either that or a far more clever revision to justify the motif. To wit: I went to an all-girls Catholic high school, and knew at least three girls who became pregnant before graduating. All were excellent students, members of the honor society, student council or class council, and excelled at sports. And all of them were, to use the 80’s vernacular, “flaming sluts”. That is far more real, far more interesting, and a problem that certainly bears addressing. The ramifications of extensive early sexual activity extend well beyond potential pregnancies and STD’s, but also to matters of reputation and self-esteem (one of these girls attempted to kill herself). Every one of them had abortions, incidentally. And what, dear teenager, will you do if your friend calls you in tears and wants you to meet her at the clinic because her “boyfriend” stood her up? There’s a potential moral dilemma for you, if you happen to oppose abortion (which I did at the time). That’s real life. THAT is the secret life of teenagers.
As to drugs…where are they? (I mean on teen television!). If they appear at all it will likely be fifteen minutes before the post-mortem. Kids don’t even smoke cigarettes on TV anymore, not even the “bad” ones. As a parent, and a generally sane person, I certainly don’t wish to see drinking and drugging glamorized for the younger set…but I’m smart enough to realize that kids will see that anyway…in Real Life. And too often it will, in fact, appear glamorous. So why the puppet show? Is your child stupid? Mine isn’t.
Frankly I’m baffled by most American programming, even the adult shows. While the entire country seemed to marvel at sitcoms like Seinfeld and Friends, I had serious questions about the writers. Were they ALL recovering alcoholics? Is that why they forced these characters, adults in their twenties and thirties, to conduct their entire social lives in coffee shops and diners? These shows were supposed to be set in New York City, but it looked more like Utah.
I guess that’s why I was so thrilled when House premiered. Finally, a character on an American program who is allowed to be flawed, a drug addict, and a jerk — a genuine anti-hero in the mode of Sherlock Holmes! I had hoped that my eleven-year-old daughter would join me in watching some pre-screened episodes, because I knew she would benefit from the complexity of an actual human character on television, and looked forward to the ensuing discussions we could have about this…but she doesn’t care for medical dramas.
Now this is a child who could recite all the best parts of Monty Python and the Holy Grail with a fake British accent when she was six. She loves Alfred Hitchcock, and has been exposed to many classic and age-appropriate films. She enjoys the Discovery Channel, etc. But she and her peers are currently infatuated with programming that is turning my hair white (literally– I’m glad you can’t see my roots right now!). And this tripe is brought to us courtesy of — yes, people — The Disney Channel. If there is a more inane channel on the cable dial, I’ve yet to discover it.
If you have a preteen, you may be unfortunate enough to have watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, for example (syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage on This American Life discussing why this program is “too filthy for his son to watch.” But I don’t forbid her to watch these programs, just as I don’t forbid her to eat cookies or ice cream. I do, however, make sure that I compliment it with a healthy dose of well-written, non-inane programming. And yes, I long for the day when she graduates from High School Musical Three to Heathers.
That may sound twisted. But, as parents, I think we’ve gone collectively insane and are fearing all the wrong things. Sex, obviously, is a part of life in every family (last I checked, that is where families come from). And drugs (certainly alcohol), are present in some fashion or form in most American households.
These issues can be addressed in ways that are silly and human, that expose dark dangers with dark humor, or that address these things dead-on with respect for the intelligence of any viewer of any age in the double digits.
If we don’t tailor realistic programming for preteens and teenagers, they will inevitably graduate to more adult programming too soon – and adult programs needn’t have any message at all, subtle, complex or otherwise.
Certainly it is wise to be vigilant about what one’s children consume via boob-tube, books and video games. But subject matter and quality are separate issues. Judging by the creepy, Stepford-type content currently offered to tweens and teens on television I fear not for their safety, but for their minds.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
44 Comments
I think House is a brilliant show. The main character is very flawed, and you get to see the results of those flaws. Yes, he’s respected for his intellect and feared for his aggressiveness, but he’s alone and miserable. To me, that’s the brilliance of the show, not the ridiculous lengths they go to in order to present impossible medical scenarios that only he can solve. The way he reads those close to him, and does everything possible to push them away is something we see every day in life. It’s great that they don’t try to make him a hero or give him faux rewards. That’s realism at it’s best, and something you don’t get to see very often.
As the father of an 8 year-old daughter, I feel your pain on what she watches. Some of the “kid friendly” shows she sees make my skin crawl. There are times I’m happier when she watches a tame adult show instead. It’s also depressing to see the characters she identifies with on these shows slowly self-destruct in the real world and under the pressures of “Big Hollywood.”
Where’s Freaks and Geeks when you need it?
The dilemma the majority of Hollywood writers have fallen into is that since they dwell in a providential and myopic atmosphere which only excepts One Thought, writers have trapped themselves inside the black box and have nowhere to go.
