I watched for what I am telling myself the Fox network shows Family Guy, the Cleveland Show, and American Dad for the last time. They are simply too crude and vulgar for the taste of anyone with an ounce of respect for other people. So I am using my option of turning the channel from here forward.
The trouble is that response doesn’t come near to recognizing the whole problem. No one should put garbage that offensive on the air, and no one ought to watch it. Yet when I protest that, I am yelled at shrilly about free speech and to turn off the TV then if I don’t want to see it. That’s all well and good...for me. It says nothing about the makers’ of such shows obligation to me or other prospective viewers.
Like it or not, folks, you do have an obligation to the general society to keep things clean, and to be respectful of the legitimate concerns of the individual. He has a right, and no less than that, to not be offended when it comes to things truly offensive. Merely turning off the TV does not address that question: it begs it.
I would like to ask the Seth McFarlanes of the world if I have an obligation to help, say, the poor. If he says that I do, then I have the right to ask him about his obligations towards me. Because if I have obligations outside of myself, then so does he. Conversely, if he has no obligations to me, then I likewise have none towards others. That’s the real question: do I owe something to humanity or not, and on what grounds?
It’s the question which does not get asked when the media (and cartooning on network television is as much part of the media as a news show) want what they want. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Showing posts with label Family Guy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Guy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Family Guy owes us Something
I watched for what I am telling myself the Fox network shows Family Guy and American Dad for the last time last night. They are simply too crude and vulgar for the taste of anyone with an ounce of respect for other people. So I am using my option of turning the channel on Sunday nights from here forward.
The trouble is that response doesn’t come near to recognizing the whole problem. No one should put garbage that offensive on the air, and no one ought to watch it. Yet when I protest that, I am yelled at shrilly about free speech and to turn off the TV then if I don’t want to see it. That’s all well and good...for me. It says nothing about the makers’ of such shows obligation to me or other prospective viewers.
Like it or not, folks, you do have an obligation to the general society to keep things clean, and to be respectful of the legitimate concerns of the individual. He has a right, and no less than that, to not be offended when it comes to things truly offensive. Merely turning off the TV does not address that question: it begs it.
I would like to ask the Seth McFarlanes of the world if I have an obligation to help, say, the poor. If he says that I do, then I have the right to ask him about his obligations towards me. Because if I have obligations outside of myself, then so does he. Conversely, if he has no obligations to me, then I likewise have none towards others. That’s the real question: do I owe something to humanity or not, and on what grounds?
It’s the question which does not get asked when the media (and cartooning on network television is as much part of the media as a news show) want what they want. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes.
The trouble is that response doesn’t come near to recognizing the whole problem. No one should put garbage that offensive on the air, and no one ought to watch it. Yet when I protest that, I am yelled at shrilly about free speech and to turn off the TV then if I don’t want to see it. That’s all well and good...for me. It says nothing about the makers’ of such shows obligation to me or other prospective viewers.
Like it or not, folks, you do have an obligation to the general society to keep things clean, and to be respectful of the legitimate concerns of the individual. He has a right, and no less than that, to not be offended when it comes to things truly offensive. Merely turning off the TV does not address that question: it begs it.
I would like to ask the Seth McFarlanes of the world if I have an obligation to help, say, the poor. If he says that I do, then I have the right to ask him about his obligations towards me. Because if I have obligations outside of myself, then so does he. Conversely, if he has no obligations to me, then I likewise have none towards others. That’s the real question: do I owe something to humanity or not, and on what grounds?
It’s the question which does not get asked when the media (and cartooning on network television is as much part of the media as a news show) want what they want. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Family Guy Redux
The Fox network, in what can best be seen as an amazing decision given their free for all approach to general subject matter, has opted not to show an episode of Family Guy in which one of the lead characters has an abortion. They didn't want the headache of potential troubles with advertisers, according to a spokesman for Fox. One would hope that at least part of their concern would be with viewer reaction, as well as with plain old decency. Yet those considerations appear to be a stretch on a corporate imagination not truly conducive to such otherwise natural sensitivity.