If you cannot examine outside the box you will never see anything except what is directly in front of you; this is why the majority of creative forces in Hollywood today are effectively dead inside a coffin buried deep down in the dirt.
Is this satire? I have a seven year old daughter and yes I get it, The Suite Life, Cody in the House, Hannah Montana are mind numbing. But guess what Im not seven. Its called a demographic and Im not in it. And Dan Savage as a source as to what my childern should watch. Isnt he the same clown that recommended halloween costumes for kids that included the orange jumpsuit that Nic Berg was wearing before his head was sawed off. In the 80’s there was Cosby, Family Ties, Different Strokes. I would call these shows that my family could sit down and watch with me at 8PM. Sadly, that type of cross over programing isnt available today on prime time. I recently watched Scrubs at 8 on ABC. Call me puritanical but I dont want to explain strippers, popping your top, or why did she tell that man to drop his pants to my 7 yr old. It seems your throwing in young children s programing as teen choices. When she is 15 I’ll watch Welcome to the Doll House with her. Until then enjoy being a kid, she has the rest of her life to be a jaded manic depressent that Hollywood tells her she is bound to be.
I grew up on 50’s and early 60’s TV. “The Mickey Mouse Club,” “Spin and Marty,” “Sky King,” “Bonanza,” “Rin-Tin-Tin,” “Maverick,” “Gunsmoke,” and so many other shows like them produced heroes whose standards, behavior, and deeds I believed I should emulate. I know, I know…the real lives of some of those actors were worlds apart from the characters they played, but the messages were consistently upbeat and positive even if they were sometimes schmaltzy and corny.
Like most pre-teens and teens who were not comatose, I easily saw the disconnect between real life and the idealized version of life in those fantasy shows; but I also realized early on that those shows consistently presented ideals to which we should aspire, even if they were often unattainable. If we fell short, well, at least we were headed in a positive direction.
The youngsters in TV shows are virtual peers of their same-age viewers and we all know what an enormous influence peer pressure is at those formative ages. Kids are exposed to more than enough negative peer pressure and dysfunctional everyday situations in real life. Why do so many who decide what’s to be aired think kids need to be “entertained” with more of the same? It seems to me that such only reinforces the validity of dysfunctional behavior and too often sends a message that it cannot be changed so why bother?
Most Americans do not have the privilege of being absent from our mass media programming culture for extended periods. With the exception of a one-year stay here in the US, pre-internet, I was overseas and out of touch with US TV and much of its movie offerings for over eight years. When I returned for good, I was shocked and appalled at how low programming standards had sunk and how coarse and lurid TV programming and movie scripts had become.
I was also “gobsmacked,” to borrow an English term, at how blatant TV programs and movies had become in dissing anything that might hint at a conservative approach to daily life. The “American way of life,” that idealized version of the American Dream, was apparently no longer valid. Anti-heroes dominate and their anti-social behavior stokes and titillates kids at a rebellious age lending legitimacy to behavior that too often goes beyond silly youthful hijinx into seriously destructive activities.
I developed a hypothesis that producing these scripts reflected not just the results of marketing studies but also the massively dysfunctional lives of the writers and media executives who must have grown up in families or in social groups in which drug and sex issues were more the rule than the exception. It’s just a hypothesis, but the evidence supporting it seems to be there.
Herman Wouk, in a scene from his book “The Winds of War,” when Pug Henry’s daughter was preparing to move to Hollywood to further her career, had Pug explaining to his daughter that “Hollywood is a moral sinkhole.” I don’t think that line made it into the movie script.
I love good TV, great movies, and the creativity that goes into writing well for them; but every year I find less and less to love. It’s as though in producing content for the mass market, the entertainment industry is in a race to the bottom for the lowest common denominator of consumer identified by marketing departments.
When did the concept of “wholesome” programming for kids go out of fashion? Is it possible to reverse this apparent juggernaut of negative reinforcement in youth programming or should those of us worried about the effects of others’ “Hollywood sinkhole” morals influencing our youth simply get rid of TVs, cease going to movies, and move our families next to libraries?
It seems to me that such a trend is gathering steam as many parents – California being one of the epicenters – remove their children from the corrosive culture of public schools (and the coarse behavior and low morals of their peers influenced, in my humble opinion, by TV and movies) and home school their children.
I loved Tom Noonan’s comment. I thought it was better than either Ms. Flynn’s or Mr. Gillespe’s articles. Both of which seemed to be of the “I’m conservative, but hey I’m cool too so invite me to your party” brand of writing.
I identify with what the writer of this piece is saying. I know that whenever I see a character lighting up a cigarette on a TV show nowadays, THAT is going to be the focal point of the episode. It now becomes the moral duty of the others on the show to point out that SMOKING IS WRONG!!!
Growing up in the 80s and 90s, shows like “Saved by the Bell” and “Beverly Hills 90210″ were aimed at my demographic. Yet I could hardly stand them for all the preachiness, especially 90210. Characters on that show slept around like there was no tomorrow, but heaven forbid if someone should smoke a joint. And they were always ready to tackle the latest “politically correct” topic: feminism, gun control, whatever. (It was also irritating that it was so obvious that most of these people were WAY beyond high school age.)
That was what bugged me so much about a lot of the sitcoms I grew up with. That were really “dramedys”. Especially the “family” ones. The Hogan Family, Growing Pains, Kate & Allie, Boy Meets World, etc. Every other week seemed to be an Important Episode, discussing a Serious Topic. Condom usage, anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, whatever. At least The Cosby Show handled these things more effectively, because they seemed like real family, not a group of actors tossing predictable bromides at one another.
Actually while I can’t stand the Suite Life myself and have convinced my 9 year old daughter to move on, I think overall, Disney and Nick are doing ok. I have seen the Suite Life and while it can be silly etc, it is a kids show. Granted kid shows often center on saving the planet now from global warming. We must do it for the polar bears according to my daughter, they have no ice…logic and facts are few and far between as the “agenda” has been set. Ignoring the global warming mantra though, at the end of the day most shows have a positive moral lesson buried in there somewhere.
OLD GUY- “I’m conservative, but hey I’m cool too so invite me to your party” brand of writing. BULLSEYE!!
Please tell me that this article is a joke?
You’re actually complaining that there isn’t enough sex, drugs, and promiscuity aimed at the teenage market, yes? What a crock of BS! Who in the heck needs another I’m-real-because-I-smoke-crack-and-boff-anything-in-sight animated poster for a dissipated lifestyle? Since when did covering yourself with a bucket load of proverbial scheiss in Prime Time become a validation sticker for reality? I reject the notion that any programming that doesn’t focus on a character with the promiscuity level of a rabbit in heat, or a drug addiction the size of Mount Vesuvius, or a mouth that would make a drunken jarhead blush is the only way of conveying reality to an audience. Some dudes named Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Twain seemed to produce entertaining and realistic fictional depictions of life’s travails without dropping a single “F” bomb.
Sometimes it is necessary to go wading though the sewer because crap is indeed a part of life, but it isn’t any more real than a depiction of any other aspect of life just because it stinks to high heaven in there. Nor would I consider Twains “War Prayer” inane because he didn’t toss in a few mofo’s and f y’alls into the text either.
My kids play outside.
I completely disagree with the entire article. What I wish we could find on TV were more family oriented shows that I could watch with my 8 and 6 year old. Shows were the father isn’t an idiot, where the plots aren’t about sex, and where the children aren’t the wisest people in the house. And yes, shows that are interesting and well written and not preachy. Right now, my kids watch their shows (mostly inane cartoons like Pokemon) and my husband and I watch our procedural crime dramas and never the twain shall meet. We do all like to watch Psych together – a silly mystery show that entertains the whole family. Is that really too much to ask for a show that we can all watch together? Thank goodness for old movies.
That Asian chick on Suite Life is pretty hot. But she’s 25 and she’s playing a teenager, for Christ’s sake. She should graduate to Skinemax.
Shane
Certain that I would love to have you & your children as neighbors.
Man, throw out the TV. Just throw it out. I grew up reading. It’s this thing where the words are written on a page, but instead of scrolling down, you TURN the pages…. it’s really wild!
I read the Pollyanna books, Annie Oakley, Black Beauty & Beautiful Joe, Little Princess, Nancy Drew, Three Investigators, Little Women, Witch of Blackbird Pond, Island of the Blue Dolphins… TV will rot her brain. If I had a kid, I wouldn’t let it near a TV unless a Barney Miller repeat was on, and even then it would depend on which one.
I graduated from high school in 1987, hardly a Norman Rockwell time. Still, I avoided the sex, drugs, smoking, and drinking that somehow adults think ALL teens partake in, as did most of my friends. Sure there were the kids who were into those things but they were known as losers and screw-ups. I’m just as real as the raging, aborting slut friends of the author yet nobody would make a show about people like me.
Has Big Hollywood jumped the shark already?
This was nonsense.
Man, I hope this was a joke.
You let your kid watch “Holy Grail” over and over again to the point that she could memorize it by age six? “Huge tracts of land” “and after that, the oral sex” and the gore-covered rabbit and everything?
Look, there’s a nugget of a good argument somewhere in your piece, but as a tee-totaller who has seen alcohol hurt almost everyone it touches in my life I’m glad the Seinfeld and Friends crowd wasn’t out getting drunk. (Granted, the sex partner count on both shows is staggeringly high so it’s not exactly Role Model Theater, but be grateful for small favors.)