I do not see the need to get into the details of the episode, save to say (based on what I've read, and you can find the details if you like easily enough on the Internet if you so desire) that it almost surely is in poor taste. But that's a shame enough in itself, given that the show's creator, Seth MacFarlane, can actually be quite funny without resorting to the shock or toilet humor which he so often allows his shows to wallow in. The fact is, humor which relies on shock or can be heard from any sophomore at any two bit university is almost certainly the lowest form of comedy, to a great degree because anybody can do it. As such, it rarely is inventive enough to deserve the merit for innovation which it seems to be given in so many quarters of the media.
What does it say about us when we tolerate low brow comedy as high entertainment? Nothing good, when you think about it. At least the MacFarlanes of the world have something of an out: they're trying to make money and are simply, even though in a shallow and regrettable form, responding to a demand. We can perhaps quibble about the degree to which the purveyors of such drivel have in fact created the demand, but I doubt it would alter the main point here. We ought not seek and should not tolerate offensive material. That we do pretty much says it all about what currently passes for mainstream Americana.
Sadly, in saying too little it says too much. In fact, it says it all. We are in danger of becoming a small minded people.
I do not see the need to get into the details of the episode, save to say (based on what I've read, and you can find the details if you like easily enough on the Internet if you so desire) that it almost surely is in poor taste. But that's a shame enough in itself, given that the show's creator, Seth MacFarlane, can actually be quite funny without resorting to the shock or toilet humor which he so often allows his shows to wallow in. The fact is, humor which relies on shock or can be heard from any sophomore at any two bit university is almost certainly the lowest form of comedy, to a great degree because anybody can do it. As such, it rarely is inventive enough to deserve the merit for innovation which it seems to be given in so many quarters of the media.
What does it say about us when we tolerate low brow comedy as high entertainment? Nothing good, when you think about it. At least the MacFarlanes of the world have something of an out: they're trying to make money and are simply, even though in a shallow and regrettable form, responding to a demand. We can perhaps quibble about the degree to which the purveyors of such drivel have in fact created the demand, but I doubt it would alter the main point here. We ought not seek and should not tolerate offensive material. That we do pretty much says it all about what currently passes for mainstream Americana.
Sadly, in saying too little it says too much. In fact, it says it all. We are in danger of becoming a small minded people.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Turning the Channel
I watched for what I am telling myself the Fox network shows Family Guy and American Dad for the last time last night. They are simply too crude and vulgar for the taste of anyone with an ounce of respect for other people. So I am using my option of turning the channel on Sunday nights from here forward.
The trouble is that response doesn’t come near to recognizing the whole problem. No one should put garbage that offensive on the air, and no one ought to watch it. Yet when I protest that, I am yelled at shrilly about free speech and to turn off the TV then if I don’t want to see it. That’s all well and good...for me. It says nothing about the makers’ of such shows obligation to me or other prospective viewers.
Like it or not, folks, you do have an obligation to the general society to keep things clean, and to be respectful of the legitimate concerns of the individual. He has a right, and no less than that, to not be offended when it comes to things truly offensive. Merely turning off the TV does not address that question: it begs it.
I would like to ask the Seth McFarlanes of the world if I have an obligation to help, say, the poor. If he says that I do, then I have the right to ask him about his obligations towards me. Because if I have obligations outside of myself, then so does he. Conversely, if he has no obligations to me, then I likewise have none towards others. That’s the real question: do I owe something to humanity or not, and on what grounds?
It’s the question which does not get asked when the media (and cartooning on network television is as much part of the media as a news show) want what they want. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes.
The trouble is that response doesn’t come near to recognizing the whole problem. No one should put garbage that offensive on the air, and no one ought to watch it. Yet when I protest that, I am yelled at shrilly about free speech and to turn off the TV then if I don’t want to see it. That’s all well and good...for me. It says nothing about the makers’ of such shows obligation to me or other prospective viewers.
Like it or not, folks, you do have an obligation to the general society to keep things clean, and to be respectful of the legitimate concerns of the individual. He has a right, and no less than that, to not be offended when it comes to things truly offensive. Merely turning off the TV does not address that question: it begs it.
I would like to ask the Seth McFarlanes of the world if I have an obligation to help, say, the poor. If he says that I do, then I have the right to ask him about his obligations towards me. Because if I have obligations outside of myself, then so does he. Conversely, if he has no obligations to me, then I likewise have none towards others. That’s the real question: do I owe something to humanity or not, and on what grounds?
It’s the question which does not get asked when the media (and cartooning on network television is as much part of the media as a news show) want what they want. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