There is a greater point to this article that the writer nails…this is not just “oh I’m a conservative but too cool too” Conservatives, like or not to the critics and tee-totallers here, are much more diverse than either the left, Hollywood, and as seen by the comments here, even fellow conservatives, want to address.
So you kid plays outside, or you think Holy Grail is too low-brow for your kids…smashing…do what works for you. But don’t imagine for a second that you and you along gets to decide who is a conservative.
And my 7 year old (perhaps a bit behind the learning curve of Ms. Flynn’s!) also loved Holy Grail and learned a wonderfully twisted and sophisticated sense of humor that I adore in her today as a teenager.
In the end, we tend to pull the same lever in the voting booth so spare me the rules and regulations on the conservative definition…we’re pulling for the same greater goals…and don’t take away my MP and South Park…
To Maura Flynn: You’re a nut case! Honestly, I do believe you were sipping a highball when you wrote this permissive-parent-here-look-at-me piece of garbage. You remind me of our former neighbors (now divorced) whose daughter was a 1-1/2 older than our daughter. They were best friends until one day, when our girl was 11 years old and their girl was 12-1/2, our little girl came home from playing ‘dress up’ at their home. She looked like a little street walker. So, I told the mother, ‘I don’t allow my daughter to dress like that.’ When our little girl was 13, and this will likely occur in your home, she taped on her bedroom wall what our priest referred to as “soft porn” magazine photographs of males. We canceled ‘Teen Vogue’ after a full-color layout of sharp objects teens use for cutting themselves was featured in the magazine. We forbade her to listen to popular music UNTIL she was choosing to listen to a variety of music – we force-fed it to her.
Fast forward to today, 5 years later. To our delight, our daughter loves Cary Grant movies (we watched Turner Classic Movies together as a family), the Marx Brothers, and Laurel & Hardy. She loves romantic films of today like ‘Emma,’ ‘The Illusionist,’ etc. She even loves Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, music we introduced her to. She listens to the Oldies. She also listens to today’s music, sans rap.
Permissive parenting will come back to haunt you.
Katie- Take a deep breath…relax……hold it …now allow me to fart in your general direction. I never imagined Holy Grail to be low brow. Quite the contrary. Mrs.s Flynn may very well be a conservative. Im not boxing anyone in or setting a narrow definition for her to reside in my political realm. Im just pointing out her article is BS. We live in an hyper sexualized hyper violent media driven world. I’ll shield my daughter from as much of that “entertainment” as I can. Call me a tee totaller but Im just not watching that with my 7 yr old. Young Frankenstein…maybe. Nice Knockers Katie? Just asking.
“That may sound twisted. But, as parents, I think we’ve gone collectively insane and are fearing all the wrong things. Sex, obviously, is a part of life in every family (last I checked, that is where families come from). And drugs (certainly alcohol), are present in some fashion or form in most American households.”
Posting a well-reasoned, intelligent defense of challenging “adult” themes in children’s entertainment on a “conservative” entertainment site? Mrs. Flynn is CLEARLY a glutton for punishment and/or ad-hominem character assaults
But she’s certainly got my respect. Well done.
We watch “The Amazing Race” as a family, and other than that it’s reading for us.
And yes, “conservatism” is a big tent, but we’re not liberals here. The whole framework of conservative values is that we have them. If you want shows about teens drinking, smoking and having slutty sex, you’re not going to find many sympathetic ears here. If you think being a good parent means letting your small child watch shows that reference oral sex, you’re not going to find many in agreement here.
Sorry, but that’s why we call ourselves “conservative.” We want our children to be raised with moral values and to value their bodies and their choices. And raising children means making sure they are exposed to the right values in movies, books, and television.
While some children may be intelligent and precocious enough to memorize large bits of amusing adult movie dialogue they are simply not perceptive enough or mature enough to be able to really separate what they are seeing and memorizing from what is or is not appropriate in real life. There really is a time and place for everything and expecting all children of all ages to be able to watch whatever is out there and then expecting them to be able to ascertain whether or not it’s garbage is putting a terrible burden on them as well as forcing maturity prematurely.
When I was 10, I used to grab the bus with a buddy, go to the Multiplex, and sneak into all the R-rated films. Twisted me beyond repair, which might explain why I’m in this industry.
If kids want it, they’ll find it. I think the books and novels I was reading at that age were far more scandalous. Imagine reading Naked Lunch at 12.
I guess I wasn’t so fascinated by all this self-destructive behavior when I finally got old enough to engage in it. That, and parents who instilled a healthy dose of self-esteem. That’s key, methinks.
The problem with this post is it’s fuzzy unclearness.
The cite to Nick’s trash colors this one from the start.
The claim that there’s far too little Mature Teen Pathology on TV seals it.
Are you really complaining about patronization, or like him, Pollyannas??
The demographics are separate: pre-teen, tween, and teen.
The Disney Channel is not meant to be a home base for older teens. “Hanna Montana” is not an After School Special about the clap.
Switch the channel and you’ll find “90210″ knock-offs all over the place. Afternoon soaps are non-stop smut. “Degrassi High” has oral sex parties in the woods. MTV is MTV. Gay teen couples are the new “Marcia gets a date”. The Family Channel now routinely portrays casual teen hook-ups with zero concern. Drugs and rapes and deaths are around.
The current *saturation* of teen pathology is the unreal cartoon version: poisonous liberal recruiting propaganda, publicly assaulting children.
More realism would be better, if that means age appropriate slots and *depicting accurately* with opprobrium and damages and shattering regrets.
[...] like Reason’s Nick Gillespie and film producer Maura Flynn picked a debate with the social conservatives with their more libertine and permissive attitudes [...]
It’s a matter of economics. Why would you make a show aimed at teens who smoke pot, drink, and have sex? During the prime time hours, when your show would run, those teens are out…smoking pot, drinking, and having sex. If you want an audience, you have to tailor your show to the ones who actually stay home and watch TV.
Maura, you are a little behind the curve on plugging into the Hollywood agenda. Promoting casual sex and glamorizing substance abuse is SO 80s. And it backfired bigtime, bringing us Brent Bozell, program ratings, the PTC, etc.
Hollywood has since gone back to the drawing board and brushed up on the tried-and-true propaganda tactics of yesteryear: inserting itself into the education process at a very early age, creating crises that you are the only solution to (the fictitious epidemic of child abductions which prevent any responsible parent from telling their child to “just go out and play but be home in time for dinner”) then assuming parental functions (babysitting and educating) and ultimately discrediting parents, especially the buffoonish, moronic and largely optional father all while postulating a fun, safe, humorous and colorful alternative reality in which to spend one’s time. In this reality in which many children are now forced to spend more time than they do in school or with their parents, values can be transmitted in very subtle ways or with such surgical precision that most parents would miss it unless they were to spend hours with their children watching Disney channel or Discovery kids or whatever. None of these channels lacks a liberal agenda, much less are they presenting paragons of virtue. Some shows are cleaner than others but even the clean ones are diligently working at brainwashing young Americans.
I haven’t seen this show, nor do I care to. But I’m not quite sure I understand the author’s point.
Yes, there is plenty of room for art that deals with mature themes. I am a card carrying social conservative, and I watch Red Eye whenever I can, and I think South Park is ingenious. I just don’t either should be viewed by children, that’s all.
But since this post entirely deals with a show aimed at children, I am confused. Does she mean that the full reality of what many teens do these days need to be represented in order to show precisely the destruction such behavior causes? It seems maybe that is the point, until she goes on about her Catholic school girl friends. Exactly what is the point of that anecdote?
The crux of the article seems to be that the premise of having sex once and getting pregnant is implausible. Unfortunately, science would inform us that if this teen had sex just once with no contraception and she happened to be ovulating, well, the odds just got better. And I’d reckon most teenage girls aren’t that interested in the tedium required to chart their cycles, so of course they have no idea exactly when they are fertile. So, in other words, the risk of getting pregnant by having sex just once is certainly risky enough in my book. We’re not talking about catching a cold here. Pregnancy is a life altering event and even minute risks of it happening before a person is prepared (which in my book means married) are significant.
I am also curious of this article speaks to the habits of the author. I spent tons of time socializing in diners and coffee bars when I was a musician and more “out and about.” And I am not anti-alcohol, I drink socially, I’m just pro-cheap food and expensive coffee
Again, if the premise is that we need more realism in order to show the folly of immoral behavior, fine, that is a valid point as far as it goes. Otherwise, I haven’t a clue what is trying to be said here.
BONNIE:
“And yes, “conservatism” is a big tent, but we’re not liberals here. The whole framework of conservative values is that we have them. If you want shows about teens drinking, smoking and having slutty sex, you’re not going to find many sympathetic ears here. If you think being a good parent means letting your small child watch shows that reference oral sex, you’re not going to find many in agreement here.
Sorry, but that’s why we call ourselves “conservative.””
Here’s the thing: The ‘values’ here referenced aren’t “conservative” – they’re traditionalist. Nothin’ wrong with `em – but words DO mean things
Unbelievable. Did she actually call for a portrayal of more teen sex and drugs on TV? She may have a problem with the Disney offerings on TV, but the solution isn’t to suddenly have Disney shows with kids smoking and drinking. Many of us have kids who want to watch shows where the characters reinforce their standards and show that life can be lived and enjoyed without the ‘drinking, smoking, drugs, sex’ culture that is all too often shoved down their throats in much of Hollywood. As a parent I am very thankful that there are options.
Lynn
“Many of us have kids who want to watch shows where the characters reinforce their standards and show that life can be lived and enjoyed without the ‘drinking, smoking, drugs, sex’ culture that is all too often shoved down their throats in much of Hollywood. As a parent I am very thankful that there are options.”
Options are one thing, but the larger problem the author seems to be getting at is that there’s no middle-ground for teenaged programming where the actual material is largely “appropriate” and may even have a “positive message” but the show and the characters are relatable in a way that makes the message “stick.”
You want entertainment that’ll reinforce your values to your kids. Good. More power to you. Problem is, if the ONLY entertainment that does so is what passes for young-teen programming right now it’s very-likely going to have the opposite effect: Teenagers may not be as smart as they think they are, but they aren’t BLIND. By the time they’re as old as the (in-show) age of the characters in Hannah Montana, most of them will easily recognize that the show bears NO functional resemblance to their lives – that it’s a sterile living puppet show with nothing at it’s core… and woe unto you if that means they come to associate the positive values YOU liked about the show as being one-and-the-same with that phony sterility: “Such-and-such show is cheezy bullcrap, therefore the ‘lessons’ it offered MUST be cheezy bullcrap, too.” People, paradoxically, look for fiction that speaks to their reality in some way – and while it may be a glamorized/fetishized version of their world; MTV and Tila Tequila remind them more of their world than the stuff they’re “supposed” to be watching.
Hell, I’m given to understand that Mrs. Montana is supposed to be a touring teenaged pop star a’la Britney Spears… you’re going to tell that this person has NEVER had to deal with people around her doing/offering drugs? Alcohol, even? I remember being in grade school and seeing a Tiny Toons episode where two of the school-aged main characters imagined (dreamed?) that they got drunk, went driving and died in a car crash. This was an animated rabbit and a duck. But Hannah Montana chills out backstage and doesn’t worry about ’something’ ending up in her sparkling cider?
Posting a well-reasoned, intelligent defense of challenging “adult” themes in children’s entertainment on a “conservative” entertainment site? Mrs. Flynn is CLEARLY a glutton for punishment and/or ad-hominem character assaults But she’s certainly got my respect. Well done.
Come on, Bob. We all know you wouldn’t recognize reason, intelligence, respect or tradition if you were hit over the head with them. Heaven knows I’ve tried often enough.
Let me guess. The author is one of those “progressive parenting” types. I imagine she always includes in every conversation with her daughter about sex the very permissive “but if you do….” remarks. I guess the author has no problem with Bratz dolls, either.
Look, I’m all for showing more realistic shows/moveis to young teens. I think “13″ should be viewed uncut to every child when they go to junior high. But what’s the difference between what I”m saying and what the author is saying? “13″ shows sluttyness, drug use, and going “bi” in clearly negative lights. It showed that once the character turned into what many libs and big “L” libertarians would call a “normal teen”, her life went to hell.
Besides, what’s wrong with shows like “The Cosby Show”, “Home Improvement”, “7th Heaven”, or even the corny “Saved By the Bell”?
BTW, anyone else notice that the only person that really like the post was the token lib at Dirty Harry’s?
Do any of you work in the industry, or are you just opinionated viewers? I worked on set for a TV show that was demographically geared toward girls between the ages of 11 and 14, and as the show matured from season to season the phrase “we ant more sex” became a mantra handed down from producers to directors to actors, every day, all day, as they rehearsed scenes. Obviously someone in the creative and distributive process of the show thought sex was a big priority that 11-14 year old girls needed in their lives. Whoever that person was is most likely producing or creating another show gear toward a similar demographic right now as we read this thread.
I’m just an on-call crew member that supports my family with an unstable career in show business. I have no say in the content of every film I work on, and I arrive to set early every day to do my job thoroughly, because I have to, whether I agree with it’s agenda or not. I recently had the opportunity to leave a couple shows early because of content. Fortunately I’ve made friends and there were other shows in production with open positions; not always so lucky. My kids are 5 and 3 and too young for most of the programming aired these days. My wife and I are still able to control much of the TV viewing in our home, but we know this control is inevitably in decline as the kids grow. I’d also like more realistic views of life produced for kids in every age, but I’d like to see goodness, integrity, respect, self restraint, loyalty, modesty, and the like portrayed as great values kids can live by and succeed with.
I have the good fortune to personally know the affect of alcohol, drugs and “Safe” sex on life. I’ve seen multiple marriages crumble, teens become parents or convicts, pre-teens murdered (or abused, becoming drug addicts), I’ve had a family member burned alive (bad drug deal), heard stories of old friends committing suicide, their parents going to prison or being murdered by friends or other family, one brother’s life threatened by friends, been a part of three abortions, two of which I was supposedly the cause of (asked her to marry me twice, once when it was mine, once when I wasn’t sure if it was mine; both times she said no and aborted) before the age of 20, and witnessed my mother abused. Guess what, my life was considered very tame and normal. I’ve spent all of my adult life climbing hurdles from the past that caused me many problems. I’ve done alright so far, but the majority of my peers have not.
Do you want your kids to be exposed to the same on prime time TV as being normal, every day life? Something that can’t be avoided? The effects of these things causes uncontrolled behavior, unpredictable harms, and unsafe living conditions. I’d like for my kids to think in terms far from these. I can’t shelter them completely because they’ll face these things at some point in life, and I want them to have enough of an understanding to respond well. But I do think that we have a responsibility to safeguard our children, and their peers (our future adults).
The “Bottom Line” really doesn’t increase with increased sexuality in the box office or digital transmission. The public is waiting for a fresh, clean agenda.
My first hand expression.
Let me try to explain Ms. Flynn’s larger point without dealing with sex.
Decades ago, I recall reading an article in TV Guide, written by an emergency room doctor. The doctor said he often heard people complaining that television is too violent. He then proceeded to make the opposite argument: that television wasn’t NEARLY violent enough!
For example, back in the Seventies, how many times did we adolescent boys see Joe Mannix or Dave Starsky take a bullet? Dozens of times. But at the end of every episode, our hero was fit as a fiddle. Sure, he’d have his arm in a sling, but it was always “just a flesh wound,” and there’d be no sign of any injury in next week’s episode. There was never any heavy bleeding, never any screaming or crying, never any genuine pain, never any long term consequences.
Now, perhaps some parents thought that the absence of blood was a GOOD thing… but really, what was the lesson kids like me took away from a “Mannix” episode like that? Well, among other things, we learned that getting shot was really no big deal. That it was kinda cool, even.
Is that REALLY the lesson you want your kids to learn?
NOW let’s think about sex. A movie like “Pretty Woman” can appear on prime time television with practically nothing cut, because it has no nudity, no graphic sex, and no gore. A movie like “Boogie Nights” has plenty of all three. But which of those movies has a more objectionable message? I’d argue that “Pretty Woman” is a more morally repulsive movie, because it suggests that prostitution is a glamorous life in which you’ll get to shop on Rodeo Drive, stay at fancy hotels, and marry Donald Trump. “Boogoe Nights,” by contrast, shows BOTH why the sex industry is attractive AND why it’s destructive.
Now, I wouldn’t want an 8 year old watching EITHER film. But if a 16 year old was going to watch a movie about the sex trade, I’d rather he or she saw “Boogie Nights.”
And I THINK Maura Flynn is saying something similar. She’s NOT saying that 8 year olds should watch TV shows about teenage sluts smoking, screwing and having abortions. But she IS saying that, if a show aimed at teenagers is PURPORTING to “tell it like it is” and show what adolescent life in American suburbia is really like, it HAS to live up to that promise. SOMETIMES, that will require such a show to present kids doing ugly, disgusting or immoral things.
Remember, Jesus said “You must be as gentle as doves AND as sly as serpents.” We are not called upon to be IGNORANT of evil. Rather, we’re supposed to be able to look evil squarely in the eye and recognize it.
There’s a HUGE difference between saying “This movie or TV show is immoral” and saying “This is not for kids.” A PG movie can be far more morally corrupt than an NC-17 movie.
Astorian,
You make a good point, and so does Ms. Flynn when she say’s, “If we don’t tailor realistic programming for preteens and teenagers, they will inevitably graduate to more adult programming too soon – and adult programs needn’t have any message at all, subtle, complex or otherwise.” Engaging our kids in programming that entertains and teaches in real life scenarios is necessary, but difficult. Showing them the dangers of illegal activities, sex, and such without glamorizing them is almost impossible. Most teenagers think their life is horrible because mom and dad don’t want to buy them a car. That kid may think the dangers exposed on the TV, no matter how lethal, are cool. We don’t know the mind of the individual. I knew a kid that grew up in a wealthy home that was trafficking guns in the bathrooms of one of the best public schools in Manhattan. He did it because of the thrill, maybe his parents didn’t want to buy him a car. I knew other kids who dealt with these dangers every day at home and they worked hard to remove themselves from them.
Picking subject matter and producing content for the broad audience is already a difficult process. Ideas are thrown out more often than produced, and even when produced they’re in constant change. I can’t count the amount of times I’ve seen whole scenes re-written by producers, directors, and actors during crew rehearsals, let alone private rehearsals and script readings. What I read on a set of sides is always subject to change, including story line and frequency of actors being included or excluded form scenes. You may tailor a show that seems perfect in it’s depiction of the real life effects of whatever, and by the time you watch the first set of dailies the whole thing is changed depending upon how the actor felt, or whoever. Real life is subjective, unfortunately, and I think too many people in the creative process have been given the power to alter things depending upon their “experience”. I worked on a show about drug trafficking and one of the cast (played a young thug, real nice kid) would make changes in certain parts of the story based on experience, but this kid was born into extreme wealth. Nice kid, but he had virtually no real “experience” with the streets.
Who are we trying to mold with the content that is being produced. I certainly don’t want my kids to become mindless and self indulgent. Nor do I want my kids to think illegal activities are cool. As a parent, I want my kids to know of the dangers without having to experience them first hand. They will in time but by that time it’s my responsibility to explain these things to them so they’d respond well. My hopes may be altered also. Who knows? Are we going to “experience” a change in the content of what we consume through media? I hope so. I’m not the only person working in this industry who wants persuasions to change.
One problem we face is that the human mind is never satisfied naturally. In movies, we’re so accustomed to more realistic disasters being produced with great special effects that, to a certain degree, we’ve lost the desire for normal. The bigger the bang the better, especially if a realistic amount of people were mangled in the process. I went to ground zero 5 weeks after the events took place as part of a relief effort. I had a rare look at the reality of disaster while searching for bodies in a huge hole in the ground where one of the towers once stood over a bookstore frequented by mommy’s and their young children. Real disaster is not cool. The “Anti-Hero”, as someone wrote, is the new cool and edgy character to be emulated, so he/she gets the role whenever possible. I worked on another show that had a character who cursed profusely, was a huge pervert, used drugs often, and used people to the point of destroying their souls. Everyone on the show said, “I love this character”, yet in real life if they knew this guy he wouldn’t be in their “my circle”.
I may not be making any point at all, but It’s obvious that we get what we want. I’m hoping that what we want can possibly change toward a better light. I have no power as a crew member to change the mind of the media mogul who authorizes funding for production. I’m dispensable, but some of you reading this thread have the authority to guide the process of elimination. I worked on a show that was going to be the next big thing. It showcased pornography, extortion, local government corruption, etc. as normal everyday things. The public showed their support and it tanked. No one but the producers thought of it as the next best thing.
How are you as a producer going to plan your next approach to entertain the public?
“Sex, obviously, is a part of life in every family (last I checked, that is where families come from). ”
No, actually a FAMILY comes from a Man and Woman who commit themselves to one another for life. They get married because they have carefully chosen a partner that has the kind of values and morals that they have, partners that will make good parents, and are most likely to be faithful and loving and selfless. Then this Married couple prepare their homes for children, making sure that they are stable and able to provide. When the children are born, this couple is even more bonded, and they commit themselves to raising children with character, principles and values. They teach these children self reliance and personal responsibility, and the clear difference between right and wrong.
THAT is where FAMILIES come from. Sex for Sex’s sake leads to diseases, unwanted pregnancies, poverty, crime, low self esteem, depression, and a good time for a few minutes.
Whenever I hear about the need for “reality” for teens, Such as the whole idea that Sex education should not include Abstinence, since that is just so “unrealistic”, I cringe. I cringe because I know that since the passage of Roe vs Wade, which was sold on the idea of PREVENTING “unwanted pregnancy” that the number of out of wedlock birth has increased more than FOUR TIMES what it was before that case of unconstitutional judicial activism. I cringe because I know that “reality” just means shoving the idea of sex with no consequences, of sex as a means for demonstrating “equality”, and sex as something everyone should be doing as early as possible and as often as possible, is what results. And that what REALLY happens is that there are LESS families out there as a result of that, and MORE single parents, MORE disenfranchised and depressed young people, MORE diseases, and MORE people who can never experience the joy of REAL sex in the context of committed and loving marriages.
I can’t trust the purveyors of the throwaway culture to provide my children with a useful portrayal of reality when it comes to sex, they have already shown that they have absolutely no scruples, no true values, and NO WISDOM. So I will have to oppose the idea of calling for more REALITY from them. I dont want it, nor need it, but more to the point, my kids are far better off without it.
Smoking is not seen on t.v. because it is prohibited, and not merely for “teen” shows.
I don’t mind Hannah Montana. I don’t watch the show.
About graphic violence: The beheading scene in A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (Starring Paul Scofield, SPOILERS)is perhaps one of the most powerful I have ever seen, but no blood is shown. In fact, this is the scene: an axe is raised in the air. Asit lowers, the screen goes black and you hear a thud, like an axe hitting wood. The camera doesn’t tilt down. The axe drops from midair, black screen, thud. You know what has happened. It is sudden and violent. But no blood. The head doesn’t roll across the ground with the eyes staring at the camera. Just a black screen and a thud. The speech right beforehand also makes it powerful.
Then this Married couple prepare their homes for children, making sure that they are stable and able to provide. When the children are born, this couple is even more bonded, and they commit themselves to raising children with character, principles and values. They teach these children self reliance and personal responsibility, and the clear difference between right and wrong.
==================================================
mercy
Adult Dating
You must be logged in to post a comment.